Open main menu

Template talk:Did you know

  (Redirected from Template talk:DYK)
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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


Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 22 1 1
December 25 1
December 27 1
January 31 1
February 6 1
February 9 1
February 14 1
February 21 1
February 23 1 1
February 26 1
February 27 3 1
March 3 1
March 4 1
March 8 1
March 9 1
March 11 1
March 12 3 1
March 14 2
March 15 1
March 17 1
March 18 4 1
March 19 2
March 21 1 1
March 23 2
March 24 1
March 25 2 1
March 26 2
March 27 2
March 30 1
March 31 1
April 2 2 1
April 3 1
April 4 4 1
April 5 2
April 6 1
April 7 1
April 8 2 2
April 9 1
April 10 3
April 11 1
April 12 2 1
April 13 2 1
April 14 6 2
April 15 3 2
April 16 1
April 18 1
April 19 2 1
April 20 4 3
April 21 5 4
April 22 9 7
April 23 11 8
April 24 14 13
April 25 6
April 26 13 8
April 27 9 6
April 28 6 4
April 29 6 5
April 30 5 3
May 1 9 5
May 2 7 5
May 3 17 6
May 4 8 5
May 5 7 2
May 6 6 5
May 7 8 3
May 8 8 4
May 9 8 3
May 10 6 5
May 11 9 5
May 12 6 2
May 13 8 2
May 14 11 4
May 15 7 3
May 16 7 2
May 17 7 3
May 18 5 3
May 19 5 1
May 20 2
Total 317 147
Last updated 11:28, 20 May 2019 UTC
Current time is 13:16, 20 May 2019 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominatorsEdit

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

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

To nominate an articleEdit

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

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

Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

How to review a nominationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questionsEdit


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

Where is my hook?Edit

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussionsEdit

Instructions for other editorsEdit

How to promote an accepted hookEdit

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

How to remove a rejected hookEdit

  • 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 queueEdit

  • 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 nameEdit

  • 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.


Older nominationsEdit

Articles created/expanded on December 25Edit

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

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

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

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

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

QPQ: None required.

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

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

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

  The page itself is misleading by its name. There is no mention of neutral sources like local newspapers, UNHRC or any representative report of other countries. The page should be renamed as Kashmir Uprising and content included from those hundreds of neutral sources out there and can anyone explain how can be a 19 month old child as a rioter?  MehrajMir (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mehrajmir13: in that case, I'm going to recuse myself from this DYK, and ask for another reviewer:   --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at [1] another article and you have followed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with. The language used in your comment clearly shows that you are at an impasse.
  • There is nothing misleading about the article title, it has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.
  • Your suggestion to rename this as "Kashmir Uprising" is entirely frivolous because that article on that topic already exists at 2016–17 Kashmir unrest.
  • After your comment I have included the UNCHR report from a local Kashmiri newspaper. I note that the article already includes criticism from notable organisations such as Amnesty International. DBigXray 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Mehrajmir13, that is unfortunately not a productive comment. You very well know that Crowd control in Kashmir and Kashmir uprising can never be the same article. If you would like an article on the latter, you are free to create one. As far as this article is concerned, if you are able to make any suggestions for improvements, either before or after DYK, I am sure DBigXray will take them on board and I will be happy to help to the extent I can. The current sources include the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and Reuters. They are from "third countries" as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the renaming that is suggested in the link above will occur and I have commented the same on the talk page WP:BOLD. The other points raised related to the sources cited can be addressed accordingly, and do not have anything to with this DYK as far as I can tell now since Winged Blades doubts have also been addressed as far as I can tell since there in no reply from his side here above. I request this DYK to continue for now unless no one has any other page rename suggestions, and inclusion of sources which haven't been used, can carry on. Again I repeat, as far as the DYK issue is concerned, I think it can proceed as normal. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be "WP:BOLD" to reply on talk page. Fact that you are completely misunderstanding the concerns and throwing a bunch of personal attacks as per your talk page comments,[2] it only means that that the issue has not resolved. A simple concern, that you are still not understanding, is that this is not a normal crowd but protesters, and this issue doesn't concerns entire Jammu and Kashmir but only Kashmir Valley. The problem is not just with the title but article itself.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 you are acting naive now. Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, ("crowd control"+"kashmir") which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term.
  • DiplomatTesterMan (You do not have to respond to Mehrajmir) let's wait for a neutral DYK reviewer to come along and review this, as I already noted above, Mehrajmir13 has followed my contributions to reach this DYK and to continue his content dispute with me. The points he has raised are clearly frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of stalling tactics. DBigXray 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I watched this DYK since it is concerns one of the area where I frequently contribute and I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you.
  • You should refrain from any more personal attacks now. Your "standard terms" show nothing compared to what we see after searching "protestors"+"kashmir"+"pellet" on Google. Indeed, reliable sources like Amnesty, BBC[3][4], DNA India, The Hindu and many others make no mention of "crowd" but talk about "protestors".  MehrajMir (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Congratulations to you, that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. You have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that you have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this.
  • The comments by Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article) have already been replied to both here and on the talk page. WBG has also warned him against this behavior [5]. The consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article, there is absolutely no consensus for any kind of merge or rename. DBigXray 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I note here, that I will wait for comments from a new DYK reviewer, so that this DYK page does not become another WP:BATTLEGROUND.DBigXray 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   New reviewer needed, as noted above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Simple requests: who, what, where and why? I made a few edits but have already been reverted: one to explain that the region belongs to India, and to explain who is using these weapons. I am not interested in an edit war, only in resolving this nomination. I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period.
  • Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?
  • Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?

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

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

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

  •   I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "the plastic of the soft-nosed shells easily melts and releases a gas that disperses the crowd. These soft-nosed shells cannot cause fatal injuries. According to CRPF officers, another point is that there have been advancements in tear smoke munitions allowing them to be used more prominently as compared to the other crowd-control weapons" with "The plastic of the soft-nosed shells melts very easily, releasing a gas that helps disperse the crowds. So the shells cannot be fatal in themselves. Secondly, we have made advancements in tear smoke munitions (TSM) that can be used more prominently than other crowd-control weapons". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Working to fix the concerns raised above. DBigXray 05:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Articles created/expanded on December 27Edit

XIX Army Corps

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

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second review

Policy compliance:

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

@Flibirigit: qpq added --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 31Edit

Lorraine 12 D

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on February 6Edit

Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures

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

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

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

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

The issue was that initially, there were no negative reactions mentioned at all in the article, and it wasn't initially clear if this was simply due to them not being included or if it was because reactions were generally negative in the first place. Secondly, as for ALT0 and ALT1, not only do they have severe grammatical problems, but they are not well-written enough to count as "hooky". I took a look at the article right now, and while some of the concerns have been addressed, the text and POV issues still persist, and it would take some more work for this to be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   @M1nhm: I will give you one more week to address the remaining article issues. Failure to do so will result in the nomination being closed as unsuccessful. If you are having difficulty understanding exactly what needs to be done, you are free to ask me or any of the other commenters here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am going to suggest new hooks what is your idea about them?
  • ALT4:...that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures was described as winning "widespread praise"?


  • ALT5:...that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures? Source:reuters M1nhm (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Of the two, ALT5 is probably the best option and probably the most neutral, but in any case either option would need to be copyedited for grammar. Due to the sensitivity of the topic and my reluctance to review such topics, I am deferring giving this a full review and letting any of the previous commentators give their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I added some negative reactions in the article, In other hands, the article was copy edited but you think that article is suffering from POV issue yet. can I ask you to show me sentences that have POV issues? M1nhm (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As you asked to edit ALT 4 and ALT5:

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

@Narutolovehinata5: I nominated the article to copy edit. M1nhm (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The article was copy edited before and was approved in this page, so new review for copy edit is not necessary.M1nhm (talk)

Articles created/expanded on February 9Edit

Dolo hospital airstrike

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

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

Hook eligiblity:

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

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

Articles created/expanded on February 14Edit


The cities of Charibael and his neighbors in the 1st-century Periplus
  • ... that the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea credited the Yemeni king "Charibael" (Karibʾīl) with control of the major ports of the Swahili Coast?
    • ALT1:... that "Charibael" (Karibʾīl)—and not the Roman army—was probably responsible for the destruction of Aden shortly before the composition of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea?
  • Reviewed: Will do "From Dixie with Love".
  • Comment: No, I don't want many other extraneous links in these hooks—just the ones to the page being promoted. Thanks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 15:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC).

  • @LlywelynII:, please forgive my propensity to meandering discourse. This category of information interests me greatly, the origins of language and culture interspersed with situational trivia through the eyes of historical historians. I am compelled to attempt reviewing this DYK. And I tried about two nights ago. However I failed after a couple of hours with little to report, but the DYK has languished with no input, so I will explain what stopped me. The first few citations are in foreign languages and in the old day, for the purpose of DYK, an editor in good standing and literacy was to be trusted for minor translations. So I confirmed the names I could, no obvious mistake, and moved on to the Description section.
It says, "He is said to exercise control over..." three or four named towns and villages. So as I went about checking this part, I had to figure out and repair a small error to linking of the Periplus notes section, minor issue but may explain my failure to sufficiently concentrate, so on to the confirmation of sovereignty, he, Schoff, waffles on a bit about the history of royalty in that particular area, relating and supposing lineage and miscalculations in route based on other books, fine. I believed however that he was telling us about the kings which came before Charibael in relation to some of these towns, particularly Muza, that the kingdom was split up before Charibael. Between the notes and the Periplus itself, nothing seemed to say explicitly say he was king of Muza in particular and perhaps one or more of the others. Nine or ten days between ports may represent a thousand miles, so I had to reread and reference and reread and eventually, I failed concentration with little to report except that I don't believe that part is accurate.
I did not study even to the very end of the paragraph yet, however, this subject interests me enough to try again perhaps by tomorrow or after, but it is best I give you the opportunity to review my review, and perhaps even guide me in part if you are familiar enough to since researching the article. I do intend to have another look when it is out of my mind again, perhaps by tomorrow or later.
If any of that was confusing, I intend to attempt a meaningful review of this DYK over the next few days. I am not sure the extent of Charibaels sovereignty, particularly regarding Muza, is accurate to the source. Checking was longer than expected and broke my concentration. I invite you to review that one part and I will hopefully return with a simpler and more complete review during this week. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 13:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed, as promised review never materialized and it's been half a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII:, I am planning to review the hook, but before starting the review, I think some modifications are needed. First of all, I think that ALT1 should be deleted, because it contains weasel words ("most probably"). Secondly, I suggest that the original hook should be modified, because it contains two expressions (Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and Swahili Coast) which can hardly be understood without explanation. I suggest that the hook should be modified in a way that both its venue and date could be easily recognized for average editors like me. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII:, if my understanding is correct, you do not want to work on the hook. If this is the case, you should withdraw this DYK nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I think what the nominator meant is that they don't want more blue links in the hook other than the subject; meaning, only link to Charibael. With that said, they haven't edited since May 2 and indeed have not been very active at all since they nominated this (in fact, they have yet to reply on this very page), so this may have to be closed if this lack of response continues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that he/she did not want more blue links and I did not want to persuade him/her to add more blue links. Yes, it is time to close this nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 21Edit

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

  • ... that after the Czarnik v. Illumina Inc. patent law case, if you are an inventor and have been left off the inventors list, legal remedy is available?

Created by AWCzarnik (talk). Nominated by FamJoshua1 (talk) at 08:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC).

@Narutolovehinata5: Please find the new hook for your review -
  • ALT1: ... that for the first time, in Czarnik v. Illumina Inc., a court has ruled that an inventor has grounds to sue if their name has been left off a U.S. patent?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamJoshua1 (talkcontribs) 09:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It might need to be rephrased further, it's still a bit difficult to read. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Sure, please find the new hook for your review -
This hook is inaccurate; as a district court decision this is not precedent as the hook implies. Indeed, the article's intro says this has created a split among district courts that has yet to be resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If it does, we can call for a reviewer to do a full review of the nomination. I'm not sure what text is best being the bold link, and if another placement works better, go for it. Thanks. (I've struck ALT2 because it is indeed inaccurate.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It's good for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed now that a workable hook has been proposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no problems with the hook wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
How is the case notable? Almost all of the sources are primary and there's no subject-specific guideline for cases, so it seems to fail WP:GNG. Am I missing something? – Teratix 07:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  I have nominated this article for a merge with Illumina, Inc. due to a lack of secondary sources; this nomination will need to be on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. – Teratix 05:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The nominator hasn't edited at all since March, which makes be believe that the notability issues are unlikely to ever be addressed. In addition, I just realized that the article creator appears to be none other than the Czarnik referred to in the article, so there might be a possible COI issue here either way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You didn't realise that before? – Teratix 05:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually no. With that said, given the nominator's inactivity, I'd suggest closing this regardless of the outcome of the merge discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Considering a lack of response from the nominator and the COI issues, there appears to be no choice but to mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 23Edit

Articles created/expanded on February 26Edit

1 the Road

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

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

  •   New enough, long enough, within policy, and the hook meets the hook criteria. Good to go. In my personal opinion, however (@RTG: this is more food for thought if anything) that the premise of the article is interesting enough as it is (the first book to be written by AI!) that it doesn't really need a super quirky hook like ALT1 to capture the reader's attention, and the primary hook might be a tad confusing as readers may think that it's an article talking about AIs writing novels in general when it's instead about a specific novel. I personally think something super simple like ALT2: "...that 1 the Road is marketed as the first novel to be written by an artificial intelligence?" would work best, but again, that's up to you Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes the primary is clunky. ~ R.T.G 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   New reviewer needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  ALT2 is the best hook listed here. It is very catchy, properly cited and mentioned in the article. Accepting hook, with the rest of the review as per User:Satellizer above.Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't find an inline cite for the ALT2 hook fact. I also don't think the article is start-class yet. It has a largely uncited lead section and one paragraph of authorship, also cited to a single source. Aren't there any production details or publishing history? Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry I musn't have pressed send. In fact the first article is called "The First Novel Written by AI Is Here—and It’s as Weird as You’d Expect It to Be" and it goes on to say, "1 The Road is currently marketed as the first novel written by AI." A quote from the AI creator Goodwin. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: OK, I moved the cite up to the first sentence in the lead. But the article still doesn't seem start-class. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I must put it that this article requires the reader to scroll to finish reading. The subject is a book which makes no sense, is significant only in regard of its author, and has captured a lack of popularity which is both amazing and unsurprising at the same time. If 1 the Road was published in 2000, or even 2010, you could be telling us there was too much useless information in the article, but this is the future and the future is way more crap than advertised.
  • Sorry for the delays. I swear my ping system sometimes flashes up a ping then makes it disappear before I can read it. I must request somewhere that no notification ever be auto-deleted. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 27Edit

Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel)

