Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now!

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
On the Main Page
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
October 29 1
November 4 1
November 14 1
November 16 1 1
November 27 4 2
November 28 1
December 3 1 1
December 4 1
December 5 1 1
December 7 1 1
December 10 1
December 11
December 17 1
December 22 2 1
December 25 1
December 26 1 1
December 27 1
December 28 1 1
December 31 3 1
January 1 1
January 2 2
January 3 2 1
January 4 1
January 5 4
January 7 3 1
January 8 1 1
January 9 2 1
January 11 5 2
January 12 4 3
January 13 4
January 14 7 3
January 15 6 3
January 16 4 3
January 17 6 4
January 18 5 1
January 19 5 5
January 20 7 3
January 21 3 1
January 22 6 4
January 23 5 4
January 24 7 4
January 25 4 2
January 26 8 3
January 27 8 4
January 28 9 3
January 29 13 5
January 30 8 3
January 31 12 3
February 1 13 5
February 2 6 2
February 3 6 1
February 4 7 3
February 5 9 6
February 6 3
February 7 8 5
February 8 4 1
February 9
Total 232 100
Last updated 02:51, 9 February 2023 UTC
Current time is 03:07, 9 February 2023 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.
  • After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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.

Advanced procedures[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area
Check list for nomination review completeness
  1. Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
  2. Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
    • Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg needs to be addressed before promoting.
  3. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
  4. Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
  5. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
  6. Hook should make sense grammatically.
  7. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
  8. Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
  • In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
  • In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.

Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)

  1. For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
    • Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
  2. Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
    • Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
    • Check that there's a bold link to the article.
  3. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
  4. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
  5. Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
    • At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
  6. Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. At the bottom
    • Just above the line containing

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 29[edit]

Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

Example warning label
Example warning label

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thank you, Flibirigit! I wasn't aware of that RFC; I thought my nom would just be ignored until I'd done a QPQ. I've done one. I'll now get on with the article expansion, I've found a bunch more sources; I hope to be done within a day, or two if I do some more reviews. HLHJ (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I will check back here in a couple of days. Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg According to WP:LOWERCASE, a good article title might be Northern Territories alcohol labels study, unless multiple reliable sources capitalize everything. Any thoughts on using the sentence case for the article's title? Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The most commen RS "title" seems to be "the Yukon study" which is a bit too vague, and inaccurate, as the control arm was not in the Yukon. The start-caps name seems to be what the researchers and lobbyists called it, including in research protocol descriptions; not exactly third-party independent sources, as they were written by researchers. No idea why journalists had an adversion to the term. I don't recall, nor with a quick skim can I find, another capitalization used in any source, and this capitalization is used in running text, as in "Northwestern University" and other multiword proper nouns. If a non-proper noun, the title would mean "study of alchohol labels in the Northern Territories", a broader scope, making it useful to havean indication that it is a proper noun. So on the whole I think this title best, faute de mieux. But I will keep my eye out for sources using other terms. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I notice there is a long list of external links. These might be better labelled as Wikipedia:Further reading, instead of Wikipedia:External links. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think you're right. I will convert it. Apologies for being behind my timetable, I got IRL issues, then sidetracked. I'll ping you when I've got it in order, which should be soon; I plan to get a fair amount of stuff out of notes and into article within a day. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thank you for doing the QPQ. I will look for a comment here, then do the full review of this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @HLHJ: any thoughts on when this is ready for a review? I'd like to go ahead by the weekend (November 26–27) if possible. Flibirigit (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Sorry, I did in fact do extensive work on this over the last three days, but I realize I haven't posted any of it (I thought I'd posted at least a bit, but no, and you are right to nag). Getting MEDRS sourcing where appropriate, and finding yet more journal articles that are the product of it, and some more news sources, has lead to a fairly total rewrite. I should have written this complex article in draftspace, and maybe I should put my 2.0 verson there now. Thoughts? Finishing by this weekend should be doable. HLHJ (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article created October 29 and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. No plagiarism issues were detected. The earwig tool highlighted multiple areas, but those were quotes, and proper nouns which are not violations. The sourcing is mostly good, however some quotations are missing a citation. I have tagged the relevant places. Also, there are three images in the "Results" section which have unclear sources. I have several questions about neutrality. I notice that "Tim Stockwell" is mentioned three times within the "Label design", but it is unclear what position he holds, and if anything he says is relevant or important enough to quote verbatim. If he's not notable, perhaps paraphrasing is best. In the section "Threats", the following statement seems to be promotional towards a person with questionable notability; "Robert Solomon, a Canadian law professor with 40 years' experience specializing in drug and alcohol policy". The section "Lobbyist identities" contains a lengthy quote from Luke Harford, which might be best paraphrased since he has questionable notability. The hooks proposed are all reasonably interesting. I question whether ALT0 is properly cited in the article. The claims of copyright infringement are cited to here, but it fails verification since the cited source says "fear of lawsuit by industry associations for defamation or copyright infringement.", which is not the same. I am unsure where ALT1 is cited in the article. I cannot find it in the main body, but two sentences in the introdcution could be used to cite the hook. If cited in the introduction, both sentences need a citation. Currently just the second sentence is cited. I cannot locate a citation in the article for ALT2, and do not see Streisand effect mentioned. All images used in the article are in the public domain. The image for this nomination is clear at a low resolution, and used in the article. The QPQ requirement is in progress. Overall the article is a decent contribution and I hope to see it on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I entirely agree with Flibirigit's comments. The descrption of Solomon is paraphrased from the NYT (he also co-wrote a paper. later I think), and a better phrasing would be good; Tim Stockwell is a full professor and a lead researcher on the study, and I hadn't realized I hadn't mentioned it. I'll fix. A lot of the cns are wher I've cited two successive sentences to a ref at the end of the second one; I can duplicate. I also find the proportion of quotes exvessive; ot reflects the news sources, which avoid saying much in their own voice, presumably for fear of lawsuits. The balance, flow, coherence, hooks, and third-party assessments of results need work. I have been unavoidably and unexpectedly unable to spend much time on-wiki; I apologise for not watching this page and will work on this as soon as I can. (Redacted) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I will look for the changes to appear on my watchlist. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy reminder posted on the nominator's talk page. Perhaps sending an e-mail will be the next step if no response. Flibirigit (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say don't bother with an email, Flibirigit – if they don't respond to a talk page message in a timely manner, I'd say to just close it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HLHJ (talk · contribs), your progress on the article is noted. Please comment here when you're ready to continue the review. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg There are still three "citation needed" tags, and one "weasel words" tag. Flibirigit (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HLHJ:, I have not noticed any progress on this article since December 31. This nomination is now more than two months old, and it is increasingly likely that others will want to reject the nomination if not completed soon. It's close to the finish line, I hope you find the time for three citation needed tags and the one weasel tag. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both (Narutolovehinata5 too) for the talk page pings, I'm afraid I've never gotten into the habit of using my watchlist. You're quite right, I got distracted into writing about weaving and spinning mechanisms (our textile content is surprisingly weak, systemic bias, I guess). The weasel-words tag is hard to succinctly clarify without misrepresenting the situation; I've been thinking that a wordy specific explaination in a footnote might be adequate to remove it. I'll make this the next thing I work on on Wikipedia, and finish it off before doing anything else (except replying to people). HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've now at least gotten rid of the templates. Not integrated all my notes yet, nor toned down the quotes, but some progress. HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will have a look at the changes later today, or by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am working through this today. Apologies for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg @HLHJ:, in reviewing this today I notice that expansions to rectify sourcing issues have introduced other problems. I will continue to copyedit today, and tag some areas for clarification. Unfortunately none of my concerns on the hooks have been addressed. Please see the review above, as the hooks are the most important part of the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I think I've fixed the things you tagged, and made sure all non-attributed claims are third-party sourced (with exceptions for very unselfserving claims, like the "not statistically significant", which detail third-party review of the results ignored). I've also restructured a bit for clarity. I'll work on the rest, including the hooks. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, will look for the changes on my watchlist. Flibirigit (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 4[edit]

Charles Redd

A close-up portrait photograph of Charles Redd
A close-up portrait photograph of Charles Redd
  • ... that Charles Redd (pictured), a rancher and member of the Utah State Legislature, moved to legalize horse racing and betting in 1925, only to make it illegal again two years later? Source: Arrington, Leonard J. (1995). Utah's audacious stockman, Charlie Redd. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. ISBN 0-87421-177-8. OCLC 31515461. pp 128-133

Created by Cjstirlbyu (talk). Self-nominated at 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ALT0 hook needs to be cited following the sentence, not just at the end of the paragraph. AGF on the offline source.
  • Interesting: Green tickY

