Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by I JethroBT (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 13 September 2013 (→‎Remove restrictions on Gibraltar articles?: closing as consensus to lift all current restrictions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Should Good Articles be allowed in DYK?

The RFC closed with a consensus to include newly passed GAs in DYK, starting from the end of September 2013. For more details, see Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC

Remove restrictions on Gibraltar articles?

RESTRICTIONS LIFTED
After 26 days of discussion, I am closing this per a request at WP:ANRFC. consensus was to lift all present restrictions on Gibraltar and Gibraltar-related DYKs. Editors generally agreed that continuing to impose the restrictions would be unhelpful at this point and advanced arguments that various concerns inre: contests and DYK disputes that existed at the time of the restrictions have not been persistent. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi everyone, I know that things are fairly calm right now, and I don't want to stir up any hard feelings, but the restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles have already been in place for almost a year. The number has almost dried up, and Gibraltarpedia is well done and over. Any worries about rescinding the restrictions on Gibraltar articles, and return to treating them as regular articles? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman recommended next month. However, if you want soon, I think we should deal with individual restrictions and vote on each individually. We can't vote on restrictions as a whole anymore. It was tried and failed. We could decide about "banning Victuallers from Gibraltar-related topics", and then deal with the rest individually. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't see any need to retain the Gibraltar-related subsections. There might be an argument for retaining the double review for a while I guess, but I wouldn't have a strong objection to dropping it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been counting but if that's the situation I guess we could drop the remaining restrictions and see how that goes. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, here it is: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options. --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Gibraltar's artificial reef/border dispute with Spain is legitimately news at the moment. Awien (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested waiting until September as that would be a year exactly since the restrictions were imposed but I wouldn't object if we were to lift them earlier. I've added some figures at User:Prioryman/Gibraltar notes covering all the Gibraltar-related DYKs that have run this year. (A couple of other DYKs coincidentally mentioned Gibraltar in the hook but weren't about it, so I've excluded these.) It's obvious that the restrictions are completely unnecessary at this point in time - the only practical effect they are having is to double the workload of reviewers and incur unnecessary delays in completing the reviews. The average time from nomination to running is 18 days, considerably more than for other DYKs. Last year the average delay was a ridiculous 69 days, before we started dual-listing them. The original reasons for imposing the restrictions have all faded away. The number of articles is low; there have been 20 Gibraltar-related DYK nominations so far this year, an average of only 2.5 per month. The Gibraltarpedia contest is long over - it ended in December 2012. There is no ongoing controversy - on 13 July we had a Gibraltar-related Today's Featured Article, which attracted the highest number of votes in favour I've ever seen in a TFA nomination and produced no controversy whatsoever when it ran. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that there's any ongoing COI or promotional issues, and Victuallers is doing other things these days. So what justification remains for the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!vote

Alright, let's structure this as a formal !vote, a pseudo-RFC if you will. One question: should restrictions on Gibraltarpedia articles and articles related to Gibraltar be lifted? (edited 10:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

Yes, lifted in whole

  1.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  — Darkness Shines (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  — Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  — Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  — IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  —  SL93 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  —  These were never needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  —  Miyagawa (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  —  Simon Burchell (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  —  Sagaciousphil (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Way past time. They serve no purpose now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Most definitely.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 02:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes time to simplify things here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I see we've been averaging about five per month, or roughly one a week, for the last four months, but so far this month we've had only one and there is only one nom remaining on the nomination page. This seems to be clear evidence that the number of Gibraltar noms has dried up, and I for one would like to see the nominations page cleaned up of all the extraneous subsections, so I think I can support this. If the situation changes, we can always reimpose restrictions if necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Long overdue. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Requiring additional reviews clogs the DYK queues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. As per Gatoclass and Hawkeye7. - Jayadevp13 06:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per Gatoclass. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Provided Victuallers confirms that the contracts and obligations to the Gibraltar Government are completed. TheOverflow (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. End the sillyness Agathoclea (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Certainly. theonesean 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Such restrictions never made sense in the first place. --cyclopiaspeak! 20:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Should have been lifted a while ago. SilverserenC 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yep, does nothing useful and was hype in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Definitely. Not needed when it began, and nothing's arisen since then to warrant it. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Piling on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lifted in part (explain what should be lifted)

  1. To be fair to people who just happen to write a good new article about the region, sure, let it just be a normal DYK vote. However, articles should be given extra scrutiny if they are written or substantially improved by Prioryman or anyone connected to last year's WMUK outreach program(me), and/or anyone connected with "Victuallers" in any way, shape or form. This is still an embarrassment to the spirit of WP and the WMF chapters' outreach efforts. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when was Gibraltarpedia a WMUK outreach programme? -- KTC (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Never. Nor has SB Johnny given any rationale whatsoever why articles written by me should be "given extra scrutiny". Considering several of my Gibraltar-related DYKs have since gone on to become GAs, I think I've proved the opposite, if anything. Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep the restrictions