Friedrich Kiel

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

  •   Can another hook be proposed here? I'm afraid that it might be a bit too technical for people unfamiliar with classical music. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest something, - off for vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am currently unable to suggest alternative wording, as I can't seem to glean from anything that's in the article right now. @Yoninah and BlueMoonset: Any possible suggestions? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Giving this a stab: the hook below is a rephrasing of the original, to make it less technical and easier to read. I'm not sure if it's interesting enough to a broad audience and personally I don't find it too catchy, but for now it seems to be the best option forward.
ALT1 ... that Friedrich Kiel (pictured) set Psalm 130 and other psalms for choir a cappella in his composition Six Motets, Op. 82?
@Gerda Arendt: Are you fine with this suggestion? Because I took a look at the article and there doesn't seem to be much else that could work as a hook. The only other suggestion I can think of is how the work apparently focused on the dark themes of the psalms, but I'm not sure if that's hooky enough for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you expect people to know by the number that Psalm 130 is a call from out of the depths? - I am on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed the title because I didn't see it necessary to mention it in the hook, I will add it back if you think that it is needed. I will wait for your return and see what we can do from here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe the title is the one untechnical thing. Other titles mention "tears", "valley of death" and being forgotten, setting a mood. "Motet" is so awfully general. Will be back on Wednesday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, back, I expanded a bit. I could add more, getting from a footnote that the motet highlighted is the only one performed in Vienna in the 1880s, also that he set it first as Op. 29. I'd prefer to stay with the hook we have, - the text must have been dear to him. - We might say that two choices of text are like those by Brahms in is famous Requiem, but what would that say about Kiel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sorry Gerda but I didn't really understand what you were trying to say in that comment: can you please explain in simpler terms? I am not very well-versed in classical music so when explanations are too technical, I find it difficult to understand. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a footnote in the thesis, saying that Psalm 130 from the six was one of few works by Kiel performed in concert in Vienna after Kiel's death. Does that help (to explain that it is worth mentioning that particular one of the six)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really I'm afraid. And besides, the thing being discussed here is the hook wording, not the article content. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That much I understood, so offered to add content in order to write a new hook based on it. Your answer is : not really, in which case I won't bother. How is this then (although I really love to begin with the bolded thing):
ALT2: ... that "Aus der Tiefe rufe ich" (Out of the depths have I cried) is one of six 1883 psalm settings by Friedrich Kiel (pictured), published as Six Motets, Op. 82? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, we sang it yesterday. Will you continue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently busy with some off-Wiki projects so I'm not sure if I will be able to continue reviewing this. But with that said, ALT2 is better than the other hooks, but I still don't really think that it's hooky. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Calling for a new reviewer; it's been two weeks since the above post. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    I will review this. starship.paint (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────   @Gerda Arendt: - please address the following in the article. Sources are needed for the bolded parts of these sentences. Apologies if I missed anything due to translation errors / lack of knowledge of music. starship.paint (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Settled - starship
  • published by Carus-Verlag in 2004
    ref added --GA
  • by the choir of the Berlin Cathedral
    Are you sure it's not St. Hedwig's Cathedral, your Kiels Werke auf Tonträgern source says Chor der St.-Hedwigs-Kathedrale Berlin. starship.paint (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    fixed, good catch --GA
  • Und ob ich schon wanderte im finstern Thal
    "Tal" is modern German (Carus), "Thal" 19th century German (first edition), no change in meaning --GA
    In progress. Seen this in the IMSLP external link. starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Herr, wie lange willst du meiner so gar vergessen
    same thing --GA
    In progress. Seen this in the IMSLP external link. starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Psalm 84:1,2
    Isn't this 84:2-3? Per Büchner 2014, page 93. starship.paint (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    For someone reading the book, it's 2-3, for someone wanting to look up the text in our article (all psalms are in Wikisource), it's 1-2. --GA
  • Psalm 13:1-3
    Isn't this 13:2-4? Per Büchner 2014, page 93. starship.paint (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    similar --GA
  • Infobox - SATB choir
    replaced by a link to the same, but saying "mixed choir", - the voice parts are different for psalms, and not topic of the infobox --GA
    Please cite this in the text - Büchner 2014, p. 93 says (SATB Nr. 2–5 starship.paint (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the first and last of the motets, the soprano is divided.
    Should we mention SSATB per Büchner 2014, p. 93? starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I though "divided soprano" is easier to read in prose than the technical abbreviation. --GA
  • In the text selection, the focus is on dark aspects from the psalms,
  • Psalm 23 (The Lord is my Shepherd): "Und ob ich schon wanderte im finstern Thal" (Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death).
    I could give more examples but thought it's obvious from the titles: out of the depth, tears, being forgotten for how long. Call it a summary of those titles. --GA
    If it's obvious, then readers should logically figure it out themselves from the given text. Sorry, I'm strict on things needing to be cited. starship.paint (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I placed it after the individual psalms, so the reader who can't read German met four "dark" titles. --GA
    I still believe the link to the psalm is better, see below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think we should be doing our own analysis without a source. That seems like original research. However, I am okay with providing a combined English translation of the motets. Then readers can conclude for themselves how these motets are like. starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death
    2. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is [for brethren to dwell together in unity]
    3. How amiable are thy tabernacles
    4. Out of the depths have I cried
    5. They that sow in tears
    6. How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD?
    7. Consider and hear me
  • The motet is in F major, common time, and marked Andante con moto.
  • The second motet sets the first and last verses from Psalm 133, "Siehe, wie fein und lieblich ist es" (Behold, how good and how pleasant it is [for brethren to dwell together in unity]).
    well, read the psalm, it has only three verses, and he set 1 and 3. --GA
    Cite the psalms then, and we'll be okay. starship.paint (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For the English psalm lines, one way to do it is to link to Wikisource like I've done for this example. [8]. Or, just cite the Bible. Once you've done that, several issues will be settled. starship.paint (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    You mean, instead of just linking to a psalm, I should cite the Wikisource which is in that psalm, + is printed in it? - SOunds awfully formalistic to me, especially for Psalm 23, which a large number of our readers will know by heart ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    You seem to suggest to link to Wikisource instead of to the psalm? No service, then the reader would miss the extra information about the psalm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Better to assume your readers (like me) know nothing. After all, this will end up at DYK. You don’t have to link to Wikisource. Just cite the Bible (King James Version Book of Pslams, is that correct?) then, that shouldn’t be too difficult? starship.paint (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    We have a misunderstading. I want to link to the psalm, let's say Psalm 23. That has plenty of information, context, history, text in Hebrew and English, and the wikisource, + a link to wikisource. You propose wikisource "only". Do you see how poor that is in comparison? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    It done now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I also added the wikisource psalms as refs, hope it pleases you, while I find it what we call "doppelt gemoppelt". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I understood that the wiki-links are more informative than wikisource, Gerda. However we already wiki-link to the Psalms in the article. So I can’t propose adding more wiki-links. Also, I didn’t propose removing wiki-links. starship.paint (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Will add translations and the Brahms wikisouce after singing. Just short reply: I probably misunderstood that you wanted to replace a link to the psalm article by a direct link to wikisourse, - sorry. Wikisource for psalms is in place already.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It’s okay, we are good. starship.paint (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The motet is in D major, common time, and marked Moderato.
  • For the third motet, Kiel chose the beginning' of Psalm 84, "Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen" (How amiable are thy tabernacles), which Johannes Brahms had used for the central movement of Ein deutsches Requiem.
    What should I do, - it's one of the better known movements in classical music. Itr's almost like a plot thing in a book or film. I could drop the half-sentence but think it would help readers, especially as Kiel and Brahms knew each other.
    You should find a source. Something well known should be able to be sourced. starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I know it because I often sang it. Digging up a source is a different matter. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Here is the German wikisource for the Brahms. Would that suffice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, Gerda Arendt. That would suffice, please add it. starship.paint (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • He set it in G major, 6/4-time, and marked Allegretto con moto.
  • In the fourth motet, Kiel set the beginning of Psalm 130, "Aus der Tiefe rufe ich" (Out of the depths have I cried)
  • in C minor, common time, and marked Moderato
  • For the fifth motet, Kiel chose two verses from Psalm 126, "Die mit Tränen säen" (They that sow in tears), words that Brahms had set in the first movement of his Requiem.
    as before for Brahms --GA
  • The motet is in A-flatmajor , 6/4-time, and marked Larghetto con moto.
  • (How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD?).
    Thank you for looking. - This is so long ago that I don't remember, so will have to look from scratch myself. I wonder if it's worth it, - it was meant for Lent. Will se and let you know. Busy RL most of this weekend, see my talk. I didn't invent the markings, and I took the psalm translations from somewhere, and they differ a bit from the normal. - You know Psalm 23, there's only one dark line in it, and that is the one he chose. For starters - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Your choice. We should just cite the Psalm translations. No idea about Psalms - not my religion. Ha! Ping me if you address this, or drop this. starship.paint (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I started working. What do you think. Will have to find a second time where I got the markings, keys and tempos. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I found it, in the external links. Can I cite it as is (all together), or each motet individually? For each, the first page is shown. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt - my preference is to cite it individually. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Will do, but possibly tomorrow, off for RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    No problem, Gerda. starship.paint (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Body doesn't mention "Schau doch und erhöre" in the text. starship.paint (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Brahms ref added, table with titles and translations. Please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
RL calls me for half a day. starship.paint (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Double checking the table... the verses seem to have some issue. starship.paint (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you collapsed too soon? The numbering of verses is different, depending on edition. I gave the numbers as in the KJV because that's what readers will look up. Should I make a different column? - General explanation: Some psalms have a first line such "For the conductor ...", - the numbering differs depending on that counting as a verse or not, see Psalm 84, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
General warning: If you see some psalm number + verse number you never know what text that is unless you know which version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Gerda Arendt, got carried away editing other articles, when Musicalion wouldn't load for me. I didn't collapse anything in the table. The reference for #3 (Wie), #4 (Aus), #5 (Die) and #6 (Herr) do not match the verses. Perhaps adding Wikisource as a second reference for each line in the table would help? starship.paint (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, misunderstandings. You collapsed here (not in the table) my former explanation of the difference in verse numbering. So I tried again, but obviously not enough. I'll try to explain in the article then, because you will probably not be the only one. The verse numbers in the bible that Kiel used are different from the verse numbers in the KJV. Is that clear enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes. I collapsed here - that was a misunderstanding. But I did already understand that the verse numbers in the bible that Kiel used are different from the verse numbers in the KJV. So if you want to write the KJV verse numbers, there needs to be a KJV source citing that. Which I assume Wikisource is one of them. starship.paint (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Psalm 130 1–4[9] - your source seems to say it's the entire Psalm 130, which I see in KJV has 8 versions. starship.paint (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
No, sorry, that's not "my source". The whole article came from me singing that one motet, and if you look at the score, you just see that he took only the first four. Will clarify, but now it's my turn to have RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Back: what you tried doesn't work (how would it specify 1-4?) but I found 1-4 in the Carus edition. The Carus for No. 5 has only verse 5, while Büchner (the best ref for Kiel's verses as I saw too late, better than musicalion) has 5-6. I gave both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Virgin and Child (Sirani)

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Hi JeBonSer - the DYK check states this article isn't long enough - It's only 1449 characters in length. The prose for the most part isn't inline cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Unfortunately, this article has some very severe issues. The first is that the entire "Description" section is uncited, and its prose is highly problematic: ungrammatical, repetitive, and reads as if it were pieced together from various sources without regard to whether the sentences are workable. The entire "Legacy" section was copied directly from the Elisabetta Sirani article without credit, which is against Wikipedia rules—see copying within Wikipedia for what must be done when copying material from another article. Also, the description sourcing must be supplied and its prose greatly improved if this nomination is to succeed. Here's an improved phrasing for the hook:
@BlueMoonset: Nominator hasn't edited in two weeks and never responded, he also hasn't edited the article at all since last month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Unfortunately, as the nominator never responded in this page and hasn't edited the article since he created it and nominated it, coupled with the fact that he hasn't edited in over two weeks, unless another editor is willing to adopt this, I am now marking this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: the nominator has just added refimprove and copyedit tags to the article. I'm not sure if this means this DYKN should be disqualified or it's a sign that this should be put on hold until the issues are sorted out. @JeBonSer: Please leave a comment here explaining your edits, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It should probably be noted than an article that was already too short is now even shorter: 1287 prose characters. There's no point putting an article on hold unless the nominator specifically requests it here. A copy edit is still badly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It should also be noted that the nominator has never responded and in fact appears to have never actually replied to any messages left on their talk page. This makes it unlikely that they will ever respond here. I will give then a final message to respond here by Sunday, but if there is no reply forthcoming, I will close this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Question: Number of prose characters

JeBonSer (talk | sign) 05:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   The article is now long enough, but the prose remains a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the article text still problematic? It looks fine to me for the most part. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't be - I've edited a bit & removed the tag. Let me know if it is still too short. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article currently has 2199 prose characters according to DYKcheck, more than enough to qualify at DYK for length purposes. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: the copying of the original Legacy section from the Siriani article still needs to be acknowledged on the article's talk page before the nomination is approved, perhaps with the "copied" template. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   New reviewer needed; I don't have time to revisit the review myself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 3Edit

The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables

  • ... that The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables (pictured) is exhibited at the Museo del Prado in Madrid, Spain, which was painted by a Spanish artist Bartolomé Esteban Murillo in c. 1678?
    • ALT1:... that the alternative name of The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables (pictured) is "The Immaculate Conception of Soult" after Jean-de-Dieu Soult the Marshal who looted it from the Hospital de los Venerables? Source: "La relación de Soult con el Museo del Prado está motivada por el hecho de que algunas de las pinturas que fueron de su colección y que habían sido sustraídas en Sevilla han terminado formando parte de la pinacoteca madrileña. La primera de ellas es La Inmaculada Concepción de los Venerables, obra de Murillo, que había robado en la iglesia del hospital de dicho nombre en Sevilla y que se subastó en 1852 a la muerte del mariscal, y la adquirió el Musée du Louvre por 615 300 francos, la cifra más alta que hasta entonces se había pagado por una pintura. En 1940 el gobierno francés acordó con el español un trueque de obras de arte en el que se incluyó esta pintura que inmerecidamente se ha venido nombrando como «la Inmaculada Soult», sobrenombre indigno que debe ser sustituido por «la Inmaculada de los Venerables» en honor a su origen y en rechazo del infame robo perpetrado por el mariscal." Museo del Prado (in Spanish)

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 04:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

  • The information in the article does not have inline citations;
  • The text requires a bit of work also:
  • there are constructions such as "commissioned to" that are not used in English
  • the "History" section is one very long sentence
  • I cannot understand the passage: "since in Spain it had spread extraordinarily since 16th century the devotion for the Immaculate Conception of Mary, being also said country the main defender of the mystery and the one that fought with greater insistence until it became one of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, although it would not officially occur until the year 1854."
  • The "Description" section at times refers to the Virgin Mary in the masculine ("his feet ... his eyes")
  • I think a more intriguing hook is required. It is not interesting that a painting is hanging in a particular gallery
More than happy to take another look at this one if the above is addressed. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article, at 1146 prose characters, is too short for DYK. The minimum is 1500 prose characters, so the article needs significant expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   I just discovered that JeBonSer had not been notified on their talk page about the issues with this nomination, so I have just done so. It has been over two weeks since they last edited on Wikipedia, and another DYK nomination has just been marked for closure due to a failure to respond. Allowing another seven days for a response, but if nothing is posted here or the article remains too short at the end of that period, the nomination will also be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset. I didn't post on their talk page but I did ping them above on 5 March. Happy to pick this up again if they get back with the required article improvements - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Dumelow, JeBonSer has greatly expanded the article, which now more than meets DYK's length requirement. However, there are still three uncited paragraphs, and the prose is still problematic in places. A new hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  Hi JeBonSer. Thanks for improving the article. I've gone through it to try to make the text sound more natural but there were some sentences I didn't understand and I do not, alas, read Spanish. Could you take a look or perhaps pass it by somebody else for a second opinion? Further to this the main stumbling block here is a lack of WP:references - as a minimum there needs to be one at the end of each sentence. It'd be great to see this featured on the main page in a DYK but the improvements need to be made (and relatively quickly) to get it there - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, as a minimum there needs to be one reference in each paragraph. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)#
Thanks Johnbod, you are correct - I meant paragraph. Article at present just lacks a citation for "Soult left behind the frame of the painting which was preserved in Spain and was recently restored". It still needs work to the prose though, expecially the "Description" section - Dumelow (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 4Edit

Werner Schneyder

Werner Schneyder in 2012
  • Reviewed: to come Zond 5
  • Comment: our hook size is not compatible with him who described himself as allround amateur