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The ALT0 hook is interesting and cited, but the article clearly needs a lot of work. SounderBruce 06:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SounderBruce: -- Thanks for the review; I've made some changes to the article to further improve it! I have added more information and corrected the copyright notice on the image page on Wikimedia Commons, and I've added citations immediately following the ALT0 hook, and have further clarified some of the information in that paragraph. I have also added additional citations to the rest of the article and changed some of the language to reflect a more neutral viewpoint. Since this article is within my first five DYK nominations, QPQ is not required. Let me know if any other changes need to be made! Cjstirlbyu (talk)
Well done on the improvements, but three's still some work to be done. The lack of outside perspectives is still an issue and would be bolstered by using coverage from out of the region (where the story of a quick repeal would have garnered some attention), while also looking at more critical commentary of his activities, both contemporary and modern. I don't think the picture fits very well, given it shows Redd long after the time of the bill's passing and repeal. SounderBruce 07:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SounderBruce: -- I've added a few more sources from outside of Utah on Redd and the bill's passing and repeal, as well as some more broad commentary on the rest of his life. There isn't a lot of modern commentary on his time in the legislature, given that he was only a member of the Utah House for a few years. I feel that the photo is appropriate for the article, however it's fine if we don't use it for the DYK. Let me know if I can change anything else!
Still has an outstanding tag for lack of viewpoints that I feel is a valid criticism. SounderBruce 08:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi SounderBruce, could you elaborate? The person who originally put the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag on put in the edit summary "sourcing continues to be overwhelmingly reliant on BYU-affiliated publications." The Arrington source that has many citations is published by Utah State University, which is not affiliated with BYU. The Alexander essay collection was published by the BYU university press, and constitutes 7 citations. What viewpoints do you feel are lacking? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @SounderBruce: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, the article is fine when it comes to independent viewpoints. I would like to see the citations cleaned up (currently the titles are just the paper name and page number, which is a jumbled mess) before giving final approval, Cjstirlbyu. SounderBruce 06:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks SounderBruce. The last name, year, and page number style of citation is one called shortened footnotes style (sfn). It is used on today's featured article, CSS Baltic. It is very helpful for being able to reference the exact page number of a book that is used multiple times as a reference. This page uses sfn style for books and more regular citation templates for items with a URL. For DYK, a certain style of footnote is not required. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, the newspaper citations are the ones that need cleanup. SounderBruce 20:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SounderBruce, I've cleaned up the newspaper citations—let me know if anything else needs to be done before the nomination can go through! Cjstirlbyu (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Cjstirlbyu: The article is now in good shape, but upon a second look the hook needs to be shortened. By dropping some of the details, it would flow much better. SounderBruce 09:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT0a ... that Utah state representative Charles Redd (pictured) moved to legalize horse racing and betting in 1925, only to make it illegal again two years later?
@SounderBruce: How does this sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT0a works for me. SounderBruce 04:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry to have to reopen what's already a long discussion, but I don't believe this is in fit state for the main page. I happened to spot-check a random sentence, and found the sources didn't remotely support the content; I then did five more spot-checks of sources I could access, and only one of them was completely okay. I don't know if this is carelessness, too many people working on the article, or sources shoehorned in to address the lack of independent content raised above; but it needs to be fixed. Given the issues I've raised, I would not be comfortable featuring this until someone has done spot-checks and found no issues. Also: the hook is a bit of a problem. Redd didn't make racing illegal; he didn't have that authority. He proposed the bill which made it so, much as he proposed its legalization. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Vanamonde, I did find some issues with text-source integrity. In the cases you found, the source was further down in the paragraph, but it wasn't clear that it applied to the earlier material. Cjstirlbyu and I went through the page to check for the accuracy of the material and make its sourcing clearer. I think I added a little information like Redd's introduction of crested wheatgrass and being voted one of 29 stockmen of the century by a cattle newspaper. I looked for information on the environmental impact of Redd's ranching, because I'm certain that it has affected the environment in the La Sals, but I haven't found anything that concretely connects Redd's ranching to ecological problems (although general articles on how grazing permits were freely given in Utah's early days and their impact on the ecology exist). As for the hook, how does this sound?
ALT0b ... that Utah state representative Charles Redd (pictured) successfully proposed the legalization of horse racing and betting in 1925, only to successfully propose making it illegal again two years later? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rachel Helps (BYU): Thanks for doing that; I know it can be trick for a student who may be relatively new to Wikipedia. Regardless, though, I would like to see a spotcheck by someone else before passing this myself. I can do one, but it may be a few days before I have the time. Other reviewers can of course step in if they wish. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 14[edit]


Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough. Sources inline look reliable enough for what they're citing. Verified the hook citation to the best of my ability (not familiar with UK rail transport, but looks fine). Earwig is clean. QPQ done. Looks like it should be good to go. Hog Farm Talk 03:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Ritchie333 and Hog Farm: Symbol question.svg Forgive me, but I'm a little lost on the scope of the topic. Is SailRail the common name of the ticket? The name of the company that distributes them? Or is it multiple companies that sell this type of ticket? If it's a single organization or similar, I'm wondering if the hook and article are a little promotional... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 18:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'd assumed when reading the article that it was a single ticket made through an arrangement between several different companies. Hog Farm Talk 19:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a type of ticket, that you can buy from any British station; you can use any train service or ferry you choose with it, provided it's relevant. Similar to a Travelcard. The only possible way this article could be promoting it is comparing it against flying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm a little concerned that "SailRail" isn't actually what it's called. Looking through the sources, I see "SailRail", "Sail-Rail", "Sail Rail", "Rail / Sail", "Sail and Rail" and "Sail & Rail". We don't want to be taking a generic descriptive term and elevating one version of it as the officially wiki-sanctioned version. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "SailRail" is the formal term, as that's what gets printed on the ticket, and what I think the common name should be. The fact that multiple sources refer to it slightly differently is an indication of its relative obscurity, which is why we haven't had an article on it until now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We really need something more concrete than "I think that's the formal term". Lots of things get printed on tickets, that doesn't make the ticket a WP:RS. Also, how is it being relatively obscure different from it being not notable?
@Ritchie333: Having thought about this more (and cogitated a bit on WP:COMMONNAME), let me propose that using SailRail as the article title and in the hook would be fine, as long as you add something to the article explaining that it's a generic term covering a number of similar services known by various similar names. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just seen the discussion on this at Talk. I have access to specialist sources and may be able to assist. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, Hog Farm, and RoySmith: Various additions/tweaks now made following on from the discussion at T:T/DYK, particularly by clarifying that SailRail is the brand used between Britain and Ireland and that other similar schemes are not directly linked. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A promotional hook would be something like "Go far beyond your usual stop with a Rail and Sail ticket. Head for the wilderness of the Outer Hebrides, the history of Shetland or the buzz of Belfast – that one ticket holds the key to countless adventures." which is how the ScotRail website describe it. If you mean I want to "promote" SailRail in as much as I want more people to use it, showing it's a viable alternative for sitting in an uncomfortable departure lounge for 3 hours before being told your flight is 2 hours late ..... then I guess so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by starship.paint (exalt)

  • The source quoted in this DYK nomination should be put inline within the article.
  • Article says: The ticket is a joint scheme between Transport for Wales Rail, Iarnród Éireann, Irish Ferries, Stena Line, Northern Ireland Railways and ScotRail. Source says: SailRail is an alliance of Iarnród Éireann, UK Train Operating Companies and Ferry Companies operating on the Irish Sea. Article seems to go further than the source.
  • Article says: Unlike some international train routes, they are not connecting services. Don't think the bolded part is in the source.
  • Article says: SailRail competes against budget airlines - don't think that is in the Belfast Telegraph source.
  • Article says: ... following the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull which grounded all European flights. Virgin Trains increased their London to Holyhead trains from five to ten cars in response. Don't think the source really says that Eyjafjallajökull was the specific cause, source just says Indeed, not so long ago just five cars of the 09:10 from Euston went all the way to Holyhead; now Virgin Trains send the whole 10-car train. - may have been due to general increased demand.
  • Article says: Historically, SailRail (then known as BritRail) tickets - I'm not convinced that BritRail is SailRail. Source says: Stena SeaLink and BritRail offer rail travel to New Haven, ship passage to Dieppe, then a train to Paris. [...] BritRail service to Dover, a ship to Calais, a train to Paris. Presence of Stena SeaLink seems to indicate that BritRail is really just for the train ride.
  • Article says" The Dover to Calais scheme was discontinued following the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994, though it is still possible to travel as a foot passenger. I really don't think this is backed up by the source, which says: The railway stations at Dover Western Docks and Calais Maritime closed when Eurostar started in 1994, so you can no longer simply walk off the train and onto the ferry as you used to. The journey now involves a taxi or long walk between the station and the ferry terminal in Dover and a bus or taxi in Calais, so a train-ferry-train journey that took only 7 or 8 hours in the 1930s (or for that matter, the 1980s) takes 11 hours today. You need to buy separate tickets for the British train, ferry & French train, because London to Paris through tickets ceased to exist in 2007.
  • Don't have access to Journal of the Transport Ticket Society so I'll just AGF.

@Ritchie333: - see above. Also as a courtesy - notify Hassocks5489. starship.paint (exalt) 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg - right now, based on the above. Please ping me if there is any update. starship.paint (exalt) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 27[edit]

Benjamin Tompson

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 00:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Gwillhickers: Good article. However, the hook and what's in the article don't exactly seem to match up in a way that bothers me. For example, in the article it says "the first collection of American poems to be printed in what is the American colonies" while the hook says "was the first poet in the American colonies to have his poems printed and published". I feel like the hook should be a bit more specific here because of that. I'm being picky here because of how DYK is with "First" hooks. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Onegreatjoke: — Thanks for your thorough review. Sorry about the delay - was under the weather for a few days there. I added the following statement to the lede, and it already occurs in the Vocation section. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1  ...Benjamin Tompson (pictured) is credited for being the first native born poet to emerge in North-America?   < Hall, 1924, pp. 1, 22 >< Fussell, 1953, p. 494 >
Symbol voting keep.svg Approving Alt1. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gwillhickers and Onegreatjoke: the first published native born poet, though, right? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 04:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, in order to establish the idea of 'first poet' you have to establish the idea in terms of tangible evidence -- published works. Otherwise, all historians would have is a speculation or an assumption that Tompson was the first at anything. See: <Wroth, 1938, p. 258> <Hall, 1924, p. 13> <Fussell, 1953, p. 500> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Gwillhickers, and Onegreatjoke: Need clarity on hooks and agreement of those involved, I am not seeing that all issues have been resolved. Bruxton (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How about an ALT1a: ... that Benjamin Tompson (pictured) is credited as the first native born published poet to emerge in North America? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    theleekycauldron The end of ALT1a gets wordy with the alliteration. Also the hook leads me to believe he is a Native American; but he's not a native in the way many would refer to natives. Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with ALT1, which reads "native born poet", and is well sourced. Most Indians, then and now, didn't/don't consider themselves as an American of any kind. "Native-American" was a term invented by white politicians to placate their critics and other constituents, and more than suggests that the generations of settlers and their descendants who were born and raised in America are native to no country. If this causes anyone to get confused all they have to do is read the lede to the article, which makes it perfectly clear that Tompson wasn't an Indian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean, that's not wrong, but "native born" does give the wrong connotation. I think using American colonies from the ALT0 would work well. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is the term the sources use, and used in the proper context doesn't imply anything wrong, imo. Again, the lede, not to mention the article, makes things clear. Also, I have to say, it's wrong that the term "native" has been reserved, by some people, for only one race of people, as if other lives don't matter. We could always use the original hook if someone is going to make a big issue over matters of opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removed my objection and placed leeky sig in correct place. Promoting ALT1 Bruxton (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Like other poets, Tompson developed his writing by patient practice during hours not involved with his teaching responsibilities" with "Tompson, like other early poets, developed his craft by patient practice during hours unoccupied by his classroom responsibilities", or "definitive example of cultivated standard of achievement in verse in New England in the late seventeenth century" with "represents the cultivated standard of achievement in verse in New England in the late seventeenth century". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I was not aware of this - you have moved this from the prep but you did not ping any of the involved parties (@Theleekycauldron, Gwillhickers, and Onegreatjoke:. You have placed the close paraphrasing banner on the article but it would be far more helpful to help fix the issue. Bruxton (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bruxton: this appears to be a recurring problem on Gwillhickers' DYK noms – fixing it is probably not a reasonable ask for an admin copypatroller (my bad, i could've sworn!) with lots more to do. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: they are not an admin. But I guess this one is kaput now. Bruxton (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria, Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and Theleekycauldron: — The phrases in question have been reworded. Bearing in mind
CLOP: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."
It would seem the phrase, "cultivated standard of achievement in verse" is one such example. I had always thought that some similarities were allowed in such cases when used in the context of one's own words, which has always been the case. In any event, I've gone through the article and checked for other issues. If anyone sees something I may have missed please bring it to my attention. If there are no more issues I'm hoping to get this Nom back on track. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is always possible to directly quote unique turns of phrase like that one. But again, direct copying is not the only problem to avoid. Consider this example: "Tompson lived to the age of seventy-two, during which time he had the opportunity to produce a good deal of poetry over a period of fifty-five years. From the 1658 poem on Samuel Arnold to his last work in 1713, Tompson wrote at least twenty-nine poems" vs the source's "Because he lived to the age of seventy-two, Tompson had the opportunity to produce a good deal of poetry over a long period of time. In the fifty-five years of his productivity, from the 1658 poem on Samuel Arnold to his "last lines" of 1713, Tompson wrote at least twenty-nine poems". There are pieces of this that are truly limited - but placed in the context of others that are only slightly altered, the whole still consists of close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement has been reworded and simplified. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Honestly, I think I'm going to give this review to someone else as I lack confidence in reviewing this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arun gas field