  1. Keep the restrictions until February 2014. There was a public relations disaster in September 2012 [1][2][3], but the issue stayed in the news through February 2013.[4] Jimbo called for a five-year moratorium. I think we should go with one year from the last expression of disapproval in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep restrictions. I wasn't going to vote either way, but noticing that Prioryman in his helpful list of the DYKs that ran this year excluded Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath, which he approved and subsequently got deleted at AfD. Excluding the most problematic (AFAIK, there may have been others even worse) Gibraltar-related DYK from your notes used to influence a discussion on lifting the restrictions seems par for the course. Having a second reviewer at least reduces the chance of such problematic articles appearing on the main page. Fram (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep per User:Binksternet. After having read what this dust-up was about, I'd posit that 5 years isn't over yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To Binkerset: We can't keep one or all restrictions any longer. If we keep banning more experienced Victuallers from contributing to Gibraltar-ish articles, then we might encourage others to do the same thing on others, even when s/he requested that s/he be off of them. If we keep the special place section for such articles, that's just a waste of space, especially for low-loading browsers or those with low-speed internet, like dialup. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, there is no ongoing controversy. We had a TFA about Gibraltar for an entire day last month with no controversy whatsoever when it appeared. Since that February 2013 news item (which was one isolated hit piece written by one of the most anti-Wikipedia journalists out there) there has been no negative coverage whatsoever, even though we've had 18 more DYKs and a TFA. Basically, nobody cares any more. You also don't explain what a continuation of the restrictions would achieve and your choice of one year is completely arbitrary. I would add that the last proposal for a moratorium was rejected by a huge margin, something like 27-2, so argumentum ad Jimbonem won't work either. It's time to end this and get back to normal business on DYK. Prioryman (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have not taken any of the other voters to task for their lack of explanation for why they might think the lifting of restrictions is a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because right now the onus is on you to justify keeping the restrictions. You've offered no explanation of what a continuation is supposed to achieve or prevent, whereas it's pretty clear what would be gained by lifting them. Prioryman (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any controversy anymore. One recent article does not mean controversy. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call six months ago "recent"... but that aside, Binksternet is wrong to characterise the media coverage as "staying in the news through February 2013". The reality is that there was a flurry of news stories in September 2012, nearly a year ago, then a handful of articles in early October, then the February 2013 Register piece, then nothing since. One isolated story written by a notoriously anti-Wikipedia writer, which nobody else followed up on, can't possibly justify continuing the restrictions. The controversy took place almost entirely in September-October 2012. That is more than long enough ago for us to be able to move on now. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Prioryman: Your Gibraltar notes page is helpful to see the delays in Gibraltar articles, some of which seem quite long... but the delays aren't necessarily (or only) due to the Gibraltar restrictions, are they? If you linked to the DYK noms, rather than simply the articles, in your table, it would be simpler to see the reasons for the delays (I suggested this on your notes page, but you may have missed this). TheOverflow (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - sorry I missed it, I didn't think anyone was going to comment there. The delays have certainly been exacerbated by the restrictions. Of the 20 DYKs listed on my notes page, only 3 have been the subject of any significant dispute ([5], [6], [7]). For the rest, the restrictions are largely responsible for the delays - the usual situation has been a long gap between the first and second reviews. For instance, Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar was nominated on 24 May. The first review was on the same day. The second review was not until 9 June - 16 days later - and the article wasn't promoted until 18 June, 25 days after it was nominated. The reason for the delay is twofold, I think. First, even now I suspect that many reviewers aren't used to the two-review system which is unique to Gibraltar articles and they skip over reviews requiring it. Second, at BlueMoonset's insistence completed Gibraltar reviews are, again uniquely, removed from the main listings and confined to the holding area at the very bottom of the page. Set builders don't appear to check it very often.
Until February this year, the Gibraltar nominations didn't even appear in the main area of the nomination page. This meant that the only place where they appeared was in the holding area at the bottom, which has never before been used to hold incomplete nominations. This resulted in massive delays. Grand Casemates Gates took 109 days to get from nomination to running - nominated on 15 October 2012, ran on 23 January 2013. It didn't even get its first review until over a month after it was nominated. From February, at my insistence, we started dual-listing the nominations in the main area and the holding area. Before February, it took an average of 81 days for Gibraltar-related nominations to go from nomination to running (the shortest time was 46 days, the longest 109 days). Since February, the average has come down to about 18 days (shortest 5 days, longest 85 days). This compares with an average of 7 days for a random sample of non-Gibraltar nominations over the same period. So in other words, the restrictions have meant at least twice as much review work per nomination and are currently causing these nominations to take at least 2.5 times longer to process than non-Gibraltar nominations. That is actually an improvement from the situation before February when it took 11.5 times longer to process them on average. Maintaining these restrictions has cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort, for very little benefit - another good reason for getting rid of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fram: Devils Gap Footpath was not included because Prioryman made a list of articles that ran. As the article was deleted and did not run on the main page, it was not included. I find it disingenuous to suggest there was a hidden meaning there, as if AGF is not needed for Gibraltar. That being said, you raise a valid point about the possibility of non-critical reviews (although without the ABF your argument might be stronger). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @So the DYK restrictions were only applicable to articles that ran, and not to those that weer nominated (and accepted by e;g. Prioryman) but ultimately didn't run because of, well, problems? And showing that the restrictions aren't necessary by producing a list of thoes that ran, excluding those that apparently had problems which were severe enough to reject them, is just a coincidence? The problem is not that AGF is not needed for Gibraltar, but that a lot more AGF is needed for some of the prominent members of Gibraltarpedia to accept their comments at face value. It's not as if the Devil Gap one is an old DYK... 07:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
      • You are comparing apples and oranges. We both know that the restrictions applied to all articles nominated, and perhaps a better list of Gibraltar DYKs for this discussion would have been one of all such articles nominated. However, Prioryman provided one of all articles run, which by its very definition would have excluded the article you took issue with. I am not asking that you change your !vote (as I said, you raise some good points), but the way you've raised your objection to Prioryman's representation of the Gibraltar DYKs suggests the folly that a list of articles run should include articles that did not run (!). A better question, in my opinion, would be "Prioryman, why didn't you make a list of Gibraltar articles that were nominated, so we can see the true state of such nominations" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, the Devil's Gap Footpath article is the only Gibraltar-related article that has been nominated but not run (and note that it didn't run not because it failed a DYK review, but because the review was aborted due to the article failing an AfD). Every other article that has been nominated has eventually run. Prioryman (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Fram: I don't fully understand what you are trying to say here, but I will say that I don't think Prioryman or any other user involved in creating Gibraltar articles should be approving the same - we have rules here about avoiding apparent conflicts of interest per supplementary rule H2. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, one of the two reviewers is often someone closely involved with Gibraltar or GibraltarPedia-related articles. If we have only one reviewer, but that reviewer is sufficiently uninvolved (not only with the article, but with the topic and the creators), then the need for two reviewers is largely gone. In the past, I have seen too many articles created and reviewed by people too closely involved with one another, which at least for the Gibraltar articles is avoided by the current situation. Fram (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's simply not true. 30 editors have reviewed the 19 DYKs that have run this year (listed at User:Prioryman/Gibraltar notes). Only one of them, Dr. Blofeld, is associated with Gibraltarpedia. If 97% of the reviewers are uninvolved I don't see how you can credibly argue that there isn't sufficient variety in the reviews. While it's true that Dr. Blofeld did five reviews before withdrawing from DYK earlier this year, none of those has in any way been contentious. As for the "apparent conflicts of interest" that Gatoclass mentions, that's nonsense. We've never banned members of a WikiProject from reviewing articles by other members of the same. In fact, as subject matter experts, WikiProject members are possibly in a better position than most reviewers when it comes to identify problems such as errors of fact. The restrictions specifically state that "One of the two reviewers should not be connected to GibraltarPediA", and so far that has never caused a problem. Prioryman (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite obvious from the DYK reviews I did (on Gibraltarpedia articles, on Gibraltar but not Gibraltarpedia articles, and on unrelated articles) that project members are often either not subject matter experts or rather poor fact checkers (and in one case rather good fact inventors). And while we may never have banned project members from reviewing, I vaguely remember someone trying to ban opponents of a project from reviewing articles on very flimsy grounds. Fram (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand why opponents of a project shouldn't review articles let me spell it out for you: such opponents have a clear motivation and means to sabotage the project in question by obstructing and rejecting DYKs on bogus grounds. This is exactly the scenario that occured on Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not different from people approving articles (or fighting rejections) on bogus grounds because they are supporters of a project (or have other interests in promoting these). And a project isn't sabotaged by not getting their articles in DYK. Wikipedia doesn't get worse by not getting an article on DYK, but it may get worse by getting one on DYK that shouldn't be there. DYK is not a trophy for a project or an editor, but a means to make Wikipedia more interesting and to attract readers and editors. Please try to get rid of your WP:OWN perception of this. Fram (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeremiah Hamilton DYK: possible to postpone?

