Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
On the Main Page
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
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
July 6
July 15 1
July 16 1
August 2 3
August 3 2 1
August 5 2
August 6 1
August 7 1
August 9 1
August 13 1
August 14 1
August 15 1
August 19 1
August 21 2
August 23 1
August 24 1
August 26 2 1
August 27 1 1
August 28 3
August 30 2 1
September 1 2 2
September 3 4 2
September 4 2
September 5 2 2
September 6 3 1
September 7 11 6
September 8 9 6
September 9 5 5
September 10 6 4
September 11 6 3
September 12 5 3
September 13 9 5
September 14 8 6
September 15 13 7
September 16 12 3
September 17 13 6
September 18 15 6
September 19 15 10
September 20 14 4
September 21 3 3
September 22 10 4
September 23 8 1
September 24 8 1
September 25 8
September 26
Total 219 94
Last updated 01:31, 26 September 2022 UTC
Current time is 03:00, 26 September 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on July 6[edit]

Articles created/expanded on July 15[edit]

Mandla Lamba

  • ALT0:... that fraudster Mandla Lamba rose to fame by passing himself off as a billionaire mining tycoon who owned gold, diamond and manganese mines in three different African countries? [1] (claim to fame)
    • ALT1: ... that "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba hired three bodyguards in order to project a public image of extensive wealth, but failed to pay the security company for their services? [1][2] (irony)
    • ALT2: ... that "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba lambasted journalists who wrote an exposé on him, accusing them of being part of a plot to harass and discredit him? [3] (pun)
    • ALT3: ... that in 2010, future South African President Cyril Ramaphosa personally phoned in to a radio show to refute claims that he and his wife Tshepo Motsepe (both pictured) had mentored "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba? [4] (unusual personal intervention)
    • ALT4: ... that "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba was called the "Black Economic Empowerment Houdini" by a South African news outlet for successfully evading arrest by the police? [2] (nickname)
    • ALT5: ... that in October 2010, police in Johannesburg mistakenly arrested, then released "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba without realising that he was a wanted person?[5] (surprising bungle)
    • ALT6: ... that in July 2021, "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba appeared on influencer Somizi Mhlongo's Instagram channel to promote his electric vehicle company, offering shares at a "special" 90% discount? [6] (most recent high-profile activity)
    • ALT7: ... that South African banks Investec, Capitec and Absa have all refuted claims by "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba of having business relationships with them? [1][7] (modus operandi)
    • Reviewed: QPQ exempt (nom #2)
    • Comment: 5× (complete rewrite) over the course of 15~16 Jul 2022 in response to AfD discussion; outcome still pending. WP:BLPCRIME scrutiny welcomed.

Created/expanded by 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:42, 17 July 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

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Nice job saving this article! Recently expanded 5x, no copyvio and seems balanced. The sourcing might need a little work though. The article and several hooks cite Forbes Contributor article which isn't a reliable source. Can this be replaced with a more reliable source (the refs look good otherwise)? ALT0 seems the most interesting to me, but it's cited to a Forbes Contributor article. Striking ALT5 and ALT6 since they don't seem quite as interesting as the others. Re: ALT3 I'm not sure if running a photo of someone other than the person in the hook is ideal, but the hook itself is good. (Note: I also removed some overlinking from the hooks.) BuySomeApples (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oh, hello again BuySomeApples! I think the AfD was headed toward keep anyway (on the basis that sources exist) so can't really take credit for "saving" the article. TIL about FORBESCON being distinct from Forbes. Pretty sure almost if not everything in the article and hooks are backed up by other sources so if the rest of the sources are good then I'll just have to do a bit of inline citation rejiggling. Minor inconvenience since the Forbes source is a pretty good summary that touches on a lot of the key points, but no biggie. Re: hooks, I actually thought the police bungle was quite amusing; personally felt that the ALT2 pun was the weakest one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Re: photographs, I'd gone with the Ramaphosas because I wasn't sure how BLP comes into play here. Would BLP pose an obstacle to running a photo of Lamba himself on front page? I know this picture (from a deleted simple English article) is a no-go, but there's this and I do wonder if it would be worth the trouble trying to get it or some other photo released under a suitable license so we could run it. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On second look, so I'll unstrike ALT5 it's a pretty great hook. I don't think running a photo with it would violate BLP per se, but it might not be worth the trouble since the photographer might not even release the photo anywhere. It's up to you though, since we can always wait to finish this nom for the photo. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not so fast. There's a discussion at BLPN right now. Also, that image--Ramaphosa and Motsepe should NOT be pictured in this DYK hook, nor, I believe, should they be mentioned in it. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @BuySomeApples and Drmies: It's been almost a month since the last comments here. Are there any updates on this nomination? The BLPN discussion also appears to have been archived. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:Narutolovehinata5, that image, which I will maintain violates BLP, is still in this nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Narutolovehinata5 and Drmies: I've taken out the image – it doesn't seem like there are any hooks that reference the people in the picture directly, so there's no real argument for keeping it. Plus, the nom doesn't seem to mind removing it from here, based on the BLPN discussion. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 03:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Narutolovehinata5 and Drmies: Thank you for removing the picture! I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't agree with running the photo. The BLPN discussion has been archived and apparently the original complaints about it being a hitpiece were from sockpuppets. However, there was some edit warring on the page and it might need new eyes for neutrality since it's a BLP about someone accused of multiple crimes. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: I am doubtful that either this article or any of its hooks can pass WP:DYKCRIT #4a "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BlueMoonset, I think we've been doing this long enough, and now David Eppstein brought up another valid point. Let's just close this and move on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Symbol delete vote.svg I checked the article history, and couldn't help noting that the bulk of the nominator's edits were reverted along the way. I was also taken aback by the infobox, which has Mandla's occupation listed as "fraudster", which to me is indication enough that this article is problematic when it comes to neutrality, and the 4a issues David Eppstein notes are clear and prohibitive. Marking for closure per Drmies. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueMoonset and David Eppstein: Just to clarify regarding articles related to people convicted of crimes: if their articles are almost entirely about the crimes they committed and their trial/conviction, would that still be considered an "undue focus about negative aspects of living people"? What about if the person is already deceased? I'm not asking about this specific nomination but rather in general, since we've sometimes had nominations about people convicted of crimes (both living and deceased) and their hooks focused on their crimes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it hinges on the word "unduly". One might argue that this means that someone only known for crimes could still be listed, because the description of their crimes is not "undue". But in the case of Lamba, most of the article is unconfirmed allegations and their denials, not a suitable basis for a DYK hook or for featuring on DYK. There is a criminal conviction, for killing someone in a traffic accident, but that's not what the hooks and most of the article are about. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on July 16[edit]

Bombing of Mokha

5x expanded by Mhhossein (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • @Mhhossein: Can you provide a QPQ for this? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg No QPQ was provided within seven days of the nomination, despite a ping above and activity elsewhere. This is purely procedural and the nomination can resume if a QPQ is provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having done dozens of DYKs so far, due to the usual backlog, it takes numerous days for the QPQed nominations to be reviewed and promoted. It is just a surprise seeing this comment and ridiculous for a QPQnomination to be closed solely for lack of QPQ. The QPQ will be provided within the coming days. --Mhhossein talk 10:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's per a recent recent rule change to DYK. See WP:DYKCRIT:Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Nominator was notified of the lack of a QPQ on July 30. This nomination should be rejected if no QPQ is supplied within a week from then, that is August 6. Flibirigit (talk) 16:44, 1 August 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: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg A few issues need to be addressed:

  • For some reason, DYKcheck reports this as not sufficiently expanded, but a manual comparison of before and current (as of 20 August) shows an expansion of just over 5x prose content. So I'm accepting the length as sufficient.
  • (Earwig finds some similarity with the Reuters article, although I think it's because of the quotations.) Not really an issue, imo, just wanted to note that I checked that.
  • The article also needs an inline ref directly after each sentence containing a quotation – maybe just duplicate some of the refs.
  • Currently the hook prose is in the lede, but the source cited there does only speak of "more than 120 dead", which is not what's written there. It would probably be better to write this as "65(inline one) to 120(inline two) dead" or something. The "150" currently in the hook is definitely wrong – this many were wounded, according to US News (btw this is not cited in the infobox).
  • The article needs some copyediting, for example "The airstrike hit the residential area in dedicated to the plant workers." I can help with that if needed, although some things are quite obvious.

Nothing major and all these things can be fixed. @Mhhossein best ping me when you are done. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you LordPeterII. The CNBC source clearly says "a power plant in Mokha that killed at least 120 people". I have changed the lead wording so that it shows the correct sourcing for the number of dead and will as GOCE to copyedit the page. How about the following hook:
Alt1: ... that the bombing of Mokha in Yemen by Saudi Arabia-led coalition was described as of the "deadliest" attacks by Saudi Arabia against Yemen, leaving 65 – more than 120 dead including 10 children?
--Mhhossein talk 13:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhhossein: My issue was primarily with the hook fact not corresponding to a cited article sentence. This is now resolved, but I find that with the dash it looks weird. How about instead:
This removes also the duplicate "Saudi Arabia" and "Yemen", so the hook is shorter and I think it is still very clear. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I just realized I also removed the "children" part, feel free to add that back in (I was worried it would be too long, but with the dupicate country names removed it is quite short now). And I also piped a link to the Saudi coalition, not sure if you want that or not. You can propose another modified hook if you want, until we find something we both like. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, then I suggest going with the version including the children toll.
It is 186 characters which is not too long. --Mhhossein talk 10:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhhossein: Yes, that's short enough. I will approve that hook once the copyediting is done (and some bare sources converted to use citation templates, but I will look at that myself). --LordPeterII (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 2[edit]