5x expanded by Larataguera (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg @Larataguera: Based on the NPOV criteria, I feel the hook should be revised to say "alleged atrocities" since this involves an ongoing court case that has not rendered a verdict on ExxonMobil's complicity in the atrocities. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arsonal, it's true there's a subtle difference between "not denying" and "acknowledging." I missed that, and I'll fix that sentence. As for the hook, the source says that Since the end of the civil war in 2005, the government-backed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) and the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have extensively documented abuses committed by the Indonesian military both around Arun field and across Aceh. I don't think there's any question that the atrocities occurred, and so it would be misleading to say "alleged atrocities". (That is, we would not be misrepresenting the source if the hook read "... that extensively documented atrocities ...!)
So to be clear, what is "alleged" (and yet to be ruled in the lawsuit) is Exxon's responsibility for the atrocities (under US law). Not the atrocities themselves.
Larataguera (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Larataguera. I agree that the sources point to atrocities being committed, but a reader with no knowledge of the context (which is the point of DYK) and just reading the hook without any antecedent of who committed the atrocities would imply the atrocities were committed by ExxonMobil, resulting in the lawsuit. But, as your source states, the atrocities were in fact committed by the military. I propose the following:
Let me know what you think. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Arsonal for this suggestion. It seems like anyone who reads much of anything into the hook will just click on it and find all the information they need. The point is to create interest. I think Alt0 is factual and would get more clicks than Alt1, which I think is a little too long and gives too much information.
If you strongly feel Alt0 is unacceptable, how about
That works for me. Symbol confirmed.svg Approve ALT2. Thanks for working with me, Larataguera. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom). SL93 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose that if people are insistent that the atrocities be "alleged" (per concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom)), then the hook could read:

I think this is a bit wordy, but could meet people's concerns that we not describe the atrocities to have occurred in wikivoice, while not mis-representing the situation as being more uncertain than it actually is? Larataguera (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Theleekycauldron for getting back around to this one. I guess I'll see if I can come up with another hook. Just so we're working off the same page, are you clear that literally no one actually disputes that these atrocities occurred? Like not even Exxon? So the lawsuit isn't about whether or not these atrocities happened. It's just about whether Exxon is responsible and liable in US courts. I'm just wanting to be sure we're on the same page, because I'm having a little trouble understanding the concern here. The source says they're extensively documented. The NYT says they're extensively documented. So why can't the hook say that, exactly? Just trying to understand the concern, because I don't think Exxon CEOs would dispute this hook. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 28[edit]

Pyotr Masherov

  • ... that Pyotr Masherov pursued a rapid modernisation of Minsk that resulted in the destruction of much of the original town that survived WW2? Source: Ioffe, Emmanuel (2008). From Myasnikov to Malofeyev: the Rulers of the BSSR. Minsk. p. 138.
    • ALT1: ... that under Pyotr Masherov the Belarusian agricultural industry expanded their grain harvest from 2.3 million to 7.3 million, over the 3x the original amount? Source: Dzyemyantsyey, Mikalay. Respect for Business. p. 116. , Vecherko, G. N. He Did Not Show Himself, and Did Not Utter Incantations. p. 240.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Iowa Cow War

Improved to Good Article status by Mupper-san (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg I made a very minor edit to directly source the sentence from which your first hook derives; I learned that was a requirement just a couple weeks ago. Otherwise, the article is an outstanding little work of biography and I was happy to see the GA review process was similarly painless. All requirements done (I have AGF on offline source) and both hooks are sufficiently interesting, though I think Masherov's regret would be an enhancing addition to the first hook. Great job to both nominator and improver! Hope to see more from both. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Onegreatjoke and Pbritti: Symbol question.svg I'm happy to assume good faith on a book source i can't access – I'm less happy to assume good faith on a book I can't prove... exists? Searches for the title of Respect for Business, in both English and Google Translated-Belarussian, turn up nothing, and the book citations don't come with dates or links. Also, Mikalay Dzyemyantsyey wasn't a scholar, he was the chairman of the Belarusian Supreme Soviet. Is his word reliable? And who was Vecherko? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 11:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pinging @Mupper-san: since he knows the sources better than I do. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:: You (unfortunately) won't find it in Belarusian - it's part of a collection of texts titled Pyotr Masherov: Epoch and Fate. On the 100th Anniversary of his Birth, a Collection of Articles and Texts (Russian: Петр Машеров. Эпоха и судьба. К 100-летию со дня рождения. Сборник статей и воспоминаний.), and to my knowledge hasn't been published on its own. Additionally, I would call Dzyemyantsyey reliable given he was a witness to events occurring under Masherov's rule. Lastly, Vecherko is (I believe) Valentin Vechyorko [ru], a Belarusian historian and opposition politician. Mupper-san (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mupper-san: I see – not sure why it would be G. N., then. Who published Dzyemyantsyey's book? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 23:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:: There is also the possibility (which is more likely now, looking at it) that it was Valentin Vechyorko's father, Grigory Nikolayevich Vechyorko (Russian: Григорий Николаевич Вечёрко) - himself an advisor to Masherov, deputy head of Gosplan in Belarus, and a member of the KGB. Dzyemyantsyey's text (Which is actually in a separate collection, a mistake on my part as the two are similarly anthologies of first-hand accounts and historical analysis) was published by the League for the Assistance to Enterprises Association (Russian: Ассоциация "Лига содействия оборонным предприятиям) The collection which Dzyemyantsyey's memoirs are actually part of is Pyotr Masherov, Son of the Belarusian Nation: Memoirs and Articles on his 95th Birth Anniversary (Russian: Сын белорусского народа Петр Машеров. К 95-летию со дня рождения. воспоминания и статьи. Mupper-san (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mupper-san: Aha, gotcha. Is the publisher reputable for historical content? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I can't really testify as to any knowledge of the publisher, but I can say that many of the authors included in it were people who had some experience with his leadership, among them various social, academic, and cultural figures during the period. Additionally is the fact that sizeable portions of content (for example, Masherov being referred to as a "genuine communist" or similarly described as being a genuine adherent of communism compared to his equivalents during the Era of Stagnation). As an addendum, Dzyemyantsyey would likely have expertise in regards to agriculture as he was head of the agricultural department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Byelorussia from 1977 (see here). And my sincerest apologies for not replying earlier - it must have completely slipped my mind! Mupper-san (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I know that public officials have a lot of first hand experience, but that doesn't make them reliable for the content they produce – public officials still have agendas and alliances, even after leaving office. If the publisher doesn't have a reputation for historical content, I'm not entirely convinced that we're dealing with a reliable source for the figures. No worries on the response time :) I'm rather swamped and bonked myself. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mupper-san, this nomination, while you didn't make it, is now over two months old, and it's been over a month since your previous reply here. I don't see that any work has been done on the article despite a significant number of edits from you recently. Although theleekycauldron said there weren't any worries on the response time, that was four weeks ago; I think this nomination either needs to make good progress very soon or to be closed. Can you let us know your plans regarding this nomination? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 4[edit]


Improved to Good Article status by Nathan Obral (talk). Self-nominated at 06:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Nathan Obral: Good article but I feel as if you could choose a better hook. These hooks are ok but I feel as if better ones could be made. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Onegreatjoke: I wrote ALT0 while trying to help Nathan figure out a good hook (I didn't do any substantive edits on the actual article). A lot of the options here are wordy and boring. I have experience with hooks like this and how to avoid them. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Nathan Obral: Symbol question.svg Well, it's certainly a shame this has languished so – let's take look. New enough, positively massive, neutral, and plagiarism-free; a little concerned about the use of Fybush.com as a source, it looks like a selfpubbed blog. Not a big fan of either of the hooks; the first is a listener complain, I imagine those aren't uncommon, even if this does get a few clicks by bringing up sexuality and religion. The second seems to fall a little flat. QPQ is not required, so it seems we've got a few small issues to work out. Great job so far! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 10[edit]

Ludwig's subathon

Ludwig Ahgren in 2021
Ludwig Ahgren in 2021

Improved to Good Article status by PerfectSoundWhatever (talk). Self-nominated at 01:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg @PerfectSoundWhatever: Good article. Article is sourced and the hook is interesting. Just waiting on a QPQ now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't believe I forgot to sign my post. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Alright, approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 11[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 17[edit]

Woman to Woman (campaign)

Created by Moondragon21 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Article covers all the necessary criteria for DYK. Confirmed QPQ not required (user has 4 previous credits but first time nominating themselves). Happy to pass this one. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Moondragon21 and Sims2aholic8: Symbol question.svg the article doesn't really make it clear what the debate actually is, or who said it to be magenta or fuchsia. Could more context be added? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    theleekycauldron ALT2 ... that Harriet Harman's Pink Bus was mocked by critics for resembling a Barbie bus, which was thought to be sexist and patronizing? SL93 (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SL93: hmmm... possibly a gen4a violation against Harman? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    theleekycauldron Possibly, but that is the context. There seems to be nothing much to work with beyond the controversy so I suggest closing the nomination if nothing else can be found soon. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm, I guess we could just leave out her name... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ALT3 ... that the 2015 "Woman to Woman" campaign included a "Pink Bus" that was mocked by critics as sexist and patronizing?
      SL93, theleekycauldron, I was surprised how little there was to the article beyond the critics; not even an examination of whether it was effective in the constituencies that the bus visited. (Is there a reason that ALT3 has "Pink Bus" in quotes, rather than just a regular lowercase pink bus? (Harmon acknowledged that it was pink, according to the article.) If you think that any of the hooks can fly, then a reviewer should be requested. If not, then this should probably be closed; the original nominator has not posted here in a month and a half. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 22[edit]