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

  •   Full review to follow, but what do you think of the following ALT?
Looking at the article, it seems that he did both singing and sports commentating, but that contrast in careers might be more interesting to general audiences than performing cabarets alone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
He was legendary in Kabarett, - is that different from cabaret? Should we change links? Sports was rather "also", therefore I won't go for ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure: as I mentioned before I am not very familiar with classical music, so I can't help out much on that end. With that said, you mentioned that you found that it would be difficult to emphasize his many careers in a hook. How about this suggestion then?
ALT2 ... that cabaret singer Werner Schneyder (pictured) also worked as a journalist, writer, actor, stage director, television presenter and sports reporter?
Readers might find it interesting that he had several careers, at least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I found that interesting, therefore I made the original hook, with a focus on two pinnacles, rather than a multitude. - Can you tell me if we should prefer to link to Kabarett? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure but considering the lede only talks about cabaret, I suggest that the hook reflects that (meaning just stick to cabaret). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
For expanding the lead, I need to know if I should better link to Kabarett, implaying political satire, nit just entertainment. I thought cabaret is just a translation, but it seems to have a different meaning. Nothing about him has connection to classical music ;) - Happy Bach's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
ps: do we have rules now which request that a hook fact has to be in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Before I can return to him, I have a full day of RL, want to expand an article about a Bach cantata, have to nominate a DYK or it will be too late, and was shocked by another death, expanded his article from stub at least. Sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Article meets newness and length requirements. QPQ has been done, no copyright violations were found, and German sources are accepted in good faith. As I suggested hooks, the final decision on what hook to promote will be left to a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I read the hooks and the discussion again. I came to think that we should say Kabarett (serious and political), not cabaret (light and entertaining), quote: "Unlike comedians who make fun of all kind of things, Kabarett artists (German: Kabarettisten) pride themselves as dedicated almost completely to political and social topics of more serious nature which they criticize using techniques like cynicism, sarcasm and irony." - I am sure that "singer" is misleading, - a master of the sharp written and spoken word he was, not a singer so much. Sorry for not noticing that sooner. So here's mine, revised:
ALT3: ... that Werner Schneyder (pictured) performed political kabarett programs with Dieter Hildebrandt and commentated on television on boxing at the 1984 Summer Olympics?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 8Edit

British Rail Class 458

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on March 9Edit

Mahendra Nath Pandey

Mahendra Nath Pandey in 2017

5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment: According to the guidelines of DYK, hooks that focus on negative aspects of the subject must be avoided. Well, I am aware of it. But in this case, getting imprisoned during the emergency is not something "negative". Emergency is a period during which, civil rights were curbed amongst others. All those people who protested, who were imprisoned during this period are considered as "heroes" in India. So, imprisonment during emergency is not similar to imprisonment due to rape/loot/murder etc.
  • 1. Size check: Before expansion - 121 words. After expansion 379 words. This is not a 5x expansion. Please check and clarify.
5x character expansion and not word expansion. DYK tool shows "article is at 5x now". RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
So on checking character expansion - Before - 121 words (Characters no spaces = 618) (Characters with spaces 731). After - 379 words (Characters no spaces = 1992) (Characters with spaces 2363). This is not 5x expansion even considering character count. Yes, the DYK tool shows "article is at 5x now" but is the DYK tool 100% accurate? Why am I getting different values? Why not just increase the article so as to make sure even on manual expansion the character expansion is correct? Maybe this difference could be because it is counting the date of 5x expansion from 9 March and not 2 March. If we have to consider 7 days from 9 March would 2nd March be included? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Supplementary article length rules - Character count includes spaces and excludes lists, tables etc. The most recent version ahead of expansion is this. It has 415 charatcers. The current version has 2293 characters. The ratio is 5.525. The tool User:Dr pda/prosesize.js also confirms the same. Also 2nd March is included. You can check here, the current active nominations run from 10 to 17 march (a difference of 7). RRD (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 2. Spot copyvio check: Fine.
  • 3. It would be nice, if not required, to explain why he was imprisoned and when since the DYK is emphasizing this. The article only says "Pandey spent five months in prison during The Emergency." You have explained something in your comment, but the article of Mahendra Nath Pandey doesn't mention this, and we can't assume everyone knows this.
That is not given in the source. Also other sources say the same. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This is what I mean too. Aren't there any other "older sources" about him describing his experience of the emergency? Or atleast add a note about it on the page for the line related to the emergency with a note with sources saying that "getting imprisoned during the emergency is not something "negative"" as you have mentioned in your comment. You are telling me this, but we can't assume the readers know this. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Sources only say that he was imprisoned during the emergency. Such a note in the main article is not required as it would bring bias in the article. Also emergency is linked in the article. RRD (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 4. Why does the hook have to say he is 'BJP MP'? Why not just 'Indian MP'? I have no objections really to this, but since Wikipedia caters to an international audience, wouldn't "Indian MP" be better?
Ok. I have no problem in the change. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 5. The DYK has an image, but "(pictured)" has not been added to the DYK text. Also the caption of the image is currently "Pandey in 2015". I think it would be better just to have his name "Mahendra Nath Pandey" in the caption.
Done.RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 6. The image of Mahendra Nath Pandey is just about ok according to DYK criteria "Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page." But there are more images of him in Wikipedia commons which can be considered and which are of higher resolution.
Done. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 7. "He belongs to Bharatiya Janata Party".... belongs sounds weird. This sentence should be copy-edited and rephrased.
Done. @DiplomatTesterMan:. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: RRD (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  In good faith I will say that all the issues related to this DYK have been sorted out from my side, apart from point number 3. I request a new reviewer to go through it. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion--For an even better hook, replace BJP MP with his' being a current minister. A minister who got imprisoned is definitely more hooky to an average reader than a random MP who got imprisoned. WBGconverse 06:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT1:...that Indian minister Mahendra Nath Pandey was imprisoned during the The Emergency? RRD (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Royroydeb, thanks. Former Indian minister is more apt. Passing soon. WBGconverse 12:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   New reviewer needed to check review and hooks; previous reviewer has not returned after over two and a half weeks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  Royroydeb I think it would be better to arrange the hook to show how he progressed from jail into office. Do you mind rewarding the hook in the form of the following: Flibirigit (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • DYK... that NAME... was imprisoned during IMPORTANT EVENT... then became ... IMPORTANT POSITION?
  • DYK... that NAME... was imprisoned during IMPORTANT EVENT... then did ... IMPORTANT ACCOMPLISHMENT?

Articles created/expanded on March 11Edit

Lady Ponce

Lady Ponce

Created by Toreightyone (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Nominated on the 7th day, 1806 characters, Copycvio unlikely, 0% at EarWigs. Hook is 136 characters.
Issues: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • albums and singles unsourced, should be cited or can be commented out.   Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • the article focuses almost entirely on tabloid fodder. Can you add some info about her music. Since that is her basis of notability why is it not discussed. Why is she called "the queen of Bikutsi"?
  • I don't think this article demonstrates notability as written.
  • please add some location info to the hook, easiest way: "..her wedding in Les Clayes-sous-Bois a secret", either that or add "Cameroonian singer". I don't see any location marker to orient the reader.   Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • how do we know this photo was legitimately added to Commons. Anyone could have uploaded it

Sorry to do this. Please ping me and I will return. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Coffeeandcrumbs, how does this hook sound?
  • ALT1: ... that Cameroonian singer Lady Ponce (pictured) invited the paparazzi to her wedding at 3:30 pm, but actually held it at 9:00 am to keep her wedding a secret?
As for the image, how does the one on the side look? I can message Sergelowe (uploader) with any questions you have. As it stands right now, the citations for the singles and appear at citation 16 on the discography box on the right. I can add info regarding her music and her nickname either today or tomorrow. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Who is Sergelowe? The uploaders for the images are Rogeraepoh and Photokadaffi. I think we have to go with no photo. Her face is not visible in the other photo and I have suspect that the main photo is COPYVIO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you add some sentences about when she release the albums. Something like: "Lady Ponce released her debut album in ... Her second album, Le ventre & le bas-ventre, came in ..." I can not pass the article as neutral when it focuses so much on tabloid-y stuff. Right now, her biography is mostly rumours, weddings, and hoaxes claiming she died. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sergelowe is the uploader for the image I added. It may be possible to crop the one I added in a way that focuses on her face - but if it cannot, then no photo is fine with me. Toreightyone (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  OK, both photos are no good. Moving on the article, it fails WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It has an undue focus on the subject's personal life. It does not appear that the subject is only notable for her personal life.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Toreightyone: You have been unable to edit the article in almost a month, and Coffee's concerns appear to have been unaddressed. I'll give you until May 16 to address the issues; if you will be unable to do so, the nomination may be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   No response from the nominator despite a ping, a talk page message, and a DM on Discord. He has also not edited in two weeks. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just received a message from the nominator that he will try to address the issues by tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey @Coffeeandcrumbs:, I have made several expansions to the career section. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 12Edit

Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

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

  •   Full review needed, since the nomination is continuing rather than being withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Full review still needed; it's been over two weeks with no review posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Historical significance

  • ...that historical significance is subjective and open to challenge? Source: "But historical significance is often a subjective decision, something that makes it contestable (open to challenge)." (and [11] the source)
    • ALT1: ...that historical significance defines history books, street names, museum displays, pictures on stamps, bank notes, and television shows? Source: " Ideas about historical significance help to shape how the past is remembered and represented and influence who gets remembered and who gets forgotten and who and what gets included in history books, commemorated on bank notes, in the names of streets and squares, in museum displays, in television programmes, and so on" (and [12] the source)

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on March 14Edit

Orvar Swenson

  • Reviewed: Lu Xiaopeng
  • Comment: Note that congenital megacolon is synonymous with Hirschsprung's disease.

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

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

Olivia Jade Giannulli

  • ALT1 ... that there has been a delay in the processing of the trademark for Olivia Jade due to "poor punctuation" on the application? [15] [16]
  • Reviewed: forthcoming / needed

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

  •   Date, size (bare minimum but passes), copyvio check, neutrality, hooks, pass. QPQ review needed. But I also have one more concern that would be best answered by a second reviewer. The article is borderline with regards to WP:BLP - most of the content is tabloid-level criticism of the subject. I am unsure if it is due weight to discuss such incidents including the one the hook is citing. And frankly, removing even one sentence from this article could make it not eligible as it will be too short. Not sure if we want this type of content for the front page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is currently at AfD; therefore no decision on DYK can be made until and unless it is kept. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Outsider comment; courtesy ping to all parties as AFD is closed as keep and article has been further expanded. Review can be continued although the problem of recentism would need to be addressed per tag. Daniel Case, Piotrus, Chetsford. :) Adog (TalkCont) 15:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article passed AfD (which I have not been aware of), this suggests it is at least notable. It also has been expanded. As for the tag about 'being slanted towards recent events', I am not sure it is justified - is there any coverage of her that's not about 'recent events'? I am inclined to change my vote to GTG unless counter-arguments are presented (please ping me if anyone wants to address me). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of notability or recentism issues, the hook seems to be a BLP case and personally I don't feel comfortable using it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Would you be able to propose an alternate hook? I'm concerned that the current one falls afoul of BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
Sure, Narutolovehinata5. Alt proposed, above. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Piotrus: Thoughts on the new hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. Possible BLP issues... but I guess we can leave the choice of the hook to the closing admin, both are ok-ish, if we squint long enough... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 15Edit


  • ... that the medieval Perso-Arabic legend of al-Nadirah was the source of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Princess and the Pea"? Source: "The widespread popular legend about the Hatrene princess Nażira and her betrayal of the city for love is still lives on in the modern fairy tale (by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen) “the princess and the pea”" [17]
  • Reviewed: coming soon

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

  •   Thank you. The hook is excellent. The Princess and the Pea is one of my favourite tales and no doubt this information will be of interest to many. QPQ to do, copyvio okay, new enough, sourced and cited. One bare url needs a fix. Character count too low. Can you expand a bit more, maybe add the information of why it linked with the fairy tale? Another source [18]. Ping me when done. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Whispyhistory, I get the character count of the prose at around 2,000, shouldn't that be enough? I think the hook needs to be reworded though: neither its source, nor the first relevant thing I could see in a quick search [19] suggests that the legend was the actual source of the fairy tale. All that is stated is that they share a theme, stopping short of implying a causal connection (which is likely but not certain and it would be otherwise quite difficult to establish). – Uanfala (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   ALT1 works with "one of the sources". The article still has a bare url needing a fix. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 17Edit

Felipe Reinoso

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

  •   The lead is too short. In the original hook "state legislature" must be replaced by "state legislature of US". RRD (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The article lede now mentions Reinoso's tenure on the Connecticut House, and his election to the Peruvian legislature. ALT3 above specifies U. S. state legislature in addition to the wikilink state legislature (United States) that was already present. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vycl1994: The lead claims that he was born in circa 1950. However, there is no source for it in the article. I have also added a when tag to the article. The article needs a little copyedit also. RRD (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: The biographical sketch attached to Reinoso's interview with Reyes states "Reinoso was born in Peru and immigrated to Connecticut in 1969" Keating, Pazniokas, and Lender (2008) states "Rep. Felipe Reinoso, a Bridgeport Democrat, flew back from his native Peru - where he lived for 19 years before moving to Connecticut".... Both references are linked to the sentence "Reinoso and his family immigrated to the United States in 1969, settling in Bridgeport, Connecticut." at the moment. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 18Edit

Chowkidar Chor Hai

  • ... that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministers prefixed the name 'chowkidar' (watchmen) to their social media profiles in response to election slogan Chowkidar Chor Hai? Source: "In recent days, leaders and supporters of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have launched a coordinated effort to popularize his watchman campaign, with many changing their social media names to add the prefix ‘chowkidar’" Reuters, "Prime Minister Narendra Modi today changed his personal Twitter account name to -- Chowkidar Narendra Modi. Following Prime Minister, BJP president and other BJP leaders also changed their profile names to Chowkidar Amit Shah, Chowkidar Piyush Goyal, etc. The campaign has been launched to counter the Congress President Rahul Gandhi's " chowkidar chor hai" jibe against the Prime Minister."Economic Times, Telegraph

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

  •   I've modified the hook slightly to include "Narendra Modi" in it. The article is new enough and long enough, and QPQ is present. However, the article has some slight grammatical issues and most pressingly it is up for AfD. I'd like to reevaluate pending the result of the AfD. Raymie (tc) 17:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "his ministers" seems quite strangely put. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming his government ministers? Not exactly a big leap of faith in a parliamentary democracy... Raymie (tc) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article was kept at AFD, but the 2019 Indian general elections are currently ongoing, so in light of the rule at WP:DYKHOOK for avoiding articles featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the election, it would seem that the promotion at least will have to wait until they have concluded. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's also an RM now on this page, as a note, requesting a move to Main Bhi Chowkidar. Raymie (tc) 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Further update: having survived the RM, this page is now a candidate to be merged. Can't say I've seen an AfD, an RM and a proposed merger on the same article before? Raymie (tc) 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

High Orchard

Llanthony Provender Mill, High Orchard
Fielding & Platt 150-ton rivetting machine (1885)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

