Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Nominations
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
DYK AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
List of users...
By nominationsWP:DYKNC
By promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
January 28 1
March 9 1
March 16 1
March 17 1
March 19 1
March 22 1
March 23 1
March 25 1 1
March 27 1
March 28 1
March 31 1
April 2 1
April 4 1
April 7 4 1
April 9 2
April 12 1
April 13 1
April 14 1
April 15 2
April 19 1
April 20 3
April 21 6
April 22 1
April 23 1 1
April 24 6 4
April 25 4
April 26 3
April 27 1
April 28 5 2
April 29 5 1
April 30 2 1
May 1 2
May 2 7 4
May 3 9 7
May 4 7 5
May 5 4
May 6 7 2
May 7 7 3
May 8 4 4
May 9 8 4
May 10 13 8
May 11 6
May 12 11 4
May 13 6 3
May 14 8 4
May 15 4
May 16 12 5
May 17 13 4
May 18 5 5
May 19 12 8
May 20 7 2
May 21 8 5
May 22 6 2
May 23 9 6
May 24 12 3
May 25 5 1
May 26 9 2
May 27 13 5
May 28 3 1
May 29 4 2
Total 283 110
Last updated 05:00, 29 May 2022 UTC
Current time is 05:10, 29 May 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for project members[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 28[edit]

Beatriz Rico (neuroscientist)

Created by JuliaBrink (talk) and 199.111.226.78 (talk). Nominated by MrMeAndMrMe (talk) at 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The cited EurekAlert source does not contain the word "inhibitory", but I assume it's an accurate paraphrase of the article. You may want to link to this article from some other article to get rid of the orphan tag. feminist (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg @MrMeAndMrMe, JuliaBrink, Feminist, and SL93: Per discussions at [1], I'm reopening this nomination as it there is some confusion about what the hook means, and it's not really accessible to a broad audience. I suggest it be reworded, or else another hook proposed in its place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for the long wait. I have reworded it slightly, does it make more sense now? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Feminist for their opinion. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not contain the word "neuron" in its prose, while the hook does, but I get what the hook is referring to. The relevant sentence in the article is In 2019, the Rico Lab uncovered a developmental mechanism for specification of inhibitory connections within the brain. I'm fine with this, though other editors may have different opinions. Symbol confirmed.svg feminist🇺🇦 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist and MrMeAndMrMe: sorry, I'm drawing a blank on what this might mean. Reading the sourced article, would a hook like this be accurate?
  • ALT1: ... that neuroscientist Beatriz Rico and her team discovered a link between a protein and short-term spatial memory?
    • ALT1a: ... that neuroscientist Beatriz Rico and her team discovered a link between Brevican and short-term spatial memory?
    • ALT1b: ... that neuroscientist Beatriz Rico and her team discovered a link between a protein called Brevican and short-term spatial memory?
At the very least, people will think they understand at first glance. If we end up going with this, it'll have to be added into the article. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist and MrMeAndMrMe? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 20:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ALT1B. Just writing "a protein" is somewhat non-specific, writing "brevican" is also confusing, final one makes most sense in my opinion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 20:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg reviewer needed for ALT1b- thanks! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 06:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg back to DYKN until consensus for a hook is found theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT1b, and while I do find it interesting, I have some reservations if it's clear enough for readers who don't have much of a background in science. Linking to spatial memory might help, but I don't know if it could resolve the issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps also link neuroscientist. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg @JuliaBrink and MrMeAndMrMe: The hook seems to be coming from [2], which is a press release from King's College London posted unedited by a third party. (It's sometimes hard to identify these, but they're written by university PR staff, aren't peer-reviewed, and are often scientifically unreliable.) For a discovery claim it would be preferable to cite an independent source like [3], or at least the actual peer-reviewed journal article [4]. Also, the hook fact needs to be in the Wikipedia article, but it doesn't mention Brevican or short-term spatial memory. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 02:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will do in a second. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: you seem to need a paid subscription for the science.org thing, which I do not have. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov does not mention anything about brevican neurons or whatever. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe: Came by this and was able to access the article in Science via the Wikipedia Library, which you should have access to. The word brevican is only mentioned in another article that one cites. An open access version is available here as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrMeAndMrMe: @Narutolovehinata5: @Antony-22: @Sammi Brie: I came by to see whether I could help to move this on by reviewing hook ALT1b or whatever is needed at this point (I understand that all other DYK requirements have been met). As far as I can see, the current issue is that although ALT1b is probably true, and although there is probably a citation for it somewhere (please kindly confirm that, someone?) there is no mention of "short term", "protein" or "Brevican" in the article. So, if you want ALT1, ALT1a or ALT1b, please put those words (or the wording of your preferred hook) in the article, with the correct citation next to it. Then I can approve at least one of the hooks. (I agree with the above comments that ALT1b looks most promising at the moment.) Storye book (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrMeAndMrMe: @Narutolovehinata5: @Antony-22: @Storye book: Correcting the above ping so as to make it effective. (Storye book, a ping cannot be added after the post because it will not ping if there is no signature added in the same edit.) The analysis above is correct. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 20:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Sammi Brie. I didn't know that. So now, the situation is that I can approve ALT1b when it is written out in full in the article, with a relevant citation next to it. Storye book (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 9[edit]

1917 Minsk City Duma election

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg A full review will follow, but right now I have reservations if the currently-proposed hook is interesting to a broad audience. The connections aren't made clear to those unfamiliar with Belarusian politics and history, particularly what the significance of Vaynshteyn becoming a city council chairman is. Can another hook be proposed here, one that would be interesting or at least clearer to those unfamiliar with the history of Belarus? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get your concern, but at same time the factoid that a Jewish socialist party won the chairmanship in the city seems to be the most DYK-worthy element in the article? --Soman (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is not clear at all and does not meet the broad interest criterion. Readers will not immediately get the socialist or Jewish connection. Please propose a new hook with a completely different hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - I think the Jewish connection is clear (and the socialist connection implied) from just the name General Jewish Labour Bund. Besides, it's wikilinked! I'm not sure a complete rejection of this hook fact is merited here, though I agree the hook needs some workshopping. How about these:
Pings for Soman and Narutolovehinata5. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the direction still feels rather niche, but I think ALT1 is the best option among the hooks proposed so far. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 looks good for me also. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I no longer have time to review this nomination so I would request that a new reviewer take over. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg new enough at time of nomination (65 days ago?) and long enough; I'll have to AGF on source quality, neutrality is okay (being mostly a factsheet), no plagiarism detected (AGF on foreign-language sources). I'm... hesitant to approve ALT1, though. Is it all that unusual that two not-too-distant political parties would elect a chairman from one of the parties? I am interested in the fact that the leader was elected from the smaller party in the coalition, though... QPQ has been done, but we still need a viable hook. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Soman for feedback... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 06:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hows about:
ALT4: ... that a Jewish socialist became chairman of the Minsk city council in July 1917? Dahn (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book and Dahn: I appreciate the suggestions :) i'm hesitant, though. Is there something more notable about the election other than its winners? Were they the first socialists elected in the city? Anyways, my idea was: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5: ... that the chairman elected following the 1917 Minsk City Duma election came from the smallest party in the ruling coalition?
@Theleekycauldron:. Since you asked ... As far as I can understand, the various socialist groups which predated the 1917 Revolutions were secret and/or operated outside the countries which became the Soviet bloc, and argued and split all over the place. Regular elections of socialist local government began either legally or without wholesale persecution after the 1917 February and October revolutions. So - broadly speaking - yes it was not only probably the first legal, above-board and safe election of a socialist local government in Minsk, but also that type of event would have been very newsworthy and striking to people in both the Western and Eastern blocs. But because it was all such a mess between the late 1890s and 1917, we can't say that it was the first socialist election in Minsk - not worth the hassle, eh. On the other hand, saying that socialists won the elections in July 1917, almost directly after the February (1917) Revolution, is important. 1917 changed quite a large area of the world, and the 1917 Minsk election was a symptom of that change - a matter far more significant than the identity of the little guy that they chose to be leader of the coalition. Storye book (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: I understand, and that's definitely noteworthy; but without that context somehow worked into the hook, our readers won't put that together. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think a hook should be run if the context is both vital to the hook's quality and unverifiable. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Your question was about it being the first election of socialists in Minsk. We don't yet have a hook that says it was the first. That was your idea. So I was responding that we couldn't support a hook with that idea of yours. However, we can support a hook that says that a socialist local govt was elected, because we have facts and citations for that in the article. Thus my hooks ALT 2 and 3 are permissible. If the consensus doesn't want those hooks, then fine - but they are verifiable. Storye book (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about ALT5 - ...that the General Jewish Labour Bund leader Arn Vaynshteyn became the Minsk city council chairman following the first municipal elections the 1917 February Revolution? --Soman (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per hook interest, I'd say it is relevant that a leader of a Jewish socialist party led the governance of what is today the capital of Belarus. It's not like Bund (or the other Jewish left-wing groups at the time) led a lot of local governments in mayor cities. And we need to factor in a lot of later developments (civil war, establishment of the USSR, WWII, Holocaust) that has drastically impacted the social and political life since then. --Soman (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely true, Soman, but unless that context can be verifiably placed within the article, I don't see a way to restructure the hook to make that context apparent. The hook needs to stem from verifiably relevant context- outside knowledge tends to be hard to work in and make clear. We only have seconds of reader attention for DYK, to try and get them to click; it sucks, but expecting readers to put something like that together is usually not a recipe for a well-performing hook. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 02:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 16[edit]

Avtar Singh Jouhl

Avtar Johal Singh
Avtar Johal Singh

Created by Davidjes601 (talk) and Zeromonk (talk). Nominated by Zeromonk (talk) at 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Is "Good Beer Hunting" a reliable source? Joofjoof (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joofjoof I would say say so, but only on the topic of things relating to bars (pubs) and beers. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Good Beer Hunting is a reliable source for the topic per its editorial staff and the awards won. However, there are multiple citation needed tags in the article and Eagwig is showing copyright violations. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zeromonk: It has been several weeks since the review and the issues have remained unaddressed. Please return to the nomination and address the concerns, otherwise it may be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tags were taken care of by someone else, but the copyright violations are still there. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks - I did the CN tags but the article written after the Wiki article is causing the CopyVio - you'll see from the publication dates that the Wiki one came first, so it isn't actually CopyVio - the later article echoes this text rather than the other way around. Zeromonk (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff 1077118420 (March 14, 2022) has the same text that got flagged as copyvio with the article (published March 16, 2022), so this is a somewhat odd case of WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, apologies Padgriffin, the author (of both the Wiki article and the GBH article) told me that the Wiki one published first. The text flagged as CV are all quotes within quotemarks and cited - I can't rewrite the quotes, would you suggest that I remove them? Zeromonk (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeromonk: It seems like most of the quotes are properly attributed and would pass MOS:QUOTE, so there's not really any real reason to remove them IMO.
@Zeromonk: There is non-quoted material that could be reworded such as "Under the guise of the IWA", "under the shade of trees", while white workers were paid", "had been living in Smethwick", "meetings once or twice in Wolverhampton", and some others per Earwig. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I've changed all of those now, thank you for the suggestions. Zeromonk (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am requesting a new reviewer. I suggest that someone goes through Earwig and reword all of the non-quoted material. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I believe that all the issues raised above have been dealt with. Earwig is still an issue, but I don't think we can resolve that. I'm going to ignore earwig. I added the photo to the nomination. --evrik (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Copyright violations should not be on the main page. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • evrik This isn't the case of a backwards copy of the article due to there being two articles that the article matches closely. I can think of ways to reword everything that is highlighted on Earwig. I'm not sure why you think it can't be done. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still isn't alright. I took care of it myself. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. I initially wasn't interested since I was the reviewer, but I sucked it up. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to add the green check? --evrik (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd going on with the sourcing - I see for example that "quite a few times" is quoted as being from goodbeerhunting, but does not appear in it. Ditto the info on his religion, his nephew, his children... all don't seem to be verified by the given citations. Was another source removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I remember seeing the information elsewhere and it appears that I mixed things up by mixing up information I read elsewhere to what was in the article. I'm having trouble finding it again, but that is probably for the best since the article history shows that Davidjes601 placed those false citations. It would still be long enough with that information removed so maybe that is an option? SL93 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, but there seems to be some confusion around other sources as well - for example "didn't cut Indian hair" does appear in the goodbeer source, but is cited to another source in which it does not appear. So I'd say some more thorough verification work is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of that today since I already did the rewording. I will post back here when that's done. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Though I do feel like I should receive a DYKmake credit if my work pushes the nomination through. Not sure if that sounds selfish though. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I think I got it. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suport giving SL93 author's credit.--evrik (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough problematic here that I think this should be closed as failed. There is still blatant copyvio such as "a majority black and Asian town" and an over reliance on quotes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. This is an piece about a person that adds needed diversity to our DYK postings. I think we let this one get fixed. --evrik (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only copyvio left is "a majority black and Asian town". The rest are things that can't be reworded such as "the London School of Economics" and "the Indian Workers’ Association (IWA)". I can reword that one part, but I'm not going to if there is a chance of this being failed due to an over reliance on quotes. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg the much more pressing problem is the tag added by Nikkimaria; it's a WP:DISPUTETAG, and the nomination can't be promoted until it's off. While the quotes are a little more than I'd personally use, i don't think it rises to the level of OVERQUOTE or copyvio. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 22:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron Thanks for adding the author contribution. I reworded the last bit of copyvio (no such as, that was it). I also removed much of the quoting by making some of it into pure non-quoted prose. I'm hoping that Nikkimaria returns, I did ping them here before. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately on spotchecks I still have concerns about verifiability. For example the claim that he campaigned for Walker is cited to this source that doesn't mention him. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Saying one example isn't nearly as good as listing all of the issues at once. With that, it could be corrected in one go. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check every single source; someone will need to go through all of them to make sure the article is supported, before the tag can be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I agree with what Evrik says about the needed diversity for DYK, but I vote for closing this nomination because the nominators aren't trying to fix anything. Adding false citations after I brought up the citation needed tags is not helpful and I already removed several unsupported sentences and their "sources". I just completely removed the Walker information, mostly due to the article being a BLP. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg I concur with Guerillero about closing this nomination. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, Nikkimaria, and Theleekycauldron:Hello folks, I am interested in working on this but I am not able to be as active on Wiki as frequently as I would like due to personal circumstances, please can you bear with me whilst I try to find the time to read and address the messages on this? Also, please AGF - if sources have been incorrectly matched with information my attempts to try and fix this in the time I have available then I sincerely apologise but it was not in an attempt to be "false" but likely because I have attached the wrong citation to a sentence - an error but not deception. Zeromonk (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, Nikkimaria, and Theleekycauldron: Checking the verifiability now. Should be okay task as likely one (AGF) error only. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg on hold pending this being sorted out. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 17[edit]

