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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
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.
Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
Hook should make sense grammatically.
Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
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.
Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)
For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
Check that there's a bold link to the article.
If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the ((DYKmake)) and ((DYKnom)) templates) at the bottom
Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
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.
Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
At the upper left
Change ((DYKsubpage to ((subst:DYKsubpage
Change |passed= to |passed=yes
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.
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.
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 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
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.
Comment: Am a novice, please advise if I got this wrong.
Created by Pinkchiken (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Biodiversity Impact Credit; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Comment. @Pinkchiken: Your hook oversimplifies and overpromises. "Designed to reduce risk" is not the same as "all you have to do is buy these Biodiversity Impact Credit to stop species extinction" which is what the hook you originally proposed suggests. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response. @Cielquiparle: Good point. I'd like to change the hook to "... that species extinction risk can be reduced by buying Biodiversity Impact Credits?" This version does not over-promise. You can buy the credits only if there is a corresponding project which has generated a reduction in mean species extinction risk. When you buy the credit, you cover the cost of the project (or part of), so you contribute to making it happen. If this logic was not correct we'd not be allowed to say that a donation to Oxfam reduces poverty in the world. Please could you help me revise the proposal such that it does not return to the back of the queue?Pinkchiken 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pinkchiken: I have suggested a better "safer" ALT hook above. Thus I am no longer eligible to review this, but perhaps we can find another reviewer now. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Thank you. What I meant to ask was how to technically revise the proposal. But I think I got it: I just edited the text in this page. Let's see what another reviewer thinks. I'm trying to avoid watering the hook down so much that it might become unattractive to readers.
Article was nominated within a week of being moved to mainspace from AfC, so is new enough. I'm not even going to check the length, it is way more than long enough. The article is properly in-line cited and the copyvio detector finds no issues. The hook topic is kind of the entire topic of the article, so there's multiple sentences I could say are cited in-line for it. So I'm going to count that one as good. Honestly, Cielquiparle, I prefer Pinkchiken's hook. I find it to still be an accurate description and it's a more interesting, quippy way to phrase things. Other than that, they're a new nominator, so no QPQ is required. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren: Sure, ALT0 may be a quippier hook, but it's possible during a 24-hour run on the main page that another reader like myself will ask where the evidence is that they do in fact reduce species extinction risk...especially if the source cited is so WP:WEASEL in wording. In which case at least you have a backup hook now rather than have to pull the hook entirely. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more work. Referencing isn't up to scratch as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Biodiversity Impact Credit. I would also suggest that the content of the lead be distributed throughout the article, and a new lead be written that summarises the article. This would make the article comply with WP:LEAD. I'd fail this nomination if this aspect wasn't tidied up. Schwede66 23:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Yes, thank you for the alert, keenly aware! Will have time to look at this over the weekend 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66 @4meter4 @Cielquiparle Thank you for the critical comments. I added references as suggested and made sure that the lead addresses the main points and all topics mentioned in the lead are taken up further below as per WP:LEAD. I added references in the lead mindful of this. Did I miss anything? Pinkchiken 7 April 2024 19:09 (UTC)
Comment. @Schwede66 Does this address your concern? If we don't hear back from you soon we will have to open this up to a new reviewer.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't have to be me who checks this again. I'm currently busy with queue admin checks (which is how I came across this nomination, if I remember correctly). Anyone can review this now. Schwede66 19:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded 5x, from 319 to 1614 characters; long enough. Well-sourced, neutral, no plagiarism. I like the first hook; its source is reliable. Great image; I agree that's a better one than the book cover. Well done taking a stub to a short-ish and salvageable article. Good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have pulled this nom from prep, as it fails to include a summary of the book's contents and thus fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. It also contains at least two errors, one which says Evanier "obtained" artworks from Kirby "while working for him" - he only obtained access, and not apparently while working for him, and another which says the book was met with "positive" reviews when in fact it was panned by The Guardian critic. The article clearly needs more work before it can be featured, if it should be featured at all given the apparent errors. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that fitness influences the personality of mustard leaf beetles? Source: Müller, Thorben; Juškauskas, Augustinas (2018-04-01). "Inbreeding affects personality and fitness of a leaf beetle". Animal Behaviour. 138: 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.02.002. ISSN 0003-3472. S2CID 54420066.
Reviewed:
5x expanded by MidnightBarber (talk). Self-nominated at 03:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Phaedon cochleariae; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Comment only I've placed a citation needed tag. Müller (2016) produces a referencing error. You might want to fix those two issues before this can go anywhere. Schwede66 21:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MidnightBarber: Please respond to this priority issue or this nomination may be closed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I fixed the referencing error, it seemed like I cited it as journal when it was actually a conference. If I cited it incorrectly please let me know. I rephrased where there previously was a citation needed tag so my intention is more clear. I think that's all of them fixed, but I'm more than happy to edit something if it's not up to standard. User: MidnightBarber
@MidnightBarber: (By the way: sign your posts with ~~~~ in the same edit for pings to work.) New enough and long enough. Nominator is new to DYK and does not need to review another page. Hook fact checks out to provided source and is in article with citation. Priority item: The line Their elytra are a reflective dark blue-green color and are abundantly dotted with dorsal glands in a parallel lined pattern. Their antennae are black in color. This species of leaf beetle has not been thoroughly studied for any notable sexually dimorphic traits. needs to be cited. Is it also possible to increase the citation density a bit such that entire paragraphs cited to one source can be more granularly identified where in the source each item comes from? Ping me when you can respond to those issues. (Also having someone in WP:DISCORD help me clean up some of the citations to use citation templates.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that flight arrest within the carabid beetle Nebria brevicollis allows for larger ovaries and eggs? Source: Nelemans, M. N. E. (1987-07-01). "Possibilities for flight in the carabid beetle Nebria brevicollis (F.)". Oecologia. 72 (4): 502–509.
Reviewed:
Created by L.marcoymarquez (talk). Self-nominated at 16:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nebria brevicollis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Note: the nomination says that this was created by the nominator, but actually the article was created in 2009. It however appears to be a 5x expansion; as such, the article should be reviewed as a 5x expansion rather than as a newly-created article. Note that the nominator hasn't edited since the 2nd and is part of a WikiEd class, so these are to be kept in mind by the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L.marcoymarquez: Hi Lara, the page is new enough as a 5x expansion and large enough. The nominator is new and does not need to review another nomination. The hook fact checks out, and I was able to access the journal source. The primary issue is that there are two uncited sections that require citation to a source: As an emerging field of interest, researchers plan to conduct further studies in which a wider range of learning assays are tested to understand the cognition-personality relationships of N. brevicollis. and Conditions of low food supply can negatively influence both the number of eggs produced and the viability of the eggs. If you can cite these, we are likely ready for DYK. (Note: Editor last edited on 19 March. Will be pinging and emailing.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L.marcoymarquez has been editing but has not returned. Unless she returns within a reasonable timeframe I propose closing this.--Launchballer 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that BlueMoonset has left the nom a message, it might be better to wait a week from now before closing this, just in case the nom responds. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is a way to shorten this DYK do feel free to suggest an alternative that might flow better, the name is deliberately long though (and thus does take up a lot of character space) and I want to keep the context because I feel like the act in itself is quite hooky and the broader context where it is in makes it make much more sense. Thank you in advance to the reviewer!
Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 04:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Savungaz Valincinan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
@Launchballer: Just for some clarity, the (Chinese) name is " 李我要單列族名我的布農族名字是Savungaz Valincinan", which is translated to the following. There are some publications that remark the spectacle of it being 34 characters in length such as: "34 characters! Legislative candidate with the longest name in next year's general election hopes the government will pay attention to the demand for a separate ethnic name" ("34字！明年大選名字最長立委參選人 盼政府重視單列族名訴求 - 政治 - 自由時報電子報") but that is a whole other fish to fry because it removes a bit of the spectacle if I had included a sentence in a whole other language for the hook. I think your hook does streamline things much better so thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornithoptera (talk • contribs)
QPQ: Overall: Very interesting fact! All criteria checks out; however, it seems that the QPQ review given is not valid, as it did not follow the renomination rule properly. Skyshiftertalk 22:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Skyshifter:, thank you for taking your time to review this! Hmm, since someone followed up on my QPQ in my place (I wasn't pinged for the following developments), does that nullify that one? I just wanted to clarify before I do another one to fulfill that criterion. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe the QPQ goes to Gerda Arendt in this case. Skyshiftertalk 20:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: hi, thank you for letting me know! I'll try and get back to this next week, been a bit of a busy week with final exams and final projects due on the horizon. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improved to Good Article status by Lord Theoden (talk) and Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Lord Theoden (talk) at 21:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elijah Wood; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Overall: I'd be interested in seeing some hook variants. One source for example mentions that at the time this was not common. Which also implies that its potentially become increasingly common. I'd also be interested in seeing some alts about other aspects of Elijah, for example I didn't know that he owns a record company and is a DJ, and there seems to potentially be more. Seddontalk 23:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improved to Good Article status by Michaeldble (talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Overall: No previous DYK noms. Passed GA recently. Copyvio check passes. Quick question though about the hook, "earned fewer votes" doesn't feel like the typical language used. I would have expected the phrase "received fewer votes". Not a dealbreaker in anyway, it just catches me off guard and wanted to flag it. Might be worthwhile sticking an alt here with it and allow the promoter to pick their preferred. Seddontalk 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created by 8UB3RG1N3 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Darwin Rocksitters Club; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
The article was created on time; however, the article creator was Aliceinthealice and not 8UB3RG1N3, so Aliceinthealice needs a credit as well. No QPQ required as the nominator only has three nominations. The article could probably use some minor copyediting: there are a few grammatical errors here and there, and the sentence "What made this unique was that the rocks they sat on would be a metre underwater at high tide in the crocodile infested waters." might need to be revised as it sound a bit like editorializing. My preferred hooks are the original hook and ALT1 with a slight preference for ALT1 although I will not oppose ALT0 being promoted instead. The issue is that ALT1's source, or at least the link given, doesn't mention the crocodile-infested waters thing. The link will thus need to be changed to the actual page on the website that mentions it. The source is primary, but given the noncontroversial nature it should be acceptable in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made some changes to this page to address the concerns above; I hope they address these concerns sufficiently Aliceinthealice (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aliceinthealice: Thank you. However, the edits made to the article do not address the concerns about the crocodiles because, while they mention the waters being infested with crocodiles, the sources do not make an explicit link to rocksitting. Thus, the claim and its sourcing could be classified as synthesis and thus unsuitable. If the sourcing issues with ALT1 can't be fixed, we may have just to stick with ALT0. In any case, there are still some minor grammatical errors in the article; perhaps an editor like Launchballer can give this a quick copyedit to help this move forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (talk I have removed the sentence and I would apprecaite if another editor could do the copy editing, Cheers :)
Aliceinthealice (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this a very quick copyedit, may come back for another pass.--Launchballer 08:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that N661US(pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and was involved in the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident, where the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left when the rudder jammed in flight?
ALT2: ... that N661US(pictured) was the prototype Boeing 747-400 and was involved in the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident, in which the aircraft suddenly banked hard to the left in flight?
Created by RickyCourtney (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/N661US; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
I imagine a hook about Northwest Airlines Flight 85 would be a better option given how heroic that event was. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I've added an ALT1 focused on the Northwest Airlines Flight 85 incident. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Adequate sourcing: the second paragraph in the "Northwest Airlines Flight 85" section lacks any citations, so this holds up the nomination. Also, there is at least one fact in the lead section that is I cannot find supported anywhere in the body: "The problem was blamed on metal fatigue". The entire last paragraph is supported by a dead link, but I am assuming good faith on that. Other: This doesn't hold up the nomination, but the first sentence of the lead section is pretty confusing. I highly recommend rewriting it. Hook: ALT1 is too long, so I wrote out ALT2, which is still supported by in-line citations in the article. I didn't check the citation for the original hook. Conclusion If you like my ALT2 hook and you take care of the two issues on adequate sourcing, then this nomination will be good to proceed.Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dugan Murphy, thank you for your comments. I have added a source for the metal fatigue, rewrote the first sentence and fixed the dead refs. Also, I like your ALT2. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I believe this nomination is now good to proceed with ALT2. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Can you point to where in the DYK guidelines it says that a second reviewer is needed? To the contrary, at the bottom of WP:DYKRI it says: "Nominators are encouraged to work with reviewers to come up with hooks that meet the standards of the DYK process, and new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook." Based on that, I would say this nomination is safe to proceed unless you think there is an issue with hook ALT2. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above a proposed amended version of ALT2, which should be somewhat clearer. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: I don't think a new hook alternative is needed. Furthermore, the article doesn't refer to the incident as a near miss, so I'm not sure that term is appropriate for the hook. I am nevertheless open to an argument that it is, especially if RickyCourtney thinks so. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to you and others, but as a non-specialist in this topic, the words "suddenly banked hard to the left" were not very interesting on their own - on their own, the phrase doesn't quite communicate the seriousness of the incident. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. When I discussed a nominator approving a reviewers it was agreed that that runs afoul of the rule. Bruxton (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Thank you for pointing that out! I had no idea. RickyCourtney and I will await another reviewer to approve one of these hooks. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ: - Not done Overall: All good to go to me! QPQ not needed since it's the first DYK nomination for the user. cyclopiaspeak! 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you everyone for revising the article. If Forever Young wins the UAE Derby on March 30, 2024, it may be good to change the hook from Saudi Derby to UAE Derby.
Created by NinetyNineDragon (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Forever Young (horse); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Comments: Well done for creating such an article. However, to make this article more presentable as I mentioned in the Talk area of the article that the Japanese references in the article need to be replaced with English. Both JBIS and Netkeiba have English and can readily be used as references.
The statistics needs to conform to what is used in the English wikipedia space. There are columns with abbreviations which as specific in Japanese form reader but for the US/English make no sense. Also the odds are not displayed as payout coefficients. Margins are in lengths or part of horse's posture (head, neck, nose etc...) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you very much for revising the article. The quality of the article cannot be decent without your help. Second, may I know whether there are any rules stating that English references are better than those which are not in English? For articles about Japanese stuff, isn't that Japanese references are more accurate and relevant?
Third, for your comment about the abbreviations in the statistics section, could you provide some good articles for my reference? You may guess that I am not that familiar with horse racing from my contributions (but obviously someone with limited knowledge cannot write this article). NinetyNineDragon (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comment and not a review, but even as someone who's watched Uma Musume, I'm not a fan of the hook. It's more about Fujita or even the game itself than the horse, and the guidelines say that hooks that are only tangentially about the bolded article should be avoided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the hook is definitely not tangentially about the article. The information in the hook is completely mentioned in the headline of the source (the Nikkan Sports article) I put above. I guess not everyone here knows Japanese so let me put a rough translations of the headline here: "[Saudi Derby] Uma Musume's Fujita Susumu Got First Overseas Graded Race Victory, Owns Forever Young '[I] won'". If you google Japanese news articles about Forever Young, you will find it is not rare for them to mention Uma Musume at the same time.
If you think it is not generally interesting enough, is this better to you:
I mean, even the source you provided (or at least the quote) focuses on the owner and not the horse itself. Having said that, ALT1 might be better and address my concerns, but the wording isn't the greatest given how vague the word "someone" is in this context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed, including hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Thank you for this positive article about a racehorse. The picture is nice, too. Just two issues:
Earwig picks up only one phrase: the track record for the distance by about two seconds. Please rephrase it, to avoid copyright violation..
Hooks: ALT0 is fine. We are talking about a racehorse here, which is not a person or a pet. In this context it is a sports icon and the property of an investor (Some of us may not like that, but that's not the point. The point is the facts). So we must compare it to articles about racing cars, racing bikes etc. where riders, owners and winnings get all the attention. In ALT1, the word "someone" is a bit weird, even a bit creepy. Maybe name them - or at least their trade or position?
Re article content: notability for this subject seems to be about the winning record, which is a good one in this case. and the winnings are tabled in full in the article. So no problem of content there.
I have given the article a minor copyedit, which does not affect DYK.
If you can resolve the above two issues, then this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this DYK is approved, readers will be enticed to learn about how the royal families of Europe are biological relatives to a closer extent than some may think!
Created by AndrewPeterT (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Article moved from Draft:Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark on March 14, 2024
Article has not been expanded 5x since it was created
Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (27 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations.
@AndrewPeterT: Well done for nominating this article, a topic that is of great interest to me. The hook I prefer is ALT0. As you'd know, there are a few criteria for DYK:
This article was moved into the mainspace on 14 March and nominated on 18 March. Therefore, it is new enough.
My immediate primary concern for this article was the overwhelming amount of tables in its use. However, good use of background information for each child ensures that there are around 6800-6900 characters of original prose. This makes the article long enough.
These hooks, of which I prefer ALT0, are adequately sources, so there do exist cited hooks.
As you have less than five DYK nominations, there is no quid pro quo required.
Finally, the article's prose is well cited. Information within some tables, however, is not. Though it is clear that effort has been made to source information in some tables, some tables lack sourcing entirely. I am not too concerned with lack of sources for their birth and death dates as that can be found on their respective articles, but it is moreso their children. For example, three of Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland's children lack sources.
The article has good spelling and grammar. There are a few fixes that could be made:
"would go on to have" ➜ "had"
"would go on to fight" ➜ "fought"
"would go on long sea voyages..." ➜ "went on long sea voyages..."
"Also, Alexandra and Edward's eldest..." ➜ "Additionally [or Furthermore, Moreover, etc.], Alexandra and Edward's eldest..."
After addressing him, he no longer needs to be repeatedly called "George I", he can just be called "George". Same goes for anyone else with ordinals. If it is a new paragraph, feel free to restate the ordinal. I would suggest however, you write "Christian IX" instead of "Christian" the whole time.