Would it be possible to postpone the Jeremiah Hamilton DYK? T:DYK/Q currently reports it's scheduled for September 2. I've asked for a photo of Hamilton's gravestone at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Takes_Brooklyn, which is happening next weekend. It'd be great if the article had that photo before the DYK. I'm pretty sure such a photo doesn't exist anywhere else. Emw (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why postponing it? The hook is not a lead hook at this time. And you can add a photo anytime because a lead hook requires a photo. If there are major problems with either article or nomination, please say it. --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest postponement because having that photo would significantly improve the article, and the traffic it will get as a DYK will likely be its single biggest day of viewing. I'm not proposing the photo be in the DYK hook, though I wouldn't object to that. The nomination has been up for over a month, so I don't think having it up for another week or so would hurt things much. On the contrary, postponing the DYK for a week or so until the photo is up would notably enhance the article's value for our readers, most of whom would view the article while it's linked from the main page. Emw (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is a minor issue, and we can't postpone the hook just because of the photo. Since there are no major article issues (or BLP issues), I don't see a sufficient, convincing reason to postpone the hook or reverting closure of nomination. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is postponing a hook by a week or so after its nomination has languished for over month not also a minor issue? In cases with two competing minor issues -- one based in administrative interests and the other in encyclopedic interests -- I would assert that the latter should take precedence. Emw (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator. However, I don't see a point on delaying the hook any longer. The article or hook does not violate any policy or guideline, does it? And there is no special day, is there? We can't delay a nomination for just popularity, right? Perhaps we should wait for more experienced editor or administrator to express an opinion. --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We can't delay a nomination for just popularity, right?"
The nomination was delayed for over a month for no other reason than lack of reviewer action, so the speed with which a nomination becomes a DYK hook is clearly a minor concern. Thus, delaying it by a week for the encyclopedic reasons given in my detailed explanation above should be even less of a concern. If you still disagree, please answer this question: is postponing a hook by a week or so after its nomination has languished for over month not a minor issue? Emw (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would want to postpone it until after the photographs from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Brooklyn are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The event is next Saturday, September 7. I can leave a note here -- or wherever works best -- when the photo is available. I assume that would be around 7 to 15 days from now. Emw (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators: would 7 September 2013 be all right? The date is irrelevant to the subject Jeremiah Hamilton himself. And he barely had any specific special dates besides his death date, May 1875. But 7-15 September is the week of Brooklyn trip. What do you say, administrators? --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the hook is currently in Prep 1, it doesn't require an admin to do this. My view is that we have plenty of hooks ready for promotion, so there's no urgent need for this to be run immediately. Since there is a special Wikipedia event, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Brooklyn, which will net additional material for the article, it would be nice to wait for it. I wouldn't put it in the special holding area for 7 September 2013, since the photos will be taken that day and only available on Commons later. My suggestion—I'm willing to do it myself, but I wanted to get other opinions first—is to reverse the promotion, and add a ? icon to the nomination with a note that this is on hold until new material from the event is available and added to the article. Emw would then post to the nomination when the new material has been added to the article, someone would check to be sure it has the correct permissions and then reapprove it if so, and the article is subsequently promoted either in the usual way or from the special occasion area. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(*Sigh*) Before I revert the closure, of what would be the picture? When you said Brooklyn, I expect a place. Can you specify? --George Ho (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(*sigh* (dramatic much?)) Emw specified that in his/her very first post here: Hamilton's gravestone. LadyofShalott 03:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... while gravestone photo may be essential, I wouldn't delay the nomination for a week, especially since we have too many nominations, including too many verified hooks. But I guess I'll leave decisions to someone else. --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hook has been removed from Prep 1; nomination template will await word from Emw. Emw, if the photo is not taken for some reason, or there is a delay, please let us know on the template: one way or another, you should post something there no later than September 14. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Many thanks, Emw (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gave this nomination a green tick. --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increase to 21 hooks per day?