Pytest

Pytest logo
Pytest logo
  • ... that technology projects from across the internet, including those of Mozilla and Dropbox, are switching to Pytest from other frameworks for software testing?

Quote: In fact, projects all over the Internet have switched from unittest or nose to pytest, including Mozilla and Dropbox.Okken, Brian (September 2017). Python Testing with Pytest (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 9781680502404. Retrieved 19 March 2022.

Created by Thomas Meng (talk). Self-nominated at 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg An interesting topic and clearly notable. However, the article is correctly tagged as being in need of rewriting, to be less like an instruction manual, and more like a NPOV article. And in that should make hopefully make the article understandable to a normal reader- I understand the article and its details, but only because I work in the field. This will need to be fixed before this DYK can proceed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Thank you for your feedback. In the past few days, I took up an effor to fix those issues you mentioned. Now I think the article is in better shape. Please let me know how far it is now from DYK's standard. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, this slipped my mind. Reviewing properly now:
The article still has multiple paragraphs without citations. The minimum amount of sourcing I'd expect is one source per paragraph- if the sources already in the article support the text where I've added citation needed tags, then that should be quick to fix
The text is better, but it still very technical (which does seem to be the case for a lots of computing articles I've noticed). I understand that it's a technical topic, but there's almost nothing in the article that an average reader would understand. Some articles like Node.js for example has a "History" section, which would be beneficial to a less technical reader. There's still so much code in this article that it's too technical and confusing, and still feels to me like it's a manual on how to use it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Here's what I've done to address the problems you pointed out:
  • Modified every section so that each section's first paragraph(s) would only include pytest concepts, and implementation details are saved for the end. Additionally, wording/explanations are improved where possible.
  • Added a History section for less technical users to read. The lead section should also be understandble for them.
  • Added ~20 wikilinks for programming related concepts.
  • The citations problem is also fixed.
  • Unecessary code templates (e.g. for file, project names) that hinder readability are removed.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can try to shepherd this through. The prose is okay- not great, it'll need a bit more work, but the more immediate concern is sourcing. Some sources are good, some are iffy due to their status as primary sourcing, and some just shouldn't be used:
  1. Dane Hillard's "Effective Python Testing With Pytest"
  2. tim's "Assertion rewriting in Pytest part 1: Why it’s needed"
  3. Microsoft's "Unit test basics"
  4. Klein's "Testing with pytest"
  5. Perfecto's "Pytest marks"
These all appear to be secondary, yet non-professional sources ranging from personal blogs to coding lessons to company blogs. I don't think any of those meet DYK's reliable sourcing standards, and material relying on it needs a more well-developed source like a book, magazine, newspaper article, scholarly journal, or otherwise. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

When Jews Were Funny, Being Canadian

10× expanded (When Jews Were Funny) and new article (Being Canadian) by Reidgreg (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Thanks for the review! I've done some additional paraphrasing. For WJWF, one source still has over 10% Earwig score due to proper names and the quote from the TIFF jury, which I'd prefer to keep. For BC, the 13 and 14% scores are from proper names; the 17% score is from an illustrative review quote which I'd prefer to keep. As for citations, I feel it's up to DYK standards. The Synopsis sections are essentially the same as Plot sections for a non-documentary, using the work itself as the source. Are there any specific places you would like to be cited? (or in general if you feel there's a lot) – Reidgreg (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: There may need to be additional citations for the hook fact(s), depending on which hooks we go with. We can eliminate the hooks you feel are problematic and concentrate on what's left. What do you think? What should I be working on? – 23:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I approve the first hook and 2a and 2b.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I've struck ALT1 and ALT2. Could you give it a tick so it can be moved to the approved page? Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still see uncited paragraphs in each article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Whoops! Sorry, I saw "approved" and got excited. I went over the articles for uncited material:
  • The Synopsis sections are verifiable to the work itself, like plot sections. I tried to add RSS where I could.
  • The interview lists are also verifiable to the work itself, with on-screen text when they first appear and also in the credits. I have some RSS which give partial lists (usually the more famous names) if you'd like me to add those.
  • I am inclined to let the interview lists slide as WP:PRIMARY sourced when you don't have WP:RSs. These are very objective facts so there is no room for interpretation in this regard. Those subjects that you can source, you should use RSs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a line in Financing of Being Canadian which had in-text attribution to the Indiegogo fundraising website. I literally couldn't cite this because the editor wouldn't save it – Indiegogo is blacklisted – so I removed it. It's too bad, because this provided contextual information for the delay of the film's release.
  • Also in BC, I removed some uncited film festival appearances.
  • In the Inverviews section of WJWF is an uncited line: among the last filmed interviews or appearances by Shelley Berman, Jack Carter, and David Brenner. I believe that these are their last filmed interviews before their deaths (Berman died in 2017, Carter in 2015 and Brenner in 2014). I wasn't able to find anything else, but didn't have a source to specifically state that and so I put among. Let me know and I'll remove it if you feel it isn't good enough.
I believe those are the only problem areas. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I've cited the interviewees where I had secondary sources, cited quotations, and removed the 'last filmed appearances' line from the lead of WJWF (but kept it in the body for now). BTW, I found this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Documentaries: Documentary films require a modified approach for their articles. Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't just concerned about the last filmed appearances in the WP:LEAD. I don't know how relevant the "among the last filmed interviews or appearances" content is for people who went on to live for a couple of years after this was filmed and aired.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's important on a couple points: It's the last known interview with a couple, and likely several, of these legendary comedians. In some cases, their last filmed performances (ie: telling a joke). That they have died also underlines how this older generation of Jews is disappearing. I feel like this gives the film a place in the history of comedy, as well as discussing it. Not every in-depth source mentions this, but a couple do, and I feel it's worth including even if it might not be of interest to every reader. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is relevant to a particular individual the phrase "among the last filmed interviews or appearances by Shelley Berman, Jack Carter, and David Brenner" should have some sort of WP:RS should it not?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concede. Removed. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming here per a note left on WT:DYK. From what I recall before, plot summaries/synopses do not seem to be excluded from the "all hook facts must have a footnote" requirement. One possible way to get around this, especially if an independent source can't be found, could be to simply cite the documentary itself, perhaps with a timestamp. I think there's a citation template for AV media so that could work. Synopses/plot descriptions are excluded from the "all paragraphs must have at least one footnote" requirement provided that the synopses are neutral and do not have any interpretation, but this does not apply if hook facts themselves are based on the synopses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Narutolovehinata5 suggested using timestamp. I am not sure that the method of adding a {{RP}} format timestamp is what is kosher here. I have never seen this and am not sure the reader will understand. I think the timestamp needs to somehow get inside the WP:IC rather than fly next to it. Does someone know what template we are looking for?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of using Template:Cite AV media, which has a "time" (as in timestamp) parameter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the hook fact is dependent on the synopsis. The question, I believe, was about uncited paragraphs in the synopsis. That's done, I think, and I don't believe citation formatting is a reason to hold up the nomination.
If {{rp}} is acceptable/understandable for book pages, I don't know why it would be unacceptable/confusing for time in a video. I'm sure I've seen formatting like this used somewhere, though I may not have executed it the proper way (it's not the easiest thing to search for). I'd rather not clutter the references with a separate cite AV media template for each of the 8 uses (especially when most of them aren't necessary per MOS:FILM). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an independent source confirms the hook fact, it could just be added to another section and have that be used as the hook fact cite. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Reidgreg, the reason that I feel that {{rp}} is a suboptimal solution is that when one looks at the inline citation, one would miss the timestamp. The less expert reader might get confused with a separate timestamp not embedded in the WP:IC. User:Narutolovehinata5 responded above with the clarification that Template:Cite AV media was his intended suggestion. That is a specialized template for this exact use. Let's use it so that the formatting comes out right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added a half-dozen cite AV media templates for that. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, have your concerns been addressed? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Tony hasn't been very active lately and despite pings has not returned to the nomination. It may be worth asking for another reviewer in his absence. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 22[edit]

Judiciary of Poland

  • ... that in Poland a mean court judge processed almost four cases per day? Source: 14.38 million estimate given by GUS; 10,000 judge estimate can be seen in table, divide this per 365 per WP:CALC, which is in the text
    • ALT1: ... that in Poland the courts processed 14.38 million cases in 2020 while having fewer than 10,000 judges? Source: Same as above, just not divided
    • ALT2: ... that the ECHR found three of five chambers of the Supreme Court, Poland's top court, not to be properly constituted within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Source: See "Partisan control of the National Council of the Judiciary" part, last para
    • ALT3: ... that the Constitutional Tribunal, Poland's top court, ruled it was not a court? Source: Notes from Poland
    • ALT4: ... that the State Tribunal, the Polish court tasked with trial of the highest politicians, only convened three times in the past 40 years? Source: In text
    • Reviewed: User:Szmenderowiecki/Sort of recognised contributions
    • Comment: Please refer to the (exhaustive AFAIK) list of all of my DYK reviews and submissions for the purposes of QPQ. Feel free to add an entry to the list once the nomination is processed and (hopefully) accepted. 4 cases per day may be substituted by 1,500 per year, as verified here. ALT3 could actually go to April 1 if possible, though the problem might be that the ruling (unfortunately) exists and that the argument relies on the technicality of the Polish Constitution described in the lead (about tribunals in general).

