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 BlueMoonset (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 28 June 2024 (→‎Articles created/expanded on May 9: removing date; no noms left). 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 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

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
May 30 1
June 2 1 1
June 3 1
June 13 1
June 14 1
June 15 2
June 17 2
June 19 1
June 20 1 1
June 21 1
June 22 2
June 23 3
June 24 2
June 25 1
June 26 6 1
June 27 1
June 28 5 1
June 29 1
June 30 1
July 1 6 3
July 2 2 2
July 3 5 3
July 4 5 2
July 5 7 2
July 6 6 5
July 7 5 3
July 8 9 4
July 9 6 4
July 10 10 8
July 11 7 6
July 12 7 5
July 13 12 5
July 14 11 7
July 15 8 3
July 16 12 11
July 17 11 6
July 18 7 4
July 19 13 9
July 20 5 4
July 21 12 5
July 22 9 6
July 23 9 5
July 24 9 3
July 25 15 2
July 26 6 3
July 27 9 3
July 28 18 5
July 29 9 2
July 30 8 3
July 31 5 2
August 1
Total 297 139
Last updated 10:52, 1 August 2024 UTC
Current time is 12:02, 1 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 April 19

Articles created/expanded on May 2

Articles created/expanded on May 10

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 20

Articles created/expanded on May 21

Articles created/expanded on May 22

Articles created/expanded on May 24

Articles created/expanded on May 25

Articles created/expanded on May 26

Articles created/expanded on May 27

Articles created/expanded on May 28

Articles created/expanded on May 29

Articles created/expanded on May 30

Felix Eberty

(
)
  • ... that the 1846 book The Stars and World History by Felix Eberty, which contemplated a faraway observer seeing "the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham", inspired a young Albert Einstein?
  • Source: "By the time that Felix Eberty, a German jurist and amateur astronomer, anonymously published “The Stars and World History,” in 1846, it was well known that light had a finite speed... Eberty was particularly fascinated by what this delay meant for a faraway observer of our planet. Perched on a distant star, he wrote, such a person might “see the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham.” Furthermore, by hopscotching across the cosmos, “he will be able to represent to himself, as rapidly as he pleases, that moment in the world’s history which he wishes to observe at leisure.” Eberty