"Dagmar took the name Maria Feodorovna" ➜ "Dagmar took the name "Maria Feodorovna"". Italics not needed here. Quotation marks around her name is optional and up to you.
"Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael were killed during the Russian Revolution." ➜ "Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution." Yes, only talking about the children are being talked about, but it is best to include them as they were also closely-related relatives who also died as a result of the Revolution.
In the ALT0 hook, I would change it from "the parents to" ➜ "the parents of".
So, in summary, all that needs to be addressed is the sourcing within tables and a few spelling and grammar mistakes. I am also a bit concerned with the amount of WP:WHITESPACE. If this can't be fixed, it is not too much of a concern. Please let me know if you need any assistance or clarification. I hope this helps and I look forward to hopefully having this in DYK. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: Thank you very much for your detailed evaluation and feedback. I have no objections to the ALT0 hook being used on the Main Page. Could you please let me know when I should make the suggested changes? As you noted, I am still in the process of citing some of the information in the tables. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewPeterT: As soon as possible. The quicker these are addressed, the quicker we can place it on DYK. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All suggested spelling and grammar corrections have been made. I am prioritizing citing sources for the great-grandchildren of Christian IX and Louise. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewPeterT: Great job. There's one other thing I would change. In the caption of the photo that will be used for the hook, I would change "Christian IX with various children and grandchildren at Fredensborg Palace." to "1886 portrait of Christian IX and his family by Laurits Tuxen." It's best the artist is probably credited. Also, in the actual article, in order to aleviate some of the WP:WHITESPACE, I would remove the two protraits of Christian IX and Louise in the background section as there are paintings of them given in the table below so. Once you're done sourcing the table information, please let me know! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ ab"Queen Louise". Amalienborg Palace. Retrieved March 17, 2024.
Overall: Article created on 18 March, and meets the length requirement. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable enough for the material they are cited for. Earwig reveals no copyvio and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. Both hooks are interesting. ALT0 has an extraneous "s" in "billions" and is not properly cited in the article as the article does not mention that the Tsar Bomba was the most powerful nuclear device of all time. ALT1 is properly sourced but I don't think most people know what "inclination" means in this context—"axial tilt" would likely be better. QPQ has been done. Some comments about the content:
In general, this needs a thorough copyediting for grammar and whatnot.
The WP:Fair use rationale for the image doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A free image of the concept (though not this particular example) of a destroyed Moon could certainly replace this WP:Non-free image.
a comparable asteroid – should probably clarify that this means an asteroid of the same size as an individual piece of hypothetical Moon debris (as opposed to the total amount of Moon debris, for instance).
oscillate chaotically beyond 45° – this needs to be rephrased, for a few reasons. Oscillations are always between to values rather than beyond one, for one thing. For another, "chaotically" here is presumably in the mathematical sense but sounds like it means "violently"... except the sentence then goes on to say that it would be fairly slow.
beyond 45° on the scale of tens of thousands of years, possibly reaching 85° – the source that mentions the latter also gives a much longer timeframe.
Apart from being practically unfeasible – it certainly is, but the sources don't say so.
Abian claims have no scientific basis - destroying the moon would actually cause natural disasters. – I don't doubt that the general consensus is that Abian's a crank, but a statement like this really needs stronger sourcing than it currently has. Make sure to make this compliant with WP:YESPOV.
The capture of Triton by Neptune possibly destroyed the previous moons of Neptune. – the impression I get from the cited source is that those moons are believed to have been ejected, not destroyed.
The "In fiction" section lacks proper sourcing. WP:Primary sources are not sufficient here, the content needs to come from secondary or tertiary sources. See e.g. MOS:POPCULT or WP:IPCV. Do sources on the overarching topic—Destruction of the Moon—discuss fictional depictions? If not, this section should be removed per WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. ("on the subject" is key here). I took a quick look at the relevant entries in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, and they don't seem to mention this aspect.
I'll clarify a bit here: I see that you have added sources to the individual entries. Those are however sources on the works of fiction themselves rather than sources on the overarching topic—destruction of the Moon. That's not sufficient. You have also added a general source on the subject of fictional depictions of the destruction of the Moon. That's much more like it, though this particular source is a bit questionable; while Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment per WP:RSP, this is a listicle and those are typically unsuitable for establishing WP:WEIGHT (or WP:NOTABILITY, for that matter), and furthermore it explicitly says that it was Compiled with the aid ofTV Tropes, an unreliable source (see WP:RSPTVTROPES).The issue here is that fictional depictions of the destruction of the Moon need to be covered in the article no more extensively than in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of that aspect in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If sources that deal specifically with the overarching topic of this article—destruction of the Moon—only mention fictional depictions briefly or in passing, the article must likewise keep it brief. A plain "The destruction of the Moon has appeared in some works of fiction such as X, Y, and Z." might be all that we can justify based on the balance of the sources. I would also strongly recommend against presenting this in a list format; it in general invites the addition of poorly sourced material, and in this specific case the additional visual prominence really serves to over-emphasize this WP:ASPECT in violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's just cutesy way of saying it was a supernova. Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of issues here. For one, what is "Source:" at the bottom? For another, the lede is far too long compared to the article's body. Generally, the lede should summarize the text in the article below, but in this case, it is the majority of the article. That does not seem difficult to fix, simply splitting it up. Perhaps the statement "and so provides astronomers..." could be sectionized out, leaving the lede as a summary. And while I'm here:
ALT1: .. that G299.2-2.9(pictured) is one of the oldest known supernova remnants found in the Milky Way?
(Thanks for the above, Maury, just jumping in here, to get things moving). I have split the article's leader, and moved part of it into the article body, as requested above. I have also moved the source link from below the images, and attached it to the image captions. I approve ALT1, and have struck ALT0. The article is new enough, long enough and neutral. The image is free and clear, and no QPQ is needed. That's the positive bit. On the negative side, Earwig finds enough plagiarised phrases to force a need to rephrase them. @MemeGod27: Please look at the Earwig link I have given you, and rephrase the words that are highlighted. We also need citations at the end of two of the article's paragraphs. When the copyvio and the citation issues are resolved, this should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles created/expanded on March 24
2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina
Other problems: - The link is too long, even if it contains the article title; I recommend splitting it and only bolding "2024 opening of regular sessions" and linking separately to the National Congress of Argentina. An ALT hook that mentions why the opening was held later might also be good to have.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Overall: Hook is interesting and the article is in good shape. I'll leave it up to the nominator or promoter to change the hooks in the way I suggested, but won't fuss over it. Added clarification tags where needed. SounderBruce 04:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Really open to suggestions for improving hook, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to expect people to know what an esim is. Also it doesn't talk about why they don't have access or that the founder discovered this way to connect people, something that apparently hadn't been done before. Also I'll try and find a more recent statistic for the number of people connected.
1669 prose characters; nominated within less than a week of creation; interesting hook; Guardian is RS; no plaigarism. I have added a WP link to the eSIMs so that anyone unfamiliar could check what that is; but I think most readers would be familiar, so should be no problem. Also added WP link to the Gaza Strip. This is GTG. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Mirna El Helbawi and WT:DYK, I have converted the aforementioned DYKnom into a multi-hook including this nomination. If and when that is passed, this nomination can be procedurally rejected. CMD (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Will this multi-hook be featured for a longer time? If not, I would prefer the two remain separate hooks. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose this hook: ALT1: ... that Palestinian journalist Hind Khoudary was the first person in the Gaza Strip to have been connected with donated eSIMs through the Connecting Humanity initiative? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AirshipJungleman29 and Makeandtoss thank you for the reminder and the suggestion. I suggest.... that Palestinian journalist Hind Khoudary was the first person in the Gaza Strip to have been connected with donated eSIMs through the Connecting Humanity initiative, and since then at least 200,000 people living there (around 10% of the population) have been connected in the same way? I know this is quite long but I think its really important to quantify the scale of what they have done. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That hook is a) far too long (260 characters, whereas the absolute maximum is 200), b) very similar to the Mirna El Helbawi hook, and c) "quantifying the scale of what they have done" is completely irrelevant to the point of DYK John Cummings. Review needed for ALT1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then ALT3: ... that Palestinian journalist Hind Khoudary was the first person in the Gaza Strip to have been connected with donated eSIMs through the Connecting Humanity initiative out of 200,000?Makeandtoss (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss and AirshipJungleman29 thanks very much again, I'd like to propose ALT4 which hopefully is clearer to non technical people and makes it obvious they were cut off and this project is reconnecting them: ALT4: ... that Palestinian journalist Hind Khoudary was the first of over 200,000 people in the Gaza Strip to be reconnected to the internet with an eSIMs donated through the Connecting Humanity initiative?John Cummings (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I have struck ALT3 and ALT4, so the choice is ALT1 (which needs a full review) or rejection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt1 is unique and should be fine. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article says "The first people she was able to connect through eSIMs were Egyptian journalist Ahmed El-Madhoun and Palestinian journalist Hind Khoudary." This is not the same as the hook. And what makes ref #8 reliable, given the tag on it?--Launchballer 17:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing accordingly to ALT2: ... that Palestinian journalist Hind Khoudary was among the first two people in the Gaza Strip to have been connected with donated eSIMs through the Connecting Humanity initiative? As for reference 8 it isn't used as source for unique information since the same sentence is sourced to three other references; the instagram post is just added as extra reference, so this shouldn't be an issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you shouldn't have a problem with taking it out. (If I had my way, hooks would either need be cited to a single source or separated with a note saying exactly which bit comes from where.) ALT2 could do with a copyedit; should probably say what they're connected to, and should probably link eSIM.--Launchballer 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3 is short enough, cited, and interesting. I've reworded one section for close paraphrasing, but otherwise this is ready to roll.--Launchballer 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is interesting. The article was rated as a stub but isn't: I've re-rated it C-class.