Amount of verified hooks is reaching to 80, an increase from 65. Perhaps add the seventh hook for each prep area? --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it at six per set for a while - last time we went to three 7-set updates per day we burned through the reserves very quickly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should hold fast at this time. There has clearly been an increase in activity during the last few days, with incoming nominations arriving at the rate of 20–25/day. It is not yet clear if this is a short-term spike or a longer lived increase in activity. If incoming nominations rate hold at this increased rate, then we will need to make the increase. Watching and waiting another week should give us a better idea of where things sit. --Allen3 talk 09:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With 5 queues and 2 preps filled plus 254 hooks on the noms page (including 83 that are allegedly approved), I think we may be at the point of needing to go up to 21 daily hooks again (a 17% increase in output). A factor in my thinking is that 6-hook sets often result in an unbalanced main page, or force ITN to retire news items prematurely. A week may be too long to watch and wait -- let's revisit this in 2 days. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have now reached the final round of the WikiCup. I, for one, have increased my rate of DYK nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now amount of nominations is 250, including 74 verified, down from 254 (83 verified). Also, after 16:00 UTC, we will be having four queues and two prep area filled. --George Ho (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now 266 nominations, including 90 verified. --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, now the amount of nominations is 254, including 74 verified. Three queues filled, three prep areas filled. --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for consensus determination: are negative articles eligible for DYK?

Fram and I have lost this argument. There is broad consensus to approve the particular nomination, and to recognise that there may be negative DYK hooks on BLPs, including on criminals. There is no consensus at this time to remove the word "unduly" from the DYK rules. StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently, a number of articles have been pulled back from preps and queues due to negative hooks. One of these, Milan Poparić, has reached a stalemate, and one that is based on different understandings of the principles and DYK rules involved. We are hoping to achieve a consensus on how the DYK rules affect such articles and hooks going forward.

The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Milan Poparic; there has been discussion there, and also some on this page at WT:DYK#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons. Where we stand is: User:StAnselm believes that the hook and/or article is negative, and as it's a BLP it thus breaks DYK rules about such. Others of us, myself included, think that DYK's rule—see WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria, 4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." (The "unduly focus" wording is reiterated in WP:DYK#The hook within its "Content" subsection)—does not mean all articles or hooks with negative aspects, but those where undue/inappropriate attention is paid to the negative aspects.

What is the case with properly sourced articles about convicted criminals (i.e., ones that meet the WP:BLPCRIME or WP:CRIME criteria)? Are they automatically disqualified from DYK because they are de facto negative? Or is it only if the hooks have an undue focus on the negative that they are ineligible—and if a valid article is generally negative, is it undue or allowable for the resulting hook to reflect the article's contents?

For those who are wondering about the particular hook in this instance, its latest version is:

Thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in the phrase "articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of individuals" is the qualifier unduly. What that means is that it is permissible for DYK articles and hooks to focus on negative aspects of individuals so long as the focus is not undue, which is to say, it doesn't unfairly malign an individual or present a distorted image. In the case of career criminals, notable only, or chiefly, for their criminal activities, it is hardly possible to malign them by referring, for example, to their crimes. I don't have a problem with the proposed hook, providing Bluemoonset is correct that there is no question the person in question is a member of the "Pink Panthers". Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While under current rules negative articles are allowed (but greater care should be taken with them than has often been the case), I support a change to the rules that would simply disallow negative or contentious BLPs at DYK, to avoid further problems. Fram (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it's suitable for presentation on the main page. Anything else would be censorship. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We choose which things we bring under the attention of thousands of people at the main page. Having serious, negative mistakes there about BLPs (e.g. stating that a recently arrested alleged local Mafia leader is "Head of the Cosa Nostra") is something that should be avoided at all costs. DYK hooks lack the space to provide context, nuances, ... It's better, considering the fair number of problems we have had in this regard, to err on the side of caution. Such a mistake in an article is bad, but such a mistake on the frontpage is much, much worse. This is not "censoring", it is being careful and fair. Fram (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's total overkill. DYK/Removed lists only a tiny handful of DYKs removed over the last three years for BLP concerns - not a single one this year until this week, only four in 2012 and three in 2011 - and at least half of the total were probably unjustified removals. BLP violations are usually caught very early here, as it's something most admins are acutely aware of as an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the fact that no one noticed problems means that there were no problems. In March, I had to change the hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Sameh Fahmi after it was already in the queue, for misrepresenting the reason why some BLP was convicted (a rather important point, one would think); considering that I only check these queues occasionally, I doubt that I was so unlucky to stumble upon the only ones in 2013 to be in the queue or life with serious problems. I have just opened at random the June 2013 archive of DYK, and for June 30 (the "first" day in the archive), I spot "... that Singaporean businessperson Zeng Guo Yuan spent three weeks in jail for placing sunshades at his two stores without permission?". Looking at the article Zeng Guo Yuan, he did not spend three weeks for placing sunshades without permission, but "for placing at his two stores banners of then-wanted fugitive Mas Selamat bin Kastari"; the "sunshades" part was his defense. BLP is accused of A, defends himself with B, is convicted for A, so we post a DYK that states that he was convicted for B instead... The fact that only a few of these get caught in time is exactly the reason why they need to be removed right from the start. Fram (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Fram, and I do not believe the issue is merely interpreting the DYK rules - we need to follow the spirit of BLP, even if that might be a vaguer concept than we would like. I think we should change the DYK rules to remove the word "undue". Removing all BLPs would be overkill, but we can easily decide to remove all negative and contentious BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) So, the fact that only a tiny handful of hooks get pulled for BLP reasons is proof that there must be many more which were missed? Sorry, but that is not a credible argument. We are not about to start disqualifying entire categories of articles on the basis that an occasional mistake is made. Gatoclass (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that a simple check immediately finds another hook which should have been pulled (or modified) indicates that a) the small number of pulled hooks is no evidence of the problem being small, and b) the current system doesn't work as it should. The mistakes aren't occasional, they are all-too frequent, and in these cases, they are serious. Fram (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, the fact that you found one other apparently incorrect hook is now sufficient cause to justify the banning of all DYK hooks and articles which contain negative BLP-related content? This is getting downright Kafkaesque. Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I found one other among the first twenty hooks I looked through, yes. It's not as if I had to look at hundreds of them to find some tiny mistake. Take another month, the first crime-related BLP entry: " that Marte Dalelv, a Norwegian woman, received a prison sentence of sixteen months in Dubai after she reported a man to the police for rape?" This is correct, but IMO should not have been in this form (or at all) on the front page, as again it omits all nuance and having both sides represented; while the hook correctly states "after", the implied message is that she was sentenced "because" she did this, while officially it was for other reasons. I don't see this hook as complying with NPOV. It's far from the worst BLP crime related hook we had, but it's hardly one that will encourage me to support the posting of DYK hooks on such subjects. They are just usually way too delicate and difficult to put neutrally and fairly into a one sentence hook. Fram (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were complaining about BLP violations, so in support of that you present evidence of an alleged NPOV violation? That doesn't make much sense, does it? I think it's time to move on from this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was complaining about problems with crime-related hooks about BLPs, you seem to have narrowed this down to BLP violations. You seem to be moving the goalposts quite a bit though. I think it is clear from the examples that there are plenty of problems with many crime-related or other negative or contentious BLPs, including errors and biased reporting. It is also clear that only some of those are found before they hit the main page. The question is if soemthing needs to be done about this, and if yes, what. 11:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind I take a strong stance on BLP; that policy mandates we take great care when writing about a living subject. Whether that be negative information or not! However, that doesn't mean negative information should be pushed to one side (which is an unfortunate way that BLP gets applied). As the DYK rules clarify any hook should not unduly focus on negative things about an individual, but that doesn't mean that the can't. In this specific example, the individual is explicitly notable for having been broken out of jail by AK-wielding accomplices. So that's fine - we are not picking a negative but non-prominent fact to feature. --Errant (chat!) 09:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ErrantX. When someone is notable for some reason and also there is negative information, then we should avoid negative hooks. But when someone is notable prominently and unquestionably for something negative, there is no concern to be had. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Gatoclass, Errant etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find the original hook to be intriguing. Agree with Gatoclass, and I think Errant--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree generally with Gatoclass here, and certainly as to the hook in question. To do otherwise does not only seem wrong-headed, but would appear to ignore completely the word "unduly." The overriding question -- of whether we should have more stringent rules in this regard for DYK than for articles in general, is also one that my an interesting one to think about, but that issue is a secondary one.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my nomination

Why is my nomination not being reviewed?--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is a virtue. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the presses! A TV show was delayed!

The lead hook of Queue 3 is one of the most boring ones we've had in a long time. It's hard to imagine a hook less interesting than one about a scheduling change for a cartoon.

I also think the picture doesn't look that great. Maybe something like the following would be better:

Or, if you must use the image:

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax, I just took a quick look, and those are comments on the pilot rather than the show as a whole, but then this is an article about the pilot episodes, not about the series itself, which neither of your proposed substitute hooks makes clear. (Also, only one critic made the comment about the title, making these a bit misleading on that front.) So I wouldn't be in favor of using them. How about replacing the end of the hook, the clause "although originally set to premiere in November 1998?", with "nearly two months later than originally scheduled, due to post-production delays?" It's 28 characters longer, but still sufficiently below 200:
Delays in post-production are a different matter from ordinary scheduling changes: they actually couldn't finish it on time. Would this wording be a sufficient improvement? (I'm not particularly fond of the image myself, incidentally, though in the larger size it does show Antonucci with a less than affable expression, something that isn't clear at thumbnail size.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As written in the article, the comments appear to be about the whole series, based on the pilot. I had generalized the critics for brevity, but it could be changed to:
Your hook is also definitely an improvement on the one currently in the Queue. Either one, or pretty much anything else anyone may suggest other than the current one, is fine with me. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we need an admin who agrees that the queue's hook is a problem and will change the hook. Calling all admins! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of RfC

