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
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
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 27 1
October 29 1
November 2 1
November 4 1
November 12 3
November 14 1
November 16 1
November 17 3
November 26 1
November 27 4 2
November 28 1
December 3 2
December 4 1
December 5 1
December 7 1
December 8 1
December 9 1
December 10 3
December 11 3
December 17 1
December 19 2
December 22 1
December 24 2 1
December 25 2
December 26 2
December 27 2
December 28 1
December 29 1
December 31 3
January 1 1
January 2 1
January 3 2
January 4 1
January 5 4
January 7 5 2
January 8 3 1
January 9 4 1
January 10 1 1
January 11 4 1
January 12 6 4
January 13 5 1
January 14 9 3
January 15 11 6
January 16 7 5
January 17 7 4
January 18 7 1
January 19 7 2
January 20 15 10
January 21 10 4
January 22 8 4
January 23 6 2
January 24 8 3
January 25 5 2
January 26 12 6
January 27 9 2
January 28 5
January 29
Total 211 68
Last updated 01:31, 29 January 2023 UTC
Current time is 02:34, 29 January 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.

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 27[edit]

Goddess of Victory: Nikke

  • ... that the shooter game Goddess of Victory: Nikke was developed to be playable with one hand? Source: IGN
    • ALT1: ... that an illustrator of Goddess of Victory: Nikke believed that the chibi art style was too compressed and opted for full-body illustrations? Source: IGN
    • ALT2: ... that development of Goddess of Victory: Nikke started with a company competition? Source: 4Gamer "それについて..."
    • ALT3: ... that the idea for Goddess of Victory: Nikke to be played in a first-person perspective was scraped to include poses from the Gears of War series? Source: IGN Japan "企画当時..."
    • Reviewed: First nomination
    • Comment: The article seems to pass all of the supplementary criteria. Plot is short because I can only use official trailers.

Created by Lol1VNIO (talk). Self-nominated at 10:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The source cited (this IGN source IGN) is sponsored content and per WP:SPONSORED can't be used as a source in the article. The Pocket Gamer coverage in the article is also in a similar category. Is there any coverage here that isn't which could be used instead? Nomader (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the response @Nomader: I acknowledge that the IGN article was sponsored by the developers but I think the quotations from Kim Hyung-tae inside the article can be used, since it's a WP:primary walkthrough/commentary that covers the internal development processes and gameplay for an unreleased game. I think the 5:10 ratio for primary/sponsored-to-secondary sources in the article are fine for an upcoming game because closed-beta test leaks are an absolute no go. I've added two more alt hooks with different sources if the main one still isn't acceptable. Best wishes ~~ lol1VNIO⁠👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Feedback is below.
      • DYKs must be cited to a reliable source, and I just don't think that sponsored content is an acceptable form here at DYK (although happy to have someoe come by and overrule what I've said here). That said, for the other two hooks:
      • ALT2 is Symbol confirmed.svg.
      • ALT3 is Symbol question.svg. Though more interesting than ALT2, it isn't entirely accurate in the way it's currently written -- I think it should probably be "the developers of Nikke: Goddess of Victory decided to scrap its first-person perspective after being inspired by poses found in gameplay from the Gears of War series." something like that?
    • Either way, @Lol1VNIO:, let me know if you have any follow-up questions and really good work overall on this. Nomader (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since the game has been released, I'm putting this On hold to expand the plot section. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the purposes of transparency, I'm currently at chapter 8/18 of the main plot. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) edited 22:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Note: the article was moved, so I have updated the DYK header, DYK nompage links, and DYKmake templates to reflect the move to the article's new name; this nomination page, however, should not be moved. (The hooks should probably reflect the article's new name.) As it's been a month since their last post, pinging nominator Lol1VNIO to find out where things stand. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Sorry, I have been bloody busy lately. But fortunately, Christmas is right around the corner meaning I have more than enough time to finish this plot summary (and a reception section). I'm currently at chapter 11 and, as proof that I'm not lying and just slacking off, here's where my notes currently stand (I don't like publishing unfinished plot summaries):
Plot section
After recently graduating from the Military Academy, the Commander accompanied by a Nikke named Marian are en route to reinforce a search and rescue party. However, the transport aircraft explodes mid-air but they land safely on the ground. Upon analyzing the transport aircraft's black box, the Ark traces the cause of the explosion back to Marian and the Commander executes her, confirming that her mind was corrupted by Raptures. Curious about his combat capabilities Deputy Chief Andersen orders him and the squad to complete their most challenging albeit rewarding mission. Upon arrival at a nuclear power plant, they encounter intelligent Raptures that operate the facility; they demolish the entire place after noticing the group. Seeing potential, Andersen banishes the group to the Outpost to avoid governmental surveillance, at which Syuen forces the Commander to participate in a black operation to capture specific Raptures using her Nikkes. The team suffers heavy injuries from Chatterbox, a high-class talking Rapture who is repelled by a Snow White, a Pilgrim who are Nikkes that live on the surface. The Commander contacts the Ark for withdrawal, revealing the clandestine mission to the media. He is temporarily banned from all operations.[1]
Andersen sends the squad up the surface to get more inquiry about Chatterbox from the Pilgrim. They are abruptly accompanied by a Nikke duo who help track down Snow White, but the Commander is caught in an avalanche which strips him away from his teammates. He encounters Chatterbox who, as he leads the Commander elsewhere, gets sniped by Snow White. He is rescued by Modernia, a Heretic who betray humanity by siding with the Raptures, and they chase her. Commander recognizes her as Marian, to which she self-destructs. The Central Government rescues the squad and promotes them into higher-ranked commandos.[2]
The commando ascends to the surface to research a bullet from Modernia.

References

  1. ^ Goddess of Victory: Nikke. Chapters 00–04
  2. ^ Goddess of Victory: Nikke. Chapters 04–08
I'm keeping an eye on WP:STREAMLINE. I plan to finish this before New Year's. Best, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy ping @BlueMoonset:  Done. Wow, that was close. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 00:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks, lol1VNIO. Since the article has been almost entirely rewritten, a new review is needed for the article as it is now, including the various hooks to see whether they are properly sourced after the revisions. Nomader, did you want to do another review of the vastly expanded article, or should we find someone new? (Don't forget to mention the "within policy" criteria this time around.) Thanks either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for full review after article rewrite. Thanks to anyone who takes this on (previous reviewer has not returned in the three weeks after being pinged). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hi! @BlueMoonset: completely missed this ping somehow -- I'm hopping back in to take a look now (thanks for bumping this in my watchlist!). Sorry about missing this somehow before! Nomader (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full review for the updated version is below here (in the interest of making sure I've checked every box, using a template this time around):

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg A few notes here:

  • The hook for ALT2 no longer matches with what was previously cited (in November, the sentence was "Development began in 2018 with an internal planning competition for a prototype of the game," while it is now "Development began between 2017 and 2018 with an internal planning competition of which one idea was selected to be the predecessor of the game." Which one is it? The hook should reflect this -- I find the idea of a game being developed from an internal company competition to figure out a new game inherently interesting.... while I don't think it really is as much when it comes to "they had a competition to decide another game, and this was a sequel to that one." The first hook proposed and ALT1 are both based on sponsored content, and fall afoul of WP:SPONSORED (these should be excised from this article altogether).
    • ALT3 is based on an interview that isn't sponsored content from what I can tell on the page -- I would reword it though to say (see ALT4 below):
      • ALT4: "... that the developer of Goddess of Victory: Nikke scrapped the idea of the game having a first-person perspective so character poses based on the Gears of War series could be included?" "At the time of planning, unlike now, it was planned as an FPS, and the characters only showed their faces. At that time, I was paying attention to "Gears of War", and I wanted to incorporate the pose of hiding behind obstacles and the shooting pose into "NIKKE"." [1] Based on Google Translate
  • It seems that the adult-oriented "titillating" aspects of coverage are being universally ignored and should be cited here (e.g., [2])
  • The sources provided were often sponsored or primary content before, but the content seems dubiously sourced even more now. Almost all of the articles are either clearly based from press releases about announcements of the game which feel just straight up copied for blog posts and don't seem to represent deep coverage (e.g., [3]), are paid sponsored content from the publishers/developers (e.g., [4], [5], [6]), or in the case of the SCMP article, it's about Tencent buying the parent company -- meaning the game is just more of a passing mention here ([7]). I was hopeful that some of the Korean and Japanese sources would be better, but the ones you've all cited are exclusively primary sources.