Judith Marquet-Krause

Judith Marquet-Krause
Judith Marquet-Krause

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Awesome article that is both new and long enuf for DYK. QPQ done. No evidence of copyvio. Hook fact is verifiable, although I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to tweak the hook a little (it seems to imply that she actively set out to disprove Joshua's accuracy, which is quite the contrary to the intent of the expedition!). AGF on some sources I can't view. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image also seems like it complies with guidelines. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1 ... that excavations led by archaeologist Judith Marquet-Krause (pictured) disproved that the Book of Joshua was a factual account of the city of Ai?
Does that move the emphasis enough? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol voting keep.svg ALT1 is definitely better. Striking ALT0. Interesting article. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello RoySmith, thanks for flagging this - I wonder if the issue was caused by the fact I used a translation from NL? Either way, I'll fix it in the next 48 hours. Thanks again Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello @RoySmith: I've taken another look and weeded out, I think the worst paraphrasing. I'm not sure what to do about the structure - whether that too is considered COPYVIO? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: could I impose on you to take a look at the latest version? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly better, although the Career section in particular could do with a bit more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done a bit more reworking, but I'm also at a bit of a loss with the structure since the JWA article is written quite like a Wikipedia article, I'm finding it challenging to see how to structure it differently. If someone could offer some advice that would be very much appreciated. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Stark, Thom (2011). The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals when it Gets God Wrong (and why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It). Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-60899-323-9.

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Phylogenetic reconciliation

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Mietchen (talk). Nominated by Daniel Mietchen (talk) at 18:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • @Daniel Mietchen: Hi there! Couple things: first, unless the authors have verified wikipedia accounts, no need to give them DYK credit (it actually wouldn't work out technologically). Second, make sure your article has at least 1500 prose characters that are not copied from a freely licensed source, as work that isn't your own doesn't count towards DYK's length requirement. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 07:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 26[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]


Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but can alternate hooks be proposed here? Both hooks seem to be reliant on specialist knowledge (the first hook mentions a building readers may not necessarily be familiar with, while ALT1's context may not be clear to non-specialists). DYK rules require that hooks appeal to readers that don't have special knowledge or interests and I don't think either hook meets that criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Hi! Kindly check. Thanks RV (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Apologies for the delay in replying. I'll need a few days first to think about if ALT2 or ALT3 are okay (I think ALT2 is probably the one that meets the criterion here best, albeit marginally). My main concern is that the article writing seems rather non-standard, with lots of '[' and ']' symbols along with an inconsistent use of quotation marks. I would probably suggest that the article be given a copyedit before the nomination can proceed further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Made the necessary changes. Please have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Really really sorry about the delay in replying! I got caught up in a lot of real-life matters and I forgot to get back to this. In any case, I've struck all hooks as I think those other options are either not very intriguing or require specialist knowledge. I do think ALT2's hook fact has the most potential, and reading through the article again, I think one possible option would be a slight revision of it: rather than focusing on when it was popular, the focus could be on it being used as an imitation of silk. My article spot-check and paraphrase check also showed that the article does appear to meet requirements and a QPQ has been done, although the sentences that exactly mention it being used as a substitute for silk do need footnotes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! Let me rework and ping you then. Thanks RV (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Kindly check ALT5. Thanks RV (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hook suggestions seem a bit complicated. Maybe simplifying it a bit? There's also maybe a few too many links, which might distract people away from checking out the article and instead direct them to those other articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Kindly check ALT6, it is simplified, and I have fixed overlinking. Thanks RV (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

Braxton Cook

Created by BanjoZebra (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Hello and welcome to DYK. The article meets DYK requirements for length and creation time, and is free from close paraphrasing. The hook fact is cited inline, but per WP:DYKCRIT the exact sentence mentioning the Taylor Swift part needs a footnote. No QPQ is required as this is the nominator's first nomination. However, I'm not a fan of the hook. In recent months there have been reservations about hooks about or that mention Swift, and such hooks tend to underperform in terms of DYK readership interest. Theleekycauldron could perhaps elaborate more on this point, but in the meantime, could you perhaps propose a different hook about Cook that doesn't involve Swift? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Narutolovehinata5 is correct, but i won't bore you with the details :) welcome to DYK, BanjoZebra! If you'd like any assistance drafting a hook, I'm around. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 ... that Braxton Cook performed alongside Jon Batiste on the soundtrack for Pixar's Soul, which won the Academy Award for Best Original Score? SL93 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that my hook suggestion isn't in the source. SL93 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake, I fixed the source on the page. SL93 I think that hook works! BanjoZebra (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if it could be revised further. There's probably an okay core there but I'm not really a fan of the mention of Batiste. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Del Riley (clerk)

Created by 127(point)0(point)0(point)1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to welcome any alt hooks you could suggest! --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to give this nomination a full review, and point out any issues that need to be addressed, possibly including those mentioned above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 1[edit]

Millennial pause

  • ...   that millennials pause? Source: https://archive.today/20220916215908/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/08/tiktok-gen-z-millennial-pause-parody/671069/
    • Reviewed: Translation Bureau
    • Comment:
      promoters, i am aiming for the quirky slot with this hook, in case it isn't clear. i'd prefer if the hook immediately before it is a bit shorter to make the unusual spacing more noticeable, but don't worry if you can't make that happen. (if you are confused as to why i am playing with the spacing, please read the article, or at least its lead.)
      reviewers, i am open to suggestions regarding where best to put the extraneous spacing, and how lengthy it should be. i decided to use three spaces because i know that many readers will not notice one extra space, and the point was to make readers notice the superfluous spacing, since that is the subject of the article. one alternative is to use a couple of extra dots in the ellipsis. one much more radical alternative (though also possibly less noticeable) would be to drop the ellipsis altogether, interpreting the other hooks as having been drafted by millennials. below is an approximation of how the hook may look in comparison with the one immediately above, shown at roughly the width it would appear on the main page.

following a longer hook:

following a shorter hook:

alt0a (with extra spacing before the bullet point):

alt0b (with extra spacing after the bullet point but before the ellipsis):

alt0c (with extra spacing after the "that"):

alt0d (with an ellllipsis):

alt0e (with no ellipsis):

alt0f (double ellipsis, added by Hameltion):

alt1 (with no ellipsis and uneven text):

Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC). [added alt1. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @Dying: Fun idea! Meets new and length requirements. Neutral and very cited, but I do have some suggestions to improve the article:
    • Dates would be very helpful – when was the term coined (and on what platform), when and how was it popularized?
      haha! oh, wow, i can't believe i didn't mention any dates at all. anyway, added. i think kathryn lindsay of the atlantic may have popularized the term, but i don't remember any reliable sources explicitly stating this, although many do reference her. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Clarify in the body what "some videos" means – mostly in social media posts? Is the pause largely noticed on TikTok/Instagram?
      my assumption is that the phenomenon shows up in a wide range of videos, as sources don't seem to state that it is restricted to social media (even though some state that awareness of it is going viral on social media). i'd conjecture that it is being more clearly noticed now because videos with such pauses, when uploaded to social media, can be more closely compared to videos without them. the source i provided above states that "as short-form video comes to Instagram (Reels), YouTube (Shorts), and Snapchat (Spotlight), the Millennial pause is becoming easier to spot", suggesting that it exists outside these videos as well. i've now added that observation to the article body to try to help clarify that it doesn't seem to be restricted to social media. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also, and this is speculation by me, but lack of video editing seems to be a crucial but unstated element
      i agree that the lack of editing of many short-form videos posted on social media platforms may have been a contributing factor to the rise of the millennial pause, but i don't recall it being explicitly mentioned in any of the sources, so i didn't mention it myself. plenty of users of social media now state that, since they have become aware of it, they have been editing the pause out. i have found a recent source mentioning that the pause could be edited out, but it isn't, so i have added that to the article. (i am somewhat conflicted about adding this, since the source doesn't qualify the statement, e.g., only assert that it is often not edited out, but i attributed the statement in the article, so am assuming that mentioning this is okay.) dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • JC Chasez's pause is mentioned almost incidentally in the source, so the photo seems undue. Also, would be good to find a source that explicitly says the pause is not exclusively a millennial phenomenon if that's the case
      that's a valid point. thankfully, after some searching, i've now found another celebrity mentioned in a reliable source, and not only incidentially: jennifer coolidge! i have now substituted chasez for coolidge in the featured photos. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Helpful to mention in the photo caption that the term was coined in reference to TS
      i have added a footnote, as i think the caption is already longer than usual. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Referring to millennials as "older users" is pretty funny to me, maybe replace that phrase with "millennial users"? Or "users of the millennial generation and older" if that's what sources indicate
      at the time, i couldn't find any reliable sources that explicitly mentioned older generations exhibiting the pause, but it seems to be implied, which is why i tended to use the phrase "older users" instead of explicitly mentioning millennials whenever i was discussing people that exhibited the pause. (i think using the phrase "old users" might have been inappropriate, but when comparing millennials to zoomers, i assume using the phrase "older users" isn't too unusual.) however, i have now found a recent source referring to "'older than Gen Z' creators", so i've replaced one of the instances of "older users" with "people older than zoomers", and simply dropped the other instance. (i haven't used the term "millennial generation" in the article, so i didn't want to complicate the terminology used.) dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Some sentences are difficult to follow. #Theory is particularly verbose/redundant, try saying the sentences out loud. Also, "cause some millennials to question whether they are becoming too old" could become something like "made some millennials notice that they are 'getting old'" (to introduce the point of view of the source)
      i tried making the theory section easier to understand. please let me know if i was successful.
      also, i'm not sure if i'm understanding the second part of your comment correctly, but i think most millennials noticed a long time ago that they were getting old. (presumably, many zoomers have too.) i think the issue is whether or not millennials are getting older than what they are comfortable identifying with. the wired article states that "[m]illennials, the first generation to be online as kids, are starting to feel like [they]'ve aged out", which seems to focus on the heart of the matter: many millennials identify as the first digital natives, so when it is clear that they may no longer be as native in the digital world as they had previously seen themselves, the cognitive dissonance is stressful and uncomfortable, and makes them wonder if they have become too old.[original research] (i don't think this experience applies to all millennials, but those that don't feel the cognitive dissonance aren't the ones complaining about it in reliable sources.) dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Other recs: Include definition of millennial years in body of the article. Add publication dates to citations. Remove all uses of the word "celebrity"
      i had actually tried to avoid explicitly defining what a millennial is in the article lead or body, because definitions of the term vary widely and i thought mentioning the details would break the flow of the article. (i added a partial definition in a footnote to allow readers to synth for themselves that chasez is not a millennial.) after reading your comment, i can now see that the article can be confusing for someone wholly unfamiliar with the term, so i have tried to add a practical but noncommittal definition in the lead. please let me know if you think that doesn't work. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hope that's not too much to ask in a DYK review! Not all the changes are necessary, but the first two bullets are kind of important context that's missing, otherwise almost ready to go. QPQ present. As for the hooks, I like alt0b but it also kind of looks like a typo. Added alt0f above, favorite I've thought of so far. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 04:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    thanks for the thorough review, Hameltion! apologies for taking so long and for being so verbose in my reply; i fall down a rabbit hole whenever i try to do research for this article.
    admittedly, i think i had been playing around with alt0f too, but had been worried that it might look too much like a copy-paste error. of course, they all look like errors, though. i had preferred using either alt0 or alt0b for months (yes, it took me a while to get around to writing the article), but i thought of alt0d about a day before the nomination, and it has been growing on me, so i don't know what to think. i've also now added alt1, based on the idea in alt0e and the recently described gen z shake, now mentioned in the article. i only thought of it recently, but it might be my favourite one now. what are your thoughts on alt1? dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most edits look great! Article is much improved. Besides resolving the coatrack discussion below, just a few more thoughts: Jennifer Coolidge's TikTok is amazing, but it's still a random one-off use of the millennial pause – fine in the body, but suggest you use just one image (Taylor Swift). The Theory section is much better (much clearer), but still sort of wordy. Also, my suggestion to rewrite this sentence – "Becoming aware of the phenomenon has caused some millennials to question whether they are becoming too old" – wasn't about the content, it's just kind of stilted diction. As for the Millennials online section, it seems sort of arbitrary what's been included but I think it's mostly fine; it works to give context situating this particular generational behavior.
    For hooks, my preference is still the one I suggested (alt0f) but would not object to either alt0b or alt0d. Like the idea behind alt1 but it's pretty confusing without having read the article all the way to the bottom, and it first seemed to me like that SpongeBob meme which is not the connotation you're going for. Simple is better I think. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 17:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, and this is speculation by me, but lack of video editing seems to be a crucial but unstated element Couldn't agree more. Instructing actors to pause for a few seconds at the beginning of each take is one of the first things people learn to do when making any sort of edited content. I know the Atlantic article is only talking about off-the-cuff TikTok smartphone selfie cam stuff which usually doesn't get edited, but it seems like a glaring omission. The lead of this article reads to me like it's telling the reader "if you don't immediately start talking when hitting the record button you're oooold" which flies in the face of decades of conventional wisdom in film-making. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DigitalIceAge, i actually didn't get the impression that lindsay's article in the atlantic was only talking about short-form videos on tiktok, so i didn't qualify the definition in the article. i mentioned a bit more about lack of editing in my response to Hameltion above, which i hope will address your concerns.
    your take on the lead is really interesting, as i personally don't think that someone is "oooold" if they exhibit a millennial pause, so am admittedly rather surprised that the lead comes off that way to you. (i actually thought the reason you stated could be a more relevant factor, so am glad you brought it up, but i have yet to find any reliable sources that posit this theory.) what about the lead gives you that impression, and how do you think it should be changed?
    by the way, i noticed that you removed the digital divide article from the see also section, stating in your edit summary that it "does not apply, the camcorders/older smartphones millennials used which incurred a lag between the record button and start of the take were digital". before i had added that article to the see also section, i had checked to see if the term "digital divide", as it is used in wikipedia, was used to only refer to the divide between people with access to digital devices and those that did not, or if it was a broader term, also used to describe the divide between people familiar with different types of digital technology. looking through the digital divide article, i got the sense that the latter was the case, so i had felt that it was appropriate to include the article in the see also section. my reading of your edit summary leads me to believe that you think the former is the case. did you have a chance to look over the article? dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It might just be a kneejerk reaction on my part (done a lot of shooting and editing video in the past) but the first two sentences paint too broad of a brush. The Atlantic article does specify short-form content as where it is most discernible ("Which is why, as short-form video comes to Instagram (Reels), YouTube (Shorts), and Snapchat (Spotlight), the Millennial pause is becoming easier to spot") so we should use that phrase instead of the vague "some recorded videos". Also the whole 'Millennials online' section reads like a coatrack for this supposed "Millennial Internet Era" that bears precious little relevance to the concept of "millennial pauses" (how is taking landscape photos 'millennial'?) and should be trimmed. And... the 'doggo' image/caption is totally irrelevant (millenials aren't dogs, they're not the ones using "adulting"!) and reads like it was written for meme fodder and just had to go... sorry. I get it's a jokey lighthearted topic, but we need to give appropriate weight to those kinds of navel-gazing asides as an encyclopedia. As for the digital divide, the article defines that concept as unequal access to digital tech. Pretty sure Taylor Swift and every millennial who ever uploaded a vlog in 2008 has the same access to TikTok as Gen Z does today. In fact, this article wouldn't exist if that weren't the case! DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

Robert Parker Coffin Bridge
Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

5x expanded by HueSatLum (talk). Self-nominated at 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Red XN - Not done yet.
Overall: Symbol question.svg Waiting on QPQ and a replacement source. The hook is great and present in the article and source. SounderBruce 06:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the review! I've added my QPQ and replaced BridgeReports with an official government source. ~huesatlum 02:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I've u-npromoted this per WT:DYK#Template:Did you know/Queue/3 Jan 28. At this point, the hook fails The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change. It's true that if it's "more than 40" today, it'll always be "more than 40", but the closer this is tied to a specific number, the less it complies with the spirit of that rule. I think we're also close to "D6 ... unresolved edit-warring".
    • @RoySmith and Bruxton: I appreciate the attention to detail on this. I didn't mean to derail this nomination -- I thought I was just correcting a slight misunderstanding. I'm struggling to understand what the exact concern is here: that the number 40 may be inaccurate, or that the number 40 is overly precise for a Wikipedia article (or a DYK hook)? If it's the former, I've found half a dozen sources that support the fact that there have been at least 40 as of September 2022 (and I'm not aware of any sources that specifically contradict this, just some that are less precise). But if it's the latter, I can be convinced that that's the right approach and change it back to "dozens". ~huesatlum 02:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hi. I'm tied up in other stuff at the moment so I don't have time to dive into the details right now, but I feel your frustration and didn't want to leave you hanging. Once something hits a queue, the clock is ticking for when it hits the main page. The first priority is to make sure the hooks are correct. If we can iron out questions on the fly, that's great, but once things get complicated, the easiest thing is to just replace the hook. Once the hook is unpromoted, we can work on it without the clock ticking and take our time to make sure we get it right. That's really all I was doing here. It doesn't sound like there's any fundamental problem that'll be hard to fix, but I wanted to get this off the clock so we could make sure it's right. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I am frustrated that I was never notified and arrived to the discussion late, but it was an honest mistake and there's nothing that can be done now. Once I can get a clearer picture of what the problem is, I will be happy to work to resolve it and get this back on track. ~huesatlum 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HueSatLum: Hello and thanks for the message. I think the issue is one of accuracy. We settled on the word dozens because of the many conflicting figures in articles. When you disputed the figure and wanted to state 40 bridge strikes as a specific number - we cannot find agreement in sources for that figure. Bruxton (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bruxton: I searched Google News and a news database for "long grove" bridge between September 1, 2022 and now. These are all the results I found that specify the number of strikes:

Extended content

While they are not perfectly consistent, they all support the sentence in the article that there have been at least 40 bridge strikes as of September 2022 (since the one figure under 40 says "at least"). It's possible my search missed some -- are there other sources you're aware of that contradict the number 40? ~huesatlum 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are a few.
Over 30 times September 26
32 Times September 26
30 times September 27
I think someone else will have to make a decision about this. Over 40 may be the most accurate figure based on the majority of references but I will let another prep builder decide. Bruxton (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worth noting that those all say "at least" or "more than" or the like, but they are good to find. I will respect whichever figure the prep/queue builders decide, but at this point I don't think there's anything preventing this nomination from going back on the Approved page. @SounderBruce or Bruxton: could one of you restore the tick if you have no objections? Thanks, ~huesatlum 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yogie Suardi Memet

Moved to mainspace by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 04:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg All good. Done a bit of editing on the spelling of the names. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 4[edit]

Northeastern Army

Chiang Kai-shek and Northeastern General Zhang Xueliang
Chiang Kai-shek and Northeastern General Zhang Xueliang

5x expanded by SilverStar54 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @SilverStar54: Good article. However

  • "In early 1927, the forces of the NPA engaged the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) in Henan and Jiangsu." Needs a citation
  • "and on 17 October, Yu Zhishan surrendered Eastern Liaoning to the Japanese." Needs a citation
  • Other notable commanders list should probably be cited.

If you can fix that then I'll pass. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully this is the right spot to respond (first time in the DYK process), but thank you for the quick review. I've revised the article to add sources (or remove unsourced material) where you requested. Let me know if there's any further steps I should take. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol voting keep.svg Forgot to promote. Hope to see more expansions about the warlord era. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverStar54: Symbol question.svg could you point as to where in the article we're going with "kidnapping", rather than detainment? Also, where could I find the bit about convincing him to join the second united front? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I feel that either term could be used to describe the events, I chose "kidnapping" just because it's more eye-catching for a hook. Do you feel like that's too much of a creative liberty? About the Second United Front, thank you for pointing that out. I describe it, but I never actually included a link to the Second United Front in that section (fixed now). It's what I'm describing in these two sentences: "By the end of the negotiations, Chiang had verbally promised to end the civil war, to resist the Japanese together, and to invite Zhou to Nanjing for further talks. Although he publicly renounced his promises after being released, he quietly followed through on them over the following months." I think that more detail about the Second United Front would be tangential to the article, but I could add more about the negotiations.