5x expanded by Szmenderowiecki (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - You need to link the specific review that you're claiming credit for
Overall: Symbol question.svg I don't think that ALT0 checks out because you don't have figures for the "average (median?) court judge", but are just dividing the cases by the number of judges. I don't consider ALT4 to be interesting because due to the small number of top politicians, it doesn't make sense for the court to convene a lot. For ALT2, the precise findings were that these courts were not "established by law", mainly because of irregular appointments. See here for an explanation of the exact provision and how it's applied by the ECHR. See below for another version. For ALT3, I think it could be reworded but is confusing as it stands (it would be clearer with "itself", but still confusing). (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for ALT0/ALT1, the quote being verified is translated from Polish as: "Polish judges (there are about 10,000 of them) process approx. 15 million cases, which means that an average [mean, not median] judge processes about 1,500 cases per year," which was verified using 2018 data. I've used 2020 data and the same methodology. It was fact-checked as true back in 2020. Yes, it is a number of cases divided by judges (with all the problems that appear with measuring mean not median values, but this does not invalidate the hook as such, as I properly state that I calculate an average. I do have that data.
I don't see what's confusing about ALT3. Granted, it is apparently contradictory, but that's the point of DYKs (be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content). Additionally, I don't actually see how I can reword it using "itself". Will you propose the rewording for this one, considering the article to which this is sourced?
ALT2a is OK, but I'd consider other options first.
ALT4 is at the low end of my priorities, so I'll drop this one to expedite the process.
Re QPQ requirement, that's not my reading of the QPQ rules. It merely says that I must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍ and provide proof of that for examination. The full registry is available there, with my submissions reviewed (6) and my reviews (18). How is that not sufficient? Besides, I don't want to accidentally duplicate the QPQ claims, which AFAIK are not logged anywhere (unlike credits for reviews). If the newest review must be claimed for QPQ and I'm misreading the policy (not you), take my Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin A review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about Polish, but in English many people are going to see "average" and think it means "median" in this context. It would be clearer to talk about the mean number of cases handled per judge. Not to mention, each day is unclear whether we're talking about all days or working days...
Looking at ALT3 and not knowing the details of this case, I wouldn't know "what is it". Admittedly, right now I can't think of a good rewrite.
The reason most DYK participants link which DYK hook they are counting for QPQ is because otherwise it's impossible to tell if they claim the same review twice (I've done this by accident). (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. The relevant ruling (summary) for ALT3 is here. In Polish (see full case here). The funny thing is, the English version says that the trial must happen in a tribunal established by law, while the Polish version talks of sąd ustanowiony ustawą. The ruling heavily relies on the technical distinction between what the Constitution calls a "court" and a "tribunal". The ruling basically says that the ECHR did not properly analyse the legal position of the Tribunal, and, since the Constitutional Tribunal is only a judicial organ but does not determine the outcome of cases like most courts do, it does not administer justice and therefore is not a tribunal/court within Article 6, which they argue only applies to the courts which administer justice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second opinion requested as this review has stalled for a month and there have been some changes by Micga to the article in the meantime, which might impact the new assessment. Consider him as a co-nom to this nomination due to these changes.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the new review request above, I shall review this. I shall do a full review to familiarise myself with the material (it is a long article, anyway). So no disrespect to Buidhe. Storye book (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Some issues:

These points affect DYK
  • Too many paragraphs have no citations at the end. We cannot pass this DYK until that matter is resolved.
  • Earwig is not working for me at the moment, so I am accepting in good faith that it's plagiarism-free.
  • Re ALT1: Please give us a link for the numbers in this hook. I don't believe that I can accept the hook without an actual citation (linked or offline) which gives those particular numbers.
  • Re ALT2: That is an interesting hook: I would favour that hook if you could please add a citation to the end of the last paragraph in the section, which you refer to.
Points which do not affect DYK
  • I do think that the article would be more readable and comprehensible if it contained more summaries and fewer detailed lists. Readers who really want to know the long lists of details would consult the sources, anyway. However this point does not affect DYK.
  • I have copyedited the first half of the article, but I did not do the rest. It is not in a bad condition language-wise, and I did resolve the disambig links. This does not affect DYK.

When the issues regarding the missing citations, and the hooks, are resolved, this nominations should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 23[edit]

Normandy massacres

Private Charles Doucette, who was one of the first victims of the Normandy massacres
Private Charles Doucette, who was one of the first victims of the Normandy massacres
  • ... that during the Battle of Normandy, one out of every seven Canadian soldiers killed June 6–11, 1944, were murdered after surrendering? Source: One out of every seven Canadian soldiers killed between June 6–11 were murdered after surrendering — a figure that rises to one in five if the range is reduced to June 7–11, when Canadian units started engaging with elements of the 12th SS Panzer Division.[1]}

Created by CplKlinger (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Red XN - photo's attribution is somewhat unclear. It was originally published in a Canadian history blog without apparent editorial oversight. Though its public domain status labeling over on Commons looks good, I am concerned about its origin and its labeling/title/name/ownership.
  • Used in article: Green tickY
  • Clear at 100px: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Though many aspects of this DYK? nom are good - interesting hook/no copyvios/length is fine/QPQ is NA for this editor/etc - the article in its present state is ineligible for DYK? as it now has a single source maintenance template (placed on April 4th). The template is valid/appropriate — out of the article's 98 inline citations, 95 are to a single source. Shearonink (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have one last final due this week, and after I submit it I'll work on the citations. The book provides extensive footnotes, so it shouldn't be too difficult for me to track down alternative sources. CplKlinger (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CplKlinger: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited in almost a month and despite a ping has been unable to return. As the issues remain unaddressed, the nomination is now marked for closure as stale, without prejudice against the nomination continuing if another editor decides to adopt this and resolve the sourcing issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinata5: Sorry about that, I was away on a trip for a few weeks. Basically, I tried to add more sources but ran into some technical difficulties. I'm still learning as I go, so it'll probably take me a little while yet to sort this out. I am grateful that the nomination will be considered if/when these issues are solved, and apologize for the inconvenience. CplKlinger (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg on hold pending this being sorted out. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 04:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Margolian, Howard (1998). Conduct unbecoming : the story of the murder of Canadian prisoners of war in Normandy. Toronto [Ont.]: University of Toronto Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-4426-7321-2. OCLC 431557826.

Articles created/expanded on March 27[edit]

Whistleblower Aid

Source: "The Facebook whistleblower whose disclosures have shaken the world’s largest social network has drawn behind-the-scenes help from a big player in the online world: Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire tech critic who founded eBay."

"Omidyar’s financial support, which was previously unreported, offers one of the most striking examples yet of how Frances Haugen’s disclosures have generated enthusiasm among critics of U.S. tech giants — offering a potentially crucial boost as she takes on one of the world’s most powerful companies. This gives her an edge that many corporate whistleblowers lack as she warns lawmakers, regulators and media organizations on both sides of the Atlantic that Facebook is endangering society by putting “profits before people.”"

"Omidyar’s global philanthropic organization Luminate is handling Haugen’s press and government relations in Europe, and his foundation last year gave $150,000 to Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit organization that is providing Haugen’s legal representation and advice."

Politico

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk) and Jaredscribe (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 04:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC). Symbol question.svg[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Eligibility looks good - long enough and hook is sourced. The article feels a little promotional, especially the second paragraph of 'History.' I would also edit the article to make it more clear how Haugen's actions and Omidyar are related, since that's what the hook focuses on. Once those things are fixed, we should be good to go! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ll add a bit more and perhaps make a second hook. Thriley (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Thriley, it's been over three weeks since your last comment without any edits to the article or posts here. I think allowing seven more days for the work to be done is reasonable. I hope to see it done; if not, the nomination may be marked for closure at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 28[edit]

Hydroelectricity in Turkey

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Presumably the fish are threatened by dams, not by the use of hydroelectricity... (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Wikipedia the cite uses a hyphen so search for "Kiss-lip himri". Page 73 of the cite says "hydropower hazard high". But as the hook says not enough is known - fish could be just fine I guess - I hope someone will read it and give some money to scientists to find out. Whether dams would have been built just for irrigation if there was no possibility of hydropower I don't know - certainly proponents say it is the hydropower which has repaid cost. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: (a) Buddy's making a point about English grammar. Hydroelectricity is an abstract principle and a subset of electricity when differentiated by source. Dams are walls thrown across rivers. It's impossible that the fish are being hurt by the concept. (b) Similarly, I don't know if it's the result of a typo or mistaken edit by someone else but the current hook makes no sense. It has the abstract form of "the dinner needs to be found, because of the guests coming over." The verb needs to be changed to something on topic and a more logical connection established.

On the other hand, you just need a new hook. "We should go check and see if these fish are OK because maybe they aren't" isn't an actual statement. The provided cite above needs some info from p. 43 to work as support, but you're really trying to say something about the Turkish hydropower authorities shirking their duty to check on the consquences of their actions.

Relatedly, before this can be approved, you'll need to go to somewhere on the community portal and get some copy editing done. Sentences like "Large hydropower may be bad..." and "...dammed hydro can be dispatched within 3 to 5 minutes..." will need reworking. — LlywelynII 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: I have requested copyedit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Hydroelectricity_in_Turkey If you or anyone else have a better hook suggestion I will be happy to hear it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1... that the kisslip himri has disappeared: can you find out whether dams built for hydroelectricity in Turkey were responsible? Source: "Restricted to the Euphrates and Tigris river drainages, although the precise extent of its range is unknown. Its biology is poorly understood" [7]
  • ALT2... that the kisslip himri has not been seen for years: can you find out whether dams built for hydroelectricity in Turkey are responsible and if so can we fix them? Source: "Restricted to the Euphrates and Tigris river drainages, although the precise extent of its range is unknown. Its biology is poorly understood" [8]
Really focused on the fish, huh? — LlywelynII 01:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed an amusing name - the rest of the article (most of which I wrote) looks rather boring - maybe you or someone else can spot something else hooky? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by observation: this hook is very much out of tone for DYK. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi Brie I don't understand - I know we don't write "you" in articles but is there some rule against it in hooks? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, using "you" in hooks is discouraged. I'm not sure if there's anything in the guidelines specifically against it, but from experience hooks that use it have tended to be rewritten. Personally I would rewrite the ALTs as something like this:
ALT3 ... that hydroelectricity in Turkey has been suggested to be a cause for the disappearance of the kisslip himri?
The issue I see with ALTs 1-3 is that the article merely states that the species may be threatened and that hydroelectricity production has been suggested as a cause, but this has not been proven (indeed, the article doesn't even describe the species as having "disappeared"). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3 looks good - I hope someone reads it and is motivated to prove or disprove the hypotheses. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 ... that hydroelectricity in Turkey may be why the kisslip himri has not been seen recently?
I still couldn't support those because the source and article do not back up their claim. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 00:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT5: ... that the kisslip himri in Turkey might face a dam problem? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 04:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 31[edit]

Dun dun duuun!

The Walter variation.

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I would argue the requirement for a trailing ? should be relaxed in this example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the title of the article is "Dun dun duuun!", perhaps the question mark could be replaced with an interrobang (‽).  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  20:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added free version of the sound. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg This article is a great idea and it will be awesome to have the sound on the frontpage (which appears to be licensed fine) but "Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?" - right now it doesn't, although there are primary sources which are all youtube links. Maybe these sites can help 1, 2, 3. Also the claim "no one knows where it came from" is not mentioned and cited in the article presently. On the !? thing, I think ALT0a works fine. Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry, I did not see this review. A quick look shows every para does indeed have a cite, and I'm not sure I understand the bit about direct quotes (there are none) or primary sources (its a sound). The three links provided in the review are (1) a blog post, (2) talking about the famous Jaws theme (duuuh dun, duuuuuh dun...), and (3) an article about rebuilding a bridge (???). Not sure what to make of this, but seems good as is to me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: Is it ready? --evrik (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Zionism as settler colonialism

  • ... that according to one study, settler colonialism has been successful inside Israel, but not in the territories occupied in 1967? Source: "Israeli/Zionist settler colonialism was remarkably successful before 1967, and was largely unsuccessful thereafter... When we think about settler colonialism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to direct our gaze both towards the West Bank, where it has manifestly failed, and towards Israel proper, where it succeeded." Veracini 2013