A serious stumbling block here is the prose quality. The second sentence says: Zhuan Zhu used to be a butcher, he was very filial to his mother. I don't know what the second clause means, or what relation it has to the first clause. In fact I'm not even sure if Zhuan Zhu was ever a butcher or just came from a butcher family (as the body says). Then, early in the body, the quote "When he heard his wife call, he would immediately return. Isn't this the beginning of the fear of wives?" (if it's an accurate translation) needs some explanation and (in our own words) "In truth, it was because Zhuan Zhu's wife held his mother's cane" is equally impenetrable. Is "he regarded the cane as his mother" supposed to mean "the cane symbolized his mother" or "the cane was important because it came from his mother" or something else? What does "stretch out" mean in: "Those who can submit to a woman can surely stretch out above ten thousand men"? In the next paragraph, what are "outside matters"? And so on.
I'm happy to take some things on good faith as I can't read Chinese, but I need more information on source reliability. Is this a blog—what are the author's credentials? Same with this.
I see that this is being nominated on behalf of an IP user, who presumably has fewer than five nominations. Given that we're in a backlog it would still be good to see QPQs from BeanieFan11 but we might put a pin in this until it's clear the nomination is viable.
I'd like to make this work but it does need substantial input from someone qualified to read and understand the sources. @BeanieFan11: do you think this will be possible? — Bilorv (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'll check it out soon to see if its salvageable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: I see the article hasn't been touched for a few days. Do you have a timeframe for addressing these issues? If not I'll fail the nomination at the one-week mark (13 April). — Bilorv (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Do you think you could give me until the 15th? Have been pretty busy but should be able to get to it by then; otherwise you could fail it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Bäckadräkten(pictured) is Sweden's first unisex folk costume? Source: The title of this article about the Bäckadräkten is "Fredy Clue and Ida Björs Make History by Creating Sweden's First Unisex Folk Costume".
Comment: The owner of this photo has emailed Wikimedia to confirm release of the copyright; as I write this, that email is awaiting processing by Wikimedia.
Neutral: - The article does not attribute the criticism of the costume, without which it is not possible to assess whether these sentiments are being given due weight. If the critics are important politicians, more weight would be necessary. If they are random Twitter commenters, it might not be necessary to even mention the criticism at all.
Cited: - Headlines are not reliable sources, so the provided source is insufficient, but fortunately the article uses several citations for this, and [3] verifies just fine.
Overall: @Dugan Murphy: This is a great article. If this were a GAN I'd only have a few more things to say than I've said above. There's four Xs above, but only one that actually requires action on your part, a pretty straightforward NPOV fix. If the image copyright question isn't resolved by the time you've dealt with NPOV, I will put this on hold pending a VRT decision. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Thank you for reviewing this nomination! I have added a few words to the Reception section clarifying who has expressed support and who has expressed opposition. The image copyright thing is still being reviewed, so unless there's someone else holding up this nomination, then we can put it on hold until VRT makes a decision. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the additional details resolve the NPOV issue. The VRT ticket is awaiting clarification from Mx. Clue as of March 26, so if you're in touch with them you might want to give them a nudge. On hold for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 15:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Enchylium limosum(pictured) has had a taxonomic journey spanning centuries, undergoing numerous name changes before finally receiving its current accepted name in 2013? Source: 123
I'll review this. Article length and eligibility checks out, and is generally quite presentable. I see no evidence of copyvio. Out of all of these, I think ALT2 is the best; but I don't really see evidence that it "loves lime" beyond its name, and the article is a bit vague about what the "loving" portion of "lime-loving" means. Unfortunately, I think the other two hooks are lengthy and not very interesting to a non-specialist audience. Can you find any sources about why it's a lime-loving lichen? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
@Generalissima, Hey thanks for reviewing the article. The term "lime-loving" in the common name "Lime-loving Tarpaper Lichen" refers to the preference of Enchylium limosum for habitats with alkaline or calcareous substrates. Limestone, which contains calcium carbonate, is commonly referred to as "lime," hence the name. Lichens like Enchylium limosum thrive in environments where calcium-rich minerals are present, such as limestone or dolomitic rocks. This particular fact is mentioned throughout the sources that are used in the article. Common names given to species are pretty much self-explanatory in most cases, including this one. These sources, although not particularly about the article's subject, will give an idea of why such species of the genera are called "lime-loving." 1, [2].Sources that mention Enchylium limosum's calcareious habitat and common name are abundant and used throughout the article hence I felt it's redundant to mention them here.I hope I was able to provide some ideas. Let me know if you have other questions/suggestions. Regards.Edit: If you feel necessary, I can try to add more information explaining/shedding some background behind its common name in the etymology/taxonomy section. X (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if this is the right way to add a comment, but the information given above is largely incorrect. The COSMOS field is not one of the deepest images ever taken of the universe and it is definitely not the deepest Hubble image ever taken either. It is also not really accurate to say that it's one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. The esahubble.org page cited as the source doesn't make these claims either. It is one of the largest (maybe the largest?) contiguous fields ever mapped with Hubble, but that is different from the statements made here. Aldebarium (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, most of the items listed above are incorrect. It is definitely not correct to state that this is one of the deepest images ever taken (either by Hubble, or more generally). There are many Hubble images that go deeper than this one. It is the largest contiguous survey field ever observed by Hubble, but that’s different from stating that it was one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. Partly this depends on what you mean by “largest”: if referring to angular area covered, other surveys like SDSS are vastly larger. Aldebarium (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relooking at some if the sources, you are actually right, it is the largest contiguous survey, however, so I'll just reword the Hooks ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But again, it’s important to clarify this was the largest contiguous area observed *by Hubble* for a distant galaxy survey. It is not even close to being one of the largest contiguous survey fields ever: many other surveys (such as SDSS) have covered vastly larger survey areas. The area of the COSMOS field is 2 square degrees, while the original SDSS covered something like 10,000 square degrees. Aldebarium (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Thank you for this fascinating article. It has two issues, plus I think we still need final confirmation that the hooks are all true.:
Two of the article's paragraphs contain no citations. They should at least have one citation at the end of each.
This bit is copyright violation (plagiarism). You need to either rephrase it completely and cite it, or put it unchanged in quotation marks and cite it: Is the Hubble Space Telescope's largest ever contiguous survey of the Universe and was carried out by an international team of 70 astronomers on July 1, 2013. In making the COSMOS survey, Hubble photographed 575 adjacent and slightly overlapping views of the universe using its Advanced Camera for Surveys' (ACS) Wide Field Camera. It took nearly 1,000 hours of observations. The distances to the galaxies were determined from their redshifts, using ESO's Very Large Telescope, the Subaru and CFHT telescopes in Hawaii and the Magellan
Please do the same with this one: covers a 2 square degree equatorial field, with spectroscopy and X-ray to radio imaging. Over 2 million galaxies are detected, spanning 75% of the age of the Universe.
Aldebarium Please would you kindly confirm that the above hooks are now all true?
When the above issues are resolved, This nomination could be passed.
Positive notes
I have copyedited the article, but that does not affect DYK.
According to DYK check, the article was created on 25 March. According to the article history, it was nominated n the same day (so no problem with timing).
Normally, an image like the one above would fail DYK assessment, because a glance at the thumbnail version says that it is just a black square. However in this case, I believe the public will understand that you have to click on it because it is obviously a night sky with stars in it. Storye book (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) enzyme regulates essential brain functions and sleep-wake cycles in humans? Source: By degrading and regulating levels of intracellular histamine specifically within the CNS, HNMT ensures the proper functioning of neural pathways related to arousal, sleep-wake cycles, and other essential brain functions.
ALT1: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) is the only enzyme in the human body responsible for metabolizing histamine within the central nervous system, playing a crucial role in brain function? A study published in Scientific Reports states that HNMT regulates aggression and the sleep-wake cycle. Naganuma F, Nakamura T, Yoshikawa T, Iida T, Miura Y, Kárpáti A, Matsuzawa T, Yanai A, Mogi A, Mochizuki T, Okamura N, Yanai K. Histamine N-methyltransferase regulates aggression and the sleep-wake cycle. Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 21;7(1):15899. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16019-8. PMID29162912; PMCID: PMC5698467.