Christy Martin vs. Deirdre Gogarty

Created by AntonioMartin (talk). Self-nominated at 10:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @AntonioMartin:: The article isn't quite long enough yet. The DYK check tool shows only 1131 characters of prose, and it needs a minimum of 1500 to qualify for DYK. Would you be able to expand it accordingly? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Cierquiparle! Now that I have a night off (sort of as Im writing new articles every two nights, check the one I did yesterday and tell me how you like it, Ivette Rodriguez) I can write a pre-fight and post-fight section,,,considering that after the contest Martin was featured on Sports Illustrated's cover and both have been inducted in halls of fame, I have a lot of material I can put! Thanks and God bless! Antonio the pea on the wall Martin (the talk page) 02:10, 2 August, 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article contains a lot of text about each contestant, but not about the fight yet. I see that you are still reworking and mayb you are one it already - anyway, this is to be dealt with. --KnightMove (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Now that's what I call a distringuished expansion! --KnightMove (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I will resume a full DYK review now that the article has been expanded. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @AntonioMartin: This looks like it's shaping up to be a fairly important article. (Great choice of topic!) However, there is quite a bit more work required before it's ready to be featured in the DYK section of the main page. There are entire sections written now that appear to border on original research (e.g., your interpretation of BoxRec stats). In addition, the extensive use of bare URLs as references is problematic (per WP:BAREURLS). I've suggested one way to quickly format the BoxRec pages using the first example; for other suggestions, see WP:Inline citations, and/or consider using Visual Editor as it's super fast to generate and re-use citations, without having to manually re-enter them every time.
Would you be able to go through the article once more to try to fix these issues? At minimum, each paragraph should have an inline citation. It's especially important to make sure that you're citing sources with care, and that they actually make the points you are making. I noticed that sometimes you were adding details that you either knew from somewhere else or were drawing your own conclusions (e.g. saying "around this time" repeatedly) to try to fill in the narrative with your own words. When in doubt, say less; by saying less you will find that what you do say has more impact. You have more than enough text now, so don't be afraid to make cuts. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Cielquiparle..thanks for your kind words regarding my updates on the article. TBH, the last few days I have been working hard at the Wiki, with this article as well as creating Salixto Medina and Daniel Guerrero. I am looking forward to 2-3 days of rest but I will read the pages you suggested. I have always been a writer workhorse, never really cared too much in 19 years about policies, but in this case I see the necessity to read those! Thanks and God bless! Antonio the Handsomest Martin (the talk page) 12:14, 4 August, 2022 (UTC)
AntonioMartin, it's been over three weeks, and the article still has a large number of bare URLs, and has been tagged for this issue; if there are any bare URLs at all, it cannot run at DYK. I hope you'll be able to address these—plus the other concerns raised by Cielquiparle—within the next seven days; if not, this nomination is likely to be closed as unsuccessful. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an interesting article, so I have cleaned up the bare URLs, and worked on adding and correcting citations. But I don't know where the details of the fight come from; I don't see a source for that. @AntonioMartin:, can you help with that? - PMCH2 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi User:BlueMoonset and User:PMCH2! I need to apologize for not answering earlier. I had been busy these last few days taking care of a new article (Aviation in Puerto Rico) and of personal matters. To answer you both, I tried addressing the bare URL's but the website I used said that no changes were needed. Then, as far as the fight details, I just used the fight's youtube video. Now, I know Im not the ultimate authority but, in cases like these, where you can see actions taking place on video, I think that You Tube is as good and reliable a source as any others. Thanks to both of you for your understanding and forgiveness, and God bless you both! Antonio The Poncho Martin (aha?) 15:50, 31 August, 2022 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, have your issues been addressed, or is there more for the nominator to do? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special thanks to PMCH2 for cleaning up so many bare URLs! Per AntonioMartin's comment, I will now watch the YouTube video to see if there is a straightforward way to format the remaining sections lacking inline citations, or if there is further work to be done. This may take some time (and if I do end up making extensive edits, I will come back and resign as the reviewer). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ossian D'Ambrosio

  • ... that Ossian D'Ambrosio regards his involvement in both modern Druidry and heavy metal music as good for his personal balance? Source: La Stampa ("Come Ossian riesca a conciliare tanta oscurità con la sua attività druidica alla festa celtica è presto spiegato. «La donna ha quattro archetipi, l'uomo soltanto due: una parte oscura e una solare, l'inverno e l'estate, lo sciamano e il cacciatore. Quando suono emerge la prima parte, quella più notturna, questo mi permette di stare in equilibrio." [How Ossian manages to reconcile so much darkness with his druidic activity at the Celtic festival is soon explained. 'The woman has four archetypes, the man only two: a dark and a sunny part, winter and summer, the shaman and the hunter. When I play the first part emerges, the more nocturnal one, this allows me to stay in balance.])

Created by Ffranc (talk). Self-nominated at 10:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - Possible issue with the citation on the second hook
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Of the two I think the second hook is the more interesting one, however the source used for that hook (which has only been discussed briefly at RSN is being flagged as having questionable reliability via the User:Headbomb/unreliable script. It appears to be an encyclopedia that is itself citing other sources, but it does appear to be a less-than-stellar source. Would you be able to find a different source that supports this content? That's the only potential issue I can find. Aoidh (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a supplementary Italian-language source ("...l'autore, che da tempo di occupa di occulto, prima come musicista della seminale band di pagan metal Opera IX, poi come druido e organizzatore del raduno celtico di Beltane." [...the author, who has been involved in the occult for a long time, first as a musician of the seminal pagan metal band Opera IX, later as druid and organizer of the Celtic Beltane gathering.] But I also kept Wrldrels, because I don't see what the problem is, and per WP:RSUE we should prioritise English-language sources. Wrldrels is written and edited by scholars and neutral in content and tone. In the link you posted the criticism consists of guilt by association with Massimo Introvigne and his organisation CESNUR. A quick search gives the indication that Wikipedia's problem with CESNUR has to do with its coverage of Scientology. There was a wave of interest in that on Wikipedia and other parts of the Internet in the late 2000s, and apparently CESNUR wasn't deemed critical enough. Whether that's a fair assessment or not, Wrldrels isn't CESNUR, the article here isn't by Introvigne, and the new religious movement here isn't Scientology. Ffranc (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a little more digging and it does seem like you're right that the CESNUR link is the issue with World Religions and Spirituality Project, which I was fine with discounting initially but I did more digging and it turns out that one of the two authors of your source is Stefania Palmisano, who it turns out serves on the CESNUR board of directors (the other author is a grad student). Given CESNUR's apparent biases in the area that this source is discussing, I don't think we can use it as a reliable source, especially per WP:SCHOLARSHIP as I could find no evidence of it being reviewed by the wider academic community in any way. Unfortunately the lastampa.it source doesn't say he approached modern paganism because of music, just that he was a musician before he was a druid and organizer. If possible I would suggest finding a more solid source for the second hook, but how about this for a hook:
It's interesting that he does all of those things and might be a good alternative to the hooks above. Do you think you'd be able to find a source for the journalist part that isn't the the WRSP source? - Aoidh (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with any of the alts. I removed "journalist" from the article and switched to "writer" in the lead, since he has written two books. The one other source I found for journalism only mentions that he writes for his organisation's publication, so it might be limited to that, and then it's not really worth mentioning.
But I still don't buy that there's any problem with the WRSP. The academic credentials are clearly there, and if there is to be an exception you need to provide something more substantial than guilt by association with CESNUR. Stefania Palmisano is an associate professor at the University of Turin and responsible for various academic publications. WRSP is directed by David G. Bromley, a professor at the Virginia Commonwealth University, which publishes the website. Lots of mainstream scholars are or have been involved in CESNUR in various capacities, because it's a prominent institution within the study of new religious movements. Having a connection to CESNUR doesn't mean that the credibility and reliability of other publications suddenly disappear, as if CESNUR carries some kind of plague that everything else must be kept at a safe distance from. Evidently, that isn't how scholars treat it: neither Palmisano, Bromley nor the Virginia Commonwealth University are treated as suspicious and unreliable. Ffranc (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've started a discussion at RSN here since so much of the article is dependent on this source, which does seem to be potentially problematic; I'd like a wider input before moving forward. In the meantime if you're able to find different sources that can be used we could potentially sidestep the whole issue, and three sources have been mentioned to me as potential sources if you wanted to check them out and see if they could possibly be used: [1][2][3] - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the discussion and journalist part being removed, this is the current proposed hook:
Given the question about the source and since I've proposed a hook I'll ask for a third person to review that hook: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg - Aoidh (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RSN discussion is now archived here. It got a response from one user, who did not see any problem with the source. Aoidh, you didn't write anything more in the noticeboard discussion after your initial post, but do you still think there is something wrong with using the WRSP as a source, or can you approve the original hooks now? I don't mind ALT4, but I think the original ones are more interesting. Ffranc (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given my reservation about the source and the fact that I also proposed a hook, I need to leave this for a third-opinion to review. - Aoidh (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Need an (experienced?) editor to review ALT4 (or the original ones, if the source is deemed acceptable). --LordPeterII (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 3[edit]

Megan Cornish

Megan Cornish circa 1983
Megan Cornish circa 1983

Created by Mathieulalie (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 17:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC). FYI - this has been submitted to the GOCE for review. --evrik (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Fascinating biography. Article is more than long enough, new enough (nominated within one day of being moved into main space), copyvio unlikely per Earwig. QPQ is done. Several issues that jump out at the moment: 1) The actual text of the hook doesn't actually appear anywhere in the actual article besides the lede, where it doesn't cite a specific source, so this needs to be addressed somehow. (At minimum, cite a source in the lede, and/or expand on the "one of the first" claim within the article body, citing a specific source.) 2) The source cited above (within the DYK nomination) is a YouTube interview with the subject, so it's a primary source, although the text within the YouTube video description by the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project does say she "subsequently became one of the first female electrical utility workers anywhere in the United States." It would be preferable if this citation were clearer (that you are citing the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project rather than Megan Cornish herself, perhaps by pointing to their web site or including the relevant text within the footnote or endnote); even better if there are additional secondary sources to back up the claim. 3) There are several paragraphs within the article that end with no citations. Perhaps the implication is that the relevant source is contained within the subsequent paragraph, but this is Wikipedia and the risk is high that text will get moved around in unexpected ways, and it would be better to have a footnote at the end of every paragraph, rather than leaving it looking like uncited content. 4) In general, the article relies heavily on primary sources (video interviews with the subject herself). I would strongly advise taking another pass through the article and trying to see where you can work in more content (facts and/or analysis) from secondary sources to balance it out, as this is likely to raise flags. It may also make it easier to trim the article a bit and make it sound a bit more encyclopedic. A few adjustments along these lines could make a big difference. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evrik: I'm just checking in with some older noms – apart from the GOCE request (which can take some time), were the other issues pointed out above fixed already? --LordPeterII (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Cielquiparle: the fact in the hook, and cited in the hook is found here, "In 1974, Cornish was persuaded by Clara Fraser, a cofounder of Radical Women and education coordinator at Seattle City Light, to apply for a position as an Electrical Trades Trainee (ETT), an all-female affirmative action program designed by Fraser to integrate women into the electrical trades." @LordPeterII:, I was waiting for the GOCE coy edit before finishing the clean-up. --evrik (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Evrik: We need to be extra careful when making "one of the first" claims, especially if it's in the hook on the main page. The sentence you are pointing to doesn't actually say she was one of the first female electricians in the entire United States. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 5[edit]

