Jump to content

Template 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 Dumelow (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 16 July 2024 (→‎Articles created/expanded on July 16: Adding Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on Chesconessex Creek (DYK-wizard)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK queue status

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

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}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.
"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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
June 26
June 28 1 1
July 1 1 1
July 5 1
July 7 2
July 8 1 1
July 10 1
July 13 3 2
July 15 1
July 16 1
July 17 3 3
July 18 3
July 19 4 2
July 21 3 3
July 22 2 1
July 23 3 1
July 24 7 4
July 25 9 5
July 26 6 3
July 27 6 4
July 28 16 9
July 29 9 6
July 30 5 1
July 31 3 1
August 1 7 3
August 2 4 3
August 3 6 2
August 4 4 3
August 5 12 2
August 6 8 3
August 7 5 2
August 8 8 5
August 9 5 4
August 10 12 5
August 11 6 2
August 12 5 3
August 13 4 3
August 14 10 6
August 15 7 3
August 16 9 3
August 17 9 3
August 18 11 8
August 19 10 5
August 20 7 4
August 21 5 3
August 22 4
August 23 5
August 24 7
August 25 9
August 26 3
Total 273 123
Last updated 15:50, 26 August 2024 UTC
Current time is 15:54, 26 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

Shortcut

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the DYK guidelines.

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

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

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

How to promote an accepted hook

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

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

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

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

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

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

Handy copy sources:

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

How to remove a rejected hook

  • 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 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

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

Nominations

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on May 12

Articles created/expanded on May 14

Articles created/expanded on May 16

Articles created/expanded on May 17

Articles created/expanded on May 18

Articles created/expanded on May 20

Articles created/expanded on May 21

Articles created/expanded on May 24

Articles created/expanded on May 27

Articles created/expanded on May 29

Articles created/expanded on May 30

Articles created/expanded on June 2

Articles created/expanded on June 3

Articles created/expanded on June 7

Articles created/expanded on June 8

Articles created/expanded on June 9

Articles created/expanded on June 10

Articles created/expanded on June 11

Articles created/expanded on June 14

Articles created/expanded on June 15

Articles created/expanded on June 17

Articles created/expanded on June 19

Articles created/expanded on June 20

Articles created/expanded on June 21

Articles created/expanded on June 22

To Prep 5


Articles created/expanded on June 23

Articles created/expanded on June 24

Articles created/expanded on June 25

Articles created/expanded on June 26

Articles created/expanded on June 27

Articles created/expanded on June 28

Jab Se Tere Naina

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by KunalAggarwal95 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, I was planning on reviewing this anyway. (I keep finding more and more stuff to say about Eliza Legzdina.) This is long enough and new enough. I don't see why you'd say 'close to 100 takes' when the quote in the source says "I did 45 or 50 takes one day and [then t]he next morning [...] I had to do another 70 takes"; come again with "more than 100". I would have raised my hackles at Missmalini.com, but it's been discussed at RSN and found to be fine so I'll take it. QPQ unnecessary. There's a fair amount of close paraphrasing throughout the article and this should be remedied before this can be ticked off.--Launchballer 07:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My English is bad. If an editor could correct the problem of close paraphrasing, it would be great. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KunalAggarwal95: It is your responsibility to ensure that the text you add to Wikipedia does not have close paraphrasing. If your English is not strong enough to prevent this, you might need to reconsider how you can contribute to English Wikipedia, or consider contributing in another language's Wikipedia instead. Are you able to remove the close paraphrasing, or should this nomination be closed as unsuccessful? Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean 'my English is bad and I don't know what close paraphrasing is'? If so, read that link. It's quite serious. Otherwise, what Z1720 said.--Launchballer 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check article. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KunalAggarwal95: Better. I still think you should update the hook and article as I've suggested above.--Launchballer 08:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Ranbir Kapoor gave more than 100 takes for the 2007 Hindi-language song "Jab Se Tere Naina"? KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I recommend WP:DYKTRIMming "the 2007 Hindi-language song", but this should be good to go.--Launchballer 13:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that JioSaavn is not a RS, and the last line is pure WP:FANCRUFT. Sohom (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. It's now below 1500 characters and a stub.--Launchballer 12:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brought it to over 1500 characters. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Articles created/expanded on June 29

Articles created/expanded on June 30

Articles created/expanded on July 1

Alex Chilowicz

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by US Referee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