Is there any other coverage out there? Better reviews of the gameplay? I've searched high and low for anything outside of just developer interviews and paid content here, but I'm coming up with nothing on English-language services outside of the one Rice Digital piece that you have here and one IGN Japan interview that isn't sponsored content from what I can tell ([8], [9]). I'm loath to push to delete this article because I feel like F2P is such a burgeoning scene in video games and Wikipedia's coverage has been widely kind of light here overall -- I imagine there has to be more direct Korean reception here somewhere that I just can't find? Also, the sponsored content should all be removed (IMO even the interviews) per WP:SPONSORED, but if there's a policy or guideline that supersedes this that I'm missing, I'm happy to be shown a different direction. I think that should include developer interviews. Nomader (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 2[edit]

Tree of life (biology)

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg First thing first: Earwig is giving me an... interesting copyvio score. Rightfully so - we have a very large Darwin quote that takes up 60% of my screen. Since Origin is in the public domain, the article should indicate that it incorporates much of its text from public domain sources. Template:Source-attribution helps with this. With regards to neutrality, I am not seeing any WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE red flags, which is good for something closely related to a controversial topic like evolution. Would like to stress, however, that I don't have any expertise on biology, so anyone who does is welcome to provide their second opinion on the article here.

Furthermore, the hook seems run-of-the-mill - I would suggest making the hook about Darwin's seminal work as his name is more well-known to a general audience. Something like ... that Charles Darwin conceptualized his theory of evolution using a "tree of life" model? would be good. Another optional suggestion would be to incorporate an image there and bam, more readers hooked. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Your Power: Got rid of the blockquote. Is that good enough? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion of the material is not appropriate. Use the Source attribution template as advised above if it's thought really necessary - I can't see why it should be, as all Darwin text is PD as he died in 1882, so his writings have all been PD since 1 January 1953. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: WP:FREECOPY, a subsection of WP:PLAGIARISM, urges to use attribution templates when copying material from free sources (PD, CC licences compatible with enwiki, etc). I do agree that removing that long quotation was not the best, however. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
04:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to add it if it's troubling you. I was not consulted about starting this process and have no interest in its outcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't exactly know how use an attribution template so someone will have to teach me or do it themselves. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried to address this. The usage instructions at Template:Source-attribution didn't cover how to use it with other referencing templates like {{sfnp}}. After looking at some other articles that use the template, I modified the instance of the quote to {{sfn}} and added it in the |loc= comment. Not sure if this is exactly what the reviewer wanted. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Your Power: Is it good now? Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 25 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 12[edit]

Caroline Ellison

Created by Molochmeditates (talk). Self-nominated at 05:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Not reviewing as I have worked on the article, but this hook is not supported by the article or by the cited source. The WSJ article cited only says that anonymous sources made the key claims here, so we cannot put them in wikivoice. (It also seems this article has passed the 7-day time limit for DYK nominations, unless I'm missing something.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment agreed that this isn't a great DYK hook because of the BLP concerns. There's a big difference between reporting that sources claim X and putting it in wikivoice, especially when you're dealing with allegations of a crime. In any case, the article doesn't seem to be eligible for DYK-it needs to have been created or expanded 5x in the last 7 days. Blythwood (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I believe this is the first DYK nomination of Molochmeditates. We should give them a pass for the time limit. Thriley (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment My bad wrt to the link. I meant to post this one: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-caroline-ellison-found-herself-at-the-center-of-the-ftx-crypto-collapse-11668899604.--Molochmeditates (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Still doesn't support the claim in the hook. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding the above concerns about the nomination time limit, WP:DYKSG#D9 addresses this very issue: The "seven days old" limit can be extended for a day or two upon request. If the nominator is new to DYK, a seven-day extension may be allowed. Since the article was created on 12 November and nominated early on 21 November, that's two days, so I think we can take the "upon request" as given; indeed, if this is their first nomination, we have more leeway than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment i picked this bio for a school project because it has a lot of problems and some of them are pretty bad so far. i dont think she should be featured on the home page until her bio is in better shape even if its not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleNow (talkcontribs) 18:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    also dont think sbf should be in there. there's other things about her that are interesting. she was in forbes 30 under 30. Forbes called her "a rare female leader in a male dominated industry". she was captain of the math team in high school and won 2nd place in Boston's math league. Took MIT math classes while in high school. gave her dad a statistical analysis of toy prices at 8. prize-winning math scholar. something like "that Caroline Ellison, ex-CEO of Alameda Research who plead guilty in the FTX fraud, earned top honors at the 2008 American Mathematics Competition?" even with the fraud stuff there's stuff like in Aug she told Bloomberg that Alameda didn't "get any different treatment from other market makers" but told law enforcement that she knew about the fraud since 2019. WhaleNow (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, though the BLP issues and hook sourcing will need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The link is this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-tapped-into-customer-accounts-to-fund-risky-bets-setting-up-its-downfall-11668093732. From the article, "Alameda’s CEO is Caroline Ellison, a Stanford University graduate who like Mr. Bankman-Fried previously worked for quantitative trading firm Jane Street Capital", "FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried said in investor meetings this week that Alameda owes FTX about $10 billion, people familiar with the matter said". The age part is from the rest of the sources in the biography, but happy to remove that. Would be more helpful to know which parts of the hook are being disputed instead of generic comments like "doesn't support the claim in the hook". --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The key phrase here is "people familiar with the matter said". The WSJ is not actually saying that Alameda borrowed $10 billion from FTX, it is only saying that unspecified anonymous sources said Alameda owes FTX $10 billion. So we cannot say in wikivoice that Alameda borrowed $10 billion from FTX. Since this is a hook about a living person, we need to be especially careful, and WP:BLPGOSSIP specifically advises us: "Be wary of relying on sources [...] that attribute material to anonymous sources." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps there is something she has actually stated, perhaps on video, that would be a good hook? Thriley (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT1 that Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research and a close associate of Sam Bankman-Fried, believes that “a lot of crypto projects don’t have much real value”? from this NY Times article:[15] Thriley (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT2 that Caroline Ellison, ex-CEO of Alameda Research who plead guilty in the FTX fraud, was a National Merit scholarship recipient in 2012? Newtonite — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleNow (talkcontribs) 20:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Wetjen

  • ... that Mark Wetjen was the top advisor for Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, during an aggressive lobbying campaign of the United States Congress? Source: “ Meanwhile, he was using his newfound political clout to sell Washington on a regulatory regime that promised to work to his advantage. The contrasts were glaring and never easily reconciled: As crypto’s self-appointed ambassador to Washington, Bankman-Fried was pressing for federal regulation even as he dodged U.S. oversight from his corporate headquarters in the Bahamas.
    The executive acknowledged that FTX’s aggressive lobbying made him an outlier in crypto. “Outside of us, there weren’t many people engaging,” Bankman-Fried said in an interview last month with The Washington Post. “I think that means we have to do a better job as an industry more generally engaging.”
    In April, he turned up in the office of Caroline Pham, a Republican member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, less than a week after she assumed the post, along with Mark Wetjen, the former acting chair of the agency and now Bankman-Fried’s top Washington adviser.” Washington Post

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 01:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

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

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg A QPQ is needed. The hook appears to be incorrect because the source says, "top Washington adviser". Wetjen didn't resign the CFTC - he resigned from the CFTC. The article has a notability tag. The references shouldn't be bare URLs. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg @Thriley: As you were not able to provide a QPQ within seven days of the nomination plus a reminder, the nomination is now marked for closure. The nomination may resume once a QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it might be a bit better to have something mentioned about the FTX CEO’s desire for cryptocurrency to be regulated by the CFTC and Wetjen’s role in the lobbying. There have been more news stories since I created the article. I’d like to have a look at them before this is approved. Thriley (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg We need a new reviewer now. Bremps! 16:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commission on Training Camp Activities