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Buidhe: Can we get other hook proposals? Reason: colonization (more recently; settler colonization in the past) is a valid frame to look at Zionism as, probably (?) the correct one, but the lead of the nominated article itself says that it is still not the dominant framing as of 2022. Thus, having a hook which states the view as fact is inaccurate to the subject. While the hook does credit itself to "one study", the phrasing at the moment still states the settler colonialism as pure fact and only the perspectives on its success as what the study is claiming. The other question is if the study in question was cherry-picked for the hook fact, as I do note a recent string of anti-Israel hooks. And, like I asked recently with hooks for even Russia, where there is conflict, we should look to neutrality and accuracy (taken in balance to each other). So is there nothing else to say on the topic? Maybe there is a hook to be made about kibbutzim as proto-settlements? I am surprised the article doesn't mention early IDF objectives to destroy and resettle Arab villages, but recognise it is a work in progress. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsif: I disagree that it states as fact, since it's clearly attributed to one study. As far as I can tell from the reading I've done, Zionism is undisputed as a form of settler colonialism by scholars of settler colonialism and was highlighted as such by the main pioneer in establishing the field, Patrick Wolfe. The journal Settler Colonial Studies has published a lot of articles about I/P but as far as I know, none that reject the paradigm. Rejection comes from outside this specific field of study; many scholars of the I/P conflict analyze it as a national or territorial conflict (although this is not mutually exclusive with settler colonialism). If you do a Google Scholar search, it's clear that the virtually all results discussing the topic (settler colonialism in Israel/Palestine) are using this analysis, so focusing on rejection would require cherry-picking. Obviously, the article is not complete and could be expanded a lot from the sources available. No one complained when I came up with a long string of hooks that reflected poorly on Germany, Turkey or Slovakia, so I think the same is true of any other country. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: As I said, the phrasing attributes the views on success to the study, treating the idea of settler colonialism happening there as a given and just something to be assessed. It would be like saying "that, according to one source, Russia's denazification of Ukraine has been successful, but only in the south and east" - this statement is true (Kremlin as the source), and it sounds like the source is just weighing in on the places of success, with "Russia's denazification of Ukraine" basically in wikivoice. I'm not comparing the two situations, but hope this analogy gets across how the "settler colonialism in Israel" statement does not seem to be coming from the study mentioned. I'm also not saying it's bad or wrong or anything, but that the article doesn't, at the moment, seem to support such certainty. Perhaps a little more expansion would make all well. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise; new enough, long enough, QPQ done. The ref section looks a little unusual, and again concerned about overall coverage. Sectioning also doesn't seem standard for history/ideology article? I presume the article will improve with expanding. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, article has now been expanded and reorganized. If you don't like the original hook, how about:

(t · c) buidhe 04:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you for the update, I think there are still some article issues, but, you know, better quality than a lot out there. Ideally, hooks shouldn't just be X says "quote", so alt3 is the best from that standpoint, but all of them are a little unwieldy. I acknowledge you're trying to work around my comments of stating as fact, so thanks for that. It is for these issues, though (lack of article quality and a suitable hook), that I would, personally, fail this nom. I don't want you to think that I'm out to stop your noms, though, because I'm not, so I'll offer this up for someone else to review. Sorry about that. Kingsif (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your opinion and pushing me to improve the article. When dealing with an abstract topic, I've found quotes to be a successful way of building hooks. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From cursory look I have found at least three sources written by academic or printed in academic press that oppose the notion that presnted in the article [9],[10],[11](p46-47) I think important to include them per WP:NPOV . I am willing to send full text version to anyone intersted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't add the first source because it's a news not academic source. Colonialism isn't the same thing as settler colonialism and the second source is about the former rather than the latter, not mentioning settler colonialism at all. The third source is about campus debates on Israel and does not discuss settler colonialism either, only mentioning it in a few quotes from other sources. Of course relevant criticism can be added (in fact it already exists in the article), but in order to avoid cherrypicking, I would only cite sources that are about settler colonialism of which there are many. (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

Sarah Sayifwanda

  • ... that Sarah Sayifwanda, the first Zambian Minister of Gender and Development, was once arrested for allegedly inciting a tribal fight? Source: "Last year, Zambia Police arrested Ms Sayifwanda in connection with the tribal fight that occurred in Zambezi district between the Lunda’s and Luvales during an ECZ delimitation.

It was alleged that Ms Sayifwanda was the one who forcefully grabbed the microphone from the ECZ official and strongly opposed the creation of a central constituency which the majority voted in favor of. Ms Sayifwanda’s behaviour was said to be what triggered the throwing of chairs at each other by the lundas and luvales as she accused the electoral commission of Zambia officials of siding with the luvales."

https://www.lusakatimes.com/2020/12/31/former-zambezi-east-mp-sara-sayifwanda-has-died/

Created by 19jshi (talk). Self-nominated at 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @19jshi: Article new and long enough and hook is verifiable. At this point though, I'm not entirely comfortable with the article's shape - the "Childhood and family" subsection is blank, and the subsection lengths are just around 2-3 sentences each - they could just be merged into one single undivided section. Also, the references are naked urls - not necessarily a DYK requirement, but it would certainly help a lot to follow the guideline WP:BURL. Again, not necessary, but makes it look nice. Juxlos (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I did not know about the BURL guideline, thank you for pointing it out. That has been resolved. 19jshi (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol confirmed.svg Nice work. Hope you make more Zambia DYKs - always nice to see more of the less covered countries here. Juxlos (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @19jshi and Juxlos: Hi there! I'm gonna strike ALT0 on BLP guidelines; yes, she's no longer alive, but those can apply for a relatively long amount of time after death. She appears to be a national politician, I don't think we should run a hook that alleges she committed a crime she wasn't convicted of, it falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 12:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Symbol possible vote.svg without a viable hook, the nomination can't proceed. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the nom appears to be a student editor and hasn't responded to a talk page message. Perhaps someone more familiar with African topics can help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without additional context that hook doesn't really say much. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that new hook isn't particularly interesting: if the defection had caused a change in the balance of power and government, that's one thing, but the source gives no inkling of such a thing—party changes don't seem that noteworthy absent context (which is not given in the article). Also, the two remaining naked URLs must be dealt with: per WP:DYKSG#D3, References in the article must not be bare URLs. Jon698, I see that you did considerable work on the article (including deleting a section on the Pan-African Parliament; if it's not relevant, shouldn't it also be removed from the lede and the infobox?). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since May 4 and no one has been able to come forward with a suitable hook. In addition, there are some issues with article referencing still unaddressed. As such, the nomination is marked for closure, without prejudice against the nomination continuing if the bare URL references are fixed and a new suitable hook is proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 7[edit]

2022 Birmingham Stallions season

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 05:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg I notice that this nomination is now more than three weeks old, but the nominator has not provided a QPQ. As per RfC on excessively late supply of QPQ credits, the QPQ should be done within one week. Please provide a QPQ promptly. Flibirigit (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg I think we might have to go with some variant of ALT3, but I would suggest proposing an alternate version which mentions that the Stallions are the only USFL team playing in their home city in 2022. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article was new enough and long enough. A QPQ has been done. The article and source currently only support ALT3, so if we're going to go with ALT3a/ALT3b we'll need a source about the "only team" part (if one can't be found, we can always revert to ALT3). In addition, the game summaries lack footnotes, and Earwigs detects matches with [12] and [13]. It's hard to tell if they copied from Wikipedia or the opposite happened, but in any case this will need to be resolved before the nomination is approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that content completeness is becoming an issue as none of the May games are accounted for with summaries. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: If the issues raised in this nomination page are not addressed within a reasonable time frame, the nomination may be failed. Please return to the nomination and address the remaining concerns, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Jakubovics

Created by Nangaf (talk). Self-nominated at 19:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. QPQ exempt (2nd nomination). @Nangaf: Neither hook is mentioned in the article with a source. (I would prefer ALT1, but both should be added in as appropriate.) Please ping me when the L-arginine and rose petals items are mentioned in the article text. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not sure if the mention of the school is necessary for ALT1. To me the main hook fact is the investigation of the antimicrobial properties of rose petals and the mention of the school just distracts from that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nangaf: I have taken the step of adding ALT0 and ALT1 content into the article using the sources provided. I agree that the school mentions should be excised. However, the personal life section needs a citation at the end of the paragraph. Please respond to this message or this DYK will not be able to go forward. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Speaks to Me

Created by Eurohunter (talk). Self-nominated at 10:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Your hook need wikilinks and the target article needs to use bold font. Schwede66 18:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "his" and "him" in the last half of the sentence read as ambiguous; it is not immediately clear to a reader whether they refer to Basshunter, Avicii, or a mix of the two. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

@Legoktm: I paraphrased it a little but I don't have idea how to write "Basshunter flex his artistry in different synthy and softer electronic-pop directions" and "The track replicates the boundary-pushing signature style" in different way and not change the meaning so for now it is "since "Home" and "Angels Ain't Listening" Basshunter developed his music style in different synthy and softer electronic-pop directions" and "track recreates the boundary-pushing style of the late Avicii music". Eurohunter (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other problems: Red XN - I am skeptical this meets WP:NSINGLE, at best it's pretty borderline. The Aftonbladet source is good, and then there's one from EQ Music. The NetFan.pl article covers Boten Anna more than this single (and reads like a press release), and the Radar de Media one is 3 sentences. With only two non-trivial sources, I'm really not sure.
@Legoktm: There are listed a few additional sources on article talk page but I did not find the way to use them in article. Eurohunter (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed all the sources on the talk page and they're all trivial mentions or just inclusion in a list of new music. I also spent some time looking for more sources and couldn't find any. My inclination is to decline this on the ground that the article is not notable, but I'm going to ask for a second opinion, please stay tuned. Legoktm (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: I will look for more sources but there are also pages like NetFan.pl which seems to be quite serious with partners such as Polskie Radio, Agora or distributor pl:e-Muzyka and it exist since 2003. They are also a patrons for such festiwals - for example Festiwal Piosenki "O wolności" organised by Institute of National Remembrance. DJ Raport is a news site published by DJ Promotion (since 1990) and since 1995 they organised courses for profesional DJ-s. DJ Promotion has also own chart Top w dyskotekach - which was published by Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry Eurohunter (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - As mentioned earlier, the he/him/his is ambiguous, and the text in the article has the same issue.
@Legoktm: I added the names to quote and article. Should last "his" be ommitted? Eurohunter (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I'm going to make a few minor copy edits to the article as well. Legoktm (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing, the lead currently is a list of a bunch of companies that released the single, which feels unnecessarily promotional. I think the lead would benefit from dropping that, just focusing on the people who wrote it and a sentence about its creation or meaning. Legoktm (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hold pending the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Speaks to Me. Legoktm (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 9[edit]

John A. Sibley Horticultural Center

Created by Mgreason (talk). Self-nominated at 18:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC). QPQ=[14][reply]

  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. If the Horticultural Center hasn't closed over six years ago, I might be worried about promotional language due to the detailed descriptions of the garden's features. It is all adequately sourced in-line. I noticed an instance of close paraphrasing, but I think that I fixed it. Regarding the hooks, the information for ALT1 and ALT2 is not in the page itself (and I didn't accidentally remove it!). In other words, there's nowhere on the page that mentions that the Horticultural Center was a popular attraction for 30 years. There is also no mention of Herschend Family Entertainment in the page. The first hook is accurate and supported in-line on the page. QPQ done. If you want to use ALT1 or ALT2, you need to include information about them on the page itself. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Adams, Tony (30 October 2015). "Callaway Gardens closing Sibley Horticultural Center, with Mr. Cason's Vegetable Garden being relocated". Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  2. ^ a b c Caldwell, Carla (Nov 2, 2015). "Callaway Gardens shutters large attractions". Atlanta Business Chronicle. Retrieved 9 April 2022.
  3. ^ Rice, Mark (April 6, 2022). "Ownership changing at Callaway Resort & Gardens, largest employer in Harris County". Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. Retrieved 6 April 2022.

Viaud Ridge

  • ... that Viaud Ridge was named after Gustave Viaud, who was buried in the range? Source: ISBN 978-2-84050-607-2; source 1
    • ALT1: ... that Viaud Ridge was discovered in 1970 by ships passing through the Indian Ocean? Source: GEBCO; source 8, dead link
    • ALT2: ... that Viaud Ridge, discovered in 1970, was poorly defined until 2018? Source: Source 9, dead link
    • ALT3: ... that Viaud Ridge was named after Gustave Viaud, who was immersed in the range? Source: ISBN 978-2-84050-607-2; source 1

Created by EpicPupper (talk). Self-nominated at 04:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svgArticle is new enough (translated articles are eligible) and long enough. ALT hooks are a little boring, the main one is misleading as dropping someone in the sea is not "burying". I think there is a maintenance template and the coordinate map seems to have some kind of problem. I can't speak French nor access most of the sources but I can verify some of the sources. Source #8 and #9 appear to be broken. Didn't see any copyvio or plagiarism, dropping a few sentences into Google yielded nothing untoward. QPQ exemption is in effect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback! I will try to resolve these issues as soon as possible. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiya! I've fixed the link for source #8. Source #9 seems to be permanently dead. ALT3 added to fix inaccuracy in main hook. Orphan template removed. Coordinate map fixed. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so sure that you want to use a downloading link nor a permanently broken one, myself - is there another GEBCO source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @EpicPupper: Wanted to make sure you saw this suggestion from the reviewer. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping! This is on my radar. I'll address these soon, a bit busy with Signpost stuff right now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 12[edit]

Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk), White Arabian Filly (talk), Coondoglady (talk), Coondog Cemetery-Lady, Dailynetworks (talk), and Drmies (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () at 17:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Northwest Alabama is a very long way from home for me. The restaurant looks like fun, and I will add it to my itinerary if and when I am in the area. But the likelihood is very slim, unless I can serendipitously land work in the area, and that too is unlikely. This is way off my beat. 7&6=thirteen () 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have been told in a phone converation that better photographs will be uploaded in the next few days to Wikimedia commons. I hope so. 7&6=thirteen () 16:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cemetery caretakers sent me excellent pictures today. Since they are the copyright holders/creators, I have asked them to please upload them Wikimedia Commons, since I can't waive their copyright. They sent them from their phone; and doing the upload process is probably best done from a computer. I've told them all that. I expect this will be resolved this evening. 7&6=thirteen () 12:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies A sidetrip while there Hames, Melea (July 9, 2017). "CARLEY'S ADVENTURES: RATTLESNAKE SALOON & COON DOG CEMETERY". Rattlesnake saloon. Not worth putting in this article, but interesting nonetheless. 7&6=thirteen () 14:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So that place is kind of cool--you get to ride in the bed of a pick up truck down from the parking lot, and the kids love that. Underneath that ledge it's nice and cool. But the music is that old-timey country, and the food, well, it's OK I guess, sort of mediocre standard bar food. Not bad but not great. But the setting of the place is of course spectacular, and it's a pretty well-known here; I'm sure there's enough coverage to write a short article. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion confirmed, QPQ done, hook acceptable, hook cited. Earwig has flagged areas of concern. The article needs some clean-up. The lead section is too long, and somewhat confusing. Some copy editing is needed. --evrik (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Frequency modulation encoding

  • ... that early floppy disks used FM encoding that used only half the available storage? Source: Wakeman pg 1
    • Comment: I added this with the DYK tool when I uploaded, but it seems it never got posted to the DYK nom page. Trying again...