US Referee (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • The third paragraph under Career needs a citation at the end. The LinkedIn source can only be used if it specifically references who referred to him as playing the saxophone within the article. However, that is clunky, and I recommend removing the source entirely. Why do you need four references for that one fact? It can be knocked down to one source. Otherwise, the article is long enough, new enough, and neutral with no copyright violations. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your criticism and I'll make those changes accordingly. US Referee (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph under Career, I relied on sources within the linked articles, i.e. match reports for the matches Chilowicz refereed. His name appears in the linked articles next to a "Report" link that I figure to be the sources for these statements. I suppose I can just use those same sources in this article, but I thought that would likely be superfluous. US Referee (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on July 2

Articles created/expanded on July 3

Articles created/expanded on July 4

I've removed the points I'd consider to be minor nitpicks and left a couple I do think should be addressed as they concern the factuality of the article. Apologies for going overboard. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't love the party fingers usage, but it'd be silly to hold back the DYK over it in isolation. Hook looks good now, so I'd give this a stamp of approval. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on July 5

David B. Gillespie

(
)
  • Source: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Created by Aneirinn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Aneirinn (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  •  : Article is new enough, and long enough, and predominantly soured with public domain content so no apparent copyright issues. However, I find none of the hooks interesting to a wide audience (an increasingly common issue with DYK). And despite the article title, no reliable sources seem to use the middle initial "B.": where does this come from? And spot checking sources, Battle 1890 does not seem to have a page 170, nor mention David Gillespie anywhere. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally used the wrong book as the source. The source I was using had combined the two books in one pdf and I had missed that. Also, concerning his middle name, I suppose you are saying that "Death at Red Springs". The Weekly Star. Vol. XXIX. Wilmington, North Carolina: North Carolina Newspapers, Digital North Carolina. June 10, 1898. p. 1. is not a reliable source for this? If so, could you please clarify if that is correct? Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that newspaper obit (including its earlier printing on June 5, 1898) is the only source using "B", and no scholar has used it since, then it's most likely a one-off error (typos, misspellings, and incorrect info is common in short obits from the time): note there was a Dr. David B(ryson) Gillespie of Bladen County who died in 1905 mentioned in NC newspapers, and may have caused conflation. Find a Grave uses the middle B, but it's an unreliable user-generated source and the tombstone image does not corroborate it. Since David Gillespie (politician) already exists, David Gillespie (surveyor) or David Gillespie (American politician) may be more appropriate titles in line with predominant form of name. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. David B. Gillespie (February 24, 1815–January 2, 1905), who attended the Medical College of South Carolina, [Source:Catalogue of the Students Attending Lectures in the Medical College of the State of South Carolina, Session 1837–'38. Charleston: James S. Burges, 85 East-Bay. 1838. p. 6 – via Medical University of South Carolina, Waring Historical Library.] was a son of Major David B. Gillespie. [Source:"Descendants of David Gillespie" (PDF). NCGenWeb.] I think it is likely that the writer of the twice-published obituary wrote 'Major' David B. Gillespie for a reason, and that Dr. David B Gillespie is named after his father, which would have them both with middle names that start with the letter 'B'. This point of contention is not really an issue; however, I find it hard to believe that people would find the initial proposal or ALT1 dull or uninteresting. It is significant and interesting that, according to Kemp P. Battle, David B. Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States. This would also make David B. Gillespie the first person in the United States to receive a document in the form of a diploma from a public university. If more alternative hooks are necessary, I'm willing to provide additional options. Aneirinn (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3: ... that the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States, was David Gillespie?
Sources: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kapur, Geeta N. (2021). To Drink from the Well: The Struggle for Racial Equality at the Nation's Oldest Public University. Durham, North Carolina: Blair/Carolina Wren Press. ISBN 9781949467529 – via Stanford University Libraries.
ALT4: ... that David Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States?
Sources: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kapur, Geeta N. (2021). To Drink from the Well: The Struggle for Racial Equality at the Nation's Oldest Public University. Durham, North Carolina: Blair/Carolina Wren Press. ISBN 9781949467529 – via Stanford University Libraries.