Created by Whizz40 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I'm afraid there are some sourcing issues:
    • "For the Boys Over There" (hosted at www.unitedwarwork) is a student research project. It clearly can be easily replaced for the material it supports.
    • Almeroth-Williams is a blog post -- an excellent one, but still a blog post. It appears to be derived mostly or entirely from Eric Wycoff Rogers, "The Men behind the Girl behind the Man behind the Gun: Sex and Motivation in the American Morale Campaigns of the First World War", Journal Hist Sexuality, and the article should use that as its source. Further, it looks like Rogers' ideas are highly interpretive, so the article should probably relay them as "Historian Eric Wycoff Rogers argues that etc etc".
So Uncle Sam really does want you!
Having said that, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone. This subject is fertile with pregnant hooks whose general thrust is given by this variation on ALT0:
ALT1 ... that the Commission on Training Camp Activities used sexual denial to make American World War I solders fight harder? Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/usa-sexually-teased-troops-in-first-world-war-to-make-them-fight-harder
With source material like [16] (found in Almeroth, but likely from Rogers) the hooks practically write themselves: "The position of the piston ... Cocks 4, 5, and 6 are all partially open and there is some flow through each. Education has enlarged the soldier's field of interests ..." And Almeroth's post climaxes with Rogers' penetrating (if ambiguous) insight that US [oops -- turns out the author meant British and French] authorities were "inclined to tolerate -- and perhaps even encourage -- sexual activity among their soldiers" -- a seminal idea injecting new potentcy into the heretofore flaccid image of American doughboys. EEng 19:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourcing issues have been addressed. No objection to going with ALT1. Whizz40 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really coming together. But ... in my role as pain in the ass, I need to point out that with Rogers available there should be no need for Almeroth-Williams (and indeed, if it's in Almeroth but not Rogers, one has to wonder where Almeroth got it). Also, WRT to Gatzemeyer, we don't usually accept PhD dissertations as RS. EEng 23:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, a belated thank you for your review of this article for DYK. I believe the article is well-referenced and inline citations are provided to the sources used to write the article, including a direct quotation from Almeroth. His blog itself references Rogers as his source, as you point out, however, Rogers' paper is behind a paywall. Given the blog is published on the website of a reputable university, there is nothing to suggest it is unreliable. Furthermore, its accessibility to readers makes it easy for them to verify what is written in the article themselves, if they wish to, or to reader further, should they wish. I forget which Wikipedia principle I read it on, but I recall good practice is to cite where you read it rather than citing where your source references it. Separately, I have now clarified the reason for citing Gatzemeyer, which is footnote 7 of page 105 which reads 'For the CTCA's portrayal of its task, purpose, and method see Edward Frank Allen, Keeping Our Fighters Fit for War and After (New York: The Century Co., 1918), 3-8, quotation on 16; War Department, Commission on Training Camp Activities (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917), 3-5; Raymond B. Fosdick, "The Commission on Training Camp Activities," Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 7, no. 4 (1918): 163-70.'. Hopefully, this suffices to address the sourcing issues, but happy to discuss further. Whizz40 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To be clear, I wasn'tvundertaking to do the review --just kibitzing re the hook. EEng 12:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to review this but then I started looking at the sources listed in the fantastic bibliography (including the journal articles which can be accessed through Wikipedia Library, etc.) and started layering in details, and now I think I'm too involved to be a reviewer. But I still need a few more days to finish adding content. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update. We now have a "Background" section on the article, but more work is needed on explaining the actual most interesting part of the story (per EEng's comments above). I am planning to return to working on it in about a week or so, and in the meantime EEng has also provided some additional points to research/add on the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg The prose is long and new enough. Good sources are used throughout the text. Meanwhile, which portion of the article supports ALT1? --Mhhossein talk 07:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your review, Mhhossein. I tweaked the wording to support ALT1 as well as the original hook. Whizz40 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To use ALT0 would be a tragic waste of comic potential. ALT1 would go in the quirky slot, of course. EEng 14:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome Whizz40. The sentence used for ALT1 still requires attribution. The current wording is wikivoicing Eric Wycoff Rogers's opinion/thought/argument. --Mhhossein talk 08:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link you put behind wikivoicing is WP:NPOV, so you seem to be implying there's some controversy or dissent. I don't see any evidence of that, and Rogers's paper is peer-reviewed, so I don't see what your objection is (though Whiz more cautious wording, below, is fine). EEng 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Almeroth-Williams piece has the sub-title "The United States sexually ‘teased’ its troops in the First World War to make them fight harder, a new study reveals". It quotes Rogers directly: '"Sexual denial, status anxiety and perceived pressure from women – this was a powerful combination,” Rogers says. “In striving for the approval of women, the morale planners hoped soldiers would perform their duties without complaint, fight harder, and be willing to risk their lives.”' The Wikipedia article contains the following sentence: "Historian Eric Wycoff Rogers, however, argues the agency used sexuality and sexual denial to motivate soldiers to fight harder."[17] Whizz40 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody beats the Whiz. EEng 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think some sort of WP:OR is happening here. Rogers argues that "Sexual denial and ..." is a "powerful combination". In what term? He further argues that US soldiers was made fight harder for the sake of "the approval of women". Then I think your final conclusion is OR. --Mhhossein talk 06:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair point, we don't want original research. Let's revise the hook and the relevant sentence in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair point nothing. Rogers says (underlining added):
Morale strategists and CTCA reformers sought to install what sociologist Eva Illouz describes as an "architecture of choice," ... These desirability hierarchies worked in tandem with the military's efforts to drastically reduce the overall availability of sex within the soldiers' social environments in order to capture sexual desire and make it productive. Within these conditions, the War Department selectively exposed White soldiers to the appeals of alluring, self-restrained women who would pressure and/or encourage them to fight. The men who founded and ran the military's morale agencies sought to depict women's desires and expectations in media, using posters, newspaper editorials, and films to convey a sense to the soldiers that women's expectations aligned with the goals of the military. They hoped that men, in striving for women's approval, would perform their military duties enthusiastically and without complaint, light [sic, fight] harder, and risk their lives ...
To be honest, I can't even parse Mh's post, much less understand the complaint. There's no OR. EEng 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EEng: The first issue was over the hook being Wikivoiced. The article reads: "The CTCA has been portrayed as "one of the last stands of an older generation of moral reformers against the onrush of a liberalizing sexual culture." This POV goes against that of the Roger saying sexuality was actually being used to motivate the soldiers fight harder. Also, the portion you just quoted here says sexual denial was done "to capture sexual desire and make it productive." Should/can we interpret "productive" as 'fighting harder'? Thought the quotation does support the fact that women's approval was used to make soldiers fight harder. --Mhhossein talk 07:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with POV or NPOV. There are no sources disputing these ideas. The sentence you quote in no way contradicts the hook or anything Rogers says.
  • Nobody's interpreting "productive" as "fighting harder"; we're interpreting "fighting harder" as "fighting harder". What I quoted is a single passage leading from "sexual denial" to "fight harder". You seem to think that the source has to give the hook fact in a single sentence, and that's not true.
  • And Almeroth-Williams gives the hook fact directly: "The United States sexually ‘teased’ its troops in the First World War to make them fight harder, a new study reveals".
EEng 23:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly a POV-related issue, in my viewpoint. Maybe we can consider Almeroth-Williams's words as a better source. But it still does not elaborate on the details by saying 'teased'. --Mhhossein talk 05:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm forced to say it: there appears to be a language barrier here, because in a sexual context teased implies denial. I don't see how to move forward if you don't understand that. We've quoted sources N different ways, all saying the same thing. EEng 07:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Rogers quote provided by EEng is sufficient to support both the Almeroth-Williams headline and the hook. Based on the further discussion above, I am satisfied now the text in the article meets Wikipedia's policies and the hook meets DYK criteria. Whizz40 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I modified the hook to add that the context is WW1. EEng 18:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg At this point, I'd prefer to leave the review job to another volunteer. --Mhhossein talk 04:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 14[edit]

SailRail

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. starship.paint (exalt) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 16[edit]

Chris Lewis (Usenet)

  • ... that... in 1998, Chris Lewis and forty other anti-spam volunteers started an unsuccessful boycott with the goal of crashing computer servers with unfiltered spam? Source: Wired
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Expanded fivefold

Created by Vortex3427 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:49, 16 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:

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Meets eligibility criteria. Recently expanded to 5x by the nominator. Article is well sourced. WP:AGF on offline sources. Article is well sourced and is neutral in tone. Earwig does not show any issues. Hook is interesting. I was not able to see the reference to forty other volunteers at the Wired link. Requesting the nominator Vortex3427 to take a look and point that to me in case I missed it. The hook itself is interesting. Can the nominator take one pass at rewording the hook if they can? Reading the source it appeared that the boycott was primarily them stopping their actions of spam filtering pressuring the ISPs and usenet admins to install their own spam filtering tools. The hook seems to be missing that nuance. Happy to hear the nominator's views. QPQ pending. passing this back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ktin: This is the nominator's second nomination so a QPQ is not required. Sending another ping to Vortex3427 in case they missed the above review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The part about there being forty volunteers is mentioned in this article. Will try to reword this hook shortly—in retrospect, the "crashing computer servers with unfiltered spam" was more of a predicted side effect then a goal.— VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 01:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With due respect, I do not see why a new reviewer is needed. I have been waiting for a revised hook from @Vortex3427:. I noticed the QPQ comment from Narutolovehinata earlier. Ktin (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok sorry. I thought you had lost interest lol. BorgQueen (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Happy editing. Ktin (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'm striking the proposed hook as it is inaccurate and confusing. The goal was not to crash servers, the goal was to get ISPs to filter spam instead of relying on volunteers to do the work. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ... ALT1... that in 1998, Chris Lewis and forty other anti-spam volunteers started an unsuccessful boycott with the goal of convincing internet service providers to filter spam? Source: Wired
  • This is accurate. But, does this one read too verbose? Any chance at precis-ing a bit? Ktin (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ktin: ... ALT1a... that in 1998, Chris Lewis led an unsuccessful boycott with the goal of convincing internet service providers to filter spam?
Like this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on November 17[edit]

Serie A Player of the Month

5x expanded by Dr Salvus (talk). Self-nominated at 21:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Dr Salvus: Good article. However, i feel as if there needs to be more citations before this proceeds. The end of the second paragraph and third paragraph needs a citation. Multiple winners, awards won by club, and awards won by nationality also need citations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onegreatjoke, does it go well now? Source 3 is for the whole lead. Dr Salvus 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr Salvus I still need citations for multiple winners, awards won by nationality, and awards won by club. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Onegreatjoke WP:CALC. Dr Salvus 05:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Dr Salvus Assuming that, I will approve this now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @Dr Salvus: The cited source doesn't actually say anything that supports the facts asserted in the hook. Can you provide a more specific citation?

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith, WP:CALC 2.0. You can see the source and notice only those two won the trophy. If you see the source, you can make four calculations and obtain the info. Couldn't find anything that says the textual words. Dr Salvus 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we're not looking at the same source? I'm looking at https://www.legaseriea.it/it/award/ea-sports-player-of-the-month. I don't see where it even mentions either of those names. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to search for the previous seasons (2019–20 and 2020–21)! Dr Salvus 09:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, that's not a good enough citation. Even with your hints I can't find the information to support the stated fact. If you can't come up with a better citation for this, you'll need to write a different hook. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source does say who won the trophies and in what month they did. If you read the entire list of winners, you'll see my hook is supported. Dr Salvus 16:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here from WT:DYK – I understand the dispute is about the veracity of the source, but something else jumped out at me while I was reading this. Even if the sources say what Dr Salvus says they do, it'd still be SYNTH to arbitrarily group the winners into various time periods. It's a form of interpretation – it makes some of the awards seem more special than they are, but it's doing that based off of primary sources. For that kind of analysis, I'd argue that secondary sources are needed, and WP:CALC wouldn't cover it. Off to investigate the sources now, will return shortly. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also just noticed this still needs QPQ. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm seeing Gene Cipriano (nom) in the comment field? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now I see it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so it does seem like the table checks out – Gómez and Ronaldo both have two MVP wins in 2020 (I'm not sure why the sub-awards aren't listed), one under the 2019–2020 season and one under the 2020–2021 season. I assume that's what Dr Salvus was driving for? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some thoughts. Firstly, the date sorting in the table is set up wrong; it needs to be based on Template:Date table sorting to produce meaningful output. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe that the sourcing for the hook is good enough. The first table is sourced and whilst sourcing is indirect, everything can be traced back to a reference and beyond that, WP:CALC is a reasonable argument. That said, thirdly I need to point out that the article currently fails rule D2 of the supplementary guidelines. We cannot have unsourced sections. The sources need to be repeated for the bottom three tables. Schwede66 01:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it looks like to have been fixed. Dr Salvus 11:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I might just have found a solution for the source problems, or at least a partial one. On Serie A's own YouTube channel, there are several playlists containing a video for each Player of the Month from each season, including the 2019-20 campaign (which first introduced the prize). I'll provide all the links right here, hopefully all of you can access them. 2019-20 (actually, I could only find this round-up video); 2020-21; 2021-22; 2022-23. Please let me know if they're useful! Oltrepier (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casey Newton

Moved to mainspace by SWinxy (talk). Self-nominated at 01:58, 20 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: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg @SWinxy: Good article. Hook is interesting, sources seem good, and no QPQ is required. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg @SWinxy, Mandarax, Paul2520, Onegreatjoke, Theleekycauldron, and Cwmhiraeth: - I am reopening this nom per issues raised at WP:ERRORS (see [18]). The previously approved hook appears to be based on unreliable sourcing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In theory, Money Control could have verified the stories independently, but I would expect a line like "We independently verified that these were former Twitter employees who first heard about their being fired this way."
How would a slight hook change be?
ALT2: ... that Casey Newton's reporting of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter may have been the first way some ex-Twitter employees learned they were laid off?
OR
ALT3: ... that Casey Newton's reporting on the effects of content moderation on workers has led to a contracting company cutting ties with Facebook? Source: I assume good faith on the Hertz book source.
@SWinxy and Amakuru: = paul2520 💬 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul2520: Hi Paul. I have been spending less time on Wikipedia and so I forgot to reply. I'd be okay with either of those, with ALT2 > ALT3. SWinxy (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: or @Amakuru:, would you re-review with ALT2 or ALT3? = paul2520 💬 19:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Like others, I'm not that comfortable with the fact that we're citing Moneycontrol (sketchy reputation per WP:RS Noticeboard) and BGR (owned by Penske Media Corp, says it likes accurate reporting, but article essentially sourced to anonymous "company sources" and a random tweet reply) for the hook and in the article. It's also a shame because in fact... There is quite a bit of other secondary coverage (in sources considered reliable enough by WP standards) about Casey Newton's reporting of the ongoing employee-related drama at Twitter! So I think a hook similar to ALT2 might work, or you could have a hook stating that all these other news outlets relied heavily on what Casey Newton is reporting (without getting bogged down in having to vouch for the accuracy of what he was reporting). Regardless, I think in order to do justice to Casey Newton, a bit more additional research, content, and sourcing is required in the article. (I was starting to paste some article links, but a quick Wikipedia Library search yields 139 hits, so there is a lot to choose from.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drag Den

5x expanded by JuanGLP (talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]


  • Original: "... that Manila Luzon is set to host and judge her upcoming Philippine reality competition television series on Amazon Prime Video, containing eight contestants competing for the crown, named Drag Den?"
  • ALT 1: "... that RuPaul's Drag Race alumna, Manila Luzon, announced the premiere date for her upcoming reality series, Drag Den, containing eight contestants competing for the crown?"
  • ALT 2: "... that upcoming reality show named, Drag Den, is set to premiere on 8 December 2022 with RuPaul's Drag Race alumna, Manila Luzon, hosting and judging the reality show?"
  • ALT 3: "... that Drag Den is the second reality competition series to contain Filipino drag queens competing for the crown and title in the Philippines, the first series being Drag Race Philippines?"
  • ALT 4: "... that Drag Den is the second reality competition series set in the Philippines, containing Filipino drag queens competing for the crown, with the first series being Drag Race Philippines?"
  • ALT 5: "... that reality competition series, Drag Den, is the second franchise set in the Philippines, containing Filipino drag queens competing for a prize, with the first series being Drag Race Philippines?"
  • ALT 6: "... that auditions for the first season of Drag Den were held over TikTok?"
  • ALT 6a: "... that auditions for the first season of Philippine reality series Drag Den were held over TikTok?"
  • ALT 6b: "... that auditions for the first season of Drag Den were held over TikTok with RuPaul's Drag Race alumna, Manila Luzon, as the host and judge?"