SilverStar54 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilverStar54: I'd say that "kidnapping" probably has connotations we couldn't back up, but I could be wrong. When you say "join the Second United Front", you don't mean as a card-carrying member? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I guess I feel that "kidnapping" connotates illegally seizing a person, whereas "detaining" implies a legal or official action, such as by the police. This was done by an army, but their actions were perceived as illegal (at least by the Nanjing government). Perhaps "took hostage" works better?
I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "as a card-carrying member". The Second United Front wasn't a political party that you could be a member of, it was just an alliance between the CCP and the KMT to resist the Japanese. Chiang denied that he was bound by his verbal promise to create such an alliance after he was released, but gradually eased hostilities and eventually did sign an official alliance with the Communists after six months of continued negotiations. For political reasons the KMT framed this as a "surrender" by the CCP, but in reality it was an alliance. I'll try to rewrite that section to make it more clear. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 5[edit]

The Last of Us (franchise)

Information icon This was originally a triple nomination, but has been split into three separate nominations. The other two are Template:Did you know nominations/Untitled The Last of Us game and Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us: Escape the Dark. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to mainspace by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 04:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

All three articles:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Rhain and Epicgenius: Symbol question.svg I'm a bit uneasy about both of these hooks; I'm sure it's not intentional, but having nothing to say about media franchises other than "they exist" or "coming soon" sounds a bit like advertising to me. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Theleekycauldron: Definitely a valid concern, but I'm struggling to think of an interesting, concise hook using all three articles. Should this nomination be split into separate hooks, or refocused on one of the articles? (I'm not bothered if refocusing on one makes the other two ineligible for now; they can always be re-nominated upon 5× expansion or GA.)Rhain (he/him) 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, I don't think we'd be losing eligibility on any of the articles. Opening up new nominations for each of the other articles is efficient, but probably a little cumbersome. I'd say that it'd be messier, but we can probably get by if you just propose separate new hooks down here and have them all reviewed and promoted into separate preps. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think proposing separate hooks is probably the best option; I've done that below. Please feel free to adjust my formatting as much as is necessary. – Rhain (he/him) 05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neil Druckmann
Neil Druckmann

Untitled The Last of Us game

Information icon This was originally a triple nomination, but has been split into three separate nominations. The other two are Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us (franchise) and Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us: Escape the Dark. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to mainspace by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 04:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

All three articles:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Rhain and Epicgenius: Symbol question.svg I'm a bit uneasy about both of these hooks; I'm sure it's not intentional, but having nothing to say about media franchises other than "they exist" or "coming soon" sounds a bit like advertising to me. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Theleekycauldron: Definitely a valid concern, but I'm struggling to think of an interesting, concise hook using all three articles. Should this nomination be split into separate hooks, or refocused on one of the articles? (I'm not bothered if refocusing on one makes the other two ineligible for now; they can always be re-nominated upon 5× expansion or GA.)Rhain (he/him) 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, I don't think we'd be losing eligibility on any of the articles. Opening up new nominations for each of the other articles is efficient, but probably a little cumbersome. I'd say that it'd be messier, but we can probably get by if you just propose separate new hooks down here and have them all reviewed and promoted into separate preps. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think proposing separate hooks is probably the best option; I've done that below. Please feel free to adjust my formatting as much as is necessary. – Rhain (he/him) 05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Last of Us: Escape the Dark

Information icon This was originally a triple nomination, but has been split into three separate nominations. The other two are Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us (franchise) and Template:Did you know nominations/Untitled The Last of Us game. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to mainspace by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 04:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

All three articles:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Rhain and Epicgenius: Symbol question.svg I'm a bit uneasy about both of these hooks; I'm sure it's not intentional, but having nothing to say about media franchises other than "they exist" or "coming soon" sounds a bit like advertising to me. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Theleekycauldron: Definitely a valid concern, but I'm struggling to think of an interesting, concise hook using all three articles. Should this nomination be split into separate hooks, or refocused on one of the articles? (I'm not bothered if refocusing on one makes the other two ineligible for now; they can always be re-nominated upon 5× expansion or GA.)Rhain (he/him) 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, I don't think we'd be losing eligibility on any of the articles. Opening up new nominations for each of the other articles is efficient, but probably a little cumbersome. I'd say that it'd be messier, but we can probably get by if you just propose separate new hooks down here and have them all reviewed and promoted into separate preps. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think proposing separate hooks is probably the best option; I've done that below. Please feel free to adjust my formatting as much as is necessary. – Rhain (he/him) 05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robin Greenwood

5x expanded by SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Expansion and its timing is ok. Article is long enuf, seems neutral, except that "show" might be better as "suggest", & is well-written. Both hooks check out - ALT1 is probably more enticing, but I think "show" needs changing. Is a QPQ needed? If not, you need to say. Earwig finds that there is a passage from an HBS page that I think is too close:
  • Article: "... how best to ensure the stability of the financial system, and Greenwood oversaw research on bank capital and liquidity management, on the nature of bank runs in the modern financial system, and on the unprecedented growth of the financial sector prior to the crisis;..."
  • HBS: "how best to ensure the stability of the financial system. Researchers at Harvard have led groundbreaking research on bank capital and liquidity management, on the nature of bank runs in the modern financial system, and on the unprecedented growth of the financial sector prior to the crisis. ... that financial instability often follows periods when financial institutions, like investors and policy makers, have underestimated risks."
- some rewriting needed. The rest of the article is ok. There's no ref on his being "British-American", or being born in Belgium.

Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for those Johnbod. Definitely agree with suggest, and I've corrected the HBS passage. Best, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johnbod, status report? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Daikoku Seamount

  • ... that a boiling pond of liquid sulfur was discovered at the summit crater of the Daikoku Seamount in 2006 in the Northern Mariana Islands? Source: "Last night, we came across another extreme of sulfur volcanism in the solar system, a convecting pool of liquid sulfur under more than 40 atmospheres of pressure! At first it was rather difficult to see the pool's surface, because the sulfur was black! However, as we stared through the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) Jason's eyes into the pit, a roiling dark surface of partially solidified crust came into focus. This was a rather precarious place for the Jason ROV, but the long experience and confidence of the Jason team once again came through for us. A sulfur sample was obtained by dropping the anchor chain of one of our markers into the lake." [[2]]
    • ALT1: ... that a rare, boiling pond of molten sulfur sits in the summit crater of the Daikoku Seamount in the Northern Mariana Islands?
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Boiling sulfur ponds can only be found in 3 places on Earth, Nikko Seamount, Daikoku Seamount (Mariana Islands) and the Macauley Island (Kermadec Islands). Boiling liquid sulfur are usually erupted by volcanoes in Io (moon of Jupiter) rather than volcanoes on Earth, so it is a rare phenomenon to witness here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reego41 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by Reego41 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Reego41: Interesting article but there's some uncited statements that need to be addressed. Also, the hook's citation seems broken. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hey, thanks for reviewing. I did realize that, no idea why the link broke. I have fixed it. Reego41 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reego41: Hey, does "The seamount is located 695 km (432 mi) north-northeast of Saipan, Northern Mariana islands and 665 km (413 mi) south-southeast of Ogasawara Island, Japan. It is located within the sub-region of Micronesia in the Pacific Ocean, which consists of more than 2,000 islands." need a citation because it does seem like it does. Also I need a citation for alt1 Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Hi, I cited the Geography section. You can use the same citation that I used for ALT0 for ALT1 as well. Reego41 18:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ida Ospelt-Amann

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg I assume good faith on the references. I added "the" to the hook. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Lajmmoore and SL93: Symbol question.svg From an outsider's perspective, I'm not sure that I'm seeing much in this hook. She's writing her poems exclusively in a dialect that is spoken across her country, and particularly in the area in which she worked? It doesn't seem like there's that great a payoff in here, although her work is definitely important. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much theleekycauldron - it's always good to be pressed on hookiness. How about:
ALT1: ... that Liechtensteiner poet Ida Ospelt-Amann collected proverbs for Liechtenstein National Museum? Source: "Liechtensteinischen Landesmuseums, und Ida Ospelt-Amann sammeln Sprichwörter und Redewendungen." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QYEccgAACAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en&redir_esc=y is the ref & you can access the book here https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000468127/80/LOG_0014/
If other people can see a hookier hook than me, it would be great to see other suggestions Lajmmoore (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. What makes a hook hooky, in my opinion, is its ability to make the reader ask questions about the topic. This is certainly a neat fact, but I don't think it quite has that curved point at the end of it. This article doesn't look like it offers up so much in terms of hooks, so I would love to hear what other people have to offer. ALT0 might be the best we've got, but I don't really want to go with it... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi Theleekycauldron, I do know what you mean! I'm struggling to find that uplift though - I've been trying to find more sources, but there's not much to add that might make anything hookier. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lajmmoore: On the one hand: Let's face it. This will never be a top-clicked DYK hook-of-the-month. On the other hand: This may sound odd, but I have read the original hook dozens of times now, and have always loved the poetry of it – I like the sound of the words (which is neither here nor there, but thought it was worth saying). In any case, it leaves me curious about the Alemannic dialect of Vaduz – what is it exactly, and is there something interesting about it? My advice would be to add at least a sentence or two in the article providing background about Vaduz. That may help to trigger some detail we could tie in with a new hook (or maybe we even decide to keep the original). (Is Vaduz dying or reviving? How many people speak it today? What other dialects is it close to? etc.). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cielquiparle thanks very much - i hadn't thought of it like that, so will do some contextualising, and see what comes up! Lajmmoore (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

Jamie Beaton (entrepreneur)