ALT2: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) is the only enzyme in the human body that ensures proper functioning of neural pathways related to arousal, sleep-wake cycles, and other essential brain functions by degrading histamine inside the neurons, that is the cells specifically within the central nervous system?
ALT3: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) plays a crucial role in sleep-wake cycles as the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the human central nervous system? An article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience states that in mammals, HNMT operates alongside diamine oxidase (DAO) as the only two enzymes responsible for histamine metabolism; however, what sets HNMT apart is its unique presence within the central nervous system (CNS), where it governs histaminergic neurotransmission. Carthy E, Ellender T. Histamine, Neuroinflammation and Neurodevelopment: A Review. Front Neurosci. 2021 Jul 14;15:680214. doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.680214PMID34335160; PMCID: PMC8317266.
ALT4: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) is the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the brain, and its activity helps maintain arousal and sleep functions? A chapter titled "Histamine Clearance Through Polyspecific Transporters in the Brain" from the book series "Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology" discusses the role of Histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) in the human brain. It states that histamine plays an important role as a neurotransmitter in diverse physiological functions such as anxiety, sleep-wake cycles, appetite, and learning and memory. Yoshikawa, T., Yanai, K. (2016). Histamine Clearance Through Polyspecific Transporters in the Brain. In: Hattori, Y., Seifert, R. (eds) Histamine and Histamine Receptors in Health and Disease. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, vol 241. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/164_2016_13; PMID27679412
Reviewed:
Comment: This is my very first DYK nomination. User:Sammi Brie: since you are the DYK expert, if you have suggestions, or you noticed that I did something wrong, please help.
I struck ALT2 as it is too long (318 characters). ALT1 is 198, near the limit of 200. By the way, Maxim Masiutin, the source you should link to in a DYK nomination is the cited reference in the article for the hook fact. I can't review since I handled the GA nomination, but I wanted to flag those two things. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 could perhaps be streamlined a bit more to "... plays a crucial role in sleep-wake cycles as the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the human central nervous system?" JoelleJay (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the new sources, I would definitely advise against citing Scientific Reports or Frontiers for this, especially the former as it is also a primary source. Per MEDRS we should reflect what secondary review sources say on a topic, and I think for statements made in wikivoice in a high-profile venue we need much more reputable sources than Sci Rep and Frontiers. They can still be used in the article, but ought to be accompanied by additional supporting sources. This Physiological Reviews article could serve as a replacement for the claim that it's the only neuronal enzyme degrading histamine, while this Sleep review touches on HNMT's role in aggression and indirectly on sleep. The Handbook cited in ALT4 also works for all of these claims (though a lot of the HNMT info is just the authors reviewing their own work; not necessarily a problem, but something to keep in mind). Note that the first two state it is acting in the extracellular space, which is in contrast to the mechanism put forth in the last. Regarding ALT4, this could easily be read as "HNMT is the only enzyme in the brain that maintains arousal and sleep functions, which it does by degrading histamine", which is incorrect, rather than "HNMT is the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the brain, AND its activity helps maintain arousal and sleep functions". JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the West Georgia Wolves football team won 13 games in 13 years before folding, but upon returning two decades later, compiled consecutive undefeated regular seasons and became national champions? Source: 13 games (note that the source says 14 years, but that is a mistake - the team played from 1946 through 1958 - 13 years) - multiple sources, e.g. [5] / [6], for the consecutive undefeated regular seasons and national championship
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending
Comment: I found so many useful facts about this under-appreciated documentary, especially its pre-production. The only interview that I found that went into extreme detail was an article from CineMontage with executive producer and film editor Alan Heim. It was a stub article, and now I reassessed it as a C-article. I also ensured that the article follows the 5x expanded rule.
5x expansion confirmed, and new enough. Adequately referenced (I presume Synopsis / Summary sections are excused from the usual DYK citation-per-paragraph rule). The main potential content problem is neutrality... for example, in Legacy, it states "Since its original release, the documentary film has been showcased in film schools worldwide," but the source is an interview with the executive producer of The Cutting Edge. Not throwing shade here, but this needs to be attributed and taken with a gallon of salt if included - interviews with creators about how important and popular their work was are routinely exaggerated, sometimes by a lot. I don't think "showcased in film schools worldwide" can be stated as a fact in the lead section, for example. I think some closer reading of the sources might help - for example, you've written "Gerald Perry of Boston Pheonix thought that Cold Mountain a mediocre film." First, it's Phoenix (I make typos too, no worries), but more importantly, that wasn't Perry's complaint reading the source - he's complaining Murch was "windy" (i.e. long-winded, i.e. too many words to say too little). The actual problem wasn't necessarily that Cold Mountain was meh, that was just an aggravating factor.
For the hooks... hmm, this might be a tastes thing. There's a trend by some DYK hook reviewers to favor real-world facts, but none of these seem particularly interesting to me? Lots of stuff was in high-def by 2004, any vanity producer can send transcripts to a museum, how many discs were in the Special Edition of Bullit is irrelevant and it being a DVD value addin isn't that interesting, Warner Bros. probably just wanted some free advertising by licensing out their clips, etc. Of these, I think I prefer the simple ALT3 the most, although I couldn't find direct verification on the director count - but 17 sounds fine and it's probably just in a different source. Does that work for you? Happy to take a look at another ALT if something "punchier" can be found. (And please do a pass on neutrality per above; I think we're close.) SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: I fixed the neutrality issues that you pointed out in the article. I was able to find an Indian film editor who was inspired by the documentary as well as some lists. I rewrote that problematic section in the LEAD to "In later years, the documentary influenced younger international film editors and was seen as an essential documentary about filmmaking." As for ALT3, I can re-write it to this:
I wanted to rewrtie this section because the added source mentioned the presence these editors. I also wanted to highlight female editors since, per the documentary, they were underrepresented. I also wanted to bring it up since the most recent Oscar-winning editor was a woman named Jennifer Lame. I even changed the source to a review from Boston Pheonix since it mentions female representation. With that in mind, I don't think a specific number is too important here. Yoshiman6464♫🥚 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improved to Good Article status by Greenish Pickle! (talk) and GoatLordServant (talk). Self-nominated at 23:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sans (Undertale); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Article is long enough, promoted to GA within the window, and generally in excellent shape. Hooks check out and are sourced; I like the incongruity of ALT0. Pace the GA reviewer, there is a minor problem with the FUR on File:Undertale Art Book sans progession.png: the FUR includes as a key term The use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website will not impact the commercial viability of the software or site., but this image is a scan from a book, not a screenshot. The FUR therefore needs to be updated to take into account the true source of the image and the commercial opportunities, if any, exploited or exploitable by the copyright holder. UndercoverClassicistT·C 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tumblr sexyman just appeared on the front page as a DYK on 6 April. I'm striking the first two hooks as too similar. gobonobo+c 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For context, Raymond's Glimpses of the Past: History of the River St. John mentions a Black man, previously having been taken by the French, being taken to Boston by Benjamin Church during the 1696 Siege of Fort Nashwaak. Raymond described the man as being "probably the first of his race to set foot within the borders of New Brunswick," which has been accepted & referenced in W. A. Spray's 1972 book documenting black history in the province as well as articles such as this one: https://backyardhistory.ca/articles/f/the-battle-of-fort-nashwaak?blogcategory=1600s+and+Before
Overall: The article's creation date and length are ok. No plagiarism has been detected, AGF assumed on sources behind a paywall. The hook is cited and interesting. No picture in the hook, no QPQ required. I have only two remarks: about the hook, you have to add "probably" to the sentence, since the author was not sure whether he was the first black in the region. Moreover, could you please add the denomination of the church to whom he belonged? Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alessandro57, The paywalled source (newspapers.com) can be accessed through the Wikipedia proxy in WP:LIB. Otherwise, I made the necessary changes to the hook & article. As for the denomination of the church, I could not find it when making searches on newspapers.com, archive.org, and Canadiana. This book having the "Anglican" tag could be assumed that it is Anglican, but otherwise you may not be able to say for sure. I hope this addresses your concerns! Thanks, B3251 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article is long enough, new enough, neutral, without copyvio, and QPQ is done. However, I have concerns about the wording of the hook. The source does not exactly say what is said in the hook; the closest statement being that "this is the first time the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has sent all three of its forces, the infantry, navy and air force, to participate in a single exercise with Russia." The hook seems to imply that more troops were sent than ever before, which is not clearly stated. Anonymous 16:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Vostok 2022 from September that year marked the most comprehensive participation of Chinese forces in a Russian military exercise to date?