Vincent Ialenti

Ialenti in 2021
Ialenti in 2021

Created by Thriley (talk), Lemoncat1234 (talk), and (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough and long enough. An interesting story, thank you for bringing it here. The hook is quite interesting. I have a few concerns with sourcing, however. There's quite a few sources used that are not fully independent from the author, and these are typically not sources we should use for anything besides besides biographical detail. For instance, content about what grants an academic has received might be worth including if an independent source comments on it, but when it's coming from a contributor profile that the subject likely wrote, it looks promotional even if that wasn't the intent. I'm uncertain about the hook as well; it's sourced to the web-page of a the Department he belonged to. For an exceptional claim, I'm not sure that's strong enough. I recommend pruning career detail that isn't supported by an independent source; there's enough material here, surely. I would be happy to give this another look. While you're at it, there's a little bit of WP:PROSELINE that's worth fixing too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Thriley since they may have missed the review. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I will be taking care of this in the coming days. Thriley (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thriley: Did you find time yet? (I know it's easy to get distracted ^^)LordPeterII (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: Thank you for the reminder! Thriley (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thriley: It's been over a week now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Despite multiple pings, the nominator hasn't only not addressed the concerns, but in fact hasn't edited the article since the day it was moved to mainspace. As such, the nomination is now marked for closure unless the concerns are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wang Henei

  • ... that French born sculptor Wang Henei (née Renée June-Nikel) became the first naturalized citizen of the People's Republic of China in 1955? Source: "他继续创作人民英雄纪念碑浮雕,王合内也成了1955年第一批加入中国籍的外国人。" [He continued to create reliefs on the Monument to the People's Heroes, and Wang Henei became the first foreigner to become Chinese in 1955.] from "他漂洋过海娶异国妻子 相伴60年死前终得最后一吻" [He traveled across the ocean to marry a foreign wife, accompany him for 60 years, and finally got the last kiss before he died] (https:163.com/zajia/article/CG4MMCL3000181TJ.html)
    • Reviewed:

Created by Toodles The Grey (talk). Self-nominated at 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  •  Comment: Reference 1 and 3 are user-generated contents. (Note: this is not a review.) ——🦝 Raccoozzy (talkcontribs) 02:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The hook would need to be reworded. “他继续创作人民英雄纪念碑浮雕,王合内也成了1955年第一批加入中国籍的外国人。”, in which the 第一 means "the first batch/group of". The whole sentence should be translated as [He continued to create reliefs on the Monument to the People's Heroes, and Wang Henei became one of the first foreigners to become Chinese citizens in 1955.]——🦝 Raccoozzy (talkcontribs) 03:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Interaccoonale: The nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia since September 6, and before that, has largely been inactive since the time of the nomination. Should the nomination be put up for adoption or should it be marked for closure as stale? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: As you can see, I have little experience with English Wikipedia and have only one approved dyk. And the DYK nomination process is so different in my home wiki(Chinese Wikipedia). But anyway, I don't think this article, at least the current version, should be approved. As for how to close the nomination, you can decide it according to the rules of English Wikipedia.——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talkcontribs) 04:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Other than a single edit on September 6th the nominator has largely been inactive since the week of the nomination. There are issues with the hook and sourcing. Unless another user is willing to adopt this it appears that the nomination is now abandoned. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 6[edit]

In Win Development

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - n
  • Other problems: Red XN - This isn't interesting - it is largely promotional, and not even recent
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg This article seems largely promotional, and the hook isn't interesting OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Let's wait for the AFD to conclude before failing this nom. Can you please point out the promotional content in the article? I have tried hard to balance all viewpoints on the company and their products (especially in the Reception section) and have tried to not leave out any negative aspects wrt their fiscal performance. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I agree with not approving the nom, I don't agree with simply failing it, either. Clearly, this is a case of "more work needed". Personally, I feel like the company & the article both seem pretty boring: For example, there's a ton of info about the historical size of the office space, which I don't see why it would be helpful for any reader. Same with days needed to produce something, or whatever that is supposed to say. The article could be trimmed down a lot, and that might help with the feeling of it being "off". It doesn't have the usual issues with tone – none of the usual advertisement words like "great", "biggest" and so forth, just lots of technical details.
I do find ALT0 to be moderately interesting, while ALT1 is again rather technical. As a side note: I personally prefer if company names aren't shown directly on the front page, so e.g. a company (piped) instead of In Win Development; but this is just my opinion and by no means a DYK rule. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, @LordPeterII:, thank you for the in-depth review and criticism (and sorry for this late reply). I've restructured the article, including moving the manufacturing information to its own section, to make the article less of a slog to read. However, I'm not sure what to do about the boring nitty-gritty. I really don't think there's any information to leave out, as I consider the details of manufacturing encyclopedic in demystifying what it takes to manufacture a standard PC case. Perhaps some of it could go to Computer case, but I don't know how applicable the information is to other players in the industry. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DigitalIceAge: It looks a bit better after the restructuring. I can follow your reasoning about whether or not to move some technical stuff to computer case, and I'm not sure either. Let's first wait for the AfD to close, but then I think a fresh reviewer might be best, who may see things different yet than myself or Owain.davies. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: The AFD closed as keep so the nomination can now proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks, but I actually think I won't review for once, because I'd like another viewpoint on the present content. So, someone else take over please. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg After reading the article, I've placed {{Overly detailed}} on the article. Although that's not explicitly listed at WP:DISPUTETAG, {{POV}} is probably applicable as well. In its current state, the article certainly needs "considerable work", so I just can't see this passing review. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have, begrudgingly, removed the "intricate detail" listed in the {{Overly detailed}} tag from the article, @RoySmith:. As for POV, I don't know what to tell you. I have tried really, really hard to make it as neutral as possible. It seems some people have a tabloidesque conception on how articles on corporations should read these days. Not every company article is destined to have a big scandal or human-interest stories behind them. Some like this are just going to be simple and boring. (Not that some interesting elements can't be DYK-hook-worthy.) I have had numerous promotions under my belt of computer companies just like this (see DTK Computer, Advanced Logic Research, Canon Computer Systems, Monorail Inc.). I'm not seeing a huge difference between those and this one for In Win—except that In Win is still in business. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RoySmith: I'd maybe have given a Symbol possible vote.svg in this case. As DigitalIceAge has pointed out, they have had several similar articles passed, and I believe them that they are a "tech enthusiast" who has little reason to breach WP:NPOV. Can you point out specific places in the article that would sound POV to you, or which remain overly detailed? NPOV is a requirement at DYK, but I believe we should give people a chance at fixing them if it's not obviously an attempt at (self-)promotion. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused. You said you didn't want to continue the review because you wanted another viewpoint. And then... you didn't like the other viewpoint you got? In any case, the problem with promotional style was pointed out in the original review back on August 8. So they had almost a month to work fixing it. Not to mention that "they had other submissions accepted" has absolutely no bearing on whether this one should be accepted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked about the supposed POV issues then and in the leadup to the AFD and got no feedback in return. Tried fixing it anyway. I can't read minds. DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RoySmith: Yes, maybe that was a bit short-sighted of me. But I meant fresh view insofar as someone who could point out errors better than myself, who had participated in the AfD and stuff. And I can totally respect your opinion, even that you wouldn't accept it; but could you anyway point out what specifically you find is wrong? It's just not as helpful to put templates and not much more. If DigitalIceAge is actually unwilling or unable to fix the issues, then it can still fail; but consider giving them a chance. The argument about the other submission is only meant to highlight that POV isn't an editor issue here, and they may have trouble seeing why or where this article requires work, when the others didn't. Again, I'm not saying your assessment is wrong, just that it's hard to work with if the nominator is willing. This is the same for the original review, which pointed out general concerns, but no hints on how to potentially fix them. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't want to answer "what specifically needs to be fixed", because that would imply that if those particular things were fixed, then it would pass review. The problem is deeper than that. The whole piece is low-level detail which doesn't really say anything about the company in general. In my mind, this is more of a WP:TNT than "just fix x, y, and z". At this point, I'm going to respectfully suggest that you let this be and we can both move on to other more useful things. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RoySmith: That's unfortunate, but if this is your final opinion on the article I guess nothing can be done otherwise. Sorry to have bothered you again. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "The problem is deeper than that. The whole piece is low-level detail which doesn't really say anything about the company in general." What? "In my mind, this is more of a WP:TNT than 'just fix x, y, and z'" LOL what??? It's a computer case manufacturer that manufactures computer cases. Anything else is just an expansion of that fact. All the complaints about promotional content so far have been intangible and pretty much boil down to "I don't like it". There's no rule that articles on active businesses can't run on DYK. I didn't write this to pimp their products; I write about what I write about for fun. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming here due to a request for a second look. For what it's worth, "low-level detail which doesn't really say anything about the company in general" can be interpreted as being under one of the supplementary guidelines. Specifically, the one saying that reviews can fail a nomination if the article does not give an adequate enough overview about the company. As for the article itself, most of the advert-like tone has been addressed. However, there are still some traces of it left: for example "80 strong", which I'm aware is technically correct, but using "[number] strong" when referring to the number of people involved is weird for an encyclopedia article as you usually see such wording in press releases or other promotional material. I don't think I'm in the position to do a new review of the article, except that I feel that the article seems light on details between what happened between 1985 and 2004. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thatstrong part was indeed something I noticed as well; although as you pointed out, it's technically correct, it just can also be interpreted as promotional. In any case it was likely very helpful for DigitalIceAge to have such an issue pointed out; the refusal to do so in some reviews above I found to be quite irritating.
As for it breaching a supplementary rule, I'm not convinced. D7 seems the one applicable (if I understand correctly), which states:Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive. At least with the example given, it sounds like the opposite of the issue at hand: A book article that is missing important parts like its plot is, in my opinion, clearly worse than a book article that contains excessive detail e.g. on plot and characters, but also all necessary parts. Such issues are not to be dismissed, but I would rather see them as preventing a GA pass. I can see that D13 applies, which statesTo some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process andJust because an unfamiliar criterion is not listed does not mean a nomination cannot be disqualified. But we must then accept that those were subjective decisions, which are not perfectly obvious and could be debated. I haven't been around for very long, but I don't think I have seen "excessive detail" and "minor promotional wording" as blocking reasons before. As issues, yes, just not as "unsolvable". –LordPickleII (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can recall, there have been a few nominations that were held back (not failed) due to the "incomplete article" guideline. They weren't failed, but the nominations were put on hold until the articles were expanded further. I can't remember the exact article, but I think it once happened to a book DYK nomination that was mostly about the plot and not much else. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting such noms at hold sound totally reasonable to me. I mean, I can see that this nom may need some work, too. Failing it completely is what irritates me. Anyway, I'm also not in a position to review, and will step out of this discussion now.
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review still requested. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I have found a couple of sources about the company early in its existence to expand the History section. It seems the company came of age around the turn of the millennium though. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5:, DigitalIceAge has expanded the article some, cut some of the trite material. It's still boring, and the hooks haven't gotten more exciting, but it's passable. Excitement isn't really a thing we can measure anyway, though I think some of us can judge it pretty well. I think this can be passed. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article looks improved, although as I mentioned earlier I don't think I'm properly equipped to review this nomination. For what it's worth I do think the original hook (the one about the app) is unusual if not interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Narutolovehinata5, I've looked at a bunch of those articles and this one seems no worse than the others--but I did not give it an in-depth review; I assume User:LordPeterII did that. I'm looking at it purely from the reader's perspective, and perhaps LordPeter can have another look to see if the material that has been added or tweaked is properly verified. I also agree with you on the hook. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Drmies: LordPeterII has said on my talk page he wants to abstain from giving the GTG to this article for reasons of impartiality. Here's a couple more "interesting" (knock on wood) hooks for your consideration:
    • ALT2: ... that In Win Development released a Gundam-inspired computer case in 2008?
    • ALT3: ... that some of In Win's computer cases put the motherboard on a tray?
DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think ALT2 is a decent hook although I think ALT0 is still the best option. ALT3 might be too technical for general readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Narutolovehinata5, I agree: the first hook is the best. I do not have the time to do a thorough review right now--or today, or maybe this weekend. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 7[edit]