Persuant to the closure above I ask now how should this be implemented. Newyorkbrad's suggestions seem to be an excellent starting point.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first step of implementation would be to alter the eligibility rules (in WP:DYK and other place where they are listed) by adding the new criteria. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better first step would be to figure out what all the steps would be: if you change the rules before having everything else in place, then you've caused just the confusion the implementation delay built into the proposed close was supposed to avoid. One small example: the "NewDYKnomination" template would need to be fixed so that it includes "GA" (or "Good Article"?) as one of the allowable items in the "status" field, and knows how to translate that in the resulting "DYKsubpage" template that is created from it. If all these are done ahead of time, we won't have processes breaking and people unhappy. I think Newyorkbrad was wise to call for this in his closure of the RfC, and a little time spent to try to think of all the processes that need changing and all the places in the many DYK rules pages that will also need changing will be very worthwhile. I would strongly recommend that editing the eligibility rules be the last step, not the first. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation BlueMoonset. Now I can see why the delay is needed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from modifying NewDYKnomination, is there anything else that needs to be done? I can't think of anything offhand. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be relatively straightforward - we've done new classes of DYK article before (expanded, BLP expanded, and a tag for "new in mainspace"). I ran through it (on paper) the other day and couldn't see anything obvious other than the template update. Perhaps we should do a dummy run for a GA and see if anything breaks? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's it, then I can't see anything stopping us from giving it a shot. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Gatoclass: I've put in a request to Shubinator to add a check for how recent the GA status is to DYKcheck, which tells how "old" the GA is. I didn't ask for a check on previous GAs. Until it's ready, reviewers would have to be prepared to make such a check by hand. I would suggest that checking the article talk page is the way to go; people sometimes add an undeserved "good article" template (which places the icon) on the article page, but they rarely know enough to fake the "GA" template on the talk page, and it's easy enough to click on the link to the review page from the GA box on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other templates that would need editing: some require coding, some are simple text edits. I'll start a list here, including the already identified NewDYKNomination. I can think of at least one more:

  1. Template:NewDYKnomination
  2. Template:DYK review criteria, which displays instructions to people who are editing nomination templates. (The GA would need to be added to the "New" section.)

Can people please add others to the list as they think of them? Some of the templates will need only small changes (like "DYK review criteria"); others will be far more complex. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility criteria

  • As Tony's last comment suggests, we need to figure out what the eligibility rules for GAs should be. Here are some specifics that I think should be included:
  1. To be eligible for DYK, a newly designated GA should not have previously been featured on DYK or in ITN. I think we've seen agreement on this point.
  2. There should be a length threshold for GAs to be included in GA. This could be the same 1500 characters of prose that DYK currently uses, but there might be merit in a higher threshold, such as 2000 characters. It seems to me that a higher threshold would be in keeping with the views expressed in the RFC regarding the presumed superiority of GAs. I don't think that a higher eligibility threshold would need to be coded into DYKcheck, as it's a simple matter to look at the prose character count in DYKcheck.
  3. To be eligible for DYK, a GA must be nominated no later than 5 days after it is designated as a GA.
  4. Different QPQ criteria may be appropriate for self-noms of GAs. Considering that most (but not all) GA creators are more experienced than typical new contributors to DYK, it's reasonably to ask them to start doing QPQs earlier. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest that after a new-to-DYK contributor has received one DYK credit for a GA, any future self-noms of GAs should be accompanied by QPQ reviews.
  5. Other than "newness" and possibly length and QPQ, all existing DYK criteria apply to GAs nominated for DYK.
We'll need to change the slug over the DYK feature, which now reads "From Wikipedia's newest content:". I can't avoid thinking that it should say something like: "From Wikipedia's newest content and articles newly recognized because 'everyone gets a trophy':", but maybe that could be modified to something like "From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:". (Aside: I am unable to escape the impression that the "Good article" feature is related to the modern U.S. phenomenon of "everyone gets a trophy", which is exemplified by the practice of giving a trophy to every 7-year-old child on a youth sport team, with most of the trophies recognizing accomplishments like "most improved" or "good effort".)
We need to figure out what to do when a DYK reviewer finds that an article should not have been passed as a good article. The rules of the Good Article Reassessment appear to be patterned after the WP:FAR rules, in that they discourage reversal of a GA designation -- there seems to be a strong presumption that the GA designation is a valid one (in spite of the fact that it takes only one reviewer to bestow the designation -- and there aren't any pre-qualifications for GA reviewers). I expect that DYK reviewers are going to be finding copyvios and other serious issues with some newly designated GAs (just as we currently find them with other DYK noms), so I think we need agreement on a process for quickly removing the GA designation. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are perhaps a little more cynical than I about the GA process! But leaving that aside...
  • Basic criteria - length, citation of hook, etc should remain as they are - this will make it simpler to maintain and avoid the rules swelling too much. I don't think adding a marginally higher count will really mean much, given that GAs tend not to be minimally short and almost all will pass it. (Are there very many ultra-short GAs at all? IME they tend to be if anything overly long...)
  • Eligibility criteria - not previously "featured" (main link) on DYK or ITN seems consistent with other rules. It may be worth adding "not previously TFA", which is borderline plausible for an old article being salvaged.
  • Major problems - ie clearly unsuitable as GA, not just DYK-specific issues - punt straight to GAR and flag it on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations; there have been several cases where obvious bad/superficial passes have simply been revoked there. GAR is a slow process and could certainly be sped up & made more lightweight, but I don't think we should get sidetracked into trying to do that here and now! If we find more than a small proportion are being challenged as fundamentally unsuitable, we can look at a more direct solution, but I don't think that is a major risk.
  • Reviews: given these are almost all by experienced authors, I think saying "you must review" is fair - so reviews required for all nominations.
  • Tagline - something like "new and recently improved content" works, and also works better for the "expanded" DYKs in any case.
Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal thoughts when I wrote the rule change were as follows:
  • Basic criteria - no change is needed here as Orlady said i.e. implement the proposal as written.
  • Eligibility criteria - no change is needed here, as excluding it as a result of previous features is already in the supplementary criteria.
  • Major problems - straight to GAR - if we at DYK can identify clear unsuitabilities then it shouldn't have been passed as a GA anyway. Minor problems can be fixed as usual by the nominator or anyone else.
  • Reviews: It would seem reasonable to require QPQ for every nomination, no matter who wrote/nominated the article.
  • Tagline - "new and recently improved content" seems like a good summary.
-Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 21:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are essentially two reasons why I recommended that the QPQ requirement should apply for the second GA article instead of the first. The first reason is that some GA contributors are very new contributors (in particular, I was thinking of students who edited one article for a course) and can not be assumed to be remotely ready to do a QPQ immediately after getting the GA designation. Of course, most of them probably will never do a second DYK nomination, so they'll never do a QPQ, but I believe DYK will be better off without their QPQ reviews... The second reason is that even an experienced Wikipedia contributor who has never been involved with DYK will learn a lot while watching their first nom go through the process, and will be much better prepared to do a decent review in the next outing. IMO, iDYK will be better off giving them the first nomination "for free" than if they try to review before they have a clue what DYK is about -- or if regulars have to take time to coach them through the review process before they've had any experience with DYK.
As for articles that shouldn't have passed GA, "straight to GAR" is not a solution. GAR is a slow process that presumes the article was fully qualified for GA, but has lost some of its good qualities over time. It isn't appropriate for dealing with a non-good article that was recently passed due to a substandard review. I much prefer Andrew Gray's solution of raising these articles as issues at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "straight to GAR" is mainly so that if it gets lost at WT:GAN, at least it's got logged somewhere and the wheels will grind onto it eventually. Doing both is of course best. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WT:GAR does work for incorrectly passed good articles, but it has never been a process that has a time limit so can take some time (especially as the end goal is usually to improve the article to a good one). Reporting at WT:GAN is likely to result in a faster response. Maybe it would be better to skip GAR in regards to DYK. If someone comes across a substandard good article then they can raise it at WT:GAN and if there is general agreement there then it should not feature. It can then be put through the reassessment process without any time pressure, independent of DYK. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrew Gray and (ec) Gilderien that we do not want to boost the size of the rules to make reviews even more daunting. The automated tools for checking would then become more complex too. But compulsory reviews for GA nominators sounds OK as a rule variation as these are very unlikely to be new here. However they are likely to be new to DYK review, so don't be surprised if there is some sloppy or erroneous reviews coming up soon! One area to check more carefully would be for copied content from other Wikipedia articles, but for GA this may be allowable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another GA issue I have seen is fraud: someone puts the symbol on an article and puts it on the list without any nomination or process or reviewer. So I think we need a clear statement of what constitutes a real GA for reviewers here to use. Perhaps we need a page for regular DYK workers to read up on about GA for those like me that rarely touch GA. Some training material would be good! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly happens! All GAs will have a review page - Talk:PAGENAME/GA1 (or 2, 3, etc), always linked from the talkpage (via article-history) and sometimes transcluded there. If it's missing, or clearly dubious (signed off by the author, no meaningful comments), then you've got a bad review. For transparency, we could always modify the template to include a link to the GA review page? That might be overkill, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to add code to DYKcheck to check the article talk page for evidence of a successful GA review (similar to how DYKcheck checks to make sure articles aren't tagged as "stub" on their talk pages). However, the DYK review instructions should remind DYK readers to check the GA review to make sure the article passed in the requisite time period. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I put in a request the other day on Shubinator's talk page for GA checking to be a part of DYKcheck. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be a QPQ exemption if it isn't a self-nomination. With normal DYKs, someone nominating another person's article, especially someone who is not a DYK contributor, usually has to do some work on the article to make it DYK ready, which is why we've waived the QPQ requirement for non-self-nominations. One major argument in favor of adding GAs has been that GAs, by virtue of having been reviewed for quality, would be DYK ready, with the possible exception of the hook and its inline sourcing. So I think that people who nominate other people's GAs should be prepared to do a QPQ: it's not like they have to search very hard to find or work hard to nominate. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One interesting issue is that a lot of the nominators may turn out to be the reviewer of the article and not the author - something I can certainly imagine myself doing - which is something to bear in mind. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should be one freebie for nominators per creator: that is, if JoeGA hasn't had a GA nominated for DYK before, then a QPQ wouldn't be required, but once a GA has been nominated, someone has to do a QPQ for all future noms by that creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points about nominators. I suggest that any nominator's first-ever DYK nomination should be "free", but after the first one, all future DYK nominations of GAs (whether self-noms or someone else's GA) should have a QPQ. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few comments:

  • I would be opposed to changing the existing DYK tagline to "from Wikipedia's newest or most recently improved articles" as suggested above. "Improved" is a very vague term that could essentially apply to any article that gets a tweak. I would suggest "most recently promoted rather than "most recently improved", because the articles are after all being promoted to GA status. The words "recently promoted" should be linked to an appropriate GA-related page.
  • DYK rules are complex enough already and I see no need for further instruction creep, so I would oppose the notion that there should be a different QPQ threshold for GA noms; DYK is still an unfamiliar process for previous non-participants whether experienced editors or not, and not all GA participants are that experienced anyway so I think it would be best to leave the threshold at five; alternatively, I guess we could standardize the requirement to three for all parties. I am also not that keen on requiring QPQs for third party GA noms, again for instruction creep concerns, unless the process is standardized to require QPQs for all third party noms. On the other hand, I think the five-day nomination threshold should be strictly enforced on GAs because unlike DYKs which are often works in progress when nominated, GAs have already had their promotion and should be ready for nomination immediately. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "promoted" is a good term - it's clear to us that it refers to articles which have gone through a particular internal rating system, but it's pretty arcane and confusing for an outsider. This is like the way that we parse "featured" as meaning FA-status, but many readers just think it means "picked to be featured" and that it's relatively arbitrary. To an unfamiliar reader, "promoted" has a risk of commercial interpretation that I think are best avoided.
I agree with the slight ambiguity around "improved", but "newest content" is selective as well - we don't include content newly added to existing articles, after all! So I don't think it adds any confusion that isn't already present. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "newest content" currently featured in DYK include new content added to existing articles, when those articles were expanded 5x. --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure; the point is that we don't include all newest content, only that which meets specified criteria, so "improved" would be no more selective - we would still implicitly mean a restricted set of "improved" in the same way we mean a restricted set of "newest". Andrew Gray (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would be strongly opposed to "recently improved", it is totally uninformative because any article with the slightest tweak can be called "improved", and it's bound to lead to confusion for readers. "Promoted" may not be ideal but it at least informs the reader that there is a process on Wikipedia where articles get assessed for quality. But there may be other alternatives. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, the best alternative might be simply to be specific. I suggest: From Wikipedia's newest content or newest good articles. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until recently I was the major contributor at WP:GAR so can provide some indication of that process. There are in fact two ways to delist a good article, individually or through the community. Community GARs can take months, while individual ones can be concluded within a few days (although it varies by reviewer). An individual reassessment is like a WP:GAN review in reverse, the reassessor lists the problems and if it is not improved up to the criteria in a satisfactory time period (up to the reviewer, but with it being nominated here I see no reason why the nominator should not respond quickly) then its status is changed to delisted. I would encourage individual reassessments for most articles, community reassessments are more useful for ones which are borderline or cover controversial topics or for editors that may not be familiar with the Good article process. I guess it poses the question of what happens to an article that is sent to community reassessment and deemed to meet the criteria. Can it be brought back here up to three months later? AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for DYK images are 100 percent strict, are they not?