@Nyanardsan: There are some grammatical issues with the article that I will get around to helping with CE's shortly. Sources are good enough (I hate Tribun, but no choice here), and copyvio very unlikely due to lack of any English sources. Original hook is more interesting than ALT1, I'd say, since using the army for construction is a fairly normal thing to do in Indonesia (and in many countries). Pending QPQ, anyway, so ping me when they're done. Juxlos (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Bangladeshi and Japanese Islamic State leader Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki, believed responsible for a bakery attack, had previously served as an associate professor at Ritsumeikan University? Source: Meet the mastermind of the Holey attack "Sajit Debnath aka Muhammad Saifullah Ozaki, the Japanese-Bangladeshi jihadi and former associate professor of Ritsumeikan University, is most likely the elusive ameer of ISIS in Bangladesh, responsible for a series of jihadi attacks in the country including the July 2016 massacre at the Holey Artisan Bakery."
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and is well-sourced, but the source used here has an issue (see Buxton comments below). Possibly hook could be improved (see comment below), a really interesting article John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I changed the review status thanks to Bruxton for flagging the issues. John Cummings (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this nomination. It is a BLP so I am cautious about promoting a hook that seems to imply guilt before conviction. Also the bit in the hook about him being an associate professor... it appears in the lead uncited. In the body it just says "He began teaching at Kyoto's Ritsumeikan" - since it is a hook fact it should be stated in the body directly followed by a citation. The hook is 197 characters so it is 3 under the limit, but also gives too much info. (I also made this reply at DYK). I think we need a new hook that because this is a BLP. Bruxton (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that ice hockey player Cameron Butler "had the good fortune not to get pulled over as he raced" to reach his team's game in time for his NHL debut? Source: NHL.com
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending
The article is new but not long, thanks to the presence of that maintenance template demanding a section expansion and a lede merely consisting of an opening sentence. It has an image licensed for fair use but lacks a suitable caption, as well as a few questionable sources, such as RPGamer (cite 14). Furthermore, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns (assuming good faith on non-English language sources) and the hook is cited and is fine. Nominator is exempted from doing a QPQ, but they should be credited on this DYK as the "nominator" as opposed to mainspace mover, who is actually User:Kung Fu Man (diff). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that out of the known Euwallacea spp., Euwallacea validus is the only one that exhibits fidelity with its respective fungi? Source: Berger, Matthew C. (2017). Interactions between Euwallacea Ambrosia Beetles, Their Fungal Symbionts and the Native Trees They Attack in the Eastern United States (Thesis). West Virginia University Libraries. doi:10.33915/etd.5186.
@Bomapoodle: Hello and welcome to DYK! Unfortunately, the hook might not be a good fit for DYK as it's somewhat specialist, meaning unless someone is well-versed in biology they might not necessarily get what the hook is trying to say. I would suggest proposing a hook or two that's targeted more towards readers who may not known much about biology. In addition, the current hook is also confusing: it's not clear that Euwallacea validus is actually a beetle rather than a fungus, a possible misinterpretation given the wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the nominator is currently blocked from new mainspace or category creations over concerns regarding competency; however, as they are not fully blocked I am not sure if this will affect the nomination or not. This is just something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't blocked at the time, and can still edit the page, so should be fine. I'm a bit irked by the fact that none of the accessdates are recent, which implies that they've been copied from somewhere.--Launchballer 09:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Looking at their talk page, it appears they have already received a warning for copyright violations. For what it's worth, while Earwigs gave a largely okay score, there are at least two sentences that are very close matches with another source, but I don't know if they're acceptable given they're relatively minor, or this still counts as a copyvio or close paraphrasing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's severe enough to warrant quick-failing/WP:G12ing, but something must be done about it. Pinging Brudelman for immediate attention.--Launchballer 10:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I merely copied and pasted the text for the Rodolfo Pallucchini article from its Italian language counterpart, its original sole article. Also, @Narutolovehinata5 I'm curious, what are access dates? Why are you irked that they aren't recent? Thanks.Brudelman (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates are the date the reference was accessed, web pages sometimes change and they're useful for establishing which version is being cited. My beef is that older references are usually an indicator of "this has existed elsewhere", which could mean this is a split, which could affect eligibility per WP:DYKLEN. Translations are fine though, per WP:DYKNEW.--Launchballer 12:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was based on the Italian article, then the translation must be attributed, either by using ((Translated|it|Rodolfo Pallucchini)) in the talk page, or by explicitly saying so in the edit summary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been done. Full review needed.--Launchballer 02:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that according to witnesses, the plutonium charge in the bomb used in the nuclear weapons test Gerboise Verte was transported in a Citroën 2CV? Source: "Le Président et la Bombe" and "L'héritage de la bombe: Sahara, Polynésie (1960-2002), les faits, les personnels, les populations"
Reviewed:
Comment: First time nominating - not sure if this is the correct form.
Overall: Article is new enough and long enough, QPQ is not required due to first nomination. I do not have access to that book nor can really read French, so I'm going to assume good faith that is accurate. However, I have concerns over the hook itself. Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I don't find the hook provided particularly interesting or catching - I can't imagine most people would immediately know what a "Citroën 2CV" is. In addition, the source used to make that statement and the one cited here doesn't appear to be the same, but again, I can't read French so someone who can may need to weigh in here.
Also some inconsistencies I have noticed on a glance in the article itself is a few unsourced statements, such as under the "From a technical point of view, Gerboise Verte was a failure." and "Gerboise Verte is also discussed in Thomas Cantaloube's first novel, Requiem for a Republic (2019)." part, which I have marked. This needs citation to reliable sources. If these issues can be addressed and perhaps an alternate hook put forward then perhaps this could be accepted. TheBritinator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to disagree here with regards to the interestingness of the hook. Having a passenger car transport a material for a nuclear bomb does sound interesting and unusual. However, I do understand the argument and a reword might help make the point more obvious. How about:
ALT0a ... that according to witnesses, the plutonium charge in the bomb used in the nuclear weapons test Gerboise Verte was transported in an economy car?
The 2CV being an economy car is not in the article but is mentioned in the article for the 2CV, so that would need to be added if ALT0a is accepted. Still, I think this makes the point more obvious than the original proposal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be improved now, and I have updated the review as such. As for the hook - my point was more on the side that doesn't make it catching as it may be perceived as rather confusing. However, the alternate hook you provided seems to address this issue. May we have an input, @XabqEfdg:? TheBritinator (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see why the original hook could be confusing since the 2CV is more of a French car. The alternate hook provided by Narutolovehinata5 makes it clearer and does not substantially change the information provided. So, I think that it would be a suitable replacement for the original hook. XabqEfdg (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is now outdated. Events and sources are moving. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Objection - the content in the hook three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone cannot be presented in Wikivoice using this Haaretz source, which said that the information comes from Israeli defense sources. Haaretz has not independently reported the information (without attribution). starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: The same material has been covered in RS including NYT, Al Jazeera, BBC, and Bellingcat; and in visual investigations not just reporting articles. All RS have provided the same information about three missiles being shot. I don't see why information from RS requires attribution, especially given that all these RS agree on the same exact point. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They agree on the same point, but they don’t seem to have independently verified it. Perhaps something like “three separate vehicles” will be closer to having verified coverage? FortunateSons (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: They did verify it themselves -i.e independently- using visual data, please read the Bellingcat, AJ and BBC investigations. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: - you are assuming too much of the sources. (1) Bellingcat does not say three consecutive strikes, they simply say Israeli airstrike, Bellingcat cannot confirm that it was missiles or that they were even fired by a drone: Although not possible to be certain without fragments of the munition itself, the WCK vehicles bear the hallmarks of a precision strike by inert or low-yield missiles ... In order to successfully accomplish a laser guided strike it is necessary for a platform, such as a drone, to “illuminate” the target with a laser while the missile is launched. (2) BBC writes that the evidence suggests there was more than one strike, but this is not confirmation, BBC's experts also do not confirm that it was a drone strike: Chris Cobb-Smith, a former British Army officer and ex-UN weapons inspector, said the attack was probably the result of drone-launched Spike missiles ... Justin Crump, a former British Army officer who runs Sibylline - a risk intelligence company - agreed. He says the attack "was likely drone-launched and targeted". He added the strike had probably been caused by a missile, rather than a bomb or mortar. (3) Al Jazeera goes the furthest, their article text says The shelling targeted three vehicles belonging to WCK, one at a time, but if you read the article text, there is no mention of drone missiles, instead they say: Analysis of images of the second and third targeted vehicles showed signs of a projectile entering from the top and exiting through the bottom, suggesting that the cars were targeted from the air. Now, Al Jazeera's image does mention "drone strikes" and missiles, but I find it peculiar that they didn't mention (or even attempt to explain) it in the article text. The sources are simply weaker than you portray them to be. None of them confirm, all of them are simply suggesting / probably / likely etc. starship.paint (RUN) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest some edits to the hook to make it clearer what happened? I'd suggest something like Humanitarian and aid organizations suspended their operations in the Gaza Strip after seven World Central Kitchen aid workers were killed when their marked cars on a preapproved route were bombed by Israeli drones. I think its really important to make clear they were in marked cars, they were also on a route approved by the Israeli military. Makeandtoss what do you think? Also have any additional sources been published that would resolve the dissagreement above? If not maybe a third party could be involved to help resolve if the sourcing meets Wikipedia's rules. John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is also nominated at ITN. It can only reach the main page through one of the possible venues. At this point, there isn't consensus to post to ITN, but that can change. Schwede66 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint:@John Cummings: Thanks for commenting. Starship.paint, building on our discussion on the talk page, I think we can both agree to this ALT1 version: ... that the attack on World Central Kitchen convoy in the Gaza Strip, which killed seven aid workers, was likely a result of three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can add anything more than what starship.paint and John Cummings have said. Any hook we run on this topic should be widely supported across a cross section of media, and be independently verified. Otherwise its likely to be challenged at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. We need a hook that won't get pulled. John made some good suggestions.