Institutes of Gaius

Converted from a redirect by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg
  • General eligibility:
  • New Enough: Green tickY
  • Long Enough: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I wasn't clear whether this article needed to be a five-fold expansion of the section on Gaius' page, to qualify for DYK. If that is the case, it is not long enough. But it doesn't actually include content from that section. It has enough prose for a new article to qualify.
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Not sure if this needs to be a 5x expansion of section on Gaius' page to meet eligibility. Currently it is not. After reading the comments, I have decided to approve, since the editor made good faith effort to add new material to Wikipedia. PMCH2 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • @PMCH2: Thanks a lot for your review and the valuable time and effort spent on it. I try to address your points in turn: (a) As I read WP:DYKCRIT it states that "freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy [...] is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles". As I did not reuse any content from Gaius (jurist), I think this cuts in favour of my nomination as I did created content from scratch above the 1,500-character mark and did not expanded upon the material from the Gaius (jurist) section. The prose is entirely new. (b) I have amended one citation according to your second point: In the pages now cited, it is (in my opinion) clearly stated that Niebuhr was on his way to Rome on a diplomatic mission. If you remain unconvinced, I could also cite page 7 of the book by Varvaro. (c) Personally, I consider my hook a little bit more interesting due to the curious word palimpsest and the diplomatic implications (being an academic researcher on a diplomatic mission), but if you think ALT1 is better, I happily defer to you. (d) As I read the sources it is not disputed that Niebuhr was dispatched to Rome on a diplomatic mission, but it is disputed whether there was another "clandestine" reason behind the dispatch, i.e., to find and obtain the already discovered manuscript; in my mind this is compatible with the original hook. Thanks again! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @WatkynBassett: Thanks for all your work on this article. It is interesting and obviously historically important. Thanks also for the quick edit on footnotes. Regarding the first hook, I don't find it all that "hooky" but maybe others would. It's ok with me to use it. I'll take it on good faith that the academic dispute doesn't negate the facts of the hook. There isn't a specific footnote, so I can't check the source to see what the specific claims are. (My German isn't good enough to make reading the whole article practical.) PMCH2 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Regarding eligibility: I am still not sure this isn't a case where a five-fold expansion is warranted. This is a new page with new content, yes, but it is replacing a redirect that led to content about the Institutes. If you had copied said text and added it to your new article, the new article would have had to be a 5x expansion to qualify. If the content about the Institutes had originally been a stub, you would have had to expand five-fold. Since it was a sub-section of another page, but you didn't use any of that text, the question is, does that also require 5x expansion? Maybe another reviewer with more experience could weigh in on this issue? If no one else comments, I will assume it is eligible for DYK as is. PMCH2 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @PMCH2: Perfect, thanks! If I understood you correctly, I have addressed most of your concerns, but not the eligibility issue. Having an uninvolved party check if this nomination is indeed eligible seems like the most reasonable way forward. I look forward to it! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Not on topic, but concerning the understanding of German sources: the free tool DeepL is very strong on translating German into English (if you want to check a German source in the future ;)). WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Is there another reviewer who could weigh in on the eligibility regarding length for this nomination? As I read the rules, an article that includes text spun off of an existing article can't be considered "new" and a former redirect has to be a 5x expansion. This is a great article, with >1500 characters of prose, but has some overlap with the section on Gaius' page concerning the topic. By my reading, it should properly be a 5x expansion for consideration as a DYK nom., but I would welcome a more experienced reviewer's perspective. Thanks! PMCH2 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Narutolovehinata5 and Theleekycauldron: Maybe one of you can? I don't feel I have enough seniority yet to make a call here. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @LordPeterII: I'd discourage you from the thought that you need some kind of tenure to call it the way you see it. Sure, practice and reading helps, but the easiest way to learn is generally to jump in. To quote the host of Dropout's Game Changer: "The only way to learn is by playing; the only way to win is by learning; and the only way to begin is by beginning; so, without further ado, let's begin!"
            Tricky. The rules on text copying were designed to insure that the content featured on DYK is truly new, rather than an effortless split. It could be argued that – despite this new article showing no signs of being copied, or even a close paraphrase or a simple rearrangement – creating a new article that touches on the same basic facts violates the spirit of DYK's definition of new content.
            However, I'd be inclined to reward a production of a good-faith article where the rules don't explicitly forbid it. It would also set a burdensome precedent if DYK reviewers had to check not only that the article's prose was original, but that the very research had yet to be unearthed on the encyclopedia thus far. In the interest of cordiality and simplicity, I'd be inclined to IAR where necessary and pass this nomination, on the assumption that this article was not intended as a split of its previous redirect target. :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To ensure a lack of ambiguity, I wonder if it's possible if the article be brought to GA status, and if it passes, it be treated as a new GA rather than a new/expanded article. It's probably the safest option at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with theleekycauldron that the page deserves credit for being genuine new material to Wikipedia. I was just hesitant to approve, without more experience on how redirects are handled. I found the various rules confusing as written. I really have no objection to approving the article for DYK if there isn't an established precedent against it. I just wasn't sure what has been done in these kinds of cases. It sounds like there isn't a rule against it, so I have updated my review.- PMCH2 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 9[edit]

Tornado Cash

Created by Thriley (talk) and PabloCastellano (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 18:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is currently at 1360 characters readable prose (it needs 1500), and it has a citation needed tag. @Thriley and PabloCastellano: This must be addressed first. Hook looks interesting, but ping me when the other issues are fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 16:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie: The article has been expanded to over 1500 characters. I removed the line that was not cited as I could not find a reliable source for it. Thriley (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thriley: Symbol confirmed.svg Had to edit to put the hook fact in the article with its citation. Also did some copyediting. This is ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 20:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Thank you! Thriley (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie and Thriley: are there no BLP issues in saying on the Main Page that a company "allegedly" laundered $7 billion? I mean, especially when the Wall Street Journal writes that private journalists dispute that claim... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This paper on arxiv.org reviews ZK-Snarks protocols and applications, including Tornado Cash. Do you think it is a valid reference? --PabloCastellano (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. ArXiv is a preprint server that performs only loose checks for whether its papers are on-topic, not a full peer review. As such, publications that exist only on arXiv are not generally considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to the official whitepaper is not available anymore but I have added the version cached in archive.org now. --PabloCastellano (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 13[edit]

Lucy de László

Lucy de László by Philip de László
Lucy de László by Philip de László

Created by Willthacheerleader18 (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 11:00, 14 August 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 - ?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Red XN - pending
Overall: Symbol question.svg Article is looking good, but there are some minor issues. Will go into detail below. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Willthacheerleader18: Issues I have:

  • This part "Guinness was granted permission to marry him, and the two wed in 1900. Her husband, who was raised Jewish and converted to Catholicism, converted to Anglicanism in order to marry her" still needs to have an inline reference.
  • We need a (pictured) in the hook following her name.
  • The hook is not very interesting as written, and more importantly not really about her, but her husband. It's nice that he painted her, but what do we learn about Lucy de László? Barely anything. I'd suggest rephrasing that so it puts more emphasis on her life. Like that they met while studying (so we learn that she studied and wasn't just married off), was of nobility while he wasn't, or that he did not only paint her, but also the Austrian emperor and the pope before being allowed to marry her? I'll think about how to write that, but maybe you can also come up with something.
  • I've also found this book which goes into some detail on their later life, when she apparently had some international correspondence, their family was questioned, and also she lost her nationality on marriage (?). You can probably decide better what would fit into the article, but I think there's some interesting things in there. From what I could find the publisher seems reliable. (On the husband alone, the Guardian also reports here.)