  • Comment: It may look wordy but if there are any ALTs, please suggest them so it can be less wordy. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough and I didn't find any close paraphrasing. No QPQ needed as the nominator has only one prior DYK nomination. However, I have reservations about the hook. It doesn't really read like a hook, more like a news item or a promo. In addition, it seems to be reliant on the reader knowing who Manila Luzon is. Perhaps a different direction can be used here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I tried to reworded it sound it a bit less promotional. If there's any advice to help the hook, please tell me. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuanGLP: I think a completely different direction in hook fact is needed here since I don't think the hook is going to interest people unfamiliar with the names involved. Given that this is about Filipino entertainment, I'll ask help from Pseud 14 to see what other hook options are possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Okay, thank you for getting help. I did reworded the hook again. I will try to type it better. — JuanGLP (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think these angles about Manila Luzon or the premiere is working out. Since this is about a television series, maybe I can also ask Theleekycauldron for ideas about a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Here are three more alternative hooks. What do you think? I removed the mention of Manila Luzon. Any thoughts on those hooks? Also, did you manage to get a response for the help on the hook? — JuanGLP (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still waiting for Theleekycauldron's response before responding further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: While we're here, I'd suggest making some more thorough prose and sourcing checks on the article; looks a bit promotional to me, and some sources aren't fantastic. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 04:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well ALT 5 doesn’t really sound promotional, and doesn’t ALT 6 needs to have at least 200 characters? Please check the ALTs I placed. Now with the sources, we have plenty of sources in the article, you can check that out. I will write more ALTs to sound less promotional. — JuanGLP (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At most 200 hundred characters. Please keep them as short as possible :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 12:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, well I believe ALT 5 sounds like a possible hook, though your hook sounds good, it should have more context about Drag Den. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggested an ALT 6a. Does it sound good? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ehhh... I guess since there is a little bit more of wording. I support for ALT 6A. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose this article should first go through WP:GOCE/R to fix the awkward wording before it can be given final approval. Per the above discussion, I've struck all hook proposals except for ALT6a (which is direct to the point, cited inline and verified, and gives context about the series that would clarify it to those who are unfamiliar with it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well okie dokie, thank you for your help, please let me know if the DYK? hook went through. — JuanGLP (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuanGLP: Just to clarify: this is still in need of a GOCE copyedit. I noticed that a request has yet to be made, so I am reiterating that I will not be approving this until such a copyedit has been completed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5:, I do not know what that means… — JuanGLP (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuanGLP: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has some instructions you can follow. Actually I've gone ahead and requested a copyedit myself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, it isn't going to be feasible to wait for GOCE; your request still has 50 articles ahead of it even after waiting over a month, and probably won't be taken for copyediting until sometime in March at this point. If someone can't edit the article to improve the prose sufficiently soon, the nomination should be considered for closure. (I don't think we can offer GOCE as a solution at DYK any more, given its long backlog and the slow movement of the requests list.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Given the existing article issues and the lack of progress the nomination probably has to be closed as unsuccessful. It can resume if the issues are addressed before the nomination is closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What issues needs to be addressed? — JuanGLP (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is still in need of a major copyedit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 26[edit]

Charles Grobe

Charles Grobe, circa 1845
Charles Grobe, circa 1845
  • ... that Charles Grobe (pictured) wrote over a thousand musical pieces in his lifetime, and had reached an opus number of 1998 when he died? Source: Kuhn, Laura; McIntire, Dennis (2001). "Grobe, Charles". Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Gale. Retrieved November 26, 2022 – via Encyclopedia.com. Grobe was a prolific composer of piano music, producing a grand total of 1,998 opus numbers. He was particularly adept at creating "variations brillantes" on themes by the great German masters and on popular songs.
    • ALT1: ... that Charles Grobe (pictured) composed over a thousand musical pieces in his lifetime? Source: Kuhn, Laura; McIntire, Dennis (2001). "Grobe, Charles". Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Gale. Retrieved November 26, 2022 – via Encyclopedia.com. Grobe was a prolific composer of piano music, producing a grand total of 1,998 opus numbers. He was particularly adept at creating "variations brillantes" on themes by the great German masters and on popular songs.
    • ALT2: ... that Charles Grobe (pictured) reached an opus number of 1998 during his lifetime by composing vast numbers of variations on popular songs? Source: Kuhn, Laura; McIntire, Dennis (2001). "Grobe, Charles". Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Gale. Retrieved November 26, 2022 – via Encyclopedia.com. Grobe was a prolific composer of piano music, producing a grand total of 1,998 opus numbers. He was particularly adept at creating "variations brillantes" on themes by the great German masters and on popular songs.
    • ALT3: ... that Charles Grobe (pictured) wrote the "Old Rough and Ready Quickstep" in honor of Zachary Taylor? Source: Kirk, Elise K. (September 1980). "Sheet Music Related to the United States War with Mexico (1846-1848) in the Jenkins Garrett Library, University of Texas at Arlington". Notes. 2. 37 (1): 16–18. JSTOR 940246. Of the many pieces which bore the great soldier's name, one of the most popular was Charles Grobe's Old Rough and Ready Quickstep, "arranged for the Piano Forte and respectfully dedicated to General Zachary Taylor" in 1846.
    • ALT4: ... that Charles Grobe (pictured) wrote the "Lincoln Quickstep" in honor of Abraham Lincoln? Source: Hancock, Harold Bell (1961). Delaware During the Civil War: A Political History (PDF) (2011 digital ed.). Delaware Heritage Press. pp. 29–30. ISBN 978-0-924117-43-5. In honor of the presidential candidate, Harry Tatnall, of Wilmington, composed the "Railsplitter's Polka," and Charles Grobe, also of Wilmington, wrote the "Lincoln Quickstep."
    • ALT5: ... that Charles Grobe (pictured), an American composer, contributed money to support Albert Newsam, a lithographer who had been stricken by paralysis? Source: Stauffer, David McNeely (1900). "Lithographic Portraits of Albert Newsam". The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 24 (3): 273. JSTOR 20085920. ...and as a result of this meeting a fund was raised, to which the chief subscribers were Francis H. Duffee, Ferdinand J. Dreer, Edwin Greble, Julius Lee, John A. McAllister, and Charles Grobe. With the money thus obtained Mr. Newsam was placed in the Living Home, near Wilmington, Delaware, a pleasantly situated and thoroughly respectable institution, founded by Dr. John A. Browne, of New England.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Patty Loveless