  •   This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. The image is in the public domain but I don't think it goes with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find the hook more a statement of fact than hooky. It's also not clear that High Orchard is an industrial area. Could you come up with something more attention grabbing, perhaps playing on some of the names or the incarnations of the area? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that an arson attack on Llanthony Provender Mill (pictured) in Gloucester's High Orchard area left it a "dilapidated shell"? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: thank you for the alt, but isn't that an obvious result? I've combed the article for other hooks, but the material is very dry. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I will have another look at my sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   That's interesting, thanks. Do you have a link for "rivetting machine"? Calling on new reviewer to look at ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Linked, using British spelling. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  Honestly I don't really find ALT2 to be interesting. It seems rather dry, and perhaps a bit too complicated (it seems hard to tell if it's focusing on the industrial area or the machine). I think the original hook fact (about the area formerly being industrial but is now a shopping district) has potential: perhaps a new hook can be suggested based on that? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory: Could you suggest alternate hooks here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I have unstruck both the original hook and Alt1 for further discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that High Orchard (buildings pictured), a former industrial area in Gloucester, England, is now the site of a shopping centre?
ALT3a ... that High Orchard (buildings pictured), a former industrial area in Gloucester, England, is now a shopping centre?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt4 ... that High Orchard (buildings pictured) in Gloucester, England, was part of a medieval priory, then an industrial area, and is now the site of a shopping centre?
The image is splendid, and if it is to be used, the "(buildings pictured)" bit of the hook should follow mention of the industrial area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt4a ... that High Orchard in Gloucester, England, was part of a medieval priory, then an industrial area (buildings pictured), and is now the site of a shopping centre? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Kamchatka meteor

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

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

  •   @Exoplanetaryscience: New article, long enough, and within policy - although the references could do with improving. My main concern is with the hook. ALT1 seems a bit disparaging, so I prefer the first one. However, the diameter of the meteor seems to be 12 +- 2, not exactly 12 - it might be better just to say the name of it. Also, I don't understand where the 30 years number came from - it's smaller than the 2013 and 1908 ones, so shouldn't this be "the last 6 years"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice second largest in 30 years- a rather conservative estimate by the BBC source I gave first since we're only confident that similarly sized asteroids have only hit once in the last 30 years (the chelaybinsk event as you said) It wouldn't be supported by the source given, but I could say it was the third largest impact on Earth since 1900. I also chose to state the size of it over the name as I couldn't seem to fit both in without seeming overly verbose, or just the name without making the size of it seem rather meaningless. I might even say putting down the size range and risk getting verbose is better than not giving it at all. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Exoplanetaryscience: Sorry for the delay, I hadn't spotted your reply here. "third largest observed since 1900" might be easier to understand than "second largest in 30 years", since the latter presumably depends on an observational technique having changed 30 years ago (looking at the source for the BBC article at [23]). Perhaps "10-metre class asteroid" might be a way to avoid giving uncertainties on the diameter while not being overly precise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: I prefer the "third largest observed since 1900" with the keyword being observed. Given that "Events as large as this are statistically estimated to occur once every 20-40 years on average" it seems difficulty to justify that we know that it is the "third largest impact on Earth since 1900." --mikeu talk 21:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  Sorry for the delay with re-reviewing this. I think it's now good to go with the revised version of the first hook. I forgot to check for the QPQ earlier, but it isn't needed as it's your second DYK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook has too many numbers in it. Could you pare it down? Here's a suggestion:
  • ALT0a: ... that in 2018, the third-largest asteroid observed to impact Earth since 1900 fell over the Bering Sea near the Kamchatka Peninsula?
  • Also, why are you calling it an asteroid when the page name is meteor? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Exoplanetaryscience and Mu301. On 'asteroid', that's what it was before it fell into Earth's atmosphere (see Asteroid#Terminology), so that makes sense in the context: an asteroid fell and became a meteor. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, a meteor is the visible passage of an asteroid (or other object) thourgh the atmosphere. Asteroid is the "thing" and meteor is the impact "event". --mikeu talk 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: God, I'm horrible at being timely recently. Anyway, I think it would be good to include the size because otherwise you've just got "an unusually large asteroid" and nobody knows how big it is- is a golf ball particularly large for such an object? Perhaps an entire mountain? There's no good way to give reference save just giving a size. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: see the reply from the nominator above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
To explain "how big it is" I have a slight preference for TNT equivalent force as in ALT1. The primary notability of the event is that it released a great amount of energy when it detonated in the atmosphere.[24] A small mass moving fast or a large mass moving slow could have the same impact.[25] But, diameter is ok imo. --mikeu talk 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Exoplanetaryscience: all I'm saying is that the hook has too many numbers in it. If you want to keep the size of the meteor, then edit the hook so the size doesn't run into the date. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Articles created/expanded on March 19Edit

Pema Dhondup

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

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

Ehud Arye Laniado

  • ... that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado died during penis enlargement surgery? Source: "Billionaire Jewish diamond trader dies during penis enlargement operation. Belgian-Israeli Ehud Arye Laniado, 65, suffers heart attack after unnamed substance injected during cosmetic operation in France" ([26])

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

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

Articles created/expanded on March 23Edit

Oei Hui-lan

Madame Koo (then Mrs Caulfield-Stoker) with her eldest son, 1920

Improved to Good Article status by Clara dari Semarang (talk). Self-nominated at 13:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Note: struck ALT1, which was 213 prose characters (including spaces). Also fixed up the original hook so the nominated article is in bold per DYK guidelines, and the "(pictured)" is included (which doesn't add to the hook's prose characters). Proposing a shorter version of ALT1:
  •   Article is a recent GA, long enough, neutral, and well referenced. No copyvio detected. QPQ not required as it's the nominator's first DYK. There are problems with the hooks, however, as the supplied source says she was actually born in Amoy, China, not Dutch East Indies (or Indonesia, which is anachronistic). The image is PD, but does not show up well in small size. I suggest using the image in the infobox instead. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Zanhe The quoted source, which is not an academic work, contradicts Suryadinata et al, who says that she was born in Semarang. Should I include another source?
  • I'm quite happy to use the Met exhibition quotation instead if you prefer.
  • How do I transfer the image to the infobox?

Clara dari Semarang (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clara dari Semarang: You're right, Suryadinata 2015 says she was born in Semarang, and that's a far more reliable source than "Nee Hao". Still, I think "Indonesia" is anachronistic and should be changed to Dutch East Indies. As for the image, what I was suggesting is to use the photo currently in the infobox (File:Madame Wellington Koo (née Hui-lan Oei) with baby.jpg) for DYK, as that one shows up better in small size. -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe, it's been over a month. What is keeping this from being approved? Since the nominator is new to DYK, perhaps you could make any minor adjustments to get this moving again, such as displaying the other photo here so whoever promoted this can choose between the two photos. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I was simply waiting for the nominator to respond to my comments, but she hasn't edited for over a month. I don't mind making the changes myself, but sometimes people get very offended when I do that without getting their consent first. -Zanhe (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe, I've just posted to her talk page; sometimes pings don't work. If there's nothing in the next few days, I'd go ahead with whatever's needed; if she doesn't like a change, she can simply say so. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Methodist Church Ghana

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

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

  •   At the time of nomination, the only change from the past month week was from CommonsDelinker. hinnk (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article was expanded from 1597 prose characters to 2000 prose characters on April 7 (definitely within the past month), a 20% expansion. So the nomination was made 17 days after that expansion, or 10 days late. It would need to be expanded to 7985 prose characters to meet the 5x (500%) expansion requirement, which does not seem to be feasible. In addition, the hook does not meet DYK requirements for formatting or interesting facts. Best of luck for next time; before the next nomination, I suggest that Saborbie read WP:DYK to find out more about how DYK works and what it expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry yes, the expansion was within the past month but way outside the window to nominate for DYK. Amended my original comment. hinnk (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   The nominator appears to be working on the article in their sandbox, and it looks as if a 5x expansion will be achieved. Marking this to keep the nomination open until the article is updated with new text or the semester is over, whichever occurs first. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 24Edit

Herbert Schachtschneider

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

  •   Article created on 24 March as stated. Contains 2210 characters of prose, is neutral and sourced. Complies with core policies and contains no close paraphrasing [[28]] (I don't see how it could given the sources are in German). Hook contains fewer than 200 characters and is cited in the article. However, the source does say that he recorded Gurre-Lieder mit Inge Borkh und Kieth Engen and although I think that's okay, this may upset the pedantic. Is it interesting? Well, I suppose some people will find it interesting but I would've preferred something about his capture by allied forces. Still, good to go IMHO as soon as the QPQ is done.Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I am not sure why you'r mind that the source mentions his colleague singers, whom I'd mention if only Engen had an aticle, Inge Borkh was one of the most exciting sopranos of her time, and some readers may remember (she died last year). However, the who review comes under the header Kubelik, who is pictured on the cover, and unites three different recordings. Pedantics might rather complain that it's only "Ausschnitte" (excerpts) of Gurre-Lieder, but it's more than one Gurre-Lied, so should be ok. Will review later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I read that as if all the compositions were sung as a trio but in any event, I'm not one of those pedants so as soon as you've done the QPQ, ping me and I'll GTG this nom. Regards Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ykraps, I reviewed now, s. above. Just for teaching: the set combines three recordings of music by different composers, at different times, with different people. Of the three, he sang only in Gurre, but that's a giant piece. No tenor in the Alto-Rhapsody (as one might guess by the title), and a different tenor (who was less praised) for Das klagende Lied. I liked the Gurre because of the praise, and because his other connection to the composer, but "UK premiere" is a bit awkward. Thank you for listening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the extra info. All good to go now.Ykraps (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Honestly, a new hook is probably needed here: it doesn't seem to be intriguing that a singer recorded a song, isn't that their job? Ykraps' suggestion about him being captured during World War II is honestly better than what has been proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with Gurre-Lieder, which - inspite of the harmless title - is a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers. Not a song. - DYK is to promote knowledge that is not yet known. Many performers' articles are a vehicle to make also compositions known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
But does the hook appeal to a broad audience? To be frank, a hook that requires familiarity with a niche topic rarely works out, especially in cases like this. There's probably a better way to present the hook fact and the current one isn't really working out. Being "a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers" does not matter if this is a fact that is only known to opera circles and not the average reader. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I am so tired of this, and today actually sick in bed. Please join the central discussion on WT:DYK#Opera role (where I said that I'd prefer 3 readers actually interested in the topic to 3000 who click and return.) I am here to expand knowledge, - there's a link to Gurre-Lieder for those who don't know. (I see I said that already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to capitalize "Cologne" in the hook. Jmar67 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 25Edit

Golem (Casken opera)

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on March 26Edit

Sylvia Geszty

Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC).

I guess the image would be better if cropped for this purpose, not for the article. What do you think, David? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I've uploaded a cropped version. —David Levy 02:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, here's a square crop. —David Levy 05:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed now that images are set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   The article meets DYK requirements, no close paraphrasing was found, and a QPQ has been provided. The roles section currently lacks references, so that has to be resolved first. While the hook fact is cited inline, I find the wording a little clunky and could be written better. Perhaps something like:
ALT0a ... that the Hungarian coloratura soprano Sylvia Geszty (pictured) started her international career as a member of the East Berlin Staatsoper?
With that said, I honestly am not sure if that's even interesting (either the original or my own rewording). Another option could be a more minor rewording of the original hook, something like:
ALT0b ... that the Hungarian coloratura soprano Sylvia Geszty (pictured) was a member of the East Berlin Staatsoper before joining the Stuttgart State Opera?
Which doesn't really resolve the hook interest issues, but personally I think that a Hungarian joining both East and West German musical groups does sound intriguing. In case that doesn't work out, perhaps:
ALT1 ... that Sylvia Geszty's portrayal of the role of Zerbinetta in the opera Ariadne auf Naxos was described by a critic as the "most emotional, multi-faceted and human of all"?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for offering. I didn't dare to suggest ALT1, because it's one critic's pov, - beautiful as it is. Where would "pictured" go? East-West is something specific to her career, - they changed record covers when she dared to leave the Berlin Opera. ALT0a is boring, therefore, showing only one side. In ALT1b, where would "pictured" go? It's East style which needs to show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talkcontribs) 14:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1a ... that the portrayal by Sylvia Geszty (pictured) of Zerbinetta in the opera Ariadne auf Naxos was described by a critic as the "most emotional, multi-faceted and human of all"? —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Reviewer needed for ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Hanna McCormick

Improved to Good Article status by Knope7 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

  •   Article was promoted to GA status within the last seven days, is over the required prose size and has no copyvio concerns. Both hooks are interesting and supported by reliable sources with inline citations. User has provided a QPQ review to meet the requirement, good to go. Kosack (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find both hooks pretty pedestrian. This is a GA; can you provide a juicier hook? Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm perplexed by this. Would it help to trim hook 1? The first woman to receive a major party's Senate nomination is a huge achievement and hook worthy to me. The fact that she defeated a sitting senator to win the nomination underscores the difficulty of what she did but it's not crucial. Knope7 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to ping @Yoninah: earlier so I am doing it now. Knope7 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Knope7: it's interesting to you because you're American, right? But it's not going to be interesting to readers in other countries, and frankly, we've had our share of women "firsts" at DYK. It's also very wordy. The best you could shorten it to is:
  • ALT2: ... that Ruth Hanna McCormick was the first woman to run on a major party ticket for the United States Senate? -- which isn't so interesting, is it? Are you sure you can't pull something else hooky out of the article that will entice readers? Something about her relationships with major American political players? Something about her own family's immersion in politics? Something else? Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:Not quite. It's not that she just ran, it's that won a primary to get there. It's pretty clear we have a different interest in celebrating the achievements of groundbreaking women, which is fine. If there are a lot of women "firsts" at DYK, that's probably a sign I'm not alone in finding them interesting. I'll note ALT1 does not rely on her being a woman. I would not support a hook that relies on her connections to major American politicians because of how that feeds into a larger problem for how women's biographies are often presented on Wikipedia. Tying her to American political figures does not solve one of the reasons you have rejected my prior hooks, that it won't interest readers in other countries. With all that being said, here are two attempts, below. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Reviewer needed for ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 27Edit

Samra (rapper)

  • ... that Samra, a male German rapper, performs under a feminine Arabic pseudonym?
    • ALT1:... that a German male rapper's pseudonym is an Arabic feminine name that means "Dark"?
    • ALT2:... that a German male rapper takes an Arabic feminine name as his pseudonym?
    • ALT3:... that Samra, a German male rapper, takes an Arabic feminine name that means "Dark" as his pseudonym?

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I'll review this one. The review will be up in the next day. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing:  N - The article should be edited to clarify that the weapons he was arrested with in Prague were non-functioning; as it stands the article gives the misleading impression that he was caught with working military-grade weapons.
  • Neutral:  N - The language is sometimes excessively promotional (particularly "at age 23, Samra scored his first solo number one" and "set for release on April 26") and needs to be cleaned up. You can state that his EP will be bundled with this other album without sounding like you're trying to get readers hyped for the release date. There's also no reason to have a floating link to his music video; any reader who can use Wikipedia can find a music video on YouTube without our help.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:  Y
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Article was new enough when nominated, is just long enough (~1900 characters of readable prose), and shows no signs of plagiarism of online sources when run through Earwig's tool. There are citations to support the article's claims throughout. The language is sometimes excessively promotional and needs to be cleaned up. The hook proposals are all variations of the same thing, which is interesting and is supported by a citation; I like ALT0 the best and am lightly editing it for clarity. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Aures

Created by Ichthyovenator (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 11:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Better hook required. The final monarchs of many kingdoms have died in battle. RRD (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Newly created article, over 1500 characters, cited and interesting hook, QPQ done, use of fair image, article follows guidelines. RRD (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This isn't remotely hooky. A reader need not to brainstorm to find about what's exactly hooky in the DYK, which's the case here. WBGconverse 05:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems perfectly hooky to me, but here is another:
  •   Reviewer needed for ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 30Edit

János Gerendi

  • ... that the Transylvanian nobleman János Gerendi refrained from eating blood and strangled animals, but did not keep all the Old Testament laws around 1585? Source: "Around the middle of the 1580s it was known that ... certain rules - though only a few - were followed with respect to diet and the slaughtering of livestock. The innovation-friendly nobleman had introduced some Old-Testament laws..." [30] "At the beginning of 1585, Christian Francken, in a letter to János Gerendi, criticized the ideas of the Gerendists, as István Szántó Arator, the Jesuat, called the Gerendi-circle. It turns out from this letter that at the beginning of the 1580s, the Gerendists kept from the Law the forbidden eating of blood and strangled animals." [31]
    • ALT1: ... that the Transylvanian nobleman János Gerendi refrained from eating blood and strangled animals, but did not keep all the Old Testament laws? Source: "Around the middle of the 1580s it was known that ... certain rules - though only a few - were followed with respect to diet and the slaughtering of livestock. The innovation-friendly nobleman had introduced some Old-Testament laws..." [32] "At the beginning of 1585, Christian Francken, in a letter to János Gerendi, criticized the ideas of the Gerendists, as István Szántó Arator, the Jesuat, called the Gerendi-circle. It turns out from this letter that at the beginning of the 1580s, the Gerendists kept from the Law the forbidden eating of blood and strangled animals." [33]

Created by Borsoka (talk). Self-nominated at 04:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment, not a review. It's not obvious that the ref as quoted supports the hook! "around 1585" should be placed earlier, if that is the actual dqate. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, thank you for your comment. Why do you think that the refs do not support the hook? Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The vnew hook is better, & I'll leave the reviewer to worry about that if you don't mind. Johnbod (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 31Edit

Miriem Bensalah-Chaqroun

Miriem Bensalah-Chaqroun

Created by Toreightyone (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Doing... starting review for nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited:  N - ?
  • Interesting:  N - ?