I agree on the picture btw, it looks splendid. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I just realized this was nominated by @Victuallers, not the author, so pinging again.) --LordPeterII (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Peter, that hook is what interested me about her as without this fact/picture she is mostly "daughter of" and "wife of". Maybe your new source reveals more. There are models who have their own articles and I'm intrigued that she they took any notice of being told not to marry - I don't think thats just about him. Is there any point in putting (pictured) after a hook that says this picture? I'm off on holiday so please assume this nomination is withdrawn unless someone else wants to offer a hook and QPQ. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victuallers: Indeed, wife and daughter alone are not what we should focus on. I missed the this painting part. Let me try to come up with a slightly different hook then:
  • ALT1 ... that Lucy de László was painted (painting shown) by her husband whom she met while studying, who wasn't allowed to marry her until after he had painted the Austrian emperor and the pope?
It's worded a bit cheeky, as of course painting these exact people wasn't the requirement, but he nevertheless was only permitted afterwards since it meant he was famous/respected.
As for withdrawing, I'd be saddened (although I understand and wish you nice holidays). Maybe @Willthacheerleader18 you are interested in pitching in as the author? --LordPeterII (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Victuallers, the hook you proposed would have run afoul of WP:DYKSG#C9,No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. The (pictured) (or equivalent) for the image slot is an exception., so some rewording was inevitable. Might I suggest ALT1a as addressing some other issues, though a QPQ does have to be provided by someone:
  • ALT1a ... that Lucy de László was painted (portrait shown) by her husband, whom she met while studying, but they were not allowed to marry until after he had painted the Austrian emperor and the pope?
However, if the hook is to run as is, a source will have to be found that places the portrait of Pope Leo XIII before the wedding occurred—all we have is the date, 1900, for both. If that can't be found, "and the pope" will have to be deleted. Indeed, the year of their marriage is unsourced at present, and would need to be so for the hook to run at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Good catch, I was under the impression there was a connection based on the prose currently in the article. However, you are right, this was only inferred by me and is not in the sources. Indeed, I have found this, which gives several details needed, also correcting the children to five (btw, their number in the husband's article is currently sourced to a picture?!). I don't have time for this right now, but may return later for some adjustments. And yeah we need a different hook, because the permission to marry apparently dates to 1898. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: They had six children, but one died in infancy. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Willthacheerleader18: Ah I see. Do you have a source where this is explained? Since you have written the article, you might know where to find it; I couldn't. Also, again the question: Would you be interested in getting this to DYK? Because the article would need a few fixes for that (for example, a citation for the wedding and children). --LordPeterII (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Willthacheerleader18: Hmm, I find it rather annoying when I ping people, and there's no reply although they are around and editing Wikipedia (although maybe you missed the last ping?). I realize that you didn't nominate this, but since you replied previously here, please just say if you are not interested in this DYK nom. As for Victuallers, you are also still not interested in keeping this nom? I rather like it, but I don't want to take over responsibility for yet another article I was actually going to only review. So, I'm going to close this if needed. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: I apologize, I did miss the last ping! I will look back at my sources and see if I can find it there. I am interested in keeping this nomination. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Willthacheerleader18: Nice! Let me know when you are done, but no pressure. I just didn't want for this to become stale and fail silently. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have lost interest after returning from hols. I was about to withdraw it but spotted that Will would like to continue. I have noted this to help (QPQ enclosed) Victuallers (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victuallers: Thank you! Yeah all good, you're free to roam elsewhere now ^^ –LordPickleII (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Willthacheerleader18: Hey, checking in – have you found time yet? A QPQ was provided, but the uncited part remains. As do the issues with the hook, for which I'd be grateful for suggestions. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LordPeterII: Hey! Here is the link about their children: "Together they had six children, five sons, Henry, Stephen, Paul, Patrick and John, and a daughter, Eva, the second child, who died in infancy." [5]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: And here is one for the conversion to Anglicanism: "At first the couple resided in the large turreted gothic studio house de László had commissioned in Pest in 1897. Three years later they removed to Vienna where de László converted to Anglicanism in the Legation Chapel. He had promised Mrs Guinness to bring up his children as Anglicans and Englishmen and in 1907 the de Lászlós decided to put down roots in London." [6] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 14[edit]

Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries

Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries
Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries
  • ... that The New York Times claimed that if Johnson beat Jeffries, African Americans would "misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbors"? Source: Magazine, Smithsonian (2010-05-31). "A Year of Hope for Joplin and Johnson". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 02:38, 14 August 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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg A very interesting article, congratulations. I found no substantive issues myself and the hook seemed interesting to me. As I value additional primary sourcing for direct quotations, I would suggest adding a direct cite to the NYT ([7]). One possible concern is that the NYT article is a tiny bit more nuanced than the direct quote suggests, maybe the direct quotation in the article itself could be expanded? If you disagree, I will still consider approving this is as it is.

However, Earwig picks up a likely copyvio from able2know.org/topic/196794-1. Could you address the similar phrasing?

PS: This is my first review, If I made a mistake, please give me a hint! WatkynBassett (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi WatkynBassett, thank you for your review. The text on the able2know blog was taken from Wikipedia in 2012, specifically this version of the Jack Johnson article. I brought text from the current version of that same article with this edit, and in my edit comment provided attribution as required by the WP:CWW guideline. Thanks for finding the direct cite, which is definitely better than just having the Smithsonian version – I have added it the whole piece as an image (it is out of copyright), as it provides excellent context. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Onceinawhile - Many thanks for addressing my points so quickly! I somehow missed that the able2know-part was a backwards copy, thanks for clarifying this in detail. Using the whole NYT-piece as a picture is a nice idea and well executed. In my opinion, this is good to go - I updated the DYK checklist above in this spirit. WatkynBassett (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Quick question: Did I miss something technical or is there another reason, why the hook is not being promoted? Sorry for the newbie-question by a first-time reviewer ...

@WatkynBassett and Onceinawhile: Symbol question.svg hi there! I had promoted this, but reverted after checking the length of the hook. At 203 characters, it weighs in (heh) a little too long. Might I suggest the shorter: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ALT1: ... that "Big Jim" lost his fight (pictured) to prove that "a white man is better than a Negro"?

Hi @Theleekycauldron: thank you for looking at this further. I had always understood there was some (minor) flexibility in the 200 rule ("…no more than about 200 characters…")

I do like the concision of your alternate, but I think it loses the deep significance of the event. Sounds more like it is an overconfident racist in a bar-fight. Actually it was the first time in history that a black person defeated the person considered (by white America) top of their field in any professional sport. I don’t have a written source stating that so directly, but the National Museum of African American History and Culture has a whole room dedicated to it which places it in that context. The NYT comment is the most impactful way of communicating its import that I could find. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Theleekycauldron: Thanks for chiming in and the nice pun! I saw it like Onceinawhile that some minor flexibility in hook length is possible. If this is not the case, I would prefer using the original hook with their first names ("Jack beat James") to shorten the hook. The admirable short ALT1-hook in my mind carries the risk of being misunderstood: One could misread it in a way that James lost his fight on purpose to further his opponent's cause. WatkynBassett (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've raised a query at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Inconsistent_rules_on_hook_length about an inconsistency in the rules, but in the mean time to formally propose the suggested change and hopefully move this nomination forward: CSJJ104 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that The New York Times claimed that if Jack beat James, African Americans would "misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbors"?
A possibility might also to use NYT, if such abbreviations are allowed. –LordPeterII (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 15[edit]

Jane F. Desforges

Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hi 97198, review follows: article created 15 August; I make it just over minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't pick up any issues with overly close paraphrasing; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited; a QPQ has been provided. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg @Dumelow, 97198, Narutolovehinata5, Maile66, RoySmith, and TSventon: per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_3:_Jane_F._Desforges I'm reopening this nomination as this article currently has insufficient information about her career, which means it does not meet WP:DYKSG#D7: "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected".  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the WT:DYK discussion, I'm suggesting a few new ALTs. Note that the article needs to have the information added as it's currently not there:
ALT1 ... that Jane F. Desforges was the first woman to receive the American College of Physicians's Distinguished Teacher Award?
ALT2 ... that in 2007, the American College of Physicians renamed their Distinguished Teacher Award after Jane F. Desforges, the first woman to receive it?
I have a slight preference for ALT1 as it mentions her name earlier, but I'll leave it to the reviewer to decide. I've also struck ALT0 due to issues raised during the WT:DYK discussion. Pinging Dumelow for their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi 97198, are you able to expand this further? - Dumelow (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, the nom hasn't been very active lately. Her last edit was on the 15th but she's only had two edits this month, with her most recent continuous activity being in August. I hope she comes back soon and addresses the concerns raised, but unless she comes back or another editor steps forward and addresses the concerns, there may not be a path forward for this nomination anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I haven't been very active lately. I disagree that this article is incomplete but clearly I'm in the minority so feel free to reject. 97198 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 19[edit]

List of Philippine submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film

John Arcilla
John Arcilla

5x expanded by Pseud 14 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • The original hook was over 200 characters so it can't be used. The second hook is under 200 characters and so can probably be considered. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg @Pseud 14: This list is in much better shape than it was, but it's not a 5x expansion in readable prose size. Table contents are not counted in RPS, so it's harder to 5x a list at DYK. I see it is also at FLC and encourage you to follow through with that. This is more about the way DYK rules are crafted. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 04:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would counter that with recent similar expansions in RPS of list articles, notwithstanding tables, that I've nominated and that appeared at DYK. (i.e. Judy Ann Santos filmography, List of awards and nominations received by Judy Ann Santos) Similarly, examples of other lists that have appeared at DYK which were expansions and which I've used as guidance (i.e. Brad Pitt filmography, Rod Steiger on screen and stage) --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Pseud 14, the article prior to expansion was 1299 prose characters, requiring an expansion to 6495 prose characters to meet the 5x requirement, which traditionally has no flex to it. The article is currently 3017 prose characters, less than half the required length post-expansion. Unless you can more than double the amount of prose currently in the article, this simply cannot pass at DYK. Note that the two Judy Ann Santos articles had minuscule amounts of text—126 and 293 prose characters respectively—so a 5x expansion was less than the minimum 1500 prose characters required for every DYK nomination, and the pre-expansion Steiger and Pitt articles had even fewer prose characters each than either Santos. In this case, the article started out with much more prose, and thus needed a much greater expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Fair enough, should be fine. I don’t think there’s much more expansion that needs to be done in it’s current state. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 21[edit]

Hmong bobtail dog

Hmong bobtail dog
Hmong bobtail dog

Created by Annwfwn (talk). Self-nominated at 21:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article new enough and barely long enough. Nominated within the Dyk window. The temperament subsection is a full copyright violation and need to be overhauled or removed before the nomination can continue. Also the hook is nebulous, given that "normal tail length" is not quantifiable, per the article and sources, normal for the breed is pretty much anything.--Kevmin § 18:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Annwfwn since they may have missed the review. –LordPeterII (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since September 7th. I've left them a talk page message just now but if they don't return soon the nomination will probably have to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bắc Hà dog