@Aneirinn: What does this need an additional reviewer for that @Animalparty: can't do themself?--Launchballer 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Launchballer, thank you for your response to this and my apologies for abandoning my nomination for Red Brown (politician). I had not realized that only prose characters are counted for the 5x expansion requirement. To answer your question, it seems as if the primordial reviewer has abandoned this nomination. I should also note that an additional source for the initial of the subject's middle name has been added to the article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever source you were using for his middle name, you weren't citing it, so I've taken it out. I am happy to take over this review, except I don't find any of the hooks interesting either (ALTs 3 and 4 are bloated versions of ALTs 0 and 1 and ALT2 is just confusing).--Launchballer 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are currently citing his middle name to Weeks (1887). I don't see where his initial appears in that source.--Launchballer 06:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for this in the lead are unnecessary per MOS:LEAD. Two sources cited in the body of the article mention the initial of his middle name. One even has it written in its title. Saying it "fails verification" is a bit outside of the box here, so I have returned it. I changed one word on ALT2, hopefully it is an improvement at the very least. Aneirinn (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His initial isn't in the body anywhere.--Launchballer 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it be? Aneirinn (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. The lead is only allowed to be unreferenced if all its content is backed up in the body. As written, it would deserve {{not verified in body}}, which would disqualify it here.--Launchballer 07:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely at odds with the previous sentence. MOS:NAME says "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information. Inclusion of middle names or initials... can be a useful form of disambiguation if there is more than one person known by that name." Which is the case here. MOS:LEAD supports the status quo. Would you please quote how WP:V supports that? It also mentions, "A source 'directly supports' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of WP:NOR. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material." Aneirinn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aneirinn: Launchballer is correct that the material needs to be either cited in the lead or mentioned and cited in the body. The paragraph of WP:V says only that there might exist a source that directly supports the material, which isn't relevant here. For DYK purpose, the material does need to be verifiable to its source in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you theleekycauldron, I have updated the article. Aneirinn (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on July 6

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: Good to go with main or ALT - both verified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]




Articles created/expanded on July 7

Motibai Kapadia

(
)
  • ... that Motibai Kapadia is credited as the first Indian female physician in Western medicine to have trained alongside men in India?
  • Source: "Motibai was the first native woman doctor to be trained on parallel lines to native men doctors" [1]..."The first indigenous woman physician to get training alongside male physicians was Moti Bai"[2]
  • ALT1: ... that the Indian female physician Motibai Kapadia was in charge of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital in Ahmedabad for 36 years from 1889? Source: "after returning from Britain, Kapadia was appointed in charge of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital for women, and remained there for 36 years."[3].
  • Reviewed: ABC Cinema, Brighton
Created by Whispyhistory (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 200 past nominations.

Whispyhistory (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I asked for insight on the DYK talk page because of the recent incorrect "first" hooks that have run. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "the first Indian female physician in Western medicine to have trained alongside men in India" is that's an open-ended set. Nowhere do we have an authoritative list of every physician who ever trained in India. I'd be less concerned about something based on "Grant Medical College's first female graduate" because at least there, somebody could enumerate every person who has graduated from that school and look at each one. I assume that's what Kavitha Rao did, or at least she based her statement on somebody who did. RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]








Articles created/expanded on July 8

1954 Busan Yongdusan fire

(
)
  • Source: completely lost
  • ALT1: ... that a 1954 fire in Busan, South Korea, caused the loss of more than 3,400 historic relics, including historic portraits of kings of the Joseon dynasty? Source: caused the loss of around 3,400 historic relics, including historic portraits of kings of the Joseon dynasty
  • Reviewed:
Created by 00101984hjw (talk) and 211.43.120.242 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

00101984hjw (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Please wikilink the target article in bold font in those hooks. Schwede66 05:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helping out with a ref for both hooks [4] (also in the article). Quotes in orig. Korean with my translation: "위 기사에서도 볼 수 있듯, 4천여 점에 이르는 유물 가운데 자그마치 3천4백 점이 잿더미가 되는 대참사가 일어나죠... 이 가운데는 48점이나 되는 조선 역대 임금의 초상화도 들어 있었습니다. 그나마 불에 타고 남은 조각이라도 건진 것은 다 합쳐서 18점. 나머지 30점은 화마(火魔)에 흔적도 없이 사라지고 말았습니다." -> "As you can see in the article above, a disaster occurred in which 3,400 of 4,000 relics were reduced to ashes in an instant... Among these were 48 portraits of past kings of the Joseon Dynasty. 18 items among these were salvaged, with the remaining 30 being completely lost." 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nice work on a neglected topic. Just one thing... The old Kyung Hyang newspaper image shown in your source says "3400餘點이 釜山火災". '3400餘點' means 'more than 3400 and less than 3500' therefore 3400—3500. While 'around 3400' is not technically wrong, a more precise translation would be '3400—3500'. See this article: '여(餘)'는 수량을 나타내는 말(십·백·천·만 등) 뒤에 붙어 '그 수를 넘음'의 뜻을 더하는 접미사로 사용된다. '10만여'는 그 범위가 10만을 넘지만 11만 미만임을 나타낸다. 10만 1부터 10만 9999까지의 어느 수를 이른다. BorgQueen (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on July 9