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Happy to review this one; I've always had an interest in this guy as a young Kiwi entrepreneur and "tall poppy", and was impressed by the article and how well-written/neutral it is. Article is new enough, long enough, well-cited and has no other eligibility problems. No issues from Earwig check. QPQ appears to not be required as your second DYK nomination (although please let me know if I've got that wrong!).
  • The hook is interesting and cited. I note I don't have access to the provided source for the hook as it requires a subscription. I can approve it on an AGF basis but wondered if you could provide me with the wording of the text supporting the hook? (I just want to check that it says this definitively, rather than being simply a claim by Beaton.)
  • Some minor comments:
    • Suggest just 'New Zealand' instead of 'New Zealand born'.
    • I think these sentences in the lead might fit better in the body of the article in the 'Early life' section: "The son of property managers, Beaton was born and raised in Auckland where for the first 7 years of his secondary education he attended Saint Kentigern School, then completing the final four years at King's College on an academic scholarship.[1] He was the valedictorian of King's College on graduation.[2]"
    • Per MOS:LEADREL, any significant information in the lead should usually be covered in the remainder of the article. I think details about his Harvard degree and that he completed it in only three years fits in this category.
    • I'm not sure the two images used in the article add much value or are significant enough to Beaton himself, and I would personally probably not include them, bearing in mind MOS:PERTINENCE.
  • Thanks again for your great work on this article, and hope all of the above makes sense. Only the request for the text supporting the hook is really critical to me approving the nomination. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment. Both the hook and the article have neutrality issues. The source used is a book review that repeats an assertion from Beaton. The world's top 25 universities according to whom? Beaton's business is university preparation; I don't think it's appropriate to repeat this claim in Wikipedia's own voice as it virtually amounts to free advertising. A further claim in the article about Beaton's degrees is totally unsourced. The article also includes several other promotional assertions about Crimson's business. ITBF (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @ITBF: Thanks for your comments! I have added a source for the further claim in the article about his degrees, and done some other tweaks based on sources. As noted, I wanted to check the source wording for the hook before approving, but given that I took a different view on the article's neutrality, I'm going to suggest that a second reviewer be required once the issues I raised have been addressed.
      • @MaxnaCarta: apologies and hope the above is still helpful. I also note that it might be worth double-checking that the degrees listed in the infobox are covered by the sources in the article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Have found another source for the hook quote, and suggest slight rewording:
ALT0a: ... that New Zealand entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to 25 of the top-ranking universities in the world and received an offer from each? Source: "He had actually applied to 25 of the world's highest-ranked universities, and all had said yes." BBC News
Appreciate this doesn't resolve all your concerns, ITBF. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chocmilk03: thanks for the work you did! I think the hook is perfectly appropriate. It is neutral. Not neutral would be "Jamie Beaton achieved the astounding feat of applying to wonderful universities and this makes him special". That he applied to 25 of the worlds top 25 universities is a fact that has been repeated by multiple reliable sources. Now that you sourced the BBC, a perennially reliable source, the hook is appropriate. Regarding "free advertising", I disagree with that premise. Advertising means describing or drawing attention to a product in a public medium in order to promote sales. "In order" is the key word here. Beaton has primarily become notable on the back of his company. Hence, a description of his business empire and what it offers is essential in writing a complete article about him. This may well have the side effect of drawing attention to his business, but the same could be said for an article on a phone that describes its products and features. I have not given undue weight to the business, remained neutral, and also mentioned the legal issues the business has faced. On balance, I see no violation of WP:NOT. @ITBF:, does this address your concerns? If you have any concerns, please could you identify a solution that would address them? I've been on a break for a wee while so haven't got round to applying. Hopefully this is now okay to proceed. Thanks all! MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article is ready for a second reviewer for ALT0a. My assessment as first reviewer was that the article was appropriately neutral, and I remain of this view. I've just made some other amendments to the article (hope you don't mind MaxnaCarta!) to address my concerns above about the lead and because on review there were a few other points that I felt could be stated in a more neutral way (e.g. to say "Crimson states that it does X" instead of "Crimson does X"). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chocmilk03: thanks! Of course I don't mind lol. I do not own the article, and if it did, you're doing my work for me ^_^. Hopefully ITBF will be the seconder if they can. I'm still gonna work through your issues mentioned regardless of the nom, eventually to get it to GA standard. It's probably a way off that though and I'm prioritising another article for GA atm. Cheers for the feedback. All to do is wait now. I hope you are safe and nowhere near Auckland...MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think some more attribution as to whom thinks these are the top 25 would be helpful in the hook. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

Honey Nway Oo

Honey Nway Oo in 2020
Honey Nway Oo in 2020

Created by Taung Tan (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Grnrchst (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hi, Grnrchst, thanks for reviewing my DYK. QPQ is done, and some errors have been fixed. I can't reword the word "heroine," but I want to mean that she is a "female military figure", so I removed it. Please kindly review the article and image again. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Note to the promoter, As my last request, if you can, please choose the hook with the picture attached. This flower is a military figure for women in our country and "pride of the nation". Taung Tan (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg Pulled from prep (note to the next promoter: this was the picture hook). As discussed at DYK talk, this is not your own photo. You need to read c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team and work with that team to get the license of that photo verified. When done, say so here and then it can go back into the prep area. Schwede66 14:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Schwede66: I find it rather likely that this image isn't Honey Nway Oo's to license or put through VRT, but rather, a professionally taken photo she's got in her hard drive with permission to share. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Theleekycauldron, if and when Taung Tan reads that page, it might dawn on them that it's unlikely that it's Honey Nway Oo's call. If nothing else, the good people at VRT will point it out. I trust the process. Schwede66 23:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is getting old. Why not just promote the hook without the image? If there's no other issue, that is. BorgQueen (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi I'm back. Sorry, I'm in the middle of a university exam, and there's no longer any activity on Wikipedia these days. Please allow one week for photo donation. Taung Tan (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

West Coast Get Down

Moved to mainspace by BanjoZebra (talk). Self-nominated at 17:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It's a bit better, but I feel that it might be a bit reliant on knowing who the Wu-Tang Clan are, not to mention the wording might encourage readers to click on that article rather than West Coast Get Down's. I'll have to think this over before continuing the review, but for what it's worth a spot check seems to show that the article's okay for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about this? ALT2: ... that the West Coast Get Down has been hailed for "revitalizing jazz for younger audiences"? Source: https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-jazz-workshop-alumnus-ryan-porter-the-music-chose-me/ BanjoZebra (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds better but per recent discussions at WT:DYK that may need an in-hook attribution. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could add "according to Vail Daily," but the source article itself says the West Coast Get Down has been "cited" for revitalizing, so it's not really Vail Daily's own hailing. BanjoZebra (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will probably need a better source then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acorn System BASIC

Hermann Hauser uses Atom BASIC at the BBC Micro 30th anniversary.
Hermann Hauser uses Atom BASIC at the BBC Micro 30th anniversary.
  • ... that the Acorn System BASIC programming language was so non-standard that one programmer suggested using it on the BBC Micro "would be a disaster"? Source: New Scientist
    • Reviewed: Liu Zhaohua ‎

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 15:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg I do like the hook fact here but it seems to have maybe one too many links? I'd probably suggest that the hook be reworded to focus mainly on the "non-standard = disaster" mention as I feel the other mentions are a bit distracting. Also, the hook is speaking in Wikivoice when in fact it was a quote from a third-party, so the quote needs to have some kind of attribution or clarification. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Disagree with the issue of too many links (three, really?) but in the interest of moving this one on, the changes to the hook have been made. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were recent discussions at WT:DYK discouraging too many links in a hook as they could lead traffic away to the article subject. One additional thing: I've read the hook, and while I understand that the hook does say "programmer", I would suggest rewording the hook to note that Acorn System BASIC is a programming language, for the benefit of our less techy readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Done and done. Of course, it would seem we should link programming language... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. I have to admit that the article is quite technical and I may not be the best person to review the text and sourcing, so I'd like to ask for help from another editor here. For what it's worth, the article does meet DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided, although the article and/or hook may need adjusting as the article merely gives the quote but doesn't explicitly attribute it to a programmer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 12[edit]

Svante Thunberg

Svante Thunberg
Svante Thunberg

New article on redirect by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 09:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Frankly, who cares about anything like that, about anyone? Tabloid garbage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly not you, SergeWoodzing! It has some impact. But please feel free to suggest something else. Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS Also see recent questionable activity in the article's edit history, the article's talk page and the nominator's talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do see some, but not by me. Moonraker (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator has now drawn h own fantasy picture of Thunberg and uploaded it to Commons in another attempt to push this through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is your take on it, SergeWoodzing, but I have indeed, although very few images are used, and it makes no difference to whether a nomination is “pushed through”. Please see WP:Civility. I see you have not suggested a better hook yet. Moonraker (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Civility is irrelevant when nothing uncivil has been done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See above. Moonraker (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If nothing else, this hook is primarily about Ernman, not Thunberg; I would probably object to its approval and airing. Moonraker, is there another hook that could be found? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is about both of them, Theleekycauldron, and I can’t see any rule at Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook that says the subject needs to be the main focus, or has to be the doer and not the done-to. We seem to get a lot of hooks that your comment could rule out. Is there a bullet point in that rule you have in mind? Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moonraker: The subject needing to be the main focus is one of the more unwritten rules – come to think it, probably a good addition for the supplementary guidelines. The idea behind it is that narrowing the focus of the hook to the bolded article prevents hooks from being a vehicle for nominators to put whatever they want on the Main Page. We can ask at WT:DYK, if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 05:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theleekycauldron, the whole purpose of having written rules is so that people know what they need to comply with, and the judgement can be done consistently and objectively. Having unwritten rules means life is far harder for all of us, and there is less consistency. The main focus thing may be a good idea, but I would suggest getting agreement to build that into the rules we all work with. And here, Thunberg is not exactly incidental to events! Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theleekycauldron, does ALT2 overcome your possible objection? Moonraker (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a matter of fact, Moonraker, that's exactly what WP:DYKSG was meant to be when it was created – DYK develops so many "unwritten rules" that we eventually had to start, well, writing them down. ALT2 is more centered around Thunberg, but now I'm a little worried about it coming across as tabloid-y? Like, there's a lot of people who would judge a couple who got pregnant without getting married after just two months, and I'm worried that we'd look like we're catering to those people. Obviously, there's nothing even remotely about that in the rules, but if you'd be open to workshopping with me, some editorial discretion can't hurt. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • i am a little concerned about whether the image provided could be seen as a derivative of this image. i can't seem to figure out the copyright status of the latter image, though it appears to have been taken during a press conference at cop24. also, i thought i might submit a proposal centered on svante rather than ernman.

    alt1: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not to "save the climate, [but] to save [his] child"?