Created by Annwfwn (talk). Self-nominated at 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Green tickY
  • Neutral: Green tickY
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Red XN - There are some issues here. An Earwig check pulls up some sentences that are worryingly close to text on this source, so please rewrite the sentences. The paragraph starting "Intelligent, independent and brave" is particularly concerning in how minimally it differs from text on the source website, and should be rephrased/rewritten significantly before this DYK can be passed.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I think a couple of addtional links are needed for Hmong and dhole, because these are not everyday terms.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Please resolve the close paraphrasing issue, and this should be OK. Very interesting hook. Perhaps an additional explanatory note for dhole such as "mountain wolf" or even "fire wolf" would make the hook even more attention grabbing. The source given for supporting the cite is in Vietnamese, and Translate doesn't show "dhole" but it does seem to interpret the word as "fire wolf" which is pretty catchy. I did notice that the dhole statement is also supported by other English language sources, such as the one with the paraphrasing issue, so it's all good. A dog pic would definitely draw eyes to DYK so I'd encourage you to suggest one of the images in the article for DYK. Mabalu (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mabalu: Thanks for your suggestions, I rewrote the hook. Sói lửa does literally translate as "fire wolf," and its the term I'm most familiar with for Cuon alpinus, the Asian dhole. Here's a link to the Vietnamese Wikipedia on Dholes. I dug out my Vietnamese dictionary just to triple check but it gave me "chó rừng" which means "wild dog" nonspecifically or jackal, as in the African jackals. (Incidentally, chó rừng translates literally as "forest dog.")

I'll correct the paraphrasing! Two members of the Native Vietnamese Breed Preservation Society helped me to write this and now I know why they liked it so much. Annwfwn (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Annwfwn: I like the rewritten hook even more! Unfortunately, there are still issues with paraphrasing. The problem sentences are: "In their territory, they are alert without signs of shyness nor fear. The breed has strong instincts to protect the owner's property." and are duplicated on the source link. Please could you rephrase? Also, if we are putting fire wolves in the hook, then we should add a note to the article about fire wolves. All text in a hook should be echoed by the article. I suggest this small edited version and am also proposing a couple of pics for the hook.
Bắc Hà dog
Bắc Hà dog
Bắc Hà dog
Bắc Hà dog
Bắc Hà puppy
Bắc Hà puppy

I do note that the grown dog pictures may have some questions about clearance in their source country though. The puppy pic is fully cleared. Mabalu (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited in several weeks. The nomination is thus now marked for closure as abandoned unless another editor decides to adopt this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 23[edit]

Golconda diamonds

Hope Diamond is one of Golconda diamonds.
Hope Diamond is one of Golconda diamonds.


  • ALT1: ... that the 16th and 17th centuries were the peak period of the Golconda diamond industry, with 23 mines in the region—it produced diamonds for 2000 years until the 17th Century? Source: multiple references cited in the article.
    • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Omer123hussain (talk). Self-nominated at 10:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment only: This article might benefit from some more copyediting. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII thanks for your c/e, and furthermore while FA reviews a lot of c/e sessions will have. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talkcontribs) 07:33, 24 August 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

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Nomination would pass if the picture is removed. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... or if it was added to the article :) I have done just that, @CSJJ104. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: The picture is now in the article, but the caption used in the article contains information about the relationship between the Hope Diamond and the French Blue which is uncited within the article. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I have added some sources and a word that hopefully signifies we are only 99.9% sure that they are related. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg All issues addressed. Happy to pass nomination. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but what in the world is meant byAlthough the Golconda mines have been depleted since 1830, they hold value as antique gemstones? Mines are not gemstones. And how can it possibly be thatSeveral literary legends were inspired by the Golconda diamonds and mines. These include such examples as the gem lore of the Priestly breastplate from the Old Testament -- you're saying the O.T. somehow references a mine in India? And later we haveFurther the author describes that it was first cited in the 4th-century treatise of St Epiphanius (of Cyprus), as Gem lore, the Breastplate of the high priest of the Temple from Old Testament, and it was finally derived from Herodotus—430 BC -- the meaning of which utterly escapes me. What the hell is going on here? EEng 19:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, seeing these sentences singled out I am wondering... @Nolabob and Omer123hussain: I think the GA review was not thorough enough on criterium 1a especially, even though the article does look good in other regards. Pinging also @CSJJ104 as the DYK nom reviewer. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adding to EENg's point, which was what prompted me to pull yesterday rather than tweak the hook myself; there is content in the lead about some exceptional diamonds (Florentine Yellow, Akbar Shah, etc) that isn't cited, and isn't in the body. This is a fairly basic verifiability issue, and lacking citations, it should have been caught at GAR; it didn't need a spotcheck. I don't want to dump too much on the nominator before they've had a chance to respond, but we should note this isn't a problem just for DYK. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand there are some grammatical mistakes, as a non-native speaker we could not make deep corrections, but you may find the rest of the article is very well cited, neutral, with images applied and covered the topic. In fact, after your all support to copyedit it now look more meaningful. Hope it may reach DYK. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Omer123hussain: I appreciate the difficulties a non-native speaker of English may face. There are many places where you can find support with things that you find difficult, such as GOCE, who can help you with copy-editing, or the WP:TEAHOUSE, where new editors can ask for assistance. However, you need to be able to understand and respond when people point out issues with your work, like I did above. I listed a specific instance of content that fails WP:V, and EEng pointed to a sentence that is just incorrect. You haven't fixed any of that. How do you expect the article to be featured at DYK without fixing those issues? Vanamonde (Talk) 08:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: thanks for your advise and reply, this weekend I was traveling, so could not check WP inbox, anyway I will make all corrections recommended by you and update you here. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dear reviewers, I had fixed and responded to all the suggestions, and made some c/e, due to WL of Diamond names that are not much discussed in articles I had escaped citing-anyway now it is fixed by citing. Hope we can proceed with DYK now. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Omer123hussain:, thanks, the citation issue has been addressed. However, there are still issues with the prose. I'm not demanding that you handle it yourself, given that English isn't your first language, but if you cannot, you need to ask for help from people you can. I already suggested GOCE as one venue; another might be WT:INB, where a more experienced editor may be willing to rewrite the prose. I am not personally willing to promote this as it stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd also like to ping @Nolabob again. Not because I want to accuse you of negligence, but because I want to point out that these issues were present in the article you reviewed and likely escaped your attention. It almost got promoted here as well, because at a glance the article looked fine, when in detail, there were clear errors present. In the future, you might need to be more thorough with the prose itself when doing GA reviews. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On an unrelated note, the image is a computer-generated simulation of a reconstructed earlier form of what was later cut into the Hope diamond, not a photo and not of the diamond as it appears now. We should not combine it with a caption that suggests it to be an actual image of the Hope diamond. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @David Eppstein: Indeed, I raised this question back when the nom was still in prep. The information in the article is correct (after I researched a bit on the image), but that it was presented incorrectly in the caption here earlier is another of those several mistakes that have been found. I suggestComputer reconstruction of the French Blue, previous form of the Hope diamond or something similar. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 24[edit]

Matthias Hanke

Matthias Hanke in 2018
Matthias Hanke in 2018
  • ... that Matthias Hanke (pictured), responsible for the Protestant church music in Württemberg, held concerts and events in an "empty" church at St. Martin in Sindelfingen? Source: several
    • Reviewed: to come
    • Comment: this was moved from draft after a long slumber

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 15:39, 31 August 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 possible vote.svg The article doesn't explicitly say he held concerts and events in "an empty church" at St. Martin in Sindelfingen I know it saysHe founded the Sindelfinger Bachtage festival and a project "Raum geben - die leere Martinskirche" (Give space - the empty church St. Martin), with interdisciplinary concert and service formats but I think this should be reworded to make it clearer. Other than that, after a QPQ is done, this nomination is good to go. Steelkamp (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the review, Steelkamp! I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Assumption of the Virgin (Palma Vecchio). - Can you help with the phrasing? English is not my first language. I tried to indicate by the quotation marks that it is not a truly empty church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. I didn't realise the church wasn't actually empty. I've moved the quotation marks in the hook as I think that makes it a bit clearer. I take it that the empty church is just a name? I've tried attempting to read the German Wikipedia article and the source but I think something is being lost in translation, so I would like a second opinion. Steelkamp (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry for not being clearer. They took out the seats/benches and such stuff, but there were performers with their equipment, and audience, so not empty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Steelkamp: Does this help move the nomination along? Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't feel comfortable completing this review and would like a second opinion. Steelkamp (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 26[edit]

Panza Kick Boxing

5x expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Seems to have been 5x expanded at time of nomination, the article reads fine though could use some light copyediting. This might seem daft, but the hook fact is not explicitly stated in the article (merely that Panza "endorsed" and "advised", not that it was "named after" him), nor is it actually found in the source (probably because it's obvious). Much of the "meat" of the article is derived from the reception/legacy, though this is probably to be expected of a video game piece. Also awaiting QPQ. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 28[edit]

Venu Chitale

Venu Chitale
Venu Chitale
  • ... that during the Second World War, BBC Radio broadcaster Venu Chitale (pictured) taught British listeners vegetarian cooking at a time when meat was rationed? Source: "In one broadcast...Chitale shared with her British listeners some Indian vegetarian recipes – including one for mashed potatoes and beans – to help them tide over wartime austerities." [8]
  • ALT1 ... that BBC radio broadcaster Venu Chitale (pictured) taught listeners how to cook without meat when it was rationed during the Second World War? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Reviewed: Chicago Radio
    • Comment: Still working on the article, but can review

5x expanded by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 07:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg Interesting life, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. Both hooks say the same, I prefer ALT1. Can we include "from India" in case the image is not taken. But better to take the licensed image closely related to the hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg @Philafrenzy, Whispyhistory, Gerda Arendt, and Theleekycauldron: I've reopened this as I have a query about the image - the licence template at File:Venu Chitale at the BBC.jpg says that the image must meet one of these conditions:
  • A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952); or
  • A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952); or
  • An artistic work other than a photograph (e.g. a painting), or a literary work, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952).