Created by RexSueciae (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Article was created just on time (seven days before the nomination) and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done and the image is suitable. While I have a soft spot for the Lincoln hook, I think the first hook is still the most intriguing option here. However, I do have some questions about it. I noticed that the source used is Encyclopedia.com: is it just a hosting site for the Baker's Encyclopedia, or it is the actual source? If it's the latter, is the cite reliable? Secondly, the hook gives the 1998 number as fact, while the article instead suggests that it was a reported number and thus is not sure. In addition, the sentence if accurate, it would make Grobe one of the most prolific composers in history lacks a reference: could it be synthesis or original research? And finally, is there no information about his personal life? The article seems to be a bit barren when it comes to his personal information: it doesn't even mention if he married, had a family, or even how he died. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinata5: It's a hosting site for Baker's, which should be reliable -- I don't have a hard copy of the original on hand, but Gale owns both Baker's and Encyclopedia.com and used the latter to host at least part of the former -- I think an article in *The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians* also cites the 1998 number, although I don't have a copy of that one either (I could probably find it if I tried, I think it's available on the Wikipedia Library). So I've dug a little deeper, and here's the thing -- according to a user on the IMSLP wiki, the *Grove Dictionary* entry even gives the name for Grobe's last published work (Op. 1998) which...probably existed? But which certainly isn't digitized anywhere, and the IMSLP user seems to doubt that it exists (although that's clearly not a reliable source). Complicating matters is that Grobe published some pieces with very high opus numbers that are available online -- and a lot of sources sorta punt on the question by saying he had "nearly two thousand" works, or by mentioning one of his high-numbered pieces that they'd come across while leaving open the question of how many more existed (and again, the only sources that bother to state an exact number say 1998). And I sorta figured that the last bit of the article was something for WP:BLUE -- the outlier of Telemann aside, most composers don't even hit 1000 lifetime works. Finally, personal life -- aaagh. Most secondary sources don't even touch on it. I found one hobbyist's site of uncertain provenance which contains some info on his wife, his cause of death, and his burial place, but no bibliography, so I'm assuming that was all from research into primary sources like census records -- just to put a cap on everything, I looked up the cemetery where he was buried and apparently the place was demolished and built over, so we don't even have a gravestone.
Anyways, to make a long reply short -- I'm also fond of the Lincoln hook, Charles Grobe and his quicksteps would be an amusing thought. I can't think of more sources (although there has to be more in unsearchable print somewhere) -- maybe these liner notes? But if you'd like me to harmonize things, I'll go take another look. RexSueciae (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a version of ALT0 that omits the 1998 part and just says he composed over a thousand works in his lifetime? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: This better? (I added it in as a new ALT1 and shifted everything else down.) RexSueciae (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @RexSueciae: Do you think anything else with the article can still be improved? For the personal stuff thing I may have to ask for a second opinion on it since I'm not sure if the source is usable; if it isn't it can be left out, can't be helped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Per the above discussion I'm asking for a second opinion from another reviewer regarding the usability of the composers-classical-music.com source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm against using that source. It's a personal website and I can't find evidence of the author being an established expert in the field. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I don't know of anything else to add. If there are any other sources on the life of Charles Grobe, I have been unable to find them digitized. Meanwhile, just to confirm, there's no problems with the hooks? RexSueciae (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave the final approval to another editor, but my pick for a hook would be either ALT1 or ALT4 (with a slight preference for ALT1). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 8 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]

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]


Articles created/expanded on December 3[edit]

Bataha Santiago

Created by Nyanardsan (talk). Self-nominated at 05:47, 3 December 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: Red XN - n
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Nyanardsan: Good article. Did some copyediting for you. You could make a hook about how he burned all cloves as defiance as the hooks are boring in a way. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Apologize for late respond, added QPQ. However, I disagree with the hook being boring and I prefer to avoid the cloves one as I only found it on one source and not anywhere else. Is it possible? Santo Tomas University is the oldest in Asia and 1600s for a Western-style university education is rare among Asians Nyanardsan (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a Filipino myself and unless people know the significance of UST I don't think readers outside Southeast Asia will be intrigued by the hook. Maybe you can propose a different angle here? The first hook is marginally intriguing while the second hook is rather pedestrian. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT2 ... that the Dutch East India Company sent sultans and kings from Maluku to personally persuade Bataha Santiago? Nyanardsan (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nyanardsan: I'm not particularly a fan of this one, because, well, persuade him to do what? Possibly work out that bit with Narutolovehinata5. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT3 ... that Bataha Santiago, third king of Manganitu, was nominated to be National Hero of Indonesia by the North Sulawesi provincial government? SL93 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke, Theleekycauldron, and Narutolovehinata5: SL93 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's marginally better than the original hooks, but I'm not actually sure if it's enough to intrigue readers. Other reviewers may have a different opinion of course. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure either. It's the best that I could find. SL93 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This nom has been quite stall that I forgot it exist for a while, I apologize. Is an article where presumably there's nothing interesting to mention despite fulfilling other more technical criteria (5x expansion/new enough by the time of nomination, verified, etc) a reason to fail it? Because I still wish this to be nominated, especially that it is a lesser known figure (East Indonesia history is very underepresented). So I still think its too unfortunate if it fails because "nothing interesting to be found in the article". I personally could not gather much more to add so I think all hooks proposed here are already all the possible hooks from the article. Nyanardsan (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if an article meets the technical requirements, the intriguingness criterion is still a criterion and so a nomination that fails to meet it can still be rejected for not meeting a DYK requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm adding to the ALT2, ... that the Dutch East India Company sent sultans and kings from Maluku to personally persuade Bataha Santiago to sign trade agreements'? I hope this is interesting enough Nyanardsan (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I frankly feel that ALT2 doesn't address the original concerns regarding the intriguingness of the hook, and upon checking the article again myself I can't think of any possible hook information that could meet that criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I very much appreciate the work that has been done to this article, but I just don't think there's any material in the article that would meet intriguingness guidelines. ALT2 still seemed reliant on special knowledge (i.e. knowing where Maluku is), and as someone with an interest in history it really isn't anything out of the ordinary where a colonizing power asked a local leader to sign trade agreements: it happened all the time. Perhaps ALT3 has the most promise among all the proposals, but both I and the proposer have reservations if it's actually enough to intrigue other editors. I'll have to think about this more over the next few days, but right now I'm thinking that either ALT3 is the only suitable option, or it's not suitable either and the nomination will have to be closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg After giving this some thought I don't think there's much of a path forward for the nomination anymore. I do have some sympathies for ALT3 but overall it's still not exactly much of an intriguing hook anyway. It's probably for the best to let this one go and perhaps bring another Indonesian historic figure to DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nyan, i thought i might offer a few alternative hooks to try to save this nomination.

    alt0q: ... that King Bataha Santiago's parents sent him to school when he was 44 years old?

    alt4: ... that King Bataha Santiago was still finishing his studies when his father abdicated?

    alt5: ... that King Bataha Santiago, who was hanged after losing a war he declared against a corporation, is considered a hero in North Sulawesi?

    admittedly, these suggestions still need to be vetted for accuracy, but i wanted to propose them to see if they had any merit before someone else failed this nomination. in particular, i am not positive about the timing of his father's abdication, as i appear to be unable to access the lolombulan source.
    i am not sure if alt0q would be rejected for being interpreted as unduly negative (which is interesting since it is actually based on something positive) or for being misleading, so i am proposing it as a quirky hook, since i believe a bit more leniency is given for that slot. i also linked "school" to the university so that astute readers familiar with the context can understand the joke early.
    as an aside, the manado news source appears to state that it is quoting from wikipedia, though i cannot tell how much of it is actually based on wikipedia. if it turns out that the manado news source is unusable, then the one reference cited by the id wikipedia article might be a suitable substitute. dying (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I were to pick a hook, I think I'd only support the first suggestion (the one about him being sent to school by his parents at 44). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 4[edit]

WCPN

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]
    • @Theleekycauldron: Scott Fybush is a subject matter expert who has been published in several notable broadcast publications (Radio World, Current). One of the handful of people I'd trust as an SMX in American broadcasting. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 5[edit]

Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission

Moved to mainspace by Schwede66 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Glad to see the IP/Schwede66 duo is still doing great work. In this context, I think the IP's initial inclusion of "alleged" is required by the BLP standard WP:SUSPECT, as the commission has punitive powers but is not itself a court. Even if it isn't, I think the relatively recent character of the misconduct and appearance on the main page merits an increased degree of caution. Again, glad to see this very thorough IP editor and Schwede66 collaborating. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Symbol confirmed.svg Decided to just go ahead and review this one. I'll accept Schwede66's reasoning for excluding the word "alleged" on the basis that the officer involved admitted to the action and that the action was not necessarily an illegal one, but rather poor discipline. QPQ performed by IP, hook is interesting, hook is sourced in article, and article is in a sufficiently advanced state that makes it worthy of DYK. Nice job. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Schwede66 and Pbritti: Symbol question.svg I'm not so sure – WP:DYK#gen4a says that Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. (emphasis in original) even if it does fall afoul of WP:SUSPECT, it would seem to me that it's undue negative focus on the deputy, given that they haven't been convicted. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Theleekycauldron: If you're sufficiently concerned that this stumbles on the unduly standard, I do want to defer to your judgement. I think there are plenty of other factoids that we could derive from this article for a DYK. Unfortunately, I think a previous DYK from the same IP editor similarly hit on some of the same problems. Let me know if I can help further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First -- The focus here is not IMHO something "unduly negative". The focus here is rather the "exceedingly odd" bit about the sending of the cake - leading a reader to want to read more. As to what is a hook where the "focus" is unduly negative - an example could be this one .. though it just ran a couple of weeks ago as a DYK. "Did you know... that Craig Greenberg was shot at while running in the 2022 Louisville mayoral election?" Template:Did you know nominations/Craig Greenberg. Pinging User:RoySmith, who may have thoughts, as he promoted that DYK.
Second -- Wikipedia:DYKHOOK states: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content." 2603:7000:2143:8500:3484:A520:5DBA:2ACC (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I really don't like this hook. The negative aspects aside, the interesting part (the sending of the cake) has nothing to do with the main subject of the article. In fact, a good chunk of the article is just a laundry list of cases the commission has investigated. It's all just trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok, that's done. This source states:

    A local woman has filed a civil lawsuit against a former Escambia County deputy who allegedly discharged a stun gun into her chest and neck without provocation, tried to cover up the incident, then apologized by sending her a photo of an off-color cake.