Articles created/expanded on July 10

Samsung and unions

(
)
Created by Shushugah (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you both for the kind reviews and improving the article. The indefinite strike is over and there have been subsequent strikes. Some articles described this as "one" multi-part strike and others as separate strikes. In any case, I'm sorry didn't reply earlier and respect your decision to close. Wish you all a lovely day! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Articles created/expanded on July 11

Articles created/expanded on July 12

@CSJJ104: Thanks for the review. I have tweaked both points per your recommendations so they should be suitable now. Anything else though, just let me know. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland: The issue with Alt1 is that the sources do not state that the BUP still only have one elected representative. I would be happy if the article and hook both stated they won their first elected representative here. CSJJ104 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CSJJ104: No worries. I don't mind which way we do it so if that is the best option, I'm happy to go with that. Updated article to reflect that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Alt1 to replace the word "only" with the word "first" as discussed above. No further issues found and I am approving this nomination. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]






Articles created/expanded on July 13

Margaret Coe

(
)
Crater Lake #2 (2010) by Margaret Coe
Crater Lake #2 (2010) by Margaret Coe
  • ALT1: ... that Crater Lake #2 (pictured), on display at the Oregon State Capitol, was painted by Margaret Coe, the 8th great granddaughter of colonist Robert Coe? Source: Oregon Legislature, Robert Coe, Puritan, Olmstead, Henry King (2021). Olmsted genealogy, third-fourth supplement, 1923-28. Hassell Street Press. ISBN 1013458974., "Curtis Claire Coe". Statesman Journal. October 29, 1996.
  • Reviewed: NA
  • Comment: I'm partial to Alt1. I'm a historian, so I imagine Alt0 is more interesting to a general audience.
Created by AnotherColonialHistorian (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Not a review, but are we sure that the impressionist painting by Coe is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license? The source is offline, so it's difficult to check. I'm not sure if the Oregon Legislature and Coe would need to agree to jointly release the work in order for the license to be valid. Bremps... 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating with what I could find online. Ownership was transferred to the State of Oregon, per [6]. AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[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: None required.

Overall: As an art student, I concur with the nominator that ALT1 is more interesting to that field, though agree that ALT0 is a hook more interesting to a general audience. I would suggest deciding to retain only 2 of the images in this article given its short length, and would propose between the 3 currently in use to forgo the Our Lives in Paint image as it does not seem particularly helpful for the reader's understanding of her work in a way that the paintings already cover. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Coe

(
)
Sketch of Nathaniel Coe c. 1850
Sketch of Nathaniel Coe c. 1850
Created by AnotherColonialHistorian (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: No - ?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was moved to the mainspace on July 13 and nominated the same day. Length is adequate. Sourcing is mostly complete, but I have two questions: Please clarify the question above on the footnote for the birthdate, and the source for the quotebox titled "For Susan Amelia Coe". I'm also curious on the purpose of the quotebox, as I am not sure how it is relevant. The article appears neutral in tone, and no plagiarism was detected. All images used in the article have a public domain license on the Commons. The nominated image is clear at a resolution and enhances the hook. QPQ has been completed although it was not required. All of the proposed hooks are verbose, and depend on the reader's knowledge of Tony Goldwyn and Robert Coe (colonist). I feel like these are not globally known persons and detract from the interest in clicking on Nathaniel Coe. I think shorter hooks would work better here, without the family members mentioned. Will wait for the nominator to reply before further analysis on the hooks. Overall the article looks to be in good shape and is a welcome contribution to Wikipedia! Flibirigit (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: How do these sound?
  • ALT4a ... that the founder of Hood River, Oregon, Nathaniel Coe (pictured), served in all three branches of the state's government?
  • ALT5 ... that Nathaniel Coe (pictured) and his wife led an initiative to change the name of Dog River, Oregon due to its vulgar origin?
ALT5 is not exactly directly stated in the article but rather is suggested, so I get if it can't be used. In addition, would a hook based on During the 71st session of the Assembly, Coe introduced the first-of-its-kind anti-rape bill "An act to punish seduction." It was passed into law on March 22, 1848. work? I also noticed that there's a mention of "democrat" instead of "Democrat". Finally, per WP:DYKCOMPLETE, if information could be found about his later life and death, that would we welcome as it's not currently in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has not edited since July 28.[7] Searching on Newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library is hindered by a service issue.[8] There's no rush here. Best to wait a few days on this. Flibirigit (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nominator hasn't edited in almost a month and no other editor has adopted the nominator, it is now marked for closure as abandoned. No prejudice against it continuing if another editor, perhaps Flibirigit, adopts it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patience is a virtue. This nomination is not yet two months old, nor has anyone posted it at WT:DYK for adoption. Flibirigit (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: I don't want to act like a crystal ball, but the nominator hasn't edited in almost a month, which isn't a good sign regardless of the fact it was only reviewed a few days ago. Given that you have already edited the article and the issues don't seem to be insurmountable, are you willing to adopt this nomination in the nom's stead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging me here, and please stop being in a rush. Flibirigit (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flibirigit, I've deleted the footnote for the birthdate, as I confirmed both sources cited in the footnote were in parity with Sept. 6 as the birthdate. No idea why the footnote was created or where the Sept. 12 comes from. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flibirigit, I've deleted the quote box. It doesn't really belong here and isn't relevant. It was presumably added by the editor because it's an example of poetry by his wife, but that's very tangential to the bio. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I've already proposed two new hooks above (ALT4a and ALT5), please let me know if either works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Apologies, I thought we could start fresh and adhere to some semblance of the original intent of the nom. I think a new, original hook combining the elements of ALT2 and ALT3 in shortened form would be super interesting! In other words, did you know that Nathaniel Coe declined a nomination to the United States Senate, choosing instead to serve as an inspector for the United States Postal Service? That's so weird that someone would choose to do that, which is why I think it makes an unusual and interesting hook. Could you come up with something based on that factoid? Perhaps something even better? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, thanks for adopting the nomination. I will review the changes by the end of tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns regarding birth date and sourcing have been resolved. I have struck the names of the family members from the hooks as per my original review. I have declined ALT2 and ALT3 as neither are interesting to a broad audience. Will continue my review shortly with the remaining hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The birth date was changed to be September 6, 1788, but now there is no citation anywhere for the date. The death date is listed as October 17, 1868, but there is no citation anywhere for the date. As for the hooks, which source explicity verifies that "Nathaniel Coe was the founder of Hood River, Oregon"? This source says that the Coe family were the original owners of a land grant. This source states "first white settlers". Neither of them explicity state founding the town. I'm unsure if the offline sources are better. Verifying ALT0, ALT1, ALT4, ALT4a are difficult without clear sourcing. ALT5 is not explicitly stated in the article, so I'm unsure how to verify it. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]