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with this as long as there are no objections to featuring violent content at DYK. There has been some pushback of late against featuring potentially disturbing hooks. That said, this hook appears to have wide support in media, and is so widely reported I don’t think an argument for censoring would be successful.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our main page constantly features potentially disturbing content, so I don't see why this can't be, either. Right now, our ITN section: A severe earthquake strikes near Hualien City, Taiwan ... In Syria, an Israeli airstrike kills 16 people at the Iranian consulate in Damascus, including brigadier general Mohammad Reza Zahedi ... A bus falls from a bridge in Limpopo, South Africa, killing 45 people ... The Francis Scott Key Bridge in the U.S. city of Baltimore collapses after being hit by a container ship.starship.paint (RUN) 06:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK and ITN have different goals. In addition, the issues with IP hooks have never really been about violence but rather tone and POV. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might consider, is the problem Wikipedia's "tone and POV", or does the event inherently make one side look bad? I'd say the answer is provided by the BBC: There are also moments, like the last few days in the Middle East, when events leave belligerents and their allies at a crossroads with big decisions to make ... The killing of foreign aid workers in Gaza might finally exhaust the considerable patience of Israel's allies, led by the United States. and Reuters: the killing of a group of aid workers by an Israeli air strike summed up both the dire humanitarian crisis and the lack of a clear way out of a conflict that is leaving Israel increasingly isolated. The attack on Monday night that killed seven staff of the World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid group, including six foreigners, has angered even some of Israel's closest allies, adding to growing pressure for an end to the fighting.starship.paint (RUN) 07:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: ALT2 doesn't really sound interesting, but more like a news headline; do you have any other alternatives? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss I don't think it's going to be possible to run a different kind of hook without being accused of trivializing the event. This would probably pull the hook into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Optics for an event like this are going to force us to keep the main event front and center in the hook. As such I don't see there being any meaningfully different hooks passing DYK review. Alt2 is probably our best option.4meter4 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admission to killing seven aid workers in targeted strikes ... not interesting?! It is no less interesting than the originally proposed hook, Makeandtoss. starship.paint (RUN) 12:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving hook ALT2 per WP:CONSENSUS opinion. Article appears to be compliant with all DYK review criteria (newness, length, inline citations, NPOV, etc.) Hook fact is widely supported and independently verified in many sources. Promoter will need to check whether this gets featured at ITN. If it does, we can't feature it at DYK because it will have already been on the main page.4meter4 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. This article has been moved twice in the last 24 hours. It should probably stabilise first.--Launchballer 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, the Israeli explanation of events hasn't been fully added to the article. I didn't have time to do it yesterday. But, I can probably add it now.starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is stable and was moved without consensus. As for the Israeli explanation of events, its already in the article, the expansion of it doesn't affect moving forward with the DYK anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss Page moves whether with or without consensus are a clear sign of instability. I would suggest not getting in a back and forth over issues like this, because if you argue its only likely to tank the DYK approval. @Launchballer I hear you, but from a DYK reviewer standpoint this is ready to go. There's nothing more on our checklist for the reviewer to do, and the nominee has done everything they need to do. Obviously, the promoter will need to evaluate stability because it is a current event. Due to the backlog there will be a natural signigicant delay anyway before this gets put into prep. I think it best that we leave it to the promoter to determine when its stable enough to move it into the queue. That's not something we need to worry about from the DYK evaluator standpoint. We can trust in the promoting admin to evaluate that. If it hangs out in the approved hook area for a while everything should be fine.4meter4 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: There is no back and forth here; I reverted the latest page move because it was undiscussed and because multiple editors on the talk page agreed as well. The article is stable but one or two more days of waiting will not hurt as you said. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Makeandtoss, the article's Israeli explanation is incomplete. This will become apparent when I add the content (I am writing it right now). starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to quit or I will have to pull the DYK tick. The article has had some instability issues as is typical of a current event. The article is likely to be edited heavily as new information is released. Any promoting admin will need to monitor the stability of the article before promoting. This means that if there are content disputes, edit wars, page moves, etc. the article will have to remain in the approved section until all that settles. I would suggest a minimum of two weeks of calm (ie no content reversions in the article's editing history, no arguments on the talk page, no page moves) before the article is featured at DYK. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the concerns about stability above and the other issues, it probably wouldn't be safe to mark this as approved until at least a couple of weeks from now. Once the article has stabilized, it can probably be given a fresh look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the first English known by National Football League prospect Bayron Matos was "I'm hungry"? Source: USF (Matos speaks with swaggering confidence. It's a little different than his first few weeks in America. Upon arrival, he didn't know English and tried a few phrases through Google translator. The only thing he knew how to say was, "I'm hungry.")
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending
Comment: Realized I'm two days late with this; requesting an extension per Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. May want to wait until the draft (April 25-27) before promoting to see if he actually makes it to the league.
Everything looks to be in order, but I would like you to consider a slightly more interesting hook. I would encourage at least some detail as to know Sanda Pankhurst was and what the documentary's themes were. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "... that 2022 Australian documentary film Clean, centered on the life of Sandra Pankhurst (a former sex worker, drag queen, and crime scene cleaner), was released after her passing?". Dunno, I would be open to suggestions on how to improve it. I thought it was best to focus on one thing: the fact she died before her own film was released. This person was the epitome of interesting, but I don't want to bring too much into a short hook. Ideas? Pbritti — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely can't put the word "passing" onto the main page as per MOS:EUPHEMISM. Schwede66 02:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting documentary about a very interesting person. Thank you, MaxnaCarta (talk·contribs)! I made some copyedits to the article. Except for the citation requirement, the article meets DYK requirements. The "Synopsis" section is unsourced. If Sandra Pankhurst were still living, citations would be necessary to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES. But as she has been dead for at least two years, WP:BLP does not apply.
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Sourcing and quotations, "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." However, Clean is a documentary, not a work of fiction, so that guideline is not fully applicable. To err on the safe side, I recommend adding sources to that section so that there is no question that WP:DYKCITE is met. Sourcing is needed to comply with DYK guidelines since the information about her being "a former sex worker, drag queen, and crime scene cleaner" is not sourced in the article. WP:DYKCITE says, "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear."
The lead contains information that is not sourced in the body of the article. For example, the release month in "Clean was released in Australia in June 2022" is unsourced. The sentence "It was nominated for two awards at the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards in 2022" is unsourced also. I recommend going through the lead to confirm that everything is sourced (or is mentioned in the body of the article and is sourced there).
Here is an alternative hook that tightens MaxnaCarta's proposed alternative and removes the euphemism:
... ALT1: that the posthumously released documentary Clean centered on the life of Sandra Pankhurst, a former sex worker, drag queen, and crime scene cleaner?
As I am proposing an alternative hook, Schwede66 or another reviewer will be needed to review the wording. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hook is sourced to the plot section, which technically doesn't need it per WP:PLOTCITE. I'm going to say that WP:DYKHFC overrides this and say that 'for the hook, you need a cite'.--Launchballer 09:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that football player Dick Harris was selected in professional drafts four times, including twice as a first-round pick, but never played professionally? Source: same
ALT2: ... that Dick Harris was a first-round NFL draft pick and was chosen in three other drafts but declined each offer so he could enter the oil business? Source: same + [12] (oil)
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending
Comment: Realized I'm a day late in nominating this; requesting an extension per Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. Prefer either ALT0 or ALT2; open to other ways of wording this as well.
Full review to follow, but I'd like to see more hook proposals before proceeding. I'm not that big of a fan of ALT0 as currently written as it requires reliance on familiarity with Suits, and ALT1 isn't really that interesting either. My suggestion would be to propose a hook or multiple hooks targeted towards those who may not know anything about the series. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to continue the review, but I noticed that there are still several incomplete sentences or writing in the article. Multiple sentences in the article, for example the last sentence of the lede, are lacking periods and seem to be unfinished. The article does meet newness requirements at least so it should be eligible for further review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created article, long enough and sourced throughout, it appears to be written neutrally. Hook fact is interesting enough and sourced. The image is free to use, based on its license, and could be added to the nom. QPQ has been provided. There is some close paraphrasing in the following, please rewrite the italicized bits (also, I imagine there's a word missing at the end of "fixed place in the" and "As and when" is ungrammatical): As a parliamentarian, Heubach will have a fixed place in the, unlike most other lawmakers, with interpreters sat close to interpret speeches and her questions. As and when she makes her own speeches, an interpreter with a microphone will have a place next to the Bundestag's stenographers to interpret her speeches to translate for other lawmakers to understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogger and AtticTapestry: Needs more RS, the article has passing mentions and blog type sites as RS and they discuss the work not the person. Three sentences of the article are related to the person and they are supported with what looks like non-rs. I could not find much either...