Image eligibility:

QPQ:  N - ?
Overall:   Nomination submitted seven days after creation of the article. Length and sourcing are adequate. Article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues detected. The hook is reasonably interesting, and properly cited, but it currently links twice to 2017 G20 Hamburg summit. It needs to be reworked, and I recommend trying fewer blue links to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Photo is properly licensed and used in the article, but I recommend using a slightly cropped version to make it more clear. Perhaps just the upper portion of the photo is best for this nomination, and the full photo can remain in the article. QPQ requirement is outstanding. Flibirigit (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Adopting nomination The nominator has commented here that she many be too busy to continue. I adopt this nomination to move it forward, and I will donate a QPQ credit as well. Flibirigit (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I have substituted cropped photos into this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Proposing an ALT1 below. Flibirigit (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Flibirigit, I found some time this long weekend to come back to Wikipedia. I feel kinda bad about the QPQ credit so if you want you can use Template:Did you know nominations/Mikhailovsky Palace. I look forward to working with you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreightyone (talkcontribs)
Welcome back online. If you prefer to use your own QPQ, that is fine. I have updated the photo for you. Would you like to propose your own version of a hook? Flibirigit (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Your ALT1 sounds awesome, if I may also suggest an alternative just for fun
But my main preference lies with ALT1. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT2 is a good possibility, but it would need to indiciate "on behalf of King Felipe VI" or some other rewording. Yoninah, any thoughts on ALT1, ALT2 ot ALT2a? Flibirigit (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also prefer ALT1 for stronger wording. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  I have struck ALT2, but I cannot approve my own hooks ALT1 or ALT2a. Flibirigit (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I substituted the images with a cropped portrait image, thanks to David Levy. Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came to do the review, but I'm wondering if you'd like to use a different picture that places her in august company:
Bensalah-Chaqroun (front row, fourth from right) with world leaders at the G20 Summit

Articles created/expanded on April 2Edit



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

  •   Full review needed. It's been nearly three weeks without any follow-up. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Article meets the technical requirements. Assuming good faith for the offline sources. No close paraphrasing found, QPQ done. However, the children table lacks a reference, and I feel that the current hook might be too prosaic to be hooky. Perhaps a better hook could be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: The children table has been removed. New hook
I think that's a much better hook. Will try to give this a full review by tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay as I had been caught up in other matters. Anyway, I have two issues at the moment: firstly, the sentence discussing ALT1 lacks a footnote. Secondly, are there more details about this revenue administration system? The sentence that comes after seems to talk more about government administration than the revenue administration. Or was that sentence the one which discussed the revenue administration system? The wording isn't very clear on that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 3Edit

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017

Created by Icewhiz (talk). Self-nominated at 08:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Date and length fine. I am approving ALT1 only as I think it's more recognisable and doesn't use acronyms. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Object, the hook has clear NPOV issues (Polish nationalists), same for the article, which is rather one sided and suffers from neutrality/undue issues. I'll explain more on article's talk, but the hook is also misleading. The "nationalists" were, at the very least, Polish American, not Polish - unless the Polish government flew in a few hundreds demonstrators from Poland...? PS. I do think that the topic is interesting, but we need a different hook, and the article needs an NPOV c/e and source review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:OR aside, multiple WP:RSes describe them as such - "Polish Nationalists staged a demonstration in New York"[38] "A large group of Polish nationalists took over a major square in downtown Manhattan[39], "Polish nationalists protested in New York City against a bill"[40]. Calling them "Polish American" would be borderline OR - though JC does have that in an image caption (using "Polish Nationalists" otherwise) - and possibly imply that these groups represent in some manner Polish Americans at large (which I assume they most definitely do not).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article has ton of other problems - at least in your version of it - in addition to that one, like WP:SYNTH, use of crappy sources which make obviously outlandish and false claims ("The Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers"), and hyperbolic POV language. It's nowhere near ready for DYK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article follows the language in mainstream English language WP:RSes. Disliking what a RS says? Write their editor a letter, we follow sources here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It actually doesn't. SYNTH isn't an issue with reliability of sources but how these sources are used, for example. Additionally, some of the sources you are attempting to use are clearly not RS in this case. Are you seriously claimig that "the Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers"? Yeah? Then go put that in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article. Either that, or admit that this is nonsense and the source is obviously junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If the sources are clearly wrong, reliability is not relevant. Again, did they fly from Poland to NYC? If not, they are not Polish, but Polish-American. Anyway, singling out a nationality or ethnicity for a hook is not a best practice. While we work out the NPOV/sourcing issues with the article itself, I recommend a non-controversial hook. Here's ALT2 for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Multiple sources - in fact all English sources describing this group, describe them as "Polish Nationalists". They may be Polish nationalists who are US citizens/residents (marching in NYC, carrying Polish flags and antisemitic placards - in Chicago incidentally they had a guy wearing an NSZ armband, flanked by another fellow with a NSZ armband fellow - video of rally - speaking for 20 minutes in Polish. The NSZ - [41] - was "openly anti-Semitic National Armed Forces (NSZ), an extreme right-wing organization that characterized communists, Jews and Soviets as Poland’s principal enemies". In any event - we follow sources - which frame the bill in terms of Polish opposition (other countries having carried out restitution Jewish property stolen by the Nazis) - and which describe the protesters as "Polish nationalists".Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not all sources use the term (see talk page). Anyway, not everything the sources say, including language/etc., is appropriate for the DYK, per NPOV and DYK guidelines ("Consider whether there might be neutrality problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook."). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: ...that Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 requires US State Department to monitor how European countries are compensating Holocaust survivors and their heirs for assets seized by war and post-war governments?
Not hooky. The protest by Polish Nationalists is amply sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean, hooky, is this a word? This is an interesting fact. We are not a tabloid that draws attention to the most controversial aspect. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide: "Consider whether there might be neutrality problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook.". Sometimes we have to chose a less tabloidy, controversial hook, to address Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"Not hooky" here means "not POV enough" Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKHOOK - "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. . WP:IDONTLIKE is not a neutrality problem. We have several English language WP:RSes reporting on the protests in New York - e.g. Newsweek, Forward1, Forward2, TOI, Haaretz, JC, Tablet - we follow sources. Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
DYKHOOK also clearly states "The hook should be neutral." And that the hooks should not "misstate the article content". The description of the protesters as "Polish nationalists", while present in some sources, is not neutral. I've presented other sources at talk that don't use such phrases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The English language sources above all use "Polish nationalists", per WP:NOENG we prefer English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Icewhiz for Polish nationalists. You could have written Polish Nazis or Polish anti-Semites but you limit your attacks to nationalism. Really strange - 200 Poles in Manhattan create one of the most important events of the world. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not everything that is in sources belongs in articles or particularly in the hooks due to a certain policy known as WP:NPOV. Check it out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The official invitation to this event actually read "Drogi Rodaku," (dear compatriot) calling on those not indifferent to their homeland to protest ("jezeli lost Twojej Ojczyzny nie jest Ci obojetny przyjdz, zaprotestuj przeciwko tej ustawie"). Per WP:NPOV: "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Do you have any English language source not calling the protesters "Polish nationalists"? Newsweek, Jewish Chronicle, Forward, Haaretz all use "Polish Nationalists". If you want to suggest other language - the route forward is presenting multiple sources, of equal weight, calling them something else. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Polish-language sources are fine, and call them Polish-Americans. PAC Polish-American source calls them demonstrators. You don't want to acknowledge those sources - but others involved in discussion on article's talk seem to seem them as reliable. Let's continue the discussion there, rather than splitting it in two places, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources of a dubious reliability in Polish are far from fine - any RSN discussion backing up these sources? That more than one editors showed up in parallel in an article with similar arguments not grounded in policy - matters very little. WP:NOENG is policy. The Polish-American Congress is not a reliable source (and is generally ignored by mainstream media), and its warning against the protests backfiring (as they had) was issued prior to them taking place. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
" WP:NOENG is policy" - yes it is. And it says: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". Are. Freakin'. Allowed. What so hard to understand about that? You've been misrepresenting WP:NONENG in your futile attempts to remove Polish sources from Poland related articles (!!! Somehow nobody ever argues that French sources shouldn't be used in France related articles - which just shows how fucked up such a notion is) for months now and NOBODY agrees with your odious demands to exclude sources based on ethnic criteria. Drop it. You want quotes and translations? Fine. No problem. But stop. Judging. Sources. By. Their. Ethnicity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Summarizing - Polish people are racilaly lower, they don't have any rights to present any opinions. Only WASPs and Jews are allowed to judge them.
The subject of the event were money. If you demand money from me it's COI, we both shouldn't participate in this discussion.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
How do you call supporters of Israel? Israeli nationalists? Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
List of RS: Newsweek, Jewish Chronicle, Forward, Haaretz. Why not the NYT and WP? Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Object,article suffers from serious neutrality issues and is missing some crucial information(ie:most property in Poland was destroyed by Germany, and rebuilt postwar by efforts of new inhabitants and authorities which makes the question of reprivatisation to people who aren't heirs extremely controversial).The extreme hook is based on a very weak source and is contradicted by other reliable sources.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The first two hooks are non-neutral and should be rejected. I prefer ALT2 by Piotrus, which can probably be improved.Tatzref (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 4Edit

Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

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

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

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

I'll defer comment until the copyedit is accomplished given the sheer length of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Adam Aziz (9 April 2019). "No two-thirds majority for Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners". The Edge Markets. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
  2. ^ "Status of Sabah, Sarawak stays". Bernama. Daily Express. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
  3. ^ "Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners rejected in Malaysia parliament". Bernama. Channel NewsAsia. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.

Xiuxiong Chen, Song Sun

Created by Zanhe (talk) and Dennui (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 03:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

Revolution of 1719

John Rutledge
ALT1 ... that, almost six decades after the Revolution of 1719, John Rutledge (pictured) was elected the first President of South Carolina? [43].
  • Reviewed: forthcoming

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 02:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Date, size, refs, hook, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, all GTG. Nice historical article. 1st hook is more interesting IMHO. I've added one sentence copied from the parent article, please reference. Next, the article suggests the revolution was bloodless and that there was no fighting; is this correct? No fatalities, no violence? In either case this should be clarified in the article if possible. Also, the article is almost an orphan, only two other articles link here - can you fix this? Once the ref is added and the article is linked from several more other articles, this can be fully GTG - ping me when this is done so I will update the review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 5Edit

Palmer Street

Cypher by Tim Morgan
  • ... that Palmer Street was the location of the London office of the British spy agency GCHQ, and a sculpture by Tim Morgan titled Cypher (pictured)?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Whispyhistory (talk), and Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 12:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC).

  Solid article on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and shows well, but I don't believe it's typical for that street, rather the exception, and as long as the sculptor has no article not necessarily worth mentioning. Another little problem I see is grammar, because I get the impression that the sculpture is still in place, so "was the location" doesn't fit. How about the more typical building pic? Or stop after the spy agency, which might be interesting enough? (And have the sculptor image with the artist's article?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I will look at those things Gerda. Did you get that the spy building has a sculpture named Cypher opposite it (installed before the spying nature of the building was officially revealed)? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
No, the hook doesn't say that, and for me, who had to look up cypher in a dictionary, the two things were not connected. Perhaps clarify that yes they are unconnected, but secretly look related ;) - more important than the sculptor's name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's coincidence. I will look at doing the sculptor too. Here are spying Alts:
  • ALT1... that Palmer Street was the location of a secret British spy base that intercepted the communications of London's embassies?
  • ALT2... that London's Palmer Street was the location of a secret "Dictionary" run by spies? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I like them but think a link to the office would be helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that the London office of the British spy agency GCHQ was in Palmer Street, opposite a sculpture by Tim Morgan titled Cypher (pictured)?
We have no picture of the offices. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  that's it! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Returning from prep for further work. If the image is to be used, perhaps write a stub article about it so we can link it. Alternately, I'm un-striking ALT1 and ALT2 for reconsideration. Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Artist has an article, and his own DYK, but Cypher doesn't really qualify for an article of its own. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 & ALT2 are more interesting, you could link "secret British spy base" and "Dictionary" to GCHQ if you think it's an issue, but the hook is about how quirky Palmer Street is, not anything else, and finding out about the spy base may be incentive to click the intended target link. I'd think the word cypher, since it's a very common noun in British English, is obvious enough that the original can be used and needs no explanation, surely. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ruth-Margret Pütz

  • Reviewed: Marni Abbott-Peter
  • Comment: ... a well-received Recital, but lovely comments seem a bit too long to be mentioned in the hook

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Saying "art" suggests physical art, where you could have used the word "songs" or "performances". Removing all the jargon leaves you with "A singer released a CD 50 years after her main success", which is quite plain. Apart from that, article new and good, well cited, no copyvio apparent, hook is cited but full of jargon, and not broadly interesting — and badly phrased throughout even if it could be used; needs a new hook. Kingsif (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, English is not my first language. What do say for the remarkable performance of a remarkable singer? "artistry"? Help needed. The singer did nothing. It was done to honour her, and happened just in time for her to hear it before she died. All critics agree that her singing was surprisingly "modern". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's not really a word for that, not that heaping praise really appears in DYK unless that's the main aspect of the hook. You would have to make it clear in the article that someone else released Recital, because it wasn't clear when I read it. If you'd be happy to update the article, you could suggest a hook based on the fact she heard what was effectively a Greatest Hits collection someone did just before she died, that's interesting. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstood. In German, Kunst = art is used for all the arts, including music, theatre ... - If in English, art is only for what youcan see, what is the word for music? Has nothing to do with heaping praise, just factually describing that it is artistic, opposed to scientific, technical, you name it. There is "performing arts", so somewhere the concept that theatre and music are art seems to be present. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Music is a form of art, but they are generally distinguished by form (e.g. music, painting, sculpture, with 'art' alone most commonly meaning paintings; especially where DYK calls for clarity). So you could say "... that the music of...", but it is still an odd sentence formation, so you probably wouldn't. Kingsif (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, compare The arts and art, which generally means the visual arts (& no, not just "paintings"!). Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the artistry of Ruth-Margret Pütz, a leading coloratura soprano of the 1960s, was shown in a 2018 CD Recital, including excerpts as Konstanze and Zerbinetta?
Jmar67 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 has potential, but I wonder if it could be reworded to flow better: right now it seems to busy and feels like jumping from one fact to another. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 6Edit