Articles created/expanded on July 14

Articles created/expanded on July 15

Tukdam

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This looks like my last free QpQ ticket
5x expanded by Skyerise (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Викидим (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

i'm sorry to say you've wasted your ticket.

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Unknown
  • Neutral: No - article often promotes the idea of tukdam. the "reports of attainment" section is especially egregious. you can't verify after-death consciousness, but the article lists 8 people who have attained tukdam, including someone who died in 1865.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
  • Other problems: No - the article presents the topic as if it wasn't a fringe topic. also, the "cultural and religious significance", "scientific research", and "documentary film" sections read like an large language model wrote it. also, why is there an entire section on a documentary film?

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - the quote you provided doesn't support the hook. in addition, it says that This Tukdam Project, developed in conversations between Dr. Richard J. Davidson and His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the XIV Dalai Lama, is a collaborative long-term empirical research effort of the Center for Healthy Minds in partnership with Men-Tsee-Khang (Sowa-Rigpa, Dharamsala, India), Delek Hospital (Dharamsala, India), and the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. he didn't just "persuade" them.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: this isn't exactly relevant, but frontiers media is noted in User:JzG/Predatory for promoting fringe theories. ltbdl☃ (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replacing a rejection notice with a maybe notice. The nomination is still eligible and should not be immediately rejected. Flibirigit (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • it really isn't. ltbdl☃ (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: WP:RS characterize this as a religious concept within Tibetan Buddhist. The original version of the article included a lot of content about scientists proving life after death, which has since been removed. There are still some lines that are taking life after death as a settled thing like, "The practice of tukdam involves the practitioner's consciousness remaining in a meditative state known as the "Clear Light Stage" after death" The National Geographic source cited does not present it as settled, "“If I had just casually walked into the room, I would have thought he was sitting in deep meditation,” Davidson says, his voice on the phone still a little awestruck. “His skin looked totally fresh and viable, no decomposition whatsoever.” The sense of the dead man’s presence, even at close range, helped inspire Davidson to study thukdam scientifically. He has assembled some basic medical equipment, such as EEGs and stethoscopes, at two field stations in India and has trained an on-site team of 12 Tibetan physicians to test these monks—preferably beginning while they’re still alive—to see whether any brain activity continues after their death."[9] Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

while i wasn't looking, a huge chunk of the article was removed. this also means the hook is no longer mentioned in the article. any alts?

also, the "cultural and religious significance" is still written horribly, and there's a citation needed tag. ltbdl☃ (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]





Articles created/expanded on July 16

Special occasion holding area

See also: WP:SOHA

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1234863259"