Which of these three have you deemed it to meet? And how sure are we that (a) its author is unknown, and (b) it was made public more than 70 years ago or that it was never made public? The template also says "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was", which doesn't seem to be present at the moment. It's a lovely image, so would like to be able to use it in the hook, but we need to make sure it's properly licensed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amakuru:... I don't know how to do this. The image is no where to be found in any book or other publication until the recent appearance in the BBC one. There is no author linked to it and it was certainly taken before 1947, when she left England.The BBC archives do not include this image... if still a problem, then leave it out. It would appear to come under A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952 unless any one else knows otherwise, in which case leave it out. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps we could use this one from 1944 (with the watermark removed) which must have been taken by an anonymous BBC photographer. It would appear to qualify under either the first or second points. I don't think we are required to take heroic measures to identify the photographer, and I doubt the BBC would know now. Even if we identified the photographer, the copyrght, now lapsed, would have belonged to the BBC, not the photographer, and they in fact claim that it did or does on the page. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have swopped the image for the one mentioned in my post above for which we are sure of the source. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt and Amakuru: Are you happy with the new image which as a publicity image must have been published in 1944 or thereabouts and certainly before 1952? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am happy with it, but would prefer to have it in addition, not replacing the other, because the discussion above makes little sense without seeing about what and linking to its description. That's for next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yazathingyan (15th-century minister))

Created by Hybernator (talk). Self-nominated at 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Article is long enough and new enough.
  • No issues with WP:BLP or WP:NPOV
  • Earwig finds no issues, but Earwig probably doesn't access to any of the sources. I'm going to AGF on this one.
  • No issues with the referencing.
  • QPQ is done.
  • ALT0 is acceptable, but I think we can do better with something shorter. Maybe:
  • This is Symbol question.svg OK with the original hook, but some work to find a better hook could result in an improvement. As mentioned above, if we could find a hook which showed off the very nice image, that would be great. Overall, a really nice job, and make an excellent GA nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is borderline maybe, because it plays around with Minye Kyawswa (crown prince, died 1415) and Minye Kyawswa I of Ava (king, died 1442). But I find it to be rather hooky, and it could use the pic. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I shortened ALT1 a bit by leaving out "of Ava", because it was almost 200 chars, and I don't think it's needed.) –LordPeterII (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks RoySmith, LordPeterII; sorry, couldn't reply sooner; the week just got away from me. I think ALT1 is definitely more hooky but might be a bit too long. But I can't think of a better way to make it shorter, so I'm fine with it. As a second choice, I'm ok with ALT0a. Cheers. Hybernator (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on August 30[edit]

Annie Dove Denmark

Annie Dove Denmark
Annie Dove Denmark

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 18:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • A very well-done article, PCN02WPS! Hook is of appropriate length, well-sourced, neutral and interesting. The article itself appears to be thoroughly sourced and neutral, and to meet DYK-relevant policies including avoidance of plagiarism. Just need a QPQ. Symbol question.svg ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg @PCN02WPS, Ezlev, and Kavyansh.Singh: I'm reopening this nom, as the hook fact appears to be inaccurate. From [9] and [10] it seems that a Euphemia McClintock became president of the Presbyterian College for women in 1902, being described at the time as the "pioneer lady college president in South Carolina". I'm always wary about "firsts" of this nature, because you're sort of relying on the source that says that to have done a full and thorough search for alternatives. I'd suggest removing that fact from the article and thinking of a new hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is quite disappointing but thanks Amakuru for pointing this out. I have removed the mention of that fact in the lead but kept it in the body (pointing out that it is commonly cited but wrong and naming McClintock), as I think it's important to at least acknowledge that it is a well-known fact about her (even if the fact is incorrect) as it is mentioned in basically every source I was able to find about her. I will add a new couple of alts shortly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ezlev, I have added alts if you'd like to review these; there also might be a picture swap relatively soon (pending a response from AU's library staff) as the current image is a derivative work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALTs look good, PCN02WPS. I find ALT1a and ALT2 most interesting. Because of the photo issue, I'll wait to approve, since I think it'd be cool if this ran with a portrait – ping me when that gets resolved one way or the other? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do, thank you! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 3[edit]

Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love

5x expanded by BoyNamedTzu (talk) and Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Nominated by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) at 17:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Article appears to meet requirements and no close paraphrasing was found. A QPQ has been done. I do not have access to the source for the original hook so AGF on that. However, I do wonder if this "it's the only Book of Mormon story with sex" thing is widely considered as fact among the LDS community, because if not then it may be better to add attribution to the hook. As for ALT1, it may need revising since it implies that the writer's contempt charge was directly caused by the film, whereas the actual article leaves this part ambiguous (it's not clear if why he told the judge to "shut up" was directly because of the film or for something unrelated). I'm not really a fan of ALT2 as the first two hooks seem more interesting to a non-LDS audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Narutolovehinata5. I know the BYU Studies website has been down, but if you wait long enough, hopefully the source for the original hook should load. It's difficult to prove a negative, but as someone who has read the Book of Mormon multiple times and is a practicing member, the claim rings true for me. The source for the information was published in BYU Studies (BYU is a university sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) so I don't think they're trying to pull a fast one on anyone. We could redact it to read "one of the only stories in the Book of Mormon with any sex in it" if you're nervous about such a definitive statement, but I don't think the qualification is necessary. I don't think that ALT2 is all that misleading, but you're correct that the article is ambiguous about why he was in court. I added a sentence to clarify that the instance where Bean was in court and told the judge to shut up was part of the many lawsuits following the movie's release (presumably about its financing). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's an LDS Living article that mentions "Sexuality and chastity are sensitive subjects, and the Book of Mormon gives very few hints about how Book of Mormon peoples understood them. You might recall Jacob’s sermon about how “many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds” due to whoredoms and wickedness (Jacob 2:35), or Alma’s talk with his son Corianton about forsaking a mission to pursue "the harlot Isabel" (Alma 39:3), or the terrible violence described in Moroni 9:9." This is a list of all the places in the Book of Mormon where sex is alluded to. The other mentions in Jacob 2:35 and in Moroni 9:9 discuss sex from a detached and more general standpoint, and aren't really a story where a person in the book has an illicit relationship like in Corianton. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such an extraordinary statement would need very strong sourcing and even your LDS Living source doesn't seem to explicitly state "this is the only story about sex in the Book of Mormon". Either the original hook will need to be revised, or we'll have to go with ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about "... that the early Mormon film, Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love was based on one of the few Book of Mormon stories with sex in it?" Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are to go with that, the article will need to be revised. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, I changed the article text. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg To be honest, I think I'll need to ask for a second opinion on ALT0. The article and the hook now say "one of the only", but the source says "virtually the only", and the two phrases don't exactly mean the same. ALT1 is already acceptable, but given that I'm not sure if ALT0/the article matches the source enough and vice-versa, I'd like to ask for help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antimonumento +43

Antimonumento +43
Antimonumento +43

Created by Tbhotch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Looks like a good article, but there are several things that need to be addressed:

  • Earwig's finds a possible copyright violation, and it's because of the original Spanish quote, which is currently as a note in the article. Do we need it, or can we just assume good faith in your translation skills? I've honestly not much experience with such issues, and would ask a senior editor if you want to keep the Spanish text.
  • Because of that, the sculpture became the first of its kind in Mexico – isn't the "because of that" superflous here? I find the sentence to read a little weird.
  • After the subsequent installation of other unnamed anti-monuments, the Antimonumento +43 began to be called like that because of its physical characteristics, although it is also known by other names – again, not really clear: If all were unnamed, how did the others cause it to be named, and "because of its physical characteristics"? And what are the other names it is known by?
  • Demonstrators added the slogan of those seeking justice for the case – where to? Is it that text visible at the bottom of the picture (my limited Spanish skills and intuition suggest that)?
  • and subsequently installed a complement, a concrete turtle – again, where? Is the turtle nearby?
  • where they held an intercity bus driver – what does "held" mean here? Held at gunpoint?
  • were holding an event that would be affected by the students – does this imply "negatively affected"? Like, the students' protests were 'annoying' the mayor? It's not clear as written.
  • They handed out flyers titled "+43, an anti-monument for memory and justice". – the paragraph ending with this is not cited (or, if it is in the same ref as the quote, that's currently not clear).

There might be other minor things that I haven't noticed yet. None of these are terrible, but without adjustments and clarity on the copyright concerns this can't run. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LordPeterII: I don't know how you have concluded that the addition of a long copyrighted quote qualifies as a WP:Copyright infringement issue. For the rest of the review, I'll fix it no later than the next Thursday. (CC) Tbhotch 15:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: All changes done. The usage of the Spanish quotation is covered by MOS:QUOTEFOREIGN. I removed it for the DYK purposes, though. (CC) Tbhotch 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 4[edit]

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed

5x expanded by Ashwin147 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • This is more of a comment than a review, but I think the hook is a bit complicated. It tries to combine three hook facts into one (him being the second Muslim president, the second to die in office, and having the same architect for the tomb). If I were you, I'd try splitting the hook into separate ones:
ALT1 ... that Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was India's second Muslim president?
ALT2 ... that Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was the second Indian president to die in office?
ALT3 ... that Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, India's second Muslim president, was also the second Indian president to die in office?
Owing to my discomfort in reviewing nominations that may have anything to do with nationalism and religion in India I will leave the review to another reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Narutolovehinata5:. I did consider ALT 3 originally but the fact about the same guy who built their tombs is something I learnt while researching the article and I thought it added an interesting third layer to the coincidences. ALTs 1 & 2 are a little less hooky, I think. This topic isn't really about nationalism or religion really. Why not review it? :) Ashwin147 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
India-related topics on DYK have been controversial in the past, especially those that somehow involve Hinduism or Islam. From experience it's something I don't think I'm equipped to review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Just being of some particular religion, I do not see any controversy over religion behind Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed at least from WP article. Certainly his time of presidency coincided one of very volatile period for Indian Democracy, See The Emergency (India). Indian Presidents role usually is largely ceremonial,still some analyst wish to find weakness of in the President at important juncture. But without getting in detail controversy you can have option of mentioning, DYK that Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was president of India during The Emergency (India).
By now India seems to have had reasonable number of Muslim presidents and vice presidents. Rather than focusing on Muslimness (though nothing wrong about it and also no objection about DYK mentioning Muslimness either) one can also give thought to contribution like his association with Polo or he was a Finance minister at state level previously can also be presented as DYK options.
I will prefer to change First DYK some thing like " ... that tomb of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the second president of India was designed by the architect Habib Rahman?" along with image of the tomb which seems simple and serene.
Being second to die in office, and the tombs for both were designed by same architect seem minor details for a global audience hence shorter sentence with image might make more interesting DYK. IMHO.
Cheers Bookku (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My issue is that the architect's may be unfamiliar to global audiences and so unless the hook somehow managed to be a double hook where Rahman's article was also improved to DYK standards I don't see it being a good option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 6[edit]

Kazim al-Samawi

Kazim al-Samawi, 1970s
Kazim al-Samawi, 1970s
  • ... that Iraqi poet Kazim al-Samawi (pictured) as a political refugee spent more than half of his life in exile insofar he has been known by title of "The Elder of the Iraqi exiles"? Source:Abd al-Amir, Talib (25 November 2020). "في ذكرى شيخ المنافي كاظم السماوي". almadasupplements. Archived from the original on 6 September 2022.
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Not a new story of 20th century Iraqi notables (and not notables), who lived in exile/or emigrated, forced or voluntary, but seems al-Samawi was fabled for his exile life, and a post-2003 Iraqi independent and progressive newspaper, Al Mada, much publicized this sobriquet. There could be some other hooks, like: His son assassination in Beijing, Nasir; The death of almost all his family members, often in quick succession, one by one, from the parents to his two son, one daughter, and wife; His being a denaturalized citizen... Feel free to mix this hooks or just focus on his exile.