    Moonraker, does this hook seem appropriate? of course, i'll defer to any hooks you'd prefer to propose. dying (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Dying, your image is a photo, and I imagine the copyright belongs to someone who took it. This is a drawing and the copyright is mine. I see no problem with alt1, that was an interesting comment I found and added after creating the nomination. Not sure if you are acting as a reviewer here? If you are, I believe the reviewer needs to check all hooks and say if they are within the rules, someone else later decides which is the best one to go with. Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: in your alt1, the square brackets are awkward, but you could lose them if you also took out the quotation marks. I don’t know that it’s about changing behaviour, what Thunberg says is “I did all these things ... to save my child”. You would need to find a form of words to cover it. Moonraker (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moonraker, the image is clearly either based on that photo, or on a photo or video taken around that time. although you may have modified the original to an extent that the derivative work may be copyrightable, i believe you would still need permission from the copyright holder of the underlying work in order to use this image on the main page. (commons has a page explaining how the laws on derivative works apply to files uploaded to commons.) in any case, i think the point is no longer relevant, considering Legoktm's overriding blp point.
i wasn't sure what exactly "all these things" referred to, but the wording i used is based on the bbc source's phrase "her parents' changes in behaviour", and i believe it is noncommittal enough to avoid being wrong. (i had originally thought about using a phrase like "supported his daughter" before i realized that the bbc source didn't appear to explicitly state this.) i'm not attached to the wording, though, and would be happy to replace it with a better alternative. i had used quotation marks to be able to use svante's construction, but if the square brackets are too distracting, here's an alternative.

alt1b: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not out of concern for the environment, but out of concern for his daughter Greta?

if alt0 or alt2 ends up being accepted and you prefer it over either alt1 or alt1b, i can strike both alt1 and alt1b so that a promoter does not have to decide; i had only proposed alt1 in case alt0 was going to be rejected.
my comment wasn't originally meant as a full review, but i don't mind doing one for you. however, i just noticed that although the article was created from a redirect, the redirect was created as the result of an afd nomination, meaning that another article had existed before the current one. as a result, i do not know enough about the finer points of dyk to determine if this article meets the newness requirement, so am pinging theleekycauldron for help. dying (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say that if consensus previously decided that the topic wasn't fit for a standalone article, and that consensus has now shifted, that counts as new. I think we've come across this at WT:DYK a couple of times, and no one's bothered to write down a rule, but we usually err towards lettin' 'em have it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sounds good. thanks, theleekycauldron. Moonraker, let me know if you would like for me to review the nomination with alt2, or if you would rather me wait while you work with theleekycauldron to develop another hook. dying (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT1'll need its own review. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 05:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the image from the article and would also strongly recommend it be removed from this hook too. It's a BLP violation to claim that's what they look like, when they don't look like that! I think it's also close to running afoul of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. Legoktm (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legoktm, I don’t know that it matters very much, but I am very puzzled by your claim of a “BLP violation”. We have Dying saying the image is clearly based on a photo — in fact it isn’t, but that seems to be saying it’s a good likeness — and we have you saying “they don't look like that”. Are you saying that no one living can be represented by anything except a photo, or that this drawing is not good enough? Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moonraker, i agree with Legoktm. the image somewhat resembles svante, but i do not believe it is accurate enough to portray him on the main page without worrying about blp concerns. what made it clear that the image is based on either photo or video taken at the cop24 press conference is how the image depicts svante with similar folds on his shirt, a similar lanyard, and what appears to be a similar microphone clip.
please note that i did not state that you were conscious of the image being based on either a photo or video taken at the press conference when you created it, but merely that it was based on such media. it's possible that you worked off of a photo of a photo taken at that conference, but then your work would have still been based on the original photo. if you have the appropriate rights for the underlying work, then my worries about copyright would be assuaged, but you don't seem to be asserting that. alternatively, i suppose you could have been personally present at the conference and then created this image from memory, but that is admittedly rather difficult to believe.
by the way, the image you recently uploaded to commons of edda göring bears a striking resemblance to a still from a television interview in 1986. dying (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dying, I agree with you about the Edda image, but not the Thunberg one. The microphone clip, sure. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nomination cannot be promoted to the image slot if the relevant image isn't in the article, so that'll have to be worked out one way or another. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theleekycauldron, I agree, the image needs to be in the article. If it isn’t there, this could only be promoted without it. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be happy to review ALT1 or ALT1b, by the way, they seem good at first glance. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
theleekycauldron, I have come across reviewers who say they have a preference between hooks, and I do that myself. I’d rather we had a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i am not sure if this means that you would prefer to have one editor review all the hooks, rather than just a subset. i obviously cannot review alt1 and alt1b, having proposed them myself, so if you would rather i not provide a full review for you, just let me know. dying (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 13[edit]

Lisette Olivera

Lisette Olivera in 2022
Lisette Olivera in 2022

Created by SeoR (talk). Self-nominated at 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks, and I see your point, though I thought the DREAMer point added something (not many characters have this as a central point to date), and the replacement of Nic Cage's epitome-of-old-USA character with a young Latina too. I do think, in terms of "hookiness", that a mention of the current role is important, so I'd suggest either your Alt2 or my Alt2a. SeoR (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brooded on that a bit, and I'd like to withdraw my Alt0, and Alt3 (as it omits the key role, and it was acting which was discouraged, while some of the substitute activities might be described as performing arts), leaving the choice between the other hooks to the reviewer and the final admin. handler. Thanks, SeoR (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi theleekycauldron, I know you’re busy but just to check, would you be ok to proceed with Alt2, 2a, per your guidance, or 1? Thanks, SeoR (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SeoR: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I would be, but it needs an independent reviewer, unfortunately :( theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou

The facade of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou
The facade of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou
  • ... that this cathedral in Suzhou is known for its "hybridity" between Chinese and western architecture? Source: ResearchGate. Pan, Yiting & Wang, Jun & Chen, Xi. (2021). Eclecticism and Expediency: "Hybridity" of Sino-Western Building Construction in the Yangjiaqiao Catholic Church in Suzhou. Huazhong Jianzhu - HJ/Huazhong Architecture. 39. 127-132. 10.13942/j.cnki.hzjz.2021.09.026.
    • Reviewed:

Created by TheLonelyPather (talk). Self-nominated at 14:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - I have a concern about the citation, and that is when I clicked on it, it asked me to download a document.
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not really to me.

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Red XN - On the description for the picture, it says: " This illustration was made by Peter Potrowl. Please credit this with : © Peter Potrowl in the immediate vicinity of the image. A link to my website sitemai.eu would be much appreciated but isn't mandatory. An email to Peter Potrowl would be appreciated too. Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me Peter Potrowl to negotiate terms. More free pictures in my website. Donations are accepted here and here. - Own work"
  • Used in article: Green tickY
  • Clear at 100px: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg My two main concerns are the image use, and the citation for the hook. I think we'll need another editor to look over this. Helloheart (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, Helloheart. I am thinking of taking down the image since it is not in the public domain. I have fixed the citation so that it does not lead you to a download page. Any suggestions for alternative hooks? TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1... that the Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows suffered a flood in 1991, then became listed as a culturally protected site of Suzhou that year? [1][2]
  • Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I'm gonna list yours here as an alternative hook. I added "ALT1" to your comment for other reviewers. Also, how should I remove the image from the DYK nomination? TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regarding the image, I don't see any issues with the license. There is no requirement that an image be public domain, just that it's appropriately licensed. WP:DYKIMG explicitly calls out GFDL as one of the acceptable licenses, and that's what's on the image's common's page. The additional text in the big grey box doesn't change that fact that it's GFDL. Actually, it's dual-licensed under both GFDL and CC BY 3.0, either of which is acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, by "OK", I mean "acceptably licensed". I don't think it's a great image for the main page aesthetically. It's not terrible, but I'd hope we could find something better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you RoySmith. TheLonelyPather, Helloheart, the image is suitably licensed so it does not need to be removed. TSventon (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ 《金阊区志》编纂委员会 (2005). 金阊区志 [The History of Jinchang District] (in Chinese). 南京: 东南大学出版社. ISBN 9787810898850.
  2. ^ 永龙, 郁 (1991). "苏州杨家桥天主堂遭灾,市宗教局领导拨款救济". 中国天主教 (in Chinese) (5): 30.

Lake Street station (Arlington, Massachusetts)

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Pi.1415926535: Honestly, these hooks are bland. maybe the first hook can work but the second hook definitely isn't. Can you come up with another hook? Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Onegreatjoke: Unfortunately, there's not a lot exciting about this station. I was hoping the lake/pond pairing would be funny, but I may have overestimated how funny I am. If you don't think there's any worthwhile hooks, I can withdraw. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'll ask for a second opinion to see. But for now, I don't believe the hooks are interesting enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll admit that ALT1 got a small chuckle out of me, but it's probably a non-starter. ALT0 had potential, but without any pictures to show said displays, I'd agree that ALT0 isn't the greatest hook out there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since this nomination has been stuck for a while, I'd reiterate that I think the original hook is only good if there were good pictures of said floral displays. I see that there's one in the article, but I don't think it would work well for the main page. Otherwise, yeah I think there isn't a path forward for this nomination unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source cited doesn't actually say anything about the station, just about the name of the street (sigh). But I think we can still save an ALT1 variant as a "quirky" hook (Lake, Pond, cute, don't overthink it). Proposing:
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Requesting new reviewer for ALT1a. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: the article doesn't say that the station was on pond street in the body, could that be fixed? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Pi.1415926535, it's not Cielquiparle's problem. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Herman Sarens Soediro

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg No issues with copyright, QPQ is done, the article is long enough, it's been recently expanded 5x, and the hook is verified (at least according to Google Translate, as I am unfortunately not fluent in Indonesian). My only concern would be the fact that he's not mentioned by name in the hook, which while certainly not necessary, is generally customary. Share your thoughts on this, and then I'd be happy to pass it. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @An anonymous username, not my real name: In the context of the hook, replacing his name there I think reduces the impact. If we add the name ("Herman Sarens Soediro, a retired brigadier general") it becomes a bit clunky and awkward, while if we replace the name the context disappears (the hook is interesting because the military tried a retired general, but from just the name readers won't know who Herman is and why him being tried is "special"). Juxlos (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 14[edit]

Cancer Diagnostic Probe

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 06:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: the article is currently based on non-WP:MEDRS sources such as research studies and lay press articles. Reliable secondary sources, e.g. medical textbooks or review papers in reputable journals, are required to support medical claims. Spicy (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Mhhossein: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. But I am quite hesitant about the veracity and the wording (ignoring the grammar issues) of such a bold claim for the hook and whether the sources are sufficient under MEDRS, per above. If the sourcing issue cannot be fixed, this cannot run. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hi, thanks for the comment Sammi. I can suggest a toned-down hook given the concerns raised here. As for the medical claims, as mentioned by Spicy, I'll try to find sources or alter the text. --Mhhossein talk 07:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alt1: ... that Cancer Diagnostic Probe, an Iran-made medical device, has shorten breast cancer surgery in Iran?
Alt2: ... that Cancer Diagnostic Probe is an Iran-made medical device used for breast cancer surgery in Iran?
Let me know your thoughts, please.--Mhhossein talk 06:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muhammad Kamil Tadjudin

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 18:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bronisław Malinowski