Amy Wax

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

  •   Comment. There was an earlier (first paragraphs nearly identical, except for some deletions by the nom in this second one) version of this page at AFC by an editor other than the nom here: In some ways that earlier version was better -- it had footnotes for every assertion in the first few paragraphs, while in this version nom took them out. This version also needs grammar cleanup - "the" and "a" and similar words were dropped from the first version, where needed. Also, some facts, like that the subject attended Harvard Law School, were deleted for some reason. I think if the first version is made viewable and this one is improved along these lines this will be better for approval for this category. Also, when in this version nom writes "Amy Wax has been called "notorious..", maybe it would be an improvement to say by whom. Also, it may be a good idea to have the controversy paragraph, which presents only one side, instead comply with wp:npov (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic; and switching out "claimed" for "said"; etc.).2604:2000:E010:1100:A066:E3A3:DD44:3FFC (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a stub, not a WP:GA. I agree it can use some work. That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly. As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead. Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities. I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio. Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. Mhym (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its deletion followed shortly (by mere hours) the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the asserted basis for its deletion).
Second, I agree a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here. One of the reasons I have asked for the deleted draft page to be restored.
The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted we have in this second version. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted. It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with wp:npov. This does not. To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switch out "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggests.2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as providing all the refs and links - I don't have access to those which used to be there. Please help me with this if you have them. I guess I don't see any vio of WP:NPOV. Basically, it's all biographical, no opinion based. As in she said something. Others didn't like it. Some people called on UPenn to fire her. UPenn didn't. What exactly is non-neutral here? Reporting groundswell of support of Wax? I don't know if that happened. Mhym (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Happy to help. I've now twice asked the editor who deleted it to restore it (in addition, it its deletion is not controversial, the reason given for deleting it). I've also asked here - maybe an admin here will help. It has more information (her attending Harvard Law, family background, etc). If you read NPOV, you will see that the cherry-picking of those with one view of her statement, while leaving out completely those who support her statement (or her right to make it), is something we are supposed to try to avoid. There are a number of articles pointing out the other camp; in your research you would have seen them. If you want me to, I will do the work. Also, saying "claimed" instead of "said" - as the guideline states - is a sign of not being sensitive to the need for npov. The guideline explains why. Anyway, once we get the original draft, which was more complete and had all the references that are missing, I will be happy to help you get this promoted. BTW - what inspired you to write this article just now (unless it was coincidence), while there was another draft article awaiting promotion (that incident was in the news, but quite a while ago)?2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear you can help. I came across critique/praise of her research work, tried to look her up and found no WP article. I don't care for the controversies and didn't hear them at the time. But they clearly make her notable, probably more than her research work, unfortunately. Thus I included the section. AFIK, the wording can be massaged and improved in any way. That's also why I made a DYK nom - so that other editor help improve on the article while I am no longer very involved. Mhym (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Great. I am happy to help you improve this article as soon as an admin helps us by restoring for reference the draft that preceded this one, with the relevant text and footnotes that this later version is missing. It was deleted as a "non-controversial" deletion, but since there is now controversy about it being deleted, I hope an admin can restore it (at least long enough for us to look at it to improve this one). Then we can improve this, improve the npov issue, and put this in shape for a DYK for you. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Here, see why this was so weird! Just when the draft of this subject was cleared of any question of copyvio, after it had been sitting awaiting for a couple of days for all to see, as it awaited promotion to article status -- that was the very same day of all days that your article was created! [45] And its not as though she was in the news that day, or week, or month. And as you can see, the article that had been put up for review prior to your draft is very similar (except for the last paragraph that yours added). [46] I will work now to help you to make your draft better, adding the omitted footnotes, etc.2604:2000:E010:1100:D0B2:B1DE:173C:580 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your work! The article is in a good shape now and ready for review. Mhym (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: I would recommend against using the word "controversial" in a hook without explaining how she has been controversial. feminist (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Came to suggest the same thing. Taken by itself, "controversial" is confusing because it doesn't define what kind of statements caused the controversy. hinnk (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   I agree with the above two comments. I think the article itself is now fine. I added the footnotes from the prior article, so that every assertion has a footnote. And there is now a balance in the controversy section, with views on both sides reflected -- rather than just one side. But as the prior editors point out, the hook could use some massaging (also, the bit in the third hook about race relations isn't quite accurate). 2604:2000:E010:1100:A82D:DCDC:4C65:430B (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 7Edit

Ranbir Singh of Jammu and Kashmir

Ranbir Singh

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 9Edit

Bohumil Herlischka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 10Edit

Libro de los Epítomes

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

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

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

Airport malaria

Anopheles gambiae
  • ... that in 1983, an infected mosquito travelled by aircraft and transmitted malaria to a person who lived 15 km away from Gatwick Airport? [49] infected mosquitoes can be transported by vehicle or wind for considerable distances from such airports. This undoubtedly happened in two cases of severe P.falciparum malaria at locations 10km and 15 km from Gatwick Airport in 1983

Created by Whispyhistory (talk). Self-nominated at 18:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC).

  • How about
ALT1 ... that an unpleasant Egyptian stowaway can travel thousands of miles then give you malaria?
For April 1, of course. This would require that the "thousands of miles" and "unpleasant Egyptian" (= Aedes aegypti) be worked into the article. (Or if the thousands of miles can't be sourced, just say stowaway can give you malaria.) EEng 00:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; Aedes aegypti transmit Zika/Yellow fever/Dengue but not malaria. We can only speculate which flights the mosquitos were on, but can give distance from airport. I have added stowaway and the story of a cyclist. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT2 ...that in one study, 18% of aircraft arriving in Britain from tropical countries contained live mosquitoes?
ALT3 ...that mosquitoes carrying malaria may travel between countries with aircraft cabin crew?
ALT4 ...that an international aircraft passenger bit a publican after arriving in Britain and gave him malaria? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT5 ...that in 1983, a stowaway mosquito transmitted malaria to a publican and a passing motorcyclist 10 km away from Gatwick Airport?
  •   For a start, the image description states that it is a Culex species, and it looks nothing like the Anopheles gambiae image on the insect's article page, so I don't like the use of the image in hook and article with its present caption. In other ways this article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and I favour ALT0, ALT2 and ALT5, but not those mentioning cabin crew. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Cwmhiraeth:. Is image okay now? Or should we leave it out? Can someone correct the image on commons? Whispyhistory (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


  • ... that Oklahoma City's KLPR-TV was the first TV station to program a country and western format? Source: "But never before has one station devoted its entire schedule to a country and western format." (p. 32)
    • ALT1:... that during the construction of Oklahoma City's short-lived KLPR-TV, a worker was trapped 200 feet (60 meters) in the air on its tower? Source: "A young construction worker was trapped 200 feet in the air on a wind-raked television tower for more than an hour Monday, before other crew members rigged a successful escape system for him."

Created by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Article meets the DYK article requirements, no copyright violations or close paraphrasing was found, and a QPQ has been done. Of the two hooks, I think the first one might be the best. However, the article doesn't actually seem to mention that it was the first of its kind, only that it shared the format with the related radio station. In addition, the part about the station's predecessor in the lede doesn't seem to be referenced. I could also suggest that you propose another hook: that it was operational for just over a year. I think that it's quite rare for TV stations to have such short lives and that might also appeal to a broad audience; following this suggestion is your call of course. This will be good to go once the things I mentioned here are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: The article does say it was the first, in the middle of its first paragraph (see above quotation). I also added a reference to that lede citation (I also expanded KMPT (TV) with references I found at the same time). Raymie (tc) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The source says it, yes, but the article does not make this hook fact explicit, only mentioning that it was "unique". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I've added another citation—a Billboard article titled "KLPR-TV Pioneers in Country Video"—and the words "and pioneering" to the article text. Let me know if this helps. Raymie (tc) 08:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Raymie: It does not; as I mentioned before, the article only states that its format was "unique" but it does not mention at all that it was the "first". This issue must be resolved if ALT0 will be approved; if this cannot be done, then ALT0 will be struck. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: How about replacing it with this ALT2: Raymie (tc) 16:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Oklahoma City's KLPR-TV programmed a country and western format, unique in 1966?
To be honest, ALT2 isn't great either. We probably need to go in a new direction with the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If I may say so, Narutolovehinata5, "ALT2 isn't great either" is a most unhelpful comment. Either it complies with the rules, or it doesn't. Some specific finding of fault would help the nominator to see what you are objecting to now. Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It basically feels like a boring hook, it's not eye-catching. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
What you may have in mind, Narutolovehinata5, is that the rule on hooks says this: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content." But that is a polite request, and not a strict requirement. What is "boring" is a subjective judgement. It might help you to look through that rule to see whether ALT2 complies with it or not. I have not checked the citation for it, but it seems to me to be within the rule, do you not think? Moonraker (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It does comply with the technical rules and theoretically could pass, the problem is that I don't think it really fits the "catchy, and likely to draw the readers", it just doesn't seem spectacular enough to catch attention. Basically, if it were to be approved and promoted, there is a high possibility that it could end up on WP:ERRORS, and that's something that we try to prevent. Yes the rules are subjective, but still. In any case, ALT1 is looking more like a better option given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not follow the reasoning, you are applying a subjective judgement to something which is not a hard and fast DYK rule. If the hook did "end up on WP:ERRORS", the issue would simply be whether it were factually correct and whether it complied with the rules, which you seem to agree it does. You do not say why you have changed your view on ALT1, but perhaps things are looking up on this page. Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not necessarily the case, many hooks have also been pulled due to discussions on WP:ERRORS about lacking interest. The reason why I was starting to prefer ALT1 is because, at least it seems to be eyecatching and would likely get the attention of readers, unlike saying that some genre was unique in the past even though it's no longer the case. I'm aware that this is a subjective opinion, but it can be argued that the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion is to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 11Edit

Kaj Linna

Kaj Linna

  • ... that Kaj Linna (pictured) was exonerated for murder after a true-crime pod started to raise questions about the case and trial of Linna? Source: [50]

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 12Edit

George Ali Murad Khan

George Ali Murad Khan seated on throne

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 13Edit

Don't I Know You?

  • ... that the Killing Eve episode "Don't I Know You?" was criticised for killing off a main LGBT character, but otherwise praised for its diverse representations of LGBT+ characters? Source: Many; see the "Reception" section.

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 02:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 14Edit

Opon Ifá

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

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

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

Birjis Qadr

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

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

  • Looks good. Source-checks pending. WBGconverse 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


The Trull cards in Kosakeln
  • ... that Kosakeln is the 2-player version of the "queen of all Tarot games played with the 54-card pack", Illustrated Tarock?
    Source: "the queen of all Tarock games played with the 54-card pack..." in Dummett, Michael (1980) The Game of Tarot London: Duckworth (1980), p. 480. ISBN 0-7156-1014-7.

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   I'm afraid that I've had to strike the hook since I don't think this appeals enough to people who aren't card game enthusiasts. Please suggest a new hook, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't accept that and will remove the strikeout. You are not the sole arbiter of whether hooks are interesting enough - Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and no one editor is given a veto. It's perfectly okay to state an opinion alongside other editors; but quite wrong to delete someone else's proposal because you don't like it based on your view of the world. Very few hooks will appeal to a worldwide audience; I find most of the others pretty boring too. On the other hand, an article about a card game is most likely to appeal to card players and be boring to others. I'll suggest an ALT; please work with me to suggest improvements that will fly or let other editors step in and help. Bermicourt (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually it's generally discouraged for editors, particularly nominators, to unstrike hooks that have been struck by reviewers without their permission, unless consensus determines that it is appropriate. And given that there have not been any other comments here thus far, there is no consensus to do so at this point; I have restruck the hook until further notice. And to be frank, the hook that was initially proposed was simply not going to fly. I understand that you have great enthusiasm for old European card games, and surely something better than that could have been written instead. With that said, I am quite open to seeing what alternatives you will be able to propose, and am willing to give suggestions on what could be done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Help me understand, then, why it's okay to strike hooks without consensus? Surely we do that when better alternatives are agreed? Assuming it is Wiki practice, please point me at the guidelines to say that I can't just unilaterally strike other DYK hook proposals because I personally don't find them interesting. Meanwhile, to show goodwill, I've added a first alternative which, at least, flows better. I'll try and look for others. But we have to work with the material we have and the sources for card games aren't brimming with CNN-quality sound bites... but neither for that matter are most of the sources for DYK hooks judging by what gets posted. :) Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
A reviewer has the option to strike hooks when they determine that currently proposed hook(s) would be unsuitable. It's actually a fairly common practice. Technically it is not in the rules that a struck hook can be unstruck unilaterally by the nominator. But in practice, doing it or even suggesting it is frowned upon (see Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, particularly the quote that goes [the nominator] certainly should not be unstriking any hook struck by a reviewer., as well as my own nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Lynn (voice actress)). As for the new hooks, I don't think ALT1 is much better and still feels too niche. ALT2 does appear to have some potential, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an intentional rule-breaker - that's not my style - but I do find it strange that a single editor can wipe a DYK nom without any discussion or consensus, simply based on their own perspective/experience/interests. We're all human and no one person has an infallible eye for what makes a successful hook, so I assumed if there was doubt, we would encourage a better or different hook. To strike it out seems pretty harsh and I'd never do that; I'd just work with the proposer to try and come up with a more 'catchy' one. Hey ho, I'll comb the various sources again and see if there are alternative citations we could use. I get we're trying to showcase Wikpedia and that means trying to appeal to a broad audience if we can. Bermicourt (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've taken another approach with ALT3. Is that more the style you're looking for? Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I suppose so, ALT3 is pretty cute. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Article was new enough at the time of the nomination, entirely sourced to offline sources (AGF accepted), QPQ done, and no close paraphrasing was found. My main concern is that the article seems to be mostly about the rules and not so much about anything else other than a short section on the history and etymology. I don't know but isn't the rules section possibly a bit too crufty for Wikipedia? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll check the sources and see if the history or cultural aspects can be expanded. But card games are defined by their rules; there's no other way to do it. It's the rules that give them their character. Kosakeln is not a simple game - that's why the original hook stated that it was the two-player equivalent of the "queen of Tarock games" i.e. the most complex and challenging one. That said, I'll see if I can make the text of the rules a bit more succinct.Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I've reduced the amount of text in the rules by some wordsmithing, reorganising the article and converting the announcements to a look-up table. I've also tightened up a couple of references and added others. There's not a lot more in the literature on the history and character of the game, although I'm still looking at that. Bermicourt (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 15Edit

Halca (musician)

  • ... that prior to making her major music debut, Halca performed a song for the 10th anniversary of an online novel publisher? Source: [51]
    • ALT1:... that singer Halca's interest in anime music began after learning that her home TV cable had an anime channel? Source: [52] ("halca:意識して聴きはじめたのは中学生ぐらいですね。私の家はケーブルテレビに入っていたので、24時間ずっとアニメが観られるチャンネルがあったんです。他の子がバラエティを観ているようなときにも、ずっとアニメを観ているような子供だったと思います。毎日アニメを観て、そこでアニソンが流れていてーー。")
    • ALT2:... that singer Halca won an anime song audition in 2013, but did not make her major debut until five years later? Source: [53] [54]

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC).