Created by Ruwaym (talk). Self-nominated at 18:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Club Penguin Rewritten

  • ... that Soccer Mommy hosted a virtual concert through Club Penguin Rewritten? Source: The Verge

    "This spring, popular artist Soccer Mommy played a live music set in Club Penguin Rewritten as part of a larger wave of in-game concerts during the pandemic." NME

    • ALT1: ... that players of Club Penguin Rewritten used the game as a way of escapism from the COVID-19 pandemic? Source: New York

      "The site and others like it experienced a boost in popularity in the early weeks of the pandemic, as teens and young adults who grew up with the game used it to convene from quarantine."

    • Reviewed: QPQ exempt (0 credits)
    • Comment: I might not respond as often in the following months.

Moved to mainspace by Zxcvbnm (talk). Nominated by Sparkl (talk) at 12:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Normally, I'd say it should be merged, if it was a flash-in-the-pan thing. But, I think it got enough coverage as a social phenomenon to be its own entity, in addition to the controversy over its shutdown, despite not having a massive difference with the original. It's notable as a clone that got as many users as a real AAA MMO. If people disagree though, I will be fine to admit I am wrong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do think that if the article goes to DYK, it should be focused on its unauthorized nature and high amount of users. Like "by the time the unofficial Club Penguin Rewritten was shut down due to copyright infringement, it had more than 10 million users", or something of that nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll join the chorus and say that this does deserve its own article as an unlicensed clone that has (er, had) taken a life of its own, just like the many Mario and Sonic ROM hacks out there. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 7[edit]

Tova Friedman

Moved to mainspace by MSacerdoti (talk), Thriley (talk), and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 02:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Source 1 says "her birth on Sept. 10, 1938", while your article says September 7. Did 09/07 come from another source? Source 1 also does not mention Gdynia or Danzig. I'm not the world's biggest expert on the subject, but is it appropriate as your writing does to call Gdynia a suburb of Danzig, which was then another country? I don't think for example Mexican settlements by the US border would be called suburbs of San Diego or San Antonio. I don't also see verification from source 1 that her ghetto was of 15,000 Jews in six buildings - the closest being that it had 5,000 Jewish children and five survivors. Nor do I see verification in the source about being transferred to Starachowice, we see that they "went to work in a factory; they were slaves", but it doesn't say it was ammunition. Third paragraph is unsourced. The hook itself is interesting, that's why I picked it, it's factual and it comes from a reliable news source. Moving onto source 2, I see that this backs up the issues I raised above, but it's not cited inline, and the wording looks very, very similar to what you've written. Earwig copyvio detector comes up with 39% similarity with the Auschwitz source: the similarity in the list of her qualifications has to happen, but there are other sentences that could very easily be rewritten [11]. Also, I see nothing in citation 2 to back up that they moved to the US in 1950 due to antisemtism; the source seems to jump from the Soviet liberation of Auschwitz to 1950 and gives no reason for their migration. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the Calvin source is just wrong, since I can find multiple other sources, including the former ref 2 in the article by Friedman herself that says September 7th. I've extended the ref to cover that, along with all other instances on referencing being needed.
  • Not sure what is good for Danzig either or what the manual of style says for time period issues like that.
  • I have corrected 15,000 to 5,000.
  • Starachowice is in the other reference, which is covering that now.
  • I've rewritten and generally copy-edited the whole article. Hopefully that fixes those issues? Not sure how to fix the info about her education, since there's no real way to not have that written verbatim.
  • Removed that last bit.
Hopefully that addresses everything. SilverserenC 02:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you still around, @Unknown Temptation:? Could we maybe get a second reviewer in here? SilverserenC 20:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 1957

Improved to Good Article status by Sims2aholic8 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but I was wondering if both hooks could be tightened up. I think the hook facts themselves are interesting to a broad audience, but the hooks' punches are diluted due to the length. Making the hooks shorter in this case would make them more effective. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback! I've had a go at shortening the hooks to make them a bit more punchy (see ALT2 and ALT3 above). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I guess we can drop ALT0 and ALT1 then and just focus on ALT2/ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josette Simon

  • ... that a reviewer called Josette Simon the sexiest Titania of recent years? Source: Taylor, Paul (29 March 1999). "Theatre: Laugh if you believe in fairies – A Midsummer Night's Dream RSC Stratford". The Independent

Improved to Good Article status by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Interesting life, GA on plenty of sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - Sorry, I dislike the original hook enough to strike it. Here we have a woman with unique accomplishments - first black at the RSC in leading roles - and all we want to say is "sexiest", with "recent years" dating back to the last century? The other isn't much better. Please try harder to please women ;) - and please say something that can't be said about another. - In the article, I find the Monroe image a bit misleading. I think the lead should say "black" or whatever is acceptable much sooner than a hint in a bracket about "colour-blind". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I was in a bit of a Shakespeare mood recently, and so this was the first thing I noticed for a hook. I kinda already realized it wasn't too great after I nominated, and will take the criticism. A little short on time for Wiki-work atm, but will think about it and ping you when I have a better hook. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamie "Canhead" Keeton

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 16:32, 11 September 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 question.svg First hook grabs me from the start. Definitely interesting and everything looks fine. This is the first time I have personally done a QPQ so I'm questioning notability since this is a guy who is only known for being sticky - may need some additional insight before I feel good to pass this off! --Horsegeek(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Horsegeek: Thanks for the review. If you cannot pass this nomination perhaps you can place the red tick so someone else can review it. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Everything looks good and this nomination is ready for another reviewer! Horsegeek(talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.

Created by KiraLiz1 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 8[edit]

Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 14:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Sybil Milton

  • ... that historian Sybil Milton represented the United States on the Independent Commission of Experts, which examined assets moved to Switzerland during World War II, including Nazi gold? Source: "At the time of her death, Dr. Milton was vice president of the Swiss-appointed Independent Commission of Experts, which was investigating Swiss policies toward Jews and Nazis during the Holocaust.

    Last December, the commission issued a report condemning Switzerland's restrictive policies toward Jewish immigration during the war years when European Jews were seeking refuge from Nazi genocide.

    Dr. Milton, who represented the United States on the commission, studied Swiss banks and the Nazi handling of Jewish-owned assets, precious metals and works of art." The New York Times

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 06:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on few but good sources, no copvio obvious. In the hook, I believe you could as well say Bergier commission, but if piped it would be "independent commission of experts". I think that's clear from the context. I copy-edited a bit, please check edit summaries for explanations and raise questions here. I removed the tag because there's less in German. How about a bit more lead, and an infobox? Waiting for a qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American rape of Vietnamese women

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Cbl62: The so-called "existing" article was created just after my new article and its content is mostly what I originally used for creating American rape of Vietnamese women. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhhossein: Regardless, the discussion will need to be resolved first. In the meantime, this nom can stay open, just "on hold". –LordPeterII (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Nomination on hold while merge discussion continues. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 9[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 10[edit]

Don't Forget (Sky Ferreira song)

Created by VersaceSpace (talk). Self-nominated at 19:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Passing comment: It would be nice if the article included what the negative review said. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Please change the link to [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]. I also agree with the comment above that it would be nice if the article explained what the controversy was. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Whoops, surprised I made that first error tbh. I explained what the review said already, is there something else you'd like me to say? GoingBattyVersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You kindly detailed what the reviewer stated, but not why it was controversial. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The cited source doesn't explain this. It seems obvious to me that a negative opinion would be the only reason a song-review would be controversial, and the content of the review is noted there. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sundrum Castle

View of Sundrum Castle
View of Sundrum Castle

Improved to Good Article status by Kj cheetham (talk). Self-nominated at 11:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Article meets the eligibility criteria (promoted to GA within seven days). It is long enough. I can't see any policy problems with the article, and the image is properly licensed. QPQ is yet to be done. Other than that, I have a few issues with the hooks:

  • Hook 1: Minor point, but I was confused by what a "series of private residences" means. Is this referring to the fact that there are many homes, or that they were released piecemeal over time? The article and the hook should probably be reworded slightly to be more clear.
  • Hook 2: The article says according to historian A. H. Millar, "this legend rests upon no reasonable foundation". Now this might just be me, but I'm not sure that quite implies tat the assertion in the poem was "erroneous". We know that there's no real basis for the claim, but that's not the same as saying the claim is false, is it? It might be true but we just have no evidence...
  • Hook 3: I'm not seeing "and was later referred to as a curse" anywhere in the article. The Herald Scotland ref [25] is used three times, but none of those say anything in particular about curses.

@Kj cheetham: I'd suggest these three things be addressed, and then (once the QPQ is done) we can go with any of the three hooks, they're all quite interesting. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amakuru: Thank you for that, all good points. I've modified two of the hooks to address some of the issues, and added a mention of the curse to the article itself. I think you may have missed seeing the other hook about rent reduction though. Given it's only my 2nd ever DYK I believe I'm exempt from QPQ, apologies I should have included a comment about that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 11[edit]

R. H. Rodgers

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: I am not aware of a later work so it now is 300 years. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]