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@David Eppstein: FM is a specific implementation of DME in the same fashion that MFM is a different specific implementation of DME. FM referrs to both the encoding of the individual data bits as well as the disk format and the header timing signals. I believe this is well explained in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence of the article says that it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10, and mentions its usage in multiple applications. If it is intended to be only about the way floppy disks were formatted using this code, and not about the code itself, I think it needs significant rewriting to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: The lead sentence of the article is "Frequency Modulation encoding, or simply FM, is a simple type of run length limited code that saw widespread use in early floppy disk drives and hard disk drives." I see nothing like "it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10" and I think it clearly indicates the field is disk storage. I have added a link to DME in the appropriate location and I assume from the wording of your reply that the merge tag can now be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"is a simple type of run length limited code". That describes it as a code. It is the same code as the one described in differential Manchester encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"That describes it as a code" ... in a specific setting. I have added words to this effect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the same code, used for the same basic purpose (maintaining synch). How is it notable for two articles rather than just one? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I am now stating for the third time, this article is not about the code, it is about the entire system of which DFE is used for one part. I have made several changes to the text to make this distinction clear and you haven't commented on any of them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're repeating stuff we've already said, maybe I should repeat that the first sentence of Frequency modulation encoding states that FM encoding "is a type of run length limited code". If you don't want to think the article is about a type of code, maybe you shouldn't say in the first sentence that it is about a type of code? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, suggest alternative phrasing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a preliminary NPP review and have similar concerns plus others. I'm posting separately at that page. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 14[edit]

Anna October

Created by Trillfendi (talk). Self-nominated at 21:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg On the knife edge of size (I did make some copyediting for language) at 1511 bytes and new enough. QPQ present. @Trillfendi: I don't see a mention of employees delivering clothes in the hook source for ALT0, and ALT1's bureaucracy claim is not included in the article but is in the hook, so it should be added to the article. If those issues could be rectified, both hooks would be suitable, though I prefer ALT0. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I now realize it was the Vogue source for ALT0, not Marie Claire UK, so I now replaced it. For ALT1, The Guardian source inline (in the same sentence as sustainable) talked about bureaucracy and reuse of materials; in that source it’s all in the same paragraph. Although in the article someone else user:Victuallers claims the ethical reuse of material is not sustainable fashion, despite what Vogue' said in their description, and they changed it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"claims the ethical reuse of material is not sustainable fashion" umm citation required I think. I don't think I said that or even typed it. Sustainable Fashion means being sustainable. Using deadstock is not sustainable ... you run out of deadstock! If you are convinced that Vogue are not greenwashing (I reckon they have blinkers on) then change it back ... but are you sure Vogue are not just saying that using deadstock isnt quite as bad as what is uually done? Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said here that using last years material doesnt make you sustainable. Its a contradiction. In this, Vogue described a Ukrainian designer being sustainable by using deadstock (although October is focused on in the second half of the article), Marie Claire Ukraine said that Anna October's collection using deadstock (Ukrainian: дедсток) makes it more ethical and ecological. That's what makes her a sustainable fashion brand. Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction is that being "sustainable" is not a graduated scale. You are either sustainable or you are not. So when your quote above says that using dead stock "makes it more ethical and ecological" then it confirms that they are becoming "more" .... ie they are not there yet. i.e. "sustainable". This marketing stuff about being "more ethical and ecological" can be said of a coal mine than now uses recyclable plastic cups on Tuesdays. It sounds great ... but the coal mine is not sustainable. ..... the same applies to using deadstock. Imagine a designer goes to the store and chooses a material to use for this years collection. "Oh" says the marketing guy.... "just before you chose the material it was deadstock"... wooo ! I think we can claim we are becoming "more ethical and ecological" ... why I bet some may be convinced that we are now "sustainable". Victuallers (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: The comments seem to have distracted the review... I made my point and its not important. Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I should have responded 15 days ago but better late than never. @Trillfendi: Now that I read the Vogue source, I dunno if Having been sent to New York before the war broke out, her current collection was shipped to Paris for fashion week. quite matches the tone of ALT0. I'd like to see it revised to be closer to the source. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 15[edit]

Kasymaly Jantöshev

  • ... that a 1955 satirical comedy play by Kasymaly Jantöshev was one of the first signs of the relaxation of Soviet literary restrictions after the death of Joseph Stalin? Source: "Stylistic and production restrictions began to be lifted in the mid-1950s, after the death of Stalin. [...] One of the first signs of positive change was the appearance of satirical comedies such as [...] The Lasso for the Shrew (1955) by Jantoshev". [15]
    • ALT1: ... that before he became one of Kyrgyzstan's most prominent writers, Kasymaly Jantöshev taught courses preparing the chairmen of collective farms? Source: "Further Dzhantoshev entered the pedagogical technical school in Frunze, and after graduating in 1930, began his teaching career in the same educational institution, preparing future chairmen of the collective farm." [16]
    • ALT2: ... that Kasymaly Jantöshev translated How the Steel Was Tempered into Kyrgyz? Source: "Zhantoshev is also known as a translator. He translated into Kyrgyz Nikolai Ostrovsky's novel "How Steel Was Sharpened," the play "The Silent Girl," and works by a number of children's writers. He also translated works by foreign writers such as Mikhail Lermontov, Hans Christian Andersen, and Lydia Budogorskaya." [17]
    • ALT3: ... that Kasymaly Jantöshev translated works by Hans Christian Andersen into Kyrgyz? Source: "Zhantoshev is also known as a translator. He translated into Kyrgyz Nikolai Ostrovsky's novel "How Steel Was Sharpened," the play "The Silent Girl," and works by a number of children's writers. He also translated works by foreign writers such as Mikhail Lermontov, Hans Christian Andersen, and Lydia Budogorskaya." [18]

Created by Curbon7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I dunced while nominating, this was created on April 14, not 15. Curbon7 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On it. — LlywelynII 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    Symbol question.svg @Curbon7: Moved to mainspace just ahead of the submission; long enough (9.8k elig. chars.); no copyvio issues per Earwig; no need for QPQ; not a living person but well sourced overall regardless; all of the category links aren't necessary but very welcome and appreciated; links added or filled from main related pages, also not necessary but very welcome. ALT1, ALT2, ALT3 cut as uninteresting especially given the buried lead that this person seems to have written one of the masterworks of his culture. A translation even Kyrgyz people will ignore in favor of Disney movies pales in comparison.

    (1) The organization is a little silly. The biographical sections should all be under a #Life or similar heading and shouldn't go Early Life, Early Career + 2 Book Titles, Late Career + Death; at some point he should have his actual career. (Maybe that's what the 2 book titles are, but then they shouldn't be organized as part of the #Early_career section.) It's also unclear why the 2 titles are grouped together. They should probably be separate sections on their own, especially if they form the entirety of Jantoeshev's main career. (2) The section on Kanybek especially needs minor reworking. Some of it belongs on a separate page for just the book itself or should be worked into Jantoeshev's later life and #Legacy at the appropriate moments. (3) The article generally shouldn't see-saw back and forth in time as much as it does. (4) There's some unclear phrasing to clean up, like "a class war against deemed oppressors", saying a work from the 1960s "is set contemporaneously", &c. (5) Most importantly, you have a major culturally-defining work from within the Soviet Union that sends its protagonist off to Siberia at the hands of "the oppressors" with no discussion whatsoever about what that means. Within the novel, had the fasco-capitalist powers taken over Russia? or was he really portraying Russia as the oppressor against the Kyrgyz people? If the latter, htf did that fly and htf did he have any later career? Similarly, the most important hook and biographical data besides Kanybek is the bit on his work showing a greater openness within Russian society, without explaining what it said, how it was received at the time, and whether it caused trouble later once Brezhnev & co. swung the pendulum back towards greater repression. — LlywelynII 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    (6) The (correct) Frunze in the running text needs to clarify that it's now Bishkek at least during its first mention. The infobox on the right should similarly use or include the modern names of the locations. (7) There should be some discussion of how the USSR handled his legacy in later years and what difference (if any) occurred with his memory once Kyrgyzstan gained its independence. Finally, (8) less essential, but for anyone primarily known as an author, it would be best if there were a #Works section with at least the start of a list of his output condensed to a single list with a {{incomplete list}} header if needed. My own habit is to do it using the {{citation}} template and using the |display-authors=0 field to avoid repeating his name 20 times. — LlywelynII 22:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Women's Day (Pakistan)