  Solid facts on good sources, Japanese sources accepted AGF. - Please explain what "major music debut" means. In classical music, "debut" is the first (ever) public performance, which can be limited/specified by saying "at so-and-so theatre", but normally there's only one debut. - Given I'd understand that, the original hook sounds like trivia to me (unless it's someone important), ALT1 saying something that might be true for many girls singing. I'd not click for ALT2 but am ready to approve it once I understand. How about something she achieves, other than anybody else? The only thing which would made me want to get to know her. - Suggestions for the article: please look up "would" and drop it. It happened, or not, no need for "would". You may want to trim the prose:
"After deciding to pursue a career as a musician, Halca looked through various singing auditions. After discovering one called Utakatsu! Audition, which focused on anime songs, she decided to participate in it; she would end up winning the grand prize in 2013."
Could be:
"She took part in the Utakatsu! audition, which focused on anime songs, and won its grand prize in 2013."
I understand that you may end up being too short for DYK doing so, but don't rely too much on your readers' patience, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently on vacation and can only edit with my phone at the moment, so I might not be able go suggest a new hook or do the requested edits until next Saturday. But to respond to your question on ALT2, it meant to say she had passed an audition in 2013, but she did not actually properly start her professional music activities (i.e. start releasing music under a record label) until 2018. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No rush, enjoy your vacation. Why not say "start releasing music under a record label" instead of "make her major debut"? Still nothing I'd want to know more about, though ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
To answer your question, "major [music] debut" is standard language in the pop music industry; unlike in classical music where it means their first performance, a "major debut" in pop music would mean that they released their first released, whether it be a single, an album, or others. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: Do you still plan on reviewing this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    I noticed that you are back, but didn't know that you had time for this one. - Yes, but not first thing in the morning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 16Edit

Lawrence Minard

Created by Websurfer2 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Doing... -Nizil (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  @Websurfer2:, thank you for your interest in DYK. I see that it is your first DYK. The article has just one issue to be resolved and it will receive the approval. The article is new, long enough, neutral and within policy and cited. Hook is OK and cited. The editor is new to DYK so no QPQ is required. I have removed "award winning" from lede as per MOS:PUFF. Only one issue remains: Minard became a special correspondent in Asia in 1978. He was promoted to Europe bureau chief in London in 1979, West Coast and Asia bureau chief in Los Angeles in 1983, assistant managing editor in 1985, deputy managing editor in 1987, and managing editor in 1989. This sentence is very close to its sources (borderline copyvio). Can you reword it? -Nizil (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: I changed the wording. I would love to flesh-out that paragraph with more detail, but info is hard to come by. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  @Websurfer2: Thanks for reword. Congratulations, I am approving your first DYK. Keep contributing more to DYK and Wikipedia. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  While the hook is fine, it probably could be better. Considering that his claim to fame (other than the award) was working for Forbes, it doesn't seem right to not mention that somewhere in a hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: The hook is a teaser to get someone to click on the link. Mentioning Forbes gives away the entire lede. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as an outsider, I'm not really sure if that is really the case. I won't click on it unless I had an idea of who this Minard person is or why he is important. Teaser hooks can and do work but I personally don't think this is such a circumstance. @Nizil Shah: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I found original hook interesting enough. But people may feel differently. I propose an alternative here. What do you both think? -Nizil (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT1: that Lawrence Minard won the Business Journalist of the Year award twice while working at the Forbes Global?
  •   New reviewer needed to give opinion on ALT1 hook and whether the original hook was interesting enough. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 18Edit

James Acaster's Classic Scrapes

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

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

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

Alternatively, of course, you can source that part of the Synopsis section in the article (at the end of the "The book ends" sentence) and retain the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to be frank: this is nonsense. I can give you direct page numbers or quotes from the book if you want. I've made the source very clear to editors and it's incredibly obvious to any reader that the source for the book summary is the book (!!!). But it's standard practice to leave the synopsis uncited. This wouldn't cause a problem at FAC. It's absolutely nonsensical and violates the spirit of all the rules we have for it to cause a problem at DYK. I see that the hook was pulled because The Rambling Man listed it at WP:ERRORS2. I'm not going to be bullied into writing a different hook because TRM wants to artificially inflate his ERRORS2 count. I'm also not going to introduce a formatting inconsistency that actually would be pointed out at FAC (hypothetically of course; I'm well aware the article is nowhere near that standard). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being frank. And so will I. This had nothing to do with anybody's anything. As an admin, I routinely check the Queues to see if anything is amiss. That's what admins are supposed to do, and it had nothing to do with anything except that I was doing a routine check. This was, per the rules. If I had not pulled it, chances are pretty good that another admin would have. Nobody is trying to bully you. And if you read BlueMoonset's comments above, he gave you an easy resolution to this. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In that case I genuinely apologise for the mistake I made in assuming this was related to the ERRORS2 kerfuffle. The simplest resolution is to approve the hook as there is nothing wrong here. Of course the page is not under my ownership but I certainly will not be adding an inline citation in a place where it does not belong. Incites are useful for precisely two things that I can think of: verifying that content on Wikipedia is true; and allowing readers to find the source from which the information comes from. There's no-one that I can see disputing that the content is verifiably true and I can think of no reader who wouldn't understand that the source they need to view to see what's in the book is the book itself. Furthermore I can see no-one disputing that it's convention for book synopses to be implicitly cited to the work itself. It doesn't help anyone to pull a hook based on a bureaucratic rule that common sense dictates is irrelevant here. That's why we have admins—for human discretion—and not just bots. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
All right, then. Apology accepted. I feel I did what I should. But I'll leave a note over at WT:DYK asking others to comment here on this. Whatever they decide, is what they decide, and I won't interfere in it. Just as a passing thought, there is something worse than an approved hook being pulled from Queue or Prep, where it can later be re-added and have a full run. And that's when a hook gets pulled while it's on the main page before its run is done. It's such a shame when it gets pulled from the main page. We are all human, stepping all over each other's feet trying to accomplish the same thing. Good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Had this been a fiction book, I would have said outright that the hook wouldn't be allowed at all. As it stands, since it's an autobiography and does talk about a real-world event, I see no issues with that. With that said, this is a fairly complicated case: DYK rules state that hook facts must be cited inline. On the other hand, summaries of books generally do not require sources as it's assumed in good faith that the source is the work itself. While I would have said that as a compromise, it could be possible to add a footnote to the relevant sentence mentioning the book page, I don't really think it's really necessary and we can probably do an WP:IAR case here ignoring the relevant rule. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO this is a clear case of following the rules for citing the DYK hook fact, or choosing another hook that follows the rules for citing the DYK hook fact. While plot synopses are exempt from being cited in general, when you want to take a hook fact from the synopsis, you will have to cite that sentence. And it's not true that all plot synopses go uncited; I just wrote an article on a work of fiction, Silver Wedding (novel), and cited all the sentences in the synopsis because otherwise the article would be largely unverified text and probably not accepted at DYK. Bilorv, please just cite the hook fact to the book page and we can move forward. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 20Edit

LGBT history in Poland

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 21Edit

Project Sakura Wars

Created/expanded by ProtoDrake (talk). Nominated by Sjones23 (talk) at 18:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Drive-by comment, but I would suggest striking all hooks except for ALT1: I don't think any of the non-ALT1 hooks would appeal much to those who aren't fans of Sakura Wars or Japanese media. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I personally think there's potential for the hook to be more interesting - how about "ALT5: ...that after previous pitches for the game had been declined, full production for Project Sakura Wars only began after positive fan feedback?"Source: #8 in article. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 22Edit

Gerd Heinz

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC).

  •   Article requirements check out, QPQ done, assuming good faith for German sources. ALT2 is probably the best hook among the three proposals, though I'm not sure if the mention of "a small stage" is necessary: why not just simply say something like "when Gerd Heinz directed Wagner's Der Ring in Miden, he focused...". Another issue is that his date of birth lacks a footnote in the lede or the infobox. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • More later, just for the small stage: that's what causes and makes possible the psychology. It's short for: unlike other theatres, the stage is so small that the orchestra sits on it in the back, while the singers are in the front, right where the audience is. This is normal for plays, but unusual for opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, ref for DOB added, was there, just not at the spot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Matthew H. Todd, Alice Motion

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 23Edit

Mark Horvath, founder of
  • ... that former television executive Mark Horvath (pictured), who was once homeless himself, has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities with Sources: "Fourteen years ago, Mark Horvath was in crisis. The former exec was living on the streets in Hollywood, California ..." CNN, " Horvath spent eight years in the early 1990s crawling out of homelessness and addiction and fell back into hard times in 2007. While looking for work, he decided to use his skills as a former television producer to film interviews with homeless people to give them a voice and to spark action...He has since visited more than 100 American cities and interviewed hundreds of homeless people." Toronto Star, and several others cited in the article.
    • ALT1:... that, which has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities, was founded by formerly-homeless television executive Mark Horvath (pictured)? Sources: "Fourteen years ago, Mark Horvath was in crisis. The former exec was living on the streets in Hollywood, California ..." CNN, " Horvath spent eight years in the early 1990s crawling out of homelessness and addiction and fell back into hard times in 2007. While looking for work, he decided to use his skills as a former television producer to film interviews with homeless people to give them a voice and to spark action...He has since visited more than 100 American cities and interviewed hundreds of homeless people." Toronto Star, and several others cited in the article.
    • ALT2:... that has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities? Source: "...has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities..." Toronto Star
  • Reviewed: This is my 4th DYK. Will QPQ after 5.
  • Comment: I'm not sure how to best phrase the hook. Thanks in advance for looking at this!

Created by Levivich (talk). Self-nominated at 17:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC).

Mambo (Vodou)

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

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

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

Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I'm not going to review this, but just to say that in the light of these events, putting such a politically explosive hook on Wikipedia's main page is just a really bad idea, and I can't possibly see how on earth this hook could ever be seen to be neutral. So I'm going to boldly suggest giving this up as a bad job. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
While I don't find the hook wording itself problematic, the circumstances behind it do seem to give me pause in this being allowed for DYK. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry. I've tried to think up a more neutral hook, but I doubt it would solve the underline issues. The wording I had in mind was something along the lines of:
ALT1 ... that the High Court of Northern Ireland ruled that the official name of the country's second largest city can only be changed by the Monarch via a Royal Prerogative?
In this case, I tried to avoid using the name of the city entirely, but I really doubt that it would solve the POV issue. Honestly I can't think of any possible alternative (even mentioning the aftermath might not be enough). So Ritchie333, if you don't agree with this then I think closing this would be the ultimate option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited:  N - n (The cited reliable source makes it clear that the city's name could be changed either by an act or by a royal decree, furthermore a king could also change the name.)
  • Interesting:  Y
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a possible violation at 44,4%, but this is the result of the use of specific terms - like "the city of Londonderry", "The Honourable the Irish Society." - and some quotations. Ritchie333 writes above that the hook is not neutral, but I think it contains a fact. If we said that a hook about a judgment is not neutral, because the judgment was made in favor of a certain PoV, we could not present judgments at all in WP. Ritchie333 also refers to recent political events, but I think political events should not influence our decisions about hooks. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: You may be interested in reading the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the discussion and it did not change my mind. I think politics and sensitivities should not influence our decisions about hooks. If a hook is fully in line with the relevant policies, it could be presented on the main page. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Thank you for the review, I have amended the original hook to say the monarch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E:, but the hook still contradicts the reliable source, because the monarch cannot change the name alone. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I have added Parliament to the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In any case, regardless of article quality, I recommend that this nomination not be given an approval tick until the discussion at WT:DYK concludes. Even if the reviewer decides to approve it, it is very likely that there would be objections, if not at WT:DYK then at WP:ERRORS. It would be best to wait it out and see if some form of compromise can be reached on this matter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A fair proposal. So I surely will not approve the hook until the discussion is closed. On the other hand, I think that the hook could be modified. The new text does not present what is written in the reliable sources properly. As far as I can remember, neither the Queen, nor the Parliament can change the name independently of other actors. The Queen does not apply her royal prerogatives alone and the Parliament cannot make law without royal assent. Borsoka (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka, I don't think "royal assent" means what you think it means. It's a term of art for a bill passing into law in Commonwealth countries; it doesn't mean the Queen personally sits on a throne approving renovation works to Macclesfield train station or changes to the Yukon income tax rate. In this case, changed by the Monarch via a Royal Prerogative means that any change would need to be made by the Crown in Parliament, i.e. the government, and can't be made unilaterally without government approval ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 . The DYK discussion indicates this is already contentious, if not disruptive (it is), consider me triggered. The community is working to patch the shortcomings of an overtly pov user whose own signature disrupts discussion, and plays beautifully to a wish to repeat their messaging. The article is a footnote on steroids, the mock-title itself suggests the banality of any notable facts of that particular application. Feck away from DYK? cygnis insignis 06:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis:, you arbitrarily closed a DYK, although there is an ongoing debate. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I closed the nomination as unsuitable after reading both discussions. A consequence might be the end of a debate, I'm not willing to debate that. Reopen the nomination if that is want to want to do, engage in more debate. citing my unwillingness to do that. I wanted it closed. Here we are. So it goes. cygnis insignis 07:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
See WP:DYKNOT. ——SerialNumber54129 08:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  That's not a policy based reason to close it. It smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, the title is the correct legal title for the case which you'd know if you'd read the sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Assume that my objection is based on an understanding of 'policy', if you want to put it that way, that is what I don't like. Doubling down to perpetuate discussion demands that your 'innocent' nomination stay in the lime-light, with pov and coi emblazoned during your topic of interest, not pointy, gamey, crass? Put together something interesting for a DYK, don't insist on a right to be provocative. These are matters here I have a strong preference for, what I like in this community. cygnis insignis 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   The discussion on WT:DYK has been archived for a while now without reaching any consensus. With that said, legitimate concerns were raised on whether or not the topic could ever be neutral enough for DYK, and even proposed compromise "neutral" hooks failed to be agreed upon by commenters. Considering the circumstances, there does not appear to be consensus for this article to run at DYK for the foreseeable future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Objection, that only means that there is no consensus to block it. The presumption is always that every article can proceed, no matter what other peoples opinions are as per WP:NOTCENSORED. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  I'm afraid I really don't think that is the case here. You did see that discussion right? And there was significant opposition to this running at all both here and in the WT:DYK discussion. And you have been unable to address the concerns in such a way that these could be lifted. Thus, there does not seem to be a way forward that would work as a suitable compromise, as even the "neutral" hooks were also rejected as long as the article is in its current state. Yes Wikipedia is not censored, but that is beside the point as the issues with the nomination were not to do with censorship but instead neutrality and POV. To be frank The C of E, you really need to stop objecting to nominations being marked for closure unless you have a good reason: you have to accept that not all discussions work out and that not everything can be featured on DYK (many editors, myself included, have learned this the hard way). The objection you mentioned above feels more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: meaning you disagree with the consensus but without trying to persuade others to change their views. Pushing this nomination in spite of concerns by several editors will not help your alleged reputation for POV-pushing (note: not my words or my opinion, merely stating what has been mentioned before on WT:DYK). I suggest you just drop this and move on to other topics that other editors may not object to. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  There was no consensus that this should not run, no consensus was made on the issue based upon policy. I feel I must take a stand on this one as I feel I cannot allow NOTCENSORED to be violated just based on personal opinions because people don't like it. If this is blocked, then we have failed as a project. Yes it was an unfortunate coincidence that I missed that journalist news story but that alone should not be grounds to block a nomination. As long as it meets the DYK criteria (which it does) then there should be no objections to it being run, if there is a factual problem with the hook then that should be discussed, which I have also agreed to a compromise from the original hook in this case. We have run swear words, controversial flags and many other controversial content and rarely have they been blocked because of a personal opinion, I fail to see how a court case about the name of a city (which I'd have said would be a very neutral subject plus the fact that the references to city name is minimized) should be the exception that must be banned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you may need to re-read the discussion. While there were indeed some concerns about the nomination that could be interpreted as "censorship", there were other article issues that did not have to do with it, mainly with wordings. So even if the concerns about censorship were waived, this still wouldn't be able to run as long as those issues stood. If you really want this to run and believe that it does not violate neutrality, or that not promoting this counts as censorship, you will have to convince @Ritchie333, Black Kite, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset, and Serial Number 54129: that this is the case. Courtesy ping to current reviewer Borsoka, as well as other participants in the WT:DYK discussion: @EdChem, ONUnicorn, David Eppstein, and Cygnis insignis:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If someone more knowledgeable about this subject than me is willing to sign off on the policy-compliance of this article, particularly with respect to neutrality, I don't see a reason to block the article itself. It's up to the nominator to craft an acceptable hook. ALT1, proposed by Narutolovehinata5, has some possibilities. I don't have the time to do a review myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem had already previously proposed neutral hooks on WT:DYK; for discussion purposes, I will be reposting them below (note that concerns have been raised over ALT3). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"not censored" so I can give my candid opinion of using that as an argument? With only half the effort applied in defence of this, an adequate or good DYK article could have been accomplished, so why invest more time and effort in wasting others for a self serving purpose. Because that is not the point of the exercise, it is being provocative and claiming that as a right of not being censored. cygnis insignis 04:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My problem is that the High Court decided the case, while the hook suggests it has so far only asked to rule. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: the nomination has been declined, leaving the tick and perpetuating discussion is working against the agreement of others that this should not go ahead. Can you justify the burden you are placing on other editors to reiterate what was is clearly deprecated by the guidelines, it just appears obstinate to continue trying to make a silk purse of this DYK. cygnis insignis 08:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed something. Do you say the High Court has not decided the case? Borsoka (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   There has been no response from the other objectors as this point, which I will interpret as being a sign that either they are not interested in discussing further, or have not changed their minds. With several editors still having outstanding issues with the article, and only two editors so far (the nominator and the reviewer) wishing this to push through, I see no path forward at this point. For full disclosure: I actually have no problems with EdChem's proposals, and I personally think that it is possible for this article to be featured on DYK as the hooks presented are neutrally worded. However, regardless on whether or not this not running counts as "censorship", consensus appears to be against this running, and considering the two discussions (both on WT:DYK and here), I don't really see this changing any time soon. With this in mind, I am marking this for closure. The C of E, I suggest you do not object to this marking at this point: doing so will just make this discussion go in circles, and you have thus far been unable to convince other editors to change their mind. Please accept that consensus is not in your favor right now, and I suggest you move on with other topics instead. I understand that this is probably not the result you wanted and I agree that it sucks whenever a DYKN is rejected, but that's how life goes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:, just for the record. I did not want to "push through" anything. I only wanted to reach a compromise which is fully in line with the relevant WP policies. As a totally outsider, I experienced that extremist views, biases and fears of being involved in extremists' debate drove many editors who intervened. I am afraid, we proved that extremists and extremist acts can easily prevent us from sharing knowledge. I think this is a bad experience. Borsoka (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