    With regards to the colour of the frosting, that's from the other source:

    A Florida's woman's lawsuit says a deputy shot her with a stun gun, then apologized with a cake that said, "Sorry I Tased You" in blue frosting.

    Ping to BlueMoonset. Schwede66 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 7[edit]

Gother Mann

Coloured miniature, 1763
Coloured miniature, 1763
  • ... that Gother Mann (pictured) commanded a small body of militia on Dominica in a losing fight against a superior French invasion force in 1778?
  • ALT1 ... that several of Gother Mann's plans for fortifying Canada are preserved in the British Library and the Canadian archives?

1778? Source: (1) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Mann,_Gother (2) https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-17944

    • Reviewed: N/A
    • Comment: I've only nominated 3 articles for DYK without doing a QPQ, so this is my last freebie

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 03:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article long enough, new enough, and generally appropriately referenced. QPQ is indeed not needed yet. Reliable sources are used properly throughout the article, and the hook is cited and mentioned in the article. Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. Can't seem to notice any significant copyvio, so good to go. Taung Tan (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ficaia and Taung Tan: Symbol question.svg As text copied from the public domain does not count for DYK prose purposes, this article fails DYK's 1500-character length minimum. Could the article be rephrased or expanded? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 13:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I'll work on expanding the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ficaia: Any progress? BorgQueen (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@BorgQueen: Yes, by my count I've added 1736 characters of text based on other sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 8[edit]

The Virgin in Prayer

  • ... that the blue garment in The Virgin in Prayer (pictured) is colorised by an ultramarine made from lapis lazuli, which was a highly cost pigment to be painted in such this art? Source: "The bright lighting combined with the impenetrable dark background makes the blue of the her robes especially brilliant. Sassferrato has used ultramarine for these. Made from lapis lazuli, a semi-precious stone mined in north-eastern Afghanistan, ultramarine was the most expensive of blue pigments, and highly prized for its intense colour." National Gallery

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @JeBonSer: It's new and long enough, each paragraph has a citation, but watch your wording, there's a 26% similarity on EarWig for use of the same phrases like coloured robes and sculpted facial features, Reformers of the Roman Catholic Church advocated a more personal approach to worship, made from lapis lazuli, a semi-precious stone mined.
  • The article could also use some light copy-editing and toning down of the the descriptions in Wikipedia's voice; the description is very flowery at times. her flawless porcelain-like skin lends a sculptural quality to the painting and makes the audience feel to be in her real presence; radiant, luminous, more brilliant, brilliantly elegant etc.
  • My main concern is that isn't this true for most medieval and renaissance paintings of the Virgin Mary? I'm not sure it's particularly "hooky" to say that this painting of Mary uses Marian blue like so many others?
  • I think also I'd like to see a few more reliable, independent sources (i.e., not just on museum websites) to confirm that this painting is WP:NOTABLE. Is newliturgicalmovement.org a reliable source about art history? I see that an article in The Burlington Magazine talks about the painting: (JSTOR 882464), perhaps this can be incorporated into the article.
  • The hook is properly formatted (although I might reword it if this is the final angle we end up on; the syntax is a bit off to me, e.g., which was a highly cost pigment to be painted in such this art, and this use of colorised also doesn't seem like the most obvious verb)., 164 characters, and there are no issues with the image.
  • Can you try to come up with any alternative hooks? Umimmak (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @JeBonSer: Again, the issue I’m having is that this isn’t particularly unique to this painting. It’s not particularly surprising to read that the Virgin Mary was a common subject Italian art in the Baroque era given the strong relation of Roman Catholicism to all three of these topics, and that hook says nothing particularly exciting about this painting. Do you have responses to the other issues I raised? Umimmak (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JeBonSer: Hi there, sorry to interrupt; how about that ultramarine is made of a stone from Afghanistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talkcontribs) 03:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JeBonSer and Paradise Chronicle: as Umimmak points out, ultramarine was a pretty common colour for paintings of the time. If a hook can't be agreed upon in a week, I'd say that this nom should probably be marked for closure. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience as I have my wikibreak for these past days. I have my other suggested hook which you can agree:
* ALT2: ... that The Virgin in Prayer (pictured) was acquired by the National Gallery in the mid-19th-century as the London art world had a renewed interest of its artist? Source: "This picture and The Virgin in Prayer were both acquired by the National Gallery in the mid-nineteenth century, when Sassoferrato’s star was high in the London art world." National Gallery. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 04:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check the new hook, but also the issues raised by the original reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 9[edit]

Beezer Brothers

  • ... that American architect Michael J. Beezer, designer of the Larabie Brothers Bank in Deer Lodge, Montana, was honored by making its first deposit on opening day in 1912? Source: "The honor of making the first deposit went to the architect supervisor of the building construction, M.J. Beezer of Seattle, Washington." from ref 8, the NRHP nom form for Deer Creek Historic District.

Created by MB (talk) and Doncram (talk). Nominated by MB (talk) at 19:18, 11 December 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: Red XN - maybe
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Not sure if hook can be considered interesting enough (I very rarely look at DYK), so would prefer another reviewer to comment. Voice of Clam 17:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @MB and Voice of Clam: I would say that asking for a new hook is probably best. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    theleekycauldron Voice of Clam MB ALT1 ... that the Beezer Brothers built Baker Boyer Bank as Walla Walla, Washington's first skyscraper? SL93 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT2 ... that the Beezer Brothers designed buildings with clay tile in place of steel for better performance during fires?
    I'm OK with any of these. MB 23:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Approve ALT2 as cited and interesting :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Theleekycauldron, Aoidh, MB, and Voice of Clam: This has major copyright issues. I'm amazed that it got as far as a queue (when I yanked it) without somebody noticing. Earwig gives it a 43.5%, which itself is a pretty high number, so worthy of looking deeper. What I found was that it's much worse than just the literal copy-pastes. Take a look at these two passages:
    • (article) The pair frequently acted as construction managers in addition to architects on their projects where they oversaw daily, on-site, work activities, work that is usually performed by construction firms.
    • (source}The Beezer Brothers actively supervised building sites, acting as construction managers as well as architects for their far flung commissions. At their firm’s height, these commissions extended as far north as Alaska, and as far south as Hollywood, California. As construction managers, the Beezer Brothers oversaw daily, on-site, work activities. Usually this work is contracted to construction firms..
    Earwig only picked up on oversaw daily, on-site, work activities but the rest of the paragraph is almost as bad, just changing a few words here or there, i.e. close paraphrasing. There's a lot of other example of close paraphrasing, but this one looks like the worst. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Symbol possible vote.svg - Just so that this isn't moved back to the approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 8 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]


Muhammad Musa'ad

  • ... that academic Muhammad Musa'ad was barred from running as a candidate in the Papuan gubernatorial election due to his Arabic ancestry? Source: 1) Group, International Crisis (23 March 2006). "Papua: The Dangers of Shutting Down Dialogue". International Crisis Group: 8–9. 2) Mietzner, Marcus (October 2007). "Local Elections and Autonomy in Papua and Aceh: Mitigating or Fueling Secessionism?". Indonesia. 84 (84): 9–13.