Created by Bookku (talk) assisted by SusunW. Self-nominated at 15:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg the article has one sentence on the subject of the National Women's Day in Pakistan, before another article starts about an event in 1983... which maybe deserves an article (and it is related) but this article is titled National Women's Day (Pakistan) and it should be about that. There is another article titled Aurat March which is also about (another) National Women's Day in Pakistan but that is not mentioned here. That article has a template about long essays. We do need a focussed article about either of the National Women's Days in Pakistan (or both) so it would be good to develop this to be about that subject. Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: Thanks for your comment and inputs.
Brief response: Encyclopedic coverage is ever ongoing and continuous process. I hope as and when as much as is covered in a new articles with ref let have scope of acceptability for DYKs.
Detail response:
All the below response is not to undermine value of your inputs which in any case I will take into account in my further updates of the articles still it is preferable to provide my own perception in detail enough to avoid misunderstanding from my side.
If you had noticed my own tag on the article Aurat March and my own response to users at talk page I am in process of updating it with academic sources may be even writing again from scratch if needed and that would be almost a yearlong process. Again it is part of over all women's Rights movement and Feminism so I can not progress without updating related articles either. Again (at leadership level) even liberal feminism in Pakistan is not as monolith as it seems from out side there are multiple layers though they do not speak of the differences as openly.
Though 1983 leadership and 2018 (Aurat March) leadership are in contact and support each other. Still there is a generational gap 1983 ones celebrating National women's day on 12 Feb Where as Aurat March is celebrated on International women's day with help of social media environment is called fourth wave feminism. Though Aurat March got more media attention due to catchy more assertive sloganeering and social media and TV media impact . 1983 leadership is active in their own way may be with lesser media attention but they are also reasonably covered in academia. And I will need to cover them while covering over all Feminism in Pakistan.
While collating sources for Feminism in Pakistan I realized 12th Feb observances are having so many reliable references and day is being frequently referred in academic sources that I can not proceed ahead without developing a special article for the same.
Again as you rightly pointed out National women's Day of 12 Feb yearly event needs further coverage in the article (enough sources are available for that) and while writing I had no other way but to cover 1983 event also in detail because that too is referred several times in various academic sources since being part of Pakistan's civic society and it's protest history.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we/wiki have been doing for twenty years i.e. "expanding information"... in a random But structured way. We have the same goal. However the article in question has one sentence on the subject of the "National Women's Day in Pakistan". That is a significant problem. Maybe the title of the article needs to be changed?... or the article needs to address the title? Readers see there is a wiki article about National women's Day in Pakistan. (They don't know about the two different days you mention), they expect to be told a bit about Pakistan National women's Day(s). Maybe a few words about the history of how it started ... not the whole of the article about the day of its formation by Women's Action Forum. (Seems significant, but the Women's Action Forum article doesnt mention any of this.) I realise that its a huge subject but one title and a(n incomplete) article at a time will cover it eventually. Victuallers (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Still 95% not about National Women's Day (Pakistan). Victuallers (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol question.svg I've looked again and the split has happened and we now have two articles so I have suggested a combined new hook below. Maybe a third party might care to overcheck the new alt? Thanks to @SusunW: who has assisted here. @Bookku: - can you resolve the question about the Sindt government (and maybe cross link with Aurat Day where necessary). Victuallers (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: ALT2 suggested by you seems better one. I was getting distracted in real life and have not been able pay kind of attention these two articles deserve, hoping to take out some good time to work on academic sources this week. Mean while I have changed that Sindh Government related statement may be that helps. For Khaibar Pakhtunwa related more info probably I will need to take help of WP Library exchange to find original source of the academic source I have referred. Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Assuming the picker is happy with alt2 which is a combination of earlier hooks then we are good to go. Earwig shows some similarity but its due to noun phrases. Its neutral they are both long enough and they and the hook are reffed. They were new when nominated but the fork of the articles happened during the process above. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg @Victuallers, Bookku, SusunW, and SL93: further to the discussion here it seems there are more complex issues to discuss with regard to this hook, so I've sent it back here for further discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite flexible on the writing style of DYK I do not have any issues from my side.
I wish to suggest and nominate this DYK for Special occasion holding area for 9th July or 31st July, if possible, those days being associated with mother of Pakistan Fatima Jinnah.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my native language, any suitable changes in the article title writing style are okay to me, so I sought help @ WT:MOSCAPS, so the users in this discussion can focus on rest of the DYK formation. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru and Victuallers: I have received a DYKHousekeepingBot message on my talk page saying " .. Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/National Women's Day (Pakistan) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. .. ". Idk what does that mean and what I am supposed to do since I can not see 'step 3' on the help page Idk if I missed the same. Requesting your help in needful.
Meanwhile I have further updated the article 1983 Women's March, Lahore with academic refs and will be doing so for 1 or 2 days more. May be couple of more DYK options too can become available. I will come back to this discussion once c/e is done for the updates. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku, when Amakuru reopened this nomination page, they forgot to retransclude the template on the DYK Nominations page, which is what caused the "incomplete DYK nomination" message; I have just done the retransclusion, so that should take care of the problem and make this page visible again on the Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Amakuru: As far as doubts raised by BlueMoonset here; now I have reasonably updated the article 1983 Women's March, Lahore with academic sources (copy edit still to be done, and I will be updating more). While updating I cross checked again and we can reliably say that the controversial law of evidence (Qanoon-e-Shahadat) implemented by General Zia is still on the statute. Women had started their agitation at draft level of the law itself. Saying court can consider single woman's testimony equal at it's discretion means actually it is not equal. In financial matters that discretion too does not exist and again that comes from sacred scripture so can not be challenged without facing blasphemy allegations. You can refer to page Ayesha Khan 107, a literate woman's testimony/ signature gets lesser value than a illiterate man similar even in cases woman is expert in financial matters she has to go around searching for male signature even when they do not have expertise. To defuse domestic and international pressure what the then government seem to have used obfuscate language to deflect attention. But that does not change position for our purpose IMHO. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Longer sentence versions
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 March made against a law that negatively affected the testimonies of women?
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 march made against a law that devalued the testimony of women?
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 march made against a law that devalued the testimony of Pakistani women to half that of men?


  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 protest march was acknowledged for celebration by Yousaf Raza Gillani's government.
  • Shorter sentence versions
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 protest march?
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 protest march?
  • ... that 1983 Women's march in Lahore took place to protest against a law that devalued the testimony of women?
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan commemorates women's protests against a law that devalued the testimony of women?
  • ... that 1983 Women's march in Lahore took place to protest against a law that gravely affected women's legal rights?
  • ... that National Women's Day in Pakistan commemorates previous protest against a law that gravely affected women's legal rights?

Please feel free to suggest / make appropriate changes. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 19[edit]

N. Sankar

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 02:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Open to other suggestions. Though not a doorbuster, I think this would appeal to the cricket following populace, which is a reasonable bit of the english speaking populace. But, I am open. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg Appeared at RD so remains eligible. New enough and long enough. QPQ present. But yeah, this hook does nothing for me. If you do not recognize any of these names, this is as boring as they come. Possible ALT1 to try and add some interest as to why it's noteworthy (the interaction of company-owned team and high-caliber cricketer) — please let me know if this is accurate, @Ktin:: Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 07:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 20[edit]

Josh Hudson

Converted from a redirect by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg for alt0, Symbol confirmed.svg for alt1. Article was nominated within seven days, significantly exceeds the 1500-character minimum, and is policy compliant. Hook checks out (alt0 is based on an offline source). QPQ was done. No image submitted (only images in article are fair use). No other issues detected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • shame about Claudia Blaise :( Symbol possible vote.svg also, Metro is a deprecated source per WP:RSP—I'm quite uncomfortable with how much of the article is sourced to Metro, and don't think this should be promoted just yet. @Soaper1234: can the Metro sources be replaced? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the consensus was that Metro was to be avoided, and I've taken every available opportunity to replace it where possible. However, the Metro has great soaps coverage and this area of the publication is very well-regarded. I do hope this won't be an issue regarding this DYK promotion. Soaper1234 - talk 23:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Uganda

Created by Micheal Kaluba (talk). Self-nominated at 17:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Micheal Kaluba I added a hook but it is not great - if you would like a different hook please fill in ALT1 above Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalGhanaPartey I am not reviewing but I can suggest more hooks if needed as I think this is Micheal Kaluba's first submission for DYK - was not sure if you are reviewing as you wrote below comment line - would you like to continue review? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. First-time nominee, QPQ exempt. The hook is fine (I wouldn't have associated glaciers with Uganda myself). Unfortunately, there is a real need for copyediting. I have requested a copyedit at GOCE and will not approve this page until that is done. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 01:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahichchhatra Jain temples

Ahichchhatra Jain temple
Ahichchhatra Jain temple

Created by Pratyk321 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hello, FYI: the copyedit of this article has been completed. Pratyk321 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. Did a bit of cleanup (and changed the hook a bit to past tense) but GOCE did a good job. Hook fact checks out. Citations look reasonable. Image is freely licensed. No other issues I see. However, Pratyk321, you have now made 7 DYK nominations. You need to review a page as QPQ for this one and as QPQ for Nakodaji (you must review a page for every nomination after your fifth). Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sammi Brie, yes I have nominated a total of 6 DYK nominations including Nakodaji and Ahichchhatra Jain temples. I was not aware about QPQ review. Thanks a lot for sharing this information. Could you please confirm if QCP review means I should start review other's DYK nominations? Pratyk321 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pratyk321: Yes, that is correct. (There was a recent change to eligibility requirements concerning the threshold being nominations instead of successfully accepted pages, which is why you are affected.) Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 07:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie: Thanks for the update. Could you please share if there are any steps prior to start reviewing a DYK nomination. Also, I have nominated 6 articles so far. I'll start with reviewing one of the DYK nomination meawhile since this one would be my 5th nomination, could you please approve this article for DYK. Thanks and regards Pratyk321 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie: Thanks a lot update. Apologize I forget about one rejected nomination. Also, thanks a lot for sharing link listing my DYK nomination. Regards Pratyk321 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 21[edit]

Yi Jeonggyu

Created by Jirangmoon (talk). Self-nominated at 10:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not particularly interesting or notable.
  • Other problems: Red XN - The hook is also not grammatically correct and should replace the comma with "was".
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg The article needs some work and a new hook. SounderBruce 22:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I fixed the grammatical error in the hook and in the article (using Grammarly). As for neutrality and the hook, I don't see any problems - aren't those subjective assessments? If you tell me what is non-neutral, I'll take another look. As for interesting or not, I think this hook is interesting. Do we need a third opinion? --Jirangmoon (talk)
Third opinion: Yeah, I don't think it's a particularly interesting hook either. It's also not particularly notable by itself, given that the crossover between Korean anarchism and nationalism are very well documented. On this issue, Yi Jeonggyu was far from unique. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alts based on items sourced in the lede but they need page numbers for verification. czar 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Thank you very much! For Alt1, the page number is 12 : "Undoubtedly, the goal of Korean independence movement was to regain independence from Japanese colonialism, to which Yi had devoted himself with anarchism."
For Alt2, the page number is 25 : "Yi Jeonggyu (1897–1984), one of the most active Korean anarchists in 1920s China, just like other Korean exiles, began his career as an independence activist and converted later to anarchism." --Jirangmoon (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Jirangmoon! Those sources do not quite confirm the language used in the alts and the article, if you can rephrase both to match their sources? I.e., they do not say he was a "pioneer" or "key", unless there is another section that says so. czar 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Thank you. Can you review the following quote which contains the word pioneer? It's from page 11.

Echoes to Sim’s description of his complex life as both an anarchist and a nationalist can be found in Yi Jeonggyu’s recall. Yi, a prominent anarchist active in various educational and rural movements before and after 1945, too poses his life as one with such a tension but, in his case, shifting further toward anarchism that offered him a vision of social revolution, rather than simply a nationalism-driven political revolution that aimed merely at national independence. Yi explains the shift that occurred in his life as follows: The first half of my life had gone through a life for struggle for independence movement, and [then in the second half] turned for a movement for social revolution of an ideological idea [sic] that has been viewed in this world, without any good reason, as too extreme. [The second half has been] a life as one of the pioneers, who has been indulged in anarchism, that is, no-government movement.

Will this be ok for ALT2? --Jirangmoon (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jirangmoon, it looks like that quotes Yi as saying that he himself is a pioneer. Since that is an exceptional claim, it requires an exceptional, secondary source. We could say "Yi thought of himself as a pioneer" for ALT2. I've updated both ALTs to match the source but the article text will need to be corrected for both as well. czar 13:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Sorry for a late reply.
Regarding the ALT2 matter, I am a bit confused in editing things on Wikipedia as a Wiki beginner. I do not remember why I wrote the sentence with the word, “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu because I started the article more than 6 months ago. Anyhow, I have tried not to move or copy source sentences to the Wikipedia articles as they are except for quotations. In that process, even though the source articles does not have the word “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu, I thought that Yi Jeonggyu could be one of the pioneers of Korean anarchist movement because Yi Jeonggyu influenced Yi Hoeyeong who was called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” in the source. So if someone was doing something before the “pioneer”, isn’t he even more of a pioneer?
See the quotations below:
Page 23: In addition, Shin’s friendship with Yi Hoeyeong (1867–1932), often called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism,” must have been a factor as well for his acceptance of anarchism.
Page 27-28: It seems that Yi Hoeyeong surely was impressed with Yi Jeonggyu’s project and anarchist ideas with regard to the proposed ideal farming villages in Hunan. Indeed, it is said that Yi Jeonggyu’s role was decisive in converting Yi Hoeyeong, who was persuaded by the former about the goal of anarchism and thus accepted it in later 1923.38 Discussing with many kinds of independence activists and radicals, including Chinese and Taiwanese, Yi Hoeyeong finally chose anarchism for his own answer. The national goal, of course, was the key that drew him to anarchism.
Page 28: In this sense, to call Yi Hoeyeong “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” is an interesting indication of the coming trajectory and transnational character of Korean anarchism in China in the 1930s and ’40s.
Also, from a Korean article at http://m.kyeongin.com/view.php?key=20190501010000158: “우당 이회영을 아나키즘 사상가로 인도한 이가 바로 이정규다 “ It was Yi Jeonggyu who led Yi Hoeyeong to become an anarchist.
--Jirangmoon (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I've updated ALT2. @SounderBruce, want to take another peek? czar 01:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Clingers

The Clingers in 1969.
The Clingers in 1969.
  • ... that The Clingers was the first girl band to play their own instruments and be signed with a major label? Source: Documentary called "The Clinger Sisters: The First All Girl Rock & Roll Band"
    • ALT1: ... that Melody Clinger of the girl band The Clingers met the drummer for The Beach Boys, Dennis Wilson, after wolf-whistling his Rolls Royce on her way home from a guitar lesson? Source: pg. 76 of the Ugly Things article on The Clingers: (quoting Melody): "You know how I met [Dennis Wilson]? I was walking home with my guitar from my guitar lesson. It was right there on Riverside and Vineland where the freeway comes over there. I was walking and I saw this Rolls Royce. I used to wolf whistle real good [...] I whistled real loud, and they put on the brakes and backed up, and it turns out to be Dennis Wilson!"
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Goodbye Normal Street

Created by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Divya Saxena

Created by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 08:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. A full DYK review is still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @Bahnfrend: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Looks good from a reference standpoint. But I'm really not sure about this hook. From reading the obstructing the field article, this is clearly a very rare event. Our readers that understand cricket will understand why this would have, ahem, sparked a row. But this isn't very obvious to me. Is there a way to reword this in a way that might make it more accessible to readers that don't know the sport and provide some context? Perhaps... Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0a: ... that Canadian cricketer Divya Saxena was almost dismissed for allegedly obstructed the field but was ruled "not out"?