File:Merkel diamond.jpg

I mean, there is no chance that I can use a cropped version for the hook, with the full-size image being used in the article, right? I'm asking because the image on the right would be great at accompanying the hook about Merkel-Raute, but unfortunately I think it's of no use for the article itself.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've often allowed people to use a cropped version which looks better at 100x100px. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, then my problem is solved.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are expansions still 5x?

Remind me, are expansions still 5x? I just expanded an old 300 words article (Ryszard Siwiec) to about 1,200, that's about 4x, but I have run out of anything meaningful to say. Is it fine for DYK, or do I have to add 300 words (i.e. a passable length of a new DYK) of half-relevant background garbage to get this DYKed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Eligibility criteria 1b for your answer. In the past, articles a little short (e.g. 4.75x or larger) have been approved under a WP:IAR waiver. As the article in question is just short of 4x (having gone from 1930 characters of readable prose on July 13 to 7645), this does not appear to qualify under traditional waivers. --Allen3 talk 10:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the possibility of getting this one qualified for DYK as a new GA... (See above.) --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although it apparently makes no difference in this case, all be aware that we count by prose characters, not by words. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This is an unusual request, but here it is. I have worked on 995 articles which have appeared at DYK. Four more noms (Lille Vildmose, Cabaret des Quat'z'Arts, Mols Bjerge National Park, KUNSTEN Museum of Modern Art Aalborg) have approved tick marks next to them. A few other articles are in review or waiting to be reviewed, but it's my hope that Template:Did you know nominations/Goaribari Island could be my 1000th DYK article. Thank you for your consideration. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the person that is currently performing the bulk of the nomination promotions/set building, I spotted the comment in the Goaribari Island nomination and have been trying to honor your request. At the pace noms are currently being promoted there are still a few days left before Goaribari Island needs to be scheduled. --Allen3 talk 16:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Allen3. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 September 2013

Queue 4, no 1, "that William Blake sketched a series of portraits of historical individuals (example pictured), including ancient Greeks, medieval royalty and characters of folklore, that appeared to him in late night visions?" Please change "that" to "who"; they're people, not things. Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Awien (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Allen3 talk 00:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Awien (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 September 2013

Queue 6, no. 2: "that Florence Koehler was one of the most well-known jewelers of the Arts and Crafts movement?" Please change "most well-known" with more usual "best-known". Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Awien (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Allen3 talk 00:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. Awien (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Many older nominations are waiting for a reviewer. Thank you for your assistance.

As usual, please cross off any entries you perform reviews for (unless an additional reviewer is needed) regardless of whether the review resulted in a pass or fail. --Allen3 talk 12:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

Re the first hook: that the use of the term "Arab street" (street in Madaba, Jordan, pictured) to refer to public opinion in the Arab world has been re-imported into Arabic media from the U.S., where it had been derived from Arabic originally?

To illustrate this hook with the image of an actual street makes no logical sense, since what the expression "Arab street" actually refers to is (as explained) the abstract "public opinion". I tweaked the wording by adding the clarification "the term", but public opinion is not what a street image illustrates. Awien (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Crisco. Awien (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but ... it's a street, it's got big Arabic signs on it, and it's colorful. Shortly after taking that picture I asked our guide (a Jordanian himself) if we'd just walked down the Arab street, and we both had a chuckle over it. "Two cows" may be a series of jokes, but we still illustrate it with a picture of two cows. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's Copyvio tool on the Nomination template

Please be advised that the Copyvio Check on the nomination template directs to Earwig's copyvio check on Toolserver. That tool is now on Earwig's Copyvio Checker on labs, even though the one on Toolserver seems to also work for the moment. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate hook in Queue 6

  • ... that in 1960, at Ahu Akivi (pictured) in Easter Island archeologists took one month to restore the first moai in place but less than a week to fix the remaining six?

I think this source has been misunderstood. Firstly, it doesn't tell us how long it took to actually restore the moai, just how long it took to raise them. Secondly, it didn't take them less than a week to raise six moai. What the source actually says is: "During the restoration, it took a full month—using a stone ramp and two wooden levers—to raise the first of the seven moai. By the time they got to the last moai, the same task took them less than a week." That is, it took a month to raise the first moai, and less than a week to raise the seventh. We don't know how long it took to raise the other five.

So could someone pull this? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=572707339"