These are only passing mentions which are more about the works not the person. I wonder if this article should be redirected to the artwork with the three sentences merged. Bruxton (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
added those sources, including to hook -Bogger (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two QPQs are done, Earwig is 15% the hook is not very interesting but it is confirmed and in the article. Article is neutral and uses the correct inline citations. The UK has FOP for 3D so the image is ok. But again, this is really not an article about the artist so I am asking for another reviewer instead of rejecting the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
second opinion and full review needed. Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that it will soon be illegal for government employees in Georgia to gamble? Source: "A new law, passed by parliament on December 22, forbids gambling for several classes of people, including those receiving government assistance, government workers, and anyone under 25." eurasianet
I moved a citation to support the hook in the article - it was needed end of sentence. Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Casablanca Rock: Another issue is the source for the hook says, "In response to the criticism, the implementation of the law was postponed from January 1 to March 1." One of our rules is that the hook must have facts that are not likely to change WP:DYKHOOK. Was the law implemented on March 1? If so this article and hook will not be accurate. Also per WP:DYKCOMPLETE this article needs to be developed. Lightburst (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst, I will improve the sections as you've stated. The citation I had there was the best English language citation I could find, but there are more accurate Georgian language sources that explain more about the implementation of the law. It was delayed until June 1. The Georgian government released an update to the 2005 gambling law on the website of the legal corpus specifying the law going into effect on June 1. Sorry that this is a bit confusing, that previous article that has a lot of information about the law in English did not have the update of the law being delayed in implementation until June 1 instead of March 1. Please let me know if that source isn't good and I can try to find something else. There is an English language source that does mention the delayed implementation, but it is from a gambling industry news site. I cited it in the article itself, but I was not sure if that would be helpful/good for DYK. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that football player Joe Gray was nicknamed the "Gray Ghost" because when running, "it was like he wasn't there anymore"? Source: Statesman Journal
Not "recent", per WP:DYKHOOK: "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change". Try "March 2024" instead. Otherwise, nice article (although I'm not quite sure how comfortable I am actually reviewing this, given I'm the one that put the hook there!)--Launchballer 08:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm really sorry to be so anal about this, but there is an outside chance there could be more than one this year, so it should really give the month.--Launchballer 09:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the requirement, and could add the month, but in this case I believe the year is sufficient. As a member of the affiliate that organised the Wikicon, I know that this was the annual Wikicon - ie the only one for 2024. The next one is planned to be in Christchurch in 2025. See m:wiki/Wikimedia_Aotearoa_New_Zealand#Activity:_Annual_National_WikiConference for verification.Marshelec (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Full review needed.--Launchballer 07:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that over 100 European royals boarded the Cruise of the Kings, a 1954 cruise organised by the Queen Consort of Greece, Frederica of Hanover, to promote tourism in Greece? Source: [1]
length, date, hook, close paraphrase check ok. No qpq needed. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Frederica of Hanover (1971). A Measure of Understanding. MacMillan. ASINB000TDQ63S. In 1954 , [shipowner] Eugenides asked me to visit one of his transatlantic liners and give it my name. When this type of request is made, it is customary to offer the godmother a large brilliant brooch . However, on this occasion I had an idea and asked Eugenides if, instead of this traditional gift, he would give me the necessary means to organize a cruise during which I would invite all the royal families of Europe […]. There were different reasons for organizing this cruise. First, Paul and I wanted to open the doors of Greece to tourism . […] But the first thing we needed was to get the world's attention. As the world press was responsible for giving wide publicity to the cruise, everything worked very well. Immediately afterwards, shipping companies began to organize cruises exactly following the program and itinerary of ours, and soon hotels and other land-based services and facilities began to bring tourist money to the country. Another reason was that, since World War I , royal families had not reunited internationally. […] The trip was a great success. We were 110 people, of twenty nationalities and speaking 15 different languages; despite this there was not the slightest difficulty during the ten days that the cruise lasted. […]
Articles created/expanded on April 7
Chronicles from the Land of the Happiest People on Earth
... that the Puerto Rican singer Young Miko initially composed "Classy 101" in Los Angeles and met the Colombian singer Feid by surprise there? Source: Antena3
Reviewed:
Comment: I'm not sure if this is an interesting fact, but at least I'm trying.
Improved to Good Article status by Pollosito (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Not a review, and I do my QPQs oldest first so I wouldn't get to this any time soon; you should consider integrating where Miko and Feid are from into the hook for interest purposes. Los Angeles is pretty big, it's not unusual for two people to meet there.--Launchballer 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for at least suggesting something, I'm a little nervous. I have already incorporated the suggested information; If another source is required, I will put it in, but at the moment I won't because DYKs usually only have one. I don't know if it's appropriate, but I hope you can move forward and get the help you need to find the healing you so desperately seek. I wish you success in everything you do, because I see that you are very good. Santi (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one more thing. I put this hook because in the interview given as a source Miko reveals that she was a big fan of Feid, so with this I concluded that it could be interesting. Santi (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles were moved from user space on April 7. (are new enough). Both are long enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
25.9 Ernest Prestwich copyvio reading is due to exact titles.
16.0 Harrogate War Memorial reading on is from poor paraphrasing.-Harrogate War Memorial.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 05:28, April 11, 2024 (UTC)
Re Earwig's comparison of Harrogate War Memorial: it only picks up proper names and a quotation beginning "one of the first British servicewomen...", which is properly signified as a quotation, and attributed in the article. As far as I am aware, there is no poor paraphrasing or copyvio in that article. Storye book (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, isolated, short, common phrases are de minimis, and do not count as copyvio. No big-ass lawyer hoping to make his fortune off us would pick on that one. it would cost him money when it got laughed out of court. However, just to keep the peace I have rephrased it for you. Storye book (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Harrogate War Memorial(pictured), by Ernest Prestwich, names 1163 casualties of the First and Second World Wars, of whom 300 have unknown graves, and the youngest was 15 years old? (source as ALT0 above).
I have removed the dodgy numbers from the article. The plaques were removed, rewritten and replaced in 1948, and who knows whether they have been corrected (or just misread) since then. The name-counts were probably all correct in their day. Harrogate Civic Society counted them last, and they had two people spending five years on the study of all the war dead mentioned, ending in 2023, so they have the best chance of being up to date and correct. Storye book (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ: - Not done Overall: @PCN02WPS: Nice work on this article. The copyvio detector highlighted a few phrases, but they seem to be proper names or common phrases. Everything else checks out policy-wise. Just waiting on the 2 QPQs. Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not reviewing this but I believe that this nomination should be failed as a QPQ is not done at nomination time. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant:Ideally, a QPQ is done within the prescribed period of one week from the date of nomination, but WP:QPQ says it can be done before or after nomination as long as it's linked to its nom page and nominator has been duly informed that QPQ is needed upon a full review. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use ALT1 for BLP reasons. Might I suggest a hook relating to it being the most disliked video of all time?--Launchballer 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ... that 287 Broadway was once called "the most succulent cast-iron street-show in all New York"? Source: White, Norval; Willensky, Elliot; Leadon, Fran (2010). AIA Guide to New York City (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 84
Newly 5x expanded. Article is well-sourced, presentable, neutral, and BLP-compliant. Earwig looks fine and no close paraphrasing was detected. Images are freely licensed. The hooks are all cited and interesting. The hook image renders well. For ALT3 and the related quote in the article, the version of the AIA Guide that I'm looking at reads "most succulent cast-iron street-show in all New York". QPQs are needed. Excellent article. gobonobo+c 16:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I will do the QPQs within the next few days, but for now I've fixed ALT3. Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decree calling on Warsaw residents to register to vote in the 1916 City Council polls
... that no voting was held in 4 out of 6 curiae in the 1916 Warsaw City Council election(voter registry appeal pictured), as the Polish and Jewish parties had agreed on a single joint candidate slate? Source: Wybory do rady miejskiej, in Kurjer Warszawski, July 5, 1916. pp. 1-2
... that according to Brandy Hellville, executives at Brandy Melville have sometimes bought the clothes employees are wearing so the brand can copy and manufacture them?
ALT1: ... that according to Brandy Hellville, executives at Brandy Melville have bought the clothes off of employees' backs?
ALT2: ... that according to Brandy Hellville, the founder of Brandy Melville has sometimes become upset after discussing politics with young female employees who support Bernie Sanders?
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending
Comment: These hooks pertain to the lynching of Michael Donald, where assistant district attorney Thomas Figures secured two murder convictions and state senator and attorney Michael Figures (along with Morris Dees) litigated a civil suit that bankrupted the United Klans of America. Thomas is a new article but Michael is a 5x expansion.
Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [14]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [15].
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