Detention of Pavel Pernikaŭ

Moved to mainspace by Homoatrox (talk) and Levivich (talk). Nominated by Levivich and Homoatrox (talk) at 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Pinging EEng, my hooker of choice. Levivich 18:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've returned to this several times in hopes of coming up with something better, but I've drawn a blank, partly because even I think this maybe isn't such a good basis for a joke. I did have the idea of comparing a Belarusian prison to an Arbcom case (which is worse?) but it didn't gel. Sorry. EEng 02:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I guess that makes four of us so I've struck 2 and 3. Levivich 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from an uninvolved editor I dislike ALT2 and 3, since they are too vague and aren't true to the actual meaning. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, ALT1 and ALT0 could be shortened as well. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think "was described as" is sufficient attribution for a comparison between Israel and "totalitarian regimes", especially given WP:RSP's notes on Al Jazeera. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi TLC, it wasn't Al Jazeera that said it but the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. That could be attributed in the hook if desired, or one of the ALTs could be used. (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • that's my mistake- looks like the quote was printed in PBS, too, so that's fine. I do think that even if it's B'Tselem (the way I learned hebrew pronunciation would render it betselem, but I digress), it should be attributed—it's firebrand-y language. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 09:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The DYK rules say that "hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." In this case all the alternatives present only one side of the events. I would suggest writing a hook that either gives both perspectives per WP:DUE or focuses on a less controversial aspect of these events. Alaexis¿question? 10:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are ALT1 and ALT2 not a basic statement of fact? Israeli officials stated that the goal of the designation was to reduce the groups' funding. (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it would also be a basic statement of fact to say "Israel designated six human rights organizations as terrorist saying that they were linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine." This would reflect the Israeli perspective. My point is that the hooks should follow NPOV either by reflecting, with appropriate weight, different perspectives or by using uncontroversial facts for hooks. Alaexis¿question? 05:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And re ALT2, it appears factually not true, the evidence was apparently strong enough that at least one organisation has been blacklisted had its funding by Netherlands cut [24]. Tbh I think the article itself should be improved before featuring at DYK. Alaexis¿question? 06:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the article you cite: "“The external review shows that no evidence has been found of financial flows between the UAWC and the PFLP. Nor has any proof been found of organization unity between the UAWC and the PFLP or of the PFLP’s providing direction to the UAWC,” wrote Foreign Minister Ben Knapen and Foreign Trade Minister Tom de Brujin." The key allegation relating to the ban is precisely that these groups are fronts for the PFLP and are secretly funding it. The article also doesn't say the organization was "blacklisted" except by Israel. The +972 source is talking about a specific dossier being unpersuasive, which is not contradicted by the source you provided. I've edited the hook to clarify. (t · c) buidhe 11:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - All the hooks promote one side of a contentious issue.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Alaexis¿question? 13:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alaexis, you still haven't told me what "positive" assessments should be included. The only source you brought up is not about the 2021 ban. What sources are not included? (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly I wasn't clear enough. There is just one sentence about the reasons for the ban. It didn't appear out of the blue, there are various claimed links between these organisations and PFLP (see Union_of_Agricultural_Work_Committees#Affiliate_of_PFLP, Al-Haq#Jabarin's_appointments). I believe that WP:NPOV requires a more balanced presentation. The Reactions section is almost half of the article and it still omits the fact that the Netherlands cut the funding of one of the groups. At any rate, this is my opinion and you can request someone else to re-review this nomination. Cheers. Alaexis¿question? 19:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking in from the outside at this, the reaction of the Netherlands is an outlier. The overarching response has been one of condemnation for the clear targeting of civil society groups, including condemnation from the UN. And the lack of any evidence to back the claims of illicit funding continues to this day. But perhaps a neutral hook could involve simply stating just those facts - sth along the lines of: ... that the 2021 ban on six Palestinian human and civil rights organizations remains unjustified to this day by any demonstrable, publicly revealed evidence? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's not too far off ALT1 - what exactly about the information contained in ALT1 is not factual or could be considered to be lacking neutrality? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton–Deepwater District

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new and long enough, but I'm just wondering if the hook could more precisely match what's in the actual article. "The 2% grade..." bit reads quite technically and isn't directly cited either. At least state somewhere in the article that the railway was so steep instead of giving the reader the extra job of having to infer/click on the grade link. More importantly, I'm not sure how reliable some of the references are, blogspot ones are 99% of the time a no-no---in this instance, the photog page you've cited is almost certainly bad. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce: I added that a 2% grade is very steep to the article text. Given the topic, I think that a blog post from someone who specializes in railroad photography is reasonably reliable enough. I could try to find a more reliable source if you really want one. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 19:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still unconvinced about the reliability of either cited source. The first is currently not accessible to me because of security concerns. The second is, as stated, hosted by blogspot and just looks bad in a WP:DUCK way. Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foamer train editor here. I've looked at both sources and I don't think either meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. For what it's worth, the first source is likely accurate, but per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines we need a better source than a photographer's blog. There's very likely publications out there about this line which would substantiate the hook, but it's well outside the area I work on (southern New England). This issue (we can't find reliable sources covering the topic) is an example of why I dislike the creation of standalone pages for most rail lines, but that's another matter. And as for the hook, the source claims that NS still breaks the trains into two parts to this day, so the hook should not imply it was only a past practice. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 22[edit]

Babi Yar. Context

Babi Yar in 1941
Babi Yar in 1941
  • ... that the documentary Babi Yar. Context shows long-unseen footage of buildings in central Kyiv being bombed by the Soviets, by remote control, after the Nazi occupation began? Source: https://europeanfilmawards.eu/en_EN/film/babi-yar-context.19560 "Some of the footage I work with has been buried in the archives for decades – nobody has ever seen it. Not even historians, specialising in the Holocaust in the USSR. One such episode is the explosions of Kreschatik in September 1941. Kiev’s central street was mined with remote controlled explosives by the NKVD (Soviet secret service) before the Red army had retreated from Kiev. The detonations of the explosives were carried out a few days after the Germans took the city."

Created by Coretheapple (talk). Self-nominated at 18:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: I just noticed that Holocaust Remembrance Day is April 28, 2022. It may not be a bad idea to run this on that date. Sorry for the short notice, but it just came to my attention. https://www.ushmm.org/remember/days-of-remembrance/resources/calendar Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coretheapple: Interesting article, but "bombed by remote control" suggests remotely controlled aircraft to me. We do have an article on Khreshchatyk that could be linked. Do you think you can make the hook more precise? —Kusma (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the word bombed, though technically correct, may be misleading. But it looks good to me, otherwise. How about:
ALT1 ... that the documentary Babi Yar. Context shows long-unseen footage of buildings in central Kyiv being destroyed by remotely detonated mines after the Nazi occupation began?
ALT1 is largely the same hook fact but without the potential aircraft implication. Radzy0 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly shorter and including the actors:
  • ALT2 ... that the documentary Babi Yar. Context shows footage of the destruction of buildings in Nazi-occupied Kyiv by remotely detonated Soviet mines?
Can probably still be improved. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 24[edit]

Yosef Avidar

Yosef Avidar in 1960
Yosef Avidar in 1960

Created by Dunutubble (talk). Self-nominated at 16:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg - New enough. Long enough (barely - 1526 characters). Within policy. Hook is interesting due to the circumstances of their meeting, and is short enough. Inline citations support the hook. Looks good Dunutubble, the issue is you are missing the QPQ. Ping me when you have done that. Onel5969 TT me 13:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is 199 characters long which is just below the hook length requirement and thus puts it in discretionary territory. Perhaps instead of mentioning his wife's full name, "future wife" could be linked to her article instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0a ... that Israeli commander and statesman Yosef Avidar (pictured) met his future wife when he was sent to Vienna for treatment after losing his right hand in a lesson on how to use grenades?
Something like this I guess. The hook is still a bit on the long side so may be a way to make it more concise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 04:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0b: ... that Israeli statesman Yosef Avidar (pictured) met his future wife after a grenade accident?
ALT0c: ... that Israeli statesman Yosef Avidar (pictured) met his future wife with a bang?
ALT0b is good if the hook won't go in the quirky slot, ALT0c is my preferred suggestion should a quirky slot is preferred. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sweden riots

  • ... that the leader of an anti-Islam group in Sweden burned a Quran, the Muslim holy book, during the holy month of Ramadan with police permission and caused 2022 Sweden riots?

Created by Dunutubble (talk). Nominated by Aye1399 (talk) at 14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    • Reviewed: Not required
  • Comment (not review), Aye1399, the hook needs to contain a bolded wikilink to the subject, e.g. 2022 Sweden riots or riots. I have done some edits to the hook's grammar. TSventon (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye1399, please can you edit the hook so it mentions the subject of the article, otherwise it won't be usable for DYK. By the way, you need to add a user name and sign your comment in the same edit to generate a notification. TSventon (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article was created by Dunutubble, not Aye1399. Dunutubble, are you happy with this nomination? TSventon (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out that anyone can nominate an article created by someone else; it happens all the time at DYK. If the creator sees issues with the nomination, they are free to point them out, or to suggest alternate hooks. I've adjusted the "Created by" line above to reflect the creation and nomination info; the DYKmake templates are correct. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I would like to request another reviewer. Aye1399 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you evrik. Aye1399, "Comment (not review)" normally means the editor is not intending to review the nomination, so I am happy for someone else to do so. TSventon (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TSventon: If you have any other comments on the article, could you address them here rather than reversing my work? Thank you. --evrik (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik:, can you explain why you have commented out my Better source needed tag? If a tag is resolved or unnecessary, it can be removed. The text preceding the Anadolu Agency (AA) reference is based on that source, not on Euronews, and inherits the AA point of view, which is not neutral, so I believe a tag is justified. TSventon (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the text based on the Anadolu Agency article with more neutral text from a Brussels Times article. I have therefore removed my Better source needed tag and your Why tag. TSventon (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg No QPQ needed. I've tagged a couple of areas that need explanation. The hook needs to be reworked. I've supplied an alternate. --evrik (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

evrik, I would suggest that triggered is a better verb than caused in your hook. The lead uses the word triggered, but should be immediately followed by a reference to support the hook. I have noted on the talk page that the first paragraph of the timeline section is not written from a neutral POV and added a better source needed tag. TSventon (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt1 "... that recent riots in Sweden were caused by the leader of an anti-Islamic group burning a Quran during the holy month of Ramadan? --evrik (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt2 "... that the burning of Quran by leader of an anti-Islamic group during the holy month of Ramadan under police protection triggered the 2022 Sweden riots?
  • evrik, I believe this is important to be in the presence of the police, and the police believe that this support is due to freedom of opinion and democracy in Sweden.Aye1399 (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aye1399: there are a lot of dependent clauses in these hooks. Can you tighten up the hooks? Also, the timeline section of the article needs some clarification. --evrik (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik:,Hi, thanks. "there are a lot of dependent clauses in these hook," what is the problem with this? The hook can contain multiple facts and be supported by multiple sources.Aye1399 (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Does anyone else want to weigh in on the hooks? --evrik (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

John D'Orazio

5x expanded by Steelkamp (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is not a review, but this hook fails DYK criteria 4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals...should be avoided." ♠PMC(talk) 16:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambati Rambabu

5x expanded by DaxServer (talk). Self-nominated at 17:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @DaxServer: New enough and long enough. User is QPQ exempt. The ALT0 hook doesn't work for me as neither the article nor the hook source say he wanted to be an actor, just that he was an actor. I do think the hook source supports ALT2, which I'm putting below and would like the nominator to approve. ALT1 is impermissible as unduly negative (WP:DYK rule 4a).
ALT2: ... that Andhra Pradesh state Minister for Irrigation Ambati Rambabu dabbled in acting before entering politics?
  • I have a specific question about content that's comparatively minor. You write that He moved Telangana High Court (then called Andhra Pradesh High Court, before the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh). Why not simply write "He moved Andhra Pradesh High Court" and avoid the anachronism? Is this a common formulation for topics from around the time of the Telangana/Andhra Pradesh split?
Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christus, Menschensohn