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 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 possible vote.svg @Jeromi Mikhael: Good article. will assume good faith on the indonesian sources. Just waiting on a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kanzuri

  • ... that in order to make kanzuri, a Japanese chili paste, pickled peppers need to be laid out on snow to dry during the coldest part of the year? Source: Source: [19] (かんずりの仕込みは、大寒(1月20日前後)に、塩漬けにした唐辛子を一度雪の上にさらして天日干しにする「寒ざらし」からおこなわれる。別名「雪さらし」ともいわれ、真っ白な雪の上にあざやかな赤色の唐辛子がきれいに並べられる。)
    • ALT1: ... that kanzuri is often used as a "great supporting actor" and even "secret ingredient" by Japanese chefs and restaurateurs? Source: Source: [20] (「香辛料は必ずしもなければならないものではないけれど、使うことで料理がより深い味になります。つまり『かんずり』は、料理をさりげなく引き立てる“名バイプレイヤー(脇役)”。特に、脂っぽい料理は中和されてさっぱりと食べられると評判ですし、料理の隠し味としても使われています」と邦昭さん。とある高級料理店からは「うちで隠し味に使っているので、近隣の料理店には卸さないでほしい」と直談判されたエピソードもあるとか。)
    • ALT2: ... that the traditional method of drying out peppers used in the making of kanzuri in the snow is a popular tourist attraction in Niigata Prefecture? Source: Source: [21] (有限会社かんずりでは、毎年1月20日前後の大寒の日を「雪さらし(仕事)はじめ」とし、3月上旬まで15回ほど「雪さらし」が行われます。雪の白と唐辛子の赤、そして晴れた日の青空のコントラストが美しいと、いつ頃からかアマチュアカメラマンをはじめとする見学者が集まるようになり、今ではこの地の冬の風物詩として多くの人に親しまれています)
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Star Control
    • Comment: QPQ coming soon... Done!

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting article and subject. A few sources are blog-like in nature, but they appear reliable based on the credentials of the author or the fact that the publisher is reliable, and the information used have been written in a neutral manner. In this oldid, citation 10 is a press release, and citation 12 is an anonymous blog, but their usage for referencing is minimal. If WP:RS is an issue, the two citations could be removed, and it would not impact the reliability of the article. @CurryTime7-24: Note that there are instances where "kanzuri" is misspelled as "kanzari". —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. Been short on time on account of Christmastide/New Year's. What little time I've had available for editing was spent tripling the size of the article for Galina Pisarenko in order to salvage its attendant DYK nomination. Will get back to work on kanzuri later today or tomorrow—promise! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Been a busy month so far. Working on this right now finally. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CurryTime7-24:, any progress? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you very kindly for your patience. It's been a very busy month for me and have not had any time to work on this DYK. I've amended the article according to your requests. I've not yet removed the two sources you listed as I'm still looking for better replacements. However, please feel free to drop them if you like. Please let me know if any further changes are needed. Again, thank you very much for waiting. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the updates, CurryTime7-24. I think the MAFF source also needs to be used to cite "traditional process known as kanzarashi or yukisarashi" so that the statement doesn't violate WP:SYNTH since neither the Satoyama Library nor the Yukiguni citation after that sentence specifically mentions kanzarashi. Also, looking at the hooks again, I think ALT1 needs be struck since it's directly based on a statement by the president of the product's maker. It's fine within the article, but using it as a hook doesn't meet WP:NOTADVERT in my opinion. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 11[edit]

Elizabeth Mary Wells

Moved to mainspace by Lauraosull (talk). Nominated by Kingsif (talk) at 23:54, 20 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: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough, is neutral and is plagiarism free. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ is done. However, in terms of sourcing - the majority of those mentioned seem to be primary sources from the Church Missionary Society (which I can't access), and one secondary source Europeans in East Africa (which is about her husband). I'm concerned that although the article is well-written and detailed, it depends too much on primary material which does not necessarily establish her own notability. (I am loathe to say this, as most of the pages I start are for women!) I think to approve it, I'd need to hear which of the Church Missionary Society sources contribute to her notability, not just background to her life. Also, the page needs to be de-orphaned, there's two citations missing, the quotes need attributions, and it needs some categories adding. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Lajmmoore: While I looked over the article and am confident of two independent sources for GNG, I don't have any knowledge of the sources you ask about. The article is a WikiEd product that the student is still working on, and I don't want to mess with their "work" until their class is over. It is a stupid system, but at least we have a well-written article in this case. I, separately, don't think being an orphan or uncategorised is a barrier to DYK. But if there are outstanding issues, I probably can't address them. Happy for this to be closed if that's the case, and I'll either find another article to nom or ask to use another of mine for the Christmas set. Kingsif (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Kingsif - which were the two sources you'd identifed for GNG? (In hope I can change my mind!) I just looked at the toolkit the new editors are given, and they don't get told about article categories or de-orphaning, so I can see better why that's not been done. The course page says the final week ended 10 December, so I think we can help and it be OK - @Helaine (Wiki Ed):, @Brianda (Wiki Ed):, @Ian (Wiki Ed):, @Breamk: what do you think? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just leaving a tag for @Lauraosull: & the message I left on their talk page here. If you could leave a note on the sources that prove notability here, that would be great! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lajmmoore: In this edit I note which sources I thought fit, but also that the urls are all student-user log-ins, and are time-restricted. Needs work, there, too. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kingsif I can now approve the hook - Laurosull explained (on the talk page & on her usertalk) that three of the sources supported notability, so I am much more confident in the sourcing of the article now. Good to go. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have given it a very thorough copyedit. The only outstanding issue is the same thing I mentioned the first time, @Lauraosull:; that many of the refs point to urls that are student-login blocked (i.e. if you used school access and just copied the url, nobody else can see it). Is it possible for you to re-access the sources and change the refs to have general bibliographic detail (how you would cite it in a term paper) - preferably including page numbers where the sources are long or detailed. Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Momentum Party

Moved to mainspace by FunIsOptional (talk). Self-nominated at 08:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg No close paraphrasing, which is good. The article is exceedingly small (only some 400 characters above the minimum), and the notability is quite unclear (someone added a tag to this effect). The hook seems verified, but it isn't quite that interesting (at the moment, it basically summarizes the article), and it bugs me that it fails to clarify the context, specifically which country's Labour Party/parliament. Dahn (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Article issues remain and the nominator did not respond to the above review despite a talk page message and activity elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isaac Hill

Isaac Hill
Isaac Hill

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 19 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
  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg Expansion of the article began on Decemner 11. The article was 2037 characters of prose before the article was expanded, and was 10906 on December 18, which is slightly more than a 5x expansion of prose. No copyvio detected, hook is interesting and AGF on source. No concerns here; good to go. - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC) - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Hill became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, involving Constitutional amendments which would effect corporate law lending his support to the action taken by the state, and did all he could to keep the controversy alive until it assumed proportions which would continued to effect local politics for nearly a half century" with "he became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, supporting the action of the state and fanning the flames of controversy until it assumed proportions which affected local politics for almost half a century". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Oh no, thanks for catching that, I think I over-relied on Earwig here and didn't think to check the sources with that level of scrutiny. - Aoidh (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoidh and Nikkimaria: — Actually, while there are a couple of phrases that are similar, one involving only a general statement, much has been quoted here that doesn't involve close-paraphrasing,. Here is what was quoted, with the similar text in bold. All else does not involve close-paraphrasing.
"Hill became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, involving Constitutional amendments which would effect corporate law lending his support to the action taken by the state, and did all he could to keep the controversy alive until it assumed proportions which would continued to effect local politics for nearly a half century".
It should be noted also that the source involved is in the public domain and offered as a free download from archive.org, so there are no copyright issues involved here. I double checked the article with Earwig's Copyvio Detector which shows no more issues. I will correct the couple of incidents involving close paraphrasing. Apologies, and thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The portion you've bolded is essentially identical, but close paraphrasing involves more than just identical text - see WP:CLOP more information. Keep in mind that Earwig will catch only identical text, and only for materials which it is able to index. Even material copied from public domain texts needs to be properly attributed, but what leads you to believe this source is PD? Multiple editions of the work appear to have had their copyright renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoidh and Nikkimaria: — As I said, the portion I bolded, a couple short general phrases, was identical, all the other text quoted was not. In any case, the source is available for download at archive.org. There is nothing there that indicates that the particular source I used is copyrighted. If it still had a copyright archive.org would not offer it up for a free unrestricted download, or they would be facing legal issues. Is the text in question okay in your opinion now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[