When I said "push with", I was referring to this nomination moving forward, not your personal views. Sorry if my wording led to confusion. I agree that a compromise was probably possible here, it's just that consensus does not appear to agree with this. And while I do not agree that this not being allowed to appear on the main page is censorship and I agree that hooks shouldn't be disqualified simply for being controversial, I can understand where the concerns are coming from. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  The consensus was that the original hook should not run, which I have respected. I am perfectly happy to accept the proposed compromises (or indeed anything else that can be proposed), which I note no-one has actually published an objection to here (so if we go by WP:SILENT implies they have no objections to them). I just seems to be, that because this covers a controversial issue then it must not run. I am unable to accept such a position for every article has the same right to be featured, no matter how distasteful some may find the subject matter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  Please drop the stick already The C of E. And please re-read the discussions, the consensus was not only about the hook but also the article itself. I personally do not agree with the consensus either, but discussions have spoken, the status quo remains, and your numerous objections won't change that. In fact, WP:SILENT implies that no responses by itself does not mean that their objections are lifted, and if anything could simply mean that no one cares about the discussion anymore. Even if you persist with this, you may run into similar comments at WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS. To be frank, you objecting to almost every time someone tries to mark your nominations for closure when things don't go your way has become tiring and unproductive. Just accept that this not all nominations work out and this is one of them. The more you keep pushing for something even when said that it won't work, the more it can backfire. Please, for the good of the community, drop this proposal: this has become a waste of time and I honestly think this is simply not worth pursuing anymore given all the discussion we've had. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  The only person aggressively pursuing closure is you here, indeed the person making the original objection has not expressed dissent against the compromises. The objection was to the original hook, but not to the alternatives. If anything we have @Borsoka: and I happy to proceed with the compromises but it seems that there has not been any discussions here from those who dissent to the compromise hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 24Edit

2019 Saudi Arabia mass execution

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

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

As page creator, I also suggest 3 hooks:

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 25Edit

Ernst Gutstein

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 10:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

Wilfrid Oldaker, Arthur Buxton, Geoffrey Gillam, William Davies (master mariner)

All Souls

Source: Hendon & Finchley Times dated 27 September 1929, p. 13 (quoted in footnote).

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 02:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC).

Wildlife of Greece

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

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

  •   Long enough. New enough. Neutral, well written. No copyright vios. Reliable inline citations throughout. The citations check out except for Citation 7 (IUCN Red List), which is a Wikipedia page, and doesn't specifically say anything about Greece or its environs. Hook is cited. QPQ done. Please fix Citation 7. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

KWJB (Arizona)

  • ... that Globe, Arizona, radio stations KZOW and KWJB-FM fell silent on October 29, 1960, because the FCC sought to revoke their licenses and those of their four sister stations? Source (p. 64)
    • ALT1:... that a disc jockey resigned from his post at Globe, Arizona's KWJB to work with Les Paul and Mary Ford? Source: "Robert Hawkins, disc jockey and night announcer at Globe-Miami Radio Station KWJB, will leave the station Dec. 26 to accept a position with Les Paul and Mary Ford, nationally known recording artists, it was announced Tuesday by Willard Shoecraft, station manager."

Created by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 08:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

Me! (Taylor Swift song)

Created by Ss112 (talk), BawinV (talk), and MaranoFan (talk). Nominated by Feminist (talk) at 03:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

I would give preference to the following:

Next week it’s gonna rise to #1 or #2 and Swift will break the record for the biggest jump on the Hot 100, which might make an even more interesting hook.—NØ 05:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. What I proposed don't look like standard DYK fare while still remaining fully compliant with hook requirements (at least for the main hook and ALT2). Your hook is overly technical, I doubt that many people would be interested in how Billboard calculates its charts. feminist (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As for the modification, it's not any more interesting than [random song] which debuted at [random position] on the Hot 100. It's no different from, say, Green Light (Lorde song), which also debuted at number 100 on the Hot 100. feminist (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, it may be typical, but it does look catchy at least. Plus considering Taylor Swift's popularity, you would have expected a higher debut, if anything. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We'll let the person who promotes this nomination decide which hook he prefers I guess. The main hook and ALT1 are not good hooks at all, except maybe if it’s April Fool's day.—NØ 08:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Madrasa and tomb of Alauddin Khilji

Madrasa of Alauddin Khilji

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

  •   Doing...-Nizil (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: I have moved the page, gave assesements and done the QPQ. RRD (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: New, long enough, cited, neutral, no copyvio, image free licensed and would look ok at 100x100 px, QPQ done. The hook is not interesting enough and bit long. Can you propose another one or reword it?-Nizil (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26Edit

Daniella van Graas

7&6=thirteen () 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC) 5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk), Genericusername57 (talk), and Valereee (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC).


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

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

  • Comment I'm not doing a review but I just wanted to comment that I think both ALT0 and ALT1 seem a bit too scary, because they don't mention endometriosis and someone might think that the bleeding could happen to any woman. Also, "tissue from the womb" sounds confusing to me, because the tissue is actually in the chest. -kyykaarme (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A Colour Box

Created by Hinnk (talk). Self-nominated at 23:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC).

  •  Would the following hook be preferable: ... that Nazis protested a 1936 screening of Len Lye's abstract animation A Colour Box and called it degenerate art? I am suggesting this to avoid the passive tense and add a little more context. I am terrible at DYK reviews and hooks though so I understand if you would prefer the original. I just wanted to offer a suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with that. To me it reads better without "and called it degenerate art" because then the hook is that an abstract animation could hold something worthy of protest, but either phrasing would be totally cool with me. hinnk (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I struck that part and again, it is only a suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Salahuddin Wahid

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

Tomb of Imam Zamin

Tomb of Imam Zamin

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 11:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I've removed the particular phrase, used in the hook per WP:WEASEL. Need a new hook. WBGconverse 09:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric:
  • ALT1:... that the Tomb of Imam Zamin is the last addition to the Qutb Minar complex? RRD (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
     Y Hook looks good (I can't think of anything more interesting) though I am thinking of some way to punch the above fact with its being constructed after about a century of others. Article okay from all aspects. WBGconverse 12:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 27Edit

Joel Moskowitz

Created by Presearch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

Katherine Hughes (activist)

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 28Edit

Aron Anderson

Aron Anderson after completing Vasaloppet

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self-nominated at 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Sangita Magar

** ALT1:... that Sangita Magar was attacked by an acid because she jilted the attacker? Source: [62]

Created/expanded by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I'm looking into this--but it needs serious copyedits. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I scrapped ALT1. CAPTAIN MEDUSA, please read the source more carefully. She said explicitly that she never had anything to do with the dude, and that she criticized the media for having turned it into some fake love story--which is exactly what you were doing with that hook. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that I was meant to write that the attacker claimed. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   By now I have done so much work on this article that I shouldn't be reviewing it anymore. The usual things are fine--it's long enough, new enough, etc. But the hook isn't particularly impressive or elegant, and I am also wondering if the article shouldn't be retitled to include both names, so also that of Sisma Basnet. So, there are a few things to rethink here. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a better hook could be proposed here: I don't think many people outside of Nepal know what an SLC is, thus limiting the appeal of ALT0. I think a better idea would be to simply write a hook that focuses on the fact that she became an activist after an acid attack. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 29Edit

{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=May 2019 |passed= |2=

John Rigby (mathematician)Edit

Created/expanded by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 09:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

  • ALT1 that Ross Honsberger named a point in John Rigby's theorem to do with the orthopole of the six sides of two triangles "the Rigby point"?
  • ALT2 that the mathematician John Rigby was a leading authority on the relationship between maths and ornamental art?
    Source: Leversha obituary of Rigby linked above
  •   New enough, long enough, and adequately sourced. QPQ done. But some quotation or close paraphrasing within the article needs to be more carefully marked as a quotation and sourced; for instance we have quote marks around "drawing gasps of admiration from the audience" but the actual copied text starts significantly earlier at "technically correct solutions". Every quote, such as "magnificently accurate diagrams" (again, with the quote marks narrower than the actual quote) needs to have a footnote on that sentence to the source of the quote. Other copied or too-closely-paraphrased text includes "visited universities in Turkey, Canada, Singapore, the Philippines, and Japan" and "the connection between mathematics and ornamental art". Additionally, the hook as worded makes no sense mathematically. The Rigby point is a geometric point that can be defined from any triangle as a triangle center; see [64]. The orthopole is something defined from a triangle and a line, not from two triangles. And a theorem is a mathematical statement with a proof. A theorem can be about a point (although it's not clear whether this one is) but it is not possible for a theorem to be a point, just as an encyclopedia article can be about a mathematician but cannot be a mathematician. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the thoughtful review, David Eppstein. Yes, in one sentence a quotation mark needed to be moved by several words and I have done it. I have also edited «"magnificently accurate" diagrams» to «"magnificently accurate diagrams"» and added a citation immediately after it, as you suggested. By chance, the other quotations all had one. I have also done some re-wording to deal with your other comments. On the hook, I take your point about a theorem and a point being quite different and stand corrected. Your link is to a different "Rigby point", which is also mentioned by Leversha. The words "the orthopole of the six sides of two triangles" come from Leversha, so does he have it wrong? He is the author of a 541-page book called "The Geometry of the Triangle" (Mathematics Trust, 2013, ISBN 978-1906001179) and I was thinking he could be relied on. I am putting up an ALT1, but in case you believe that is still wrong I am also suggesting an ALT2, on a different topic. Moonraker (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think ALT2 is much more interesting as a hook. But the sentence of the article containing the hook claim must have a footnote. I think the abbreviation "maths" should be spelled out as "mathematics". And the article text "became a leading authority on the interface between mathematics and ornamental art" and the source text "became a world expert in the connection between mathematics and ornamental art" still reads as uncomfortably close paraphrasing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I agree that ALT2 might be more interesting. Okay, I have added a footnote straight after the sentence in the article. You have not said if there is now anything wrong with ALT1. There are not many ways to say ALT2. I have changed "...and became" to "He was also..." The obituary says "world expert", and I see no objection to "leading authority", it keeps enough of the meaning. We then need a word for "connection" and I have said "interface". I am not going to try to invent another name for mathematics. The meaning of "ornamental art" is not very clear and I think we should stick to it. If you are not happy, perhaps the answer is to quote the words from the obituary in the article and use them as the hook? Failing that, could you possibly suggest a way to say "world expert in the connection between mathematics and ornamental art" that would not read as uncomfortably close paraphrasing? Moonraker (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am still not convinced that ALT1 makes sense mathematically. Something is missing between the definition of orthopole in our article and the data described in the hook. However, I am increasingly concerned by the close paraphrasing and by your rationalization of it. Copying text from someone else and then replacing words by synonyms is still copying. You need to digest, understand, and write the material in your own words. The failure to do that is in part what has gone wrong with ALT1: The hook is copying some words from Honsberger without understanding the mathematics behind them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
David Eppstein, on ALT1, I do not doubt that your understanding of the mathematics is better than mine, but Leversha is a top man on the geometry of triangles, which so far as I am aware is not your specialism, and if you say he has this wrong then you should also say what exactly he has wrong. I do not find "something is missing" awfully convincing. If you can say *what* you think is missing, and if it makes sense, then I can defer to you and add it. On ALT2, let me please ask you again, do you have any objection to a quotation being used for the hook, or else can you suggest a wording which conveys the meaning without "replacing words by synonyms"? With a simple statement of this kind there are only those two ways to do it. Moonraker (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 30Edit

IM 67118

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

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

Bladimir Lugo

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 1Edit

Mária Kráľovičová

Mária Kráľovičová in 2013
  • ... that Mária Kráľovičová (pictured) was the first Slovak television actress? Source 1: "Je prvou slovenskou televíznou herečkou: v roku 1957 sa ako prvá objavila s Elom Romančíkom v inscenácii Dovidenia, Luciene v réžii Jána Roháča." (translation:She is the first Slovak television actress: in 1957 she was the first to appear with Elo Romančík in the production Dovidenia, Luciene directed by Ján Roháč) source 1 Source 2: "Herečka Mária Kráľovičová sa preslávila ako prvá slovenská televízna herečka a na obrazovke sa objavuje dodnes" (translation:Actress Mária Kráľovičová became famous as the first Slovak television actress and appears on the screen to this day) source 2

Created by Cloudz679 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

  •   At 1559 characters, the article just barely passes the minimum length requirement. I would, however, prefer that it be a little bit longer because 274 characters are in the lead, which essentially repeats the information from the first section. Is this article the source for the claim that she has performed 400 roles? I cannot find the number 400 there. Other than that, everything else checks out. The article is new, QPQ done, and the hook is interesting and concise. (I took the liberty of removing the three dots at the end, which I assume were there by mistake.) Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes that is the source, relevant text is "Odohrala vyše štyristo divadelných, filmových a televíznych postáv," which translates more or less to "She played more than 400 theatre, film and television roles". I will see if I can add a little more content. C679 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Zhang Dongju, Chen Fahu, Baishiya Karst Cave