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg A new hook may be needed here as I don't see how the currently proposed hook (i.e. a liturgy being included in a collection for young people) appeals to anyone but specialists. A hook about the stanzas may be more promising here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerda usually has a pretty good reason why she finds a fact interesting, so let's wait for that... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 06:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what you mean about the stanzas. I'd like to be as little theological as possible. I think that this hymn addresses Jesus 3 times, while the normal Kyrie calls "God - Jesus - God" might require rather more knowledge than the present suggestion. - Typically, "old" liturgical things like Kyrie are not for young people, - this one tries to appeal to them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first stanza requests enlightenment to see God face to face. The second stanza recalls that Jesus carried on the Cross what we suffer. The third stanza requests that Jesus, called ("gerufen") from grave and death, may be with us on life's steps ("Stufen"). This part of the article could work as a hook in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a lot of theology, - what should a Muslim reader do with this information? It's also not unusual, but rather typical for Kyrie to word three things - spoken or sung - and end each with "Kyrie eleison" or "Christe eleison". I also would not know how to squeeze it fairly - mentioning all three - in a hook. This author (Schlegel) is good in wording religious things in a way appealling to young people - that's the basic message, and not only for specialists, - perhaps you can word that better? Or do you want to make it quirky by saying that he sort of rhymed the Greek "eleison" with the German "Menschensohn" three times? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the elesion rhyming thing can be mentioned/referenced in the article, sure. I'm also not sure why the theology thing is being brought up since it was far from my mind when I looked at the article and the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • No reference mentions the rhyme because it's just there (son - sohn). What about a Muslim who may know nothing about Jesus carrying the Cross. The concept of "Menschensohn" is hard enough for Christians, so I was shy there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I really don't see how being included in a collection for young people works as a DYK hook. I think something about the content itself could work better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any specific thing without relying on Christian background. It's unusual to call Jesus three times instead of Lord - Jesus - Lord, but I wouldn't know how to say so in 200 chars. - Need (to make) food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems we're stuck here so I'm asking Epicgenius to see if there's another path forward here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping @Narutolovehinata5. Regarding Gerda's statement that "'old' liturgical things like Kyrie are not for young people", I feel that this fact may not necessarily be intuitive. This especially applies if we're trying to appeal to young people, since they tend to be less involved in religion compared with their elders. Perhaps there is a better way to rephrase the hook to make this fact more evident? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I'm no sure I can do that, with my limited English. I think the hook should be about this specific song, not general reception trends.
    ALT1: ... that two versions of "Jesus Christus, Menschensohn", an expansion of the liturgical Kyrie written by Helmut Schlegel, are contained in a 2013 choral song book? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt, what I meant to say is that readers may not necessarily understand the significance of including this "expansion of the liturgical Kyrie" in a song book. That is probably what NLH5 is objecting to. For example, I had to also click on the Kyrie link to understand the original hook.
    As for ALT1, I would say that I don't quite understand why including two versions of "Jesus Christus, Menschensohn" in a choral song book is out of the ordinary. Maybe there's something I'm missing and there is a good reason this fact is interesting. In any case, it seems to me like you want to say that "an expansion of the liturgical Kyrie, which is not typically targeted toward young people, is included in a song book for young people". I suggest we try modifying ALT0 again. Alternatively, we can propose another hook that is unrelated to Kyrie. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the songbook, there is no other entry in it twice that I see, and it's by two different composers, telling a bit how much it is liked. I believe we need the relation to the Kyrie, because that's what it is used for in the liturgy of the mass, and without mentioning it, we'd have to translate (and probably explain) the German title, which would be longer. I bet that many of our readers will connect to Kyrie (Gloria Sanctus ...) without clicking, and for the others, there's a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg To give this a proper review, the article was new and long enough at the time of the nomination, is free from close paraphrasing, the nominator has done a QPQ, and I am assuming good faith on the German sources. To clarify my point above, Epicgenius is right in that I do not see how a Kyrie being included in a collection, let alone for young people, makes for a broadly interesting hook. Regular readers may not immediately get the point, especially the ones unfamiliar with Kyries. As Epicgenius said, the intended idea is probably workable, it's just not working out with the currently proposed hooks. If this hook fact doesn't work out, we may need to use a different hook fact instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... or a different reviewer? ... or a look at ALT1?
    ALT0a: ... that "Jesus Christus, Menschensohn", written in the 21st century by Helmut Schlegel to be used in masses, has been included in several song books for young people[, even in two versions for one of them]?
    I wish it had a year, to be shorter. Better wording welcome, - it's really hard for me and takes time to phrase things to your liking. We could picture Schlegel, which would show sacred context at a glance, but that image was already on the Main page, and I'd find it unfair to repeat while so many images need to be rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 doesn't solve the original issues and is arguably even worse than ALT0: at least there's promise in the idea that a music genre that doesn't normally appeal to young people is being made to appeal to young people. ALT1 simply says that this work was included in a compilation, which isn't really a hook. It's a statement of fact, which works in an article body but doesn't really work for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(you probably know that "eleison" means "have mercy".) All songs of NGL are meant to make old content acceptable - or better expressed - to young people, - that's nothing specific for this hymn. I actually have another DYK in that direction, let's not bore readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All songs of NGL are meant to make old content acceptable - or better expressed - to young people, - that's nothing specific for this hymn Yes, but would the average reader know that? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Accountability Foundation

  • ... that the American Accountability Foundation claimed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez violated rules of the United States Congress by attending the Met Gala? Source: “ A conservative watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday, claiming she violated congressional rules by attending the high-priced event.

'There are serious questions about whether or not her ticket — donated or purchased with campaign funds — was permissible under the code of congressional ethics,' said The American Accountability Foundation in a statement."

NBC News

Created by Thriley (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Earwig says there is some close paraphrasing - it should get cleaned up. --evrik (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik: It looks like Earwig is picking up the descriptive quotes. I changed the wording at the beginning of one sentence, but everything else looks fine to me. Thriley (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg It seems like the hooks are unmerited and somewhat biased. --evrik (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I suggest:[reply]

--evrik (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there's a way to use the Met Gala critique? I tried to make ALT1 pretty light and without malice. Thriley (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm signing off for the night. I'll think about it, but it seems that the AOC link is unmerited. --evrik (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why unmerited? It has been written about in several sources. Since the Met Gala is next Monday I thought readers would find it interesting. Thriley (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of this organization is to tar their political opponents. What is said may be accurately true, they did make accusations; however, there is no evidence that the charges were upheld. --evrik (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I used the word "criticized". Is that not ok? Is there a way to phrase it better? Thriley (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that DYK hooks have little room for context, and giving it makes this hook boring; "right wing action group criticizes AOC" is, y'know, same as it ever was, but "American Accountability Foundation criticizes AOC" sounds like she got a slap from a legitimately fairness-interested organization. I don't think that link has much interestingness value, honestly. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more. --evrik (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there an estimate of the amount of money that they have raised? What about a hook like “that the AAF, a conservative dark money group which raised x million dollars in 2021, criticized the ethics of AOC for attending the Met Gala?” I can’t do editing until later. Any help finding a mention of their money would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Someone else want to weigh in on the hooks? --evrik (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg I do not find much neutrality in the article. The use of the New Yorker article which states: "The A.A.F., which is run by conservative white men, has particularly focussed on blocking women and people of color. As of last month, more than a third of the twenty-nine candidates it had publicly attacked were people of color, and nearly sixty per cent were women." My problem with using this as a standalone reference is this: If Biden is mainly nominating women and people of color, wouldn't it stand to reason that the AAF was just opposing them on principal and not because of their sex or color? For instance this article put out by the Brennan Center for Justice, "To date, Pres­id­ent Biden has nomin­ated the most demo­graph­ic­ally diverse set of judi­cial candid­ates in history, includ­ing the first LGBTQ woman to serve on a court of appeals, the first Muslim Amer­ican to serve as a federal judge, and the first Black woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Twenty-six percent of all Black women currently serving as active judges were nomin­ated by Pres­id­ent Biden." Choosing an ALT, I would say ALT4 is best, but that part of the article needs to be qualified in the article first. I would like to see more neutrality in the article prior to promotion. Bruxton (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see this group as part of the movement that began among Republicans during the Obama presidency. Instead of participating in the normal political process, Republicans would rather break down the the ability of the opposition to govern and use dark money groups to tar them. To call this group race-based would not be accurate. I would think they would have been very happy if someone just like Clarence Thomas was nominated instead of Jackson. Thriley (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Someone else want to weigh in on the hooks? --evrik (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a different word other than "derail"? I'm also wondering if it should be mentioned that the group is a "conservative opposition research group" but I feel that could violate the "focuses unduly on negative aspects" guideline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the sand throwing quote. Perhaps:
ALT5:... that the dark money American Accountability Foundation aims to "take a big handful of sand and throw it in the gears of the Biden administration"? Thriley (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I like Alt 5. @Thriley: I still see some paraphrasing issues. --evrik (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Medical textiles

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 05:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg As usual, I have made some minor amendments to the article and the hooks (I prefer the second one, but both are fine). However, I think the article needs a bit more work. In particular, it needs to draw a sharper distinction between, on the one hand, the textiles (ie the cloths, materials, etc) and, on the other hand, the fibres and/or other substances used to make the textiles and the applications or products (eg bandages, PPE) made from the textiles. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bahnfrend: Thanks for your feedback. I have tried to incorporate the given comments. Kindly see if recent edits satisfy the requirements. Best regards. RV (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RAJIVVASUDEV: I've had a quick look at the modified version of the article, and also at some of the references. It seems that the references (or at least some of them) may similarly blur the distinction between the cloths, materials etc and the articles made from them. I think that's a bit odd, and also confusing. I say that because the Wikipedia article "textiles" states clearly that that word, on its own, refers only to the cloths, materials, etc, and not to objects (eg clothing) made from them. But of course Wikipedia can only repeat what the references say as to the meaning and/or use of the different expression "medical textiles". In the next few days, I will have a closer look at the references. It may be necessary to modify the article a bit more to make the point that the expression "medical textiles" has a somewhat loosely defined meaning (and/or is often used loosely). Bahnfrend (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'll have a closer look at both the subject article and the textiles article in the next few days. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RAJIVVASUDEV: I note that you made quite a lot of amendments to the Textile article yesterday. Are you now ready for me to look closely at both articles? Bahnfrend (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kadolph, Sara J. (1998). Textiles. Internet Archive. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Merrill. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-13-494592-7.
  2. ^ Joseph, Marjory L. (1977). Introductory textile science. Internet Archive. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p. 439. ISBN 978-0-03-089970-6.
  3. ^ "textile | Description & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-08-19.

Atomitat

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg I do have some questions around the hook and the associated text in the article. The hooks refers to "United States Civil Defense" and in the article it states the home "meet their specifications". "United States Civil Defense" isn't an actual entity so de-capitalisation definitely needs to occur and ideally a clearer source would be found to attribute who set the regulations (without original research)

The other issue is whether it's factually correct. This source states:

"But, as illustrated in the infamous West German government pamphlet Jeder hat eine Chance (Everyone has a Chance) (1961), or in the Underground Space Center (in the University of Minnesota), Swayze’s underground dream-world, was just one of endless schemes for subterranean survival that proliferated throughout the Cold War."

I haven't done a deep dive looking for sources to provide some clarity here but I suspect we would need an ALT hook with adjusted language. Seddon talk 22:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seddon: Thanks for the review! I very much appreciate it. You are right about the capitalization. Regarding the claim of meeting the specifications, in the source I provided the house met the requirements. In the source you provided, "according to Swayze, it was the first underground house in the US to meet civic defence specifications." I don't know if it is fair for the researcher in the source you found to say it was a "scheme", people like Swayze and Henderson actually lived underground. The word scheme is a charged word and a form of editorializing. It was also written in 2018 and it minimizes the very palpable fear of nuclear war that the Americans of the 1960s lived with. I can find no other source which refers to these Swayze designed homes as a scheme. The cold war and the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis were the backdrop. The lead lined doors on the Atomitat were specifically for protecting occupants from nuclear fallout. Swayze believed in the homes and even wrote a book about them just one year before he died. Would you like me to come up with more hooks? Here are two.
  • ALT1 ... that the Atomitat home is secure against damaging weather?
is secure against damaging weather.
  • ALT2 ... that the Atomitat home is 13 ft (4.0 m) underground?
13 feet underground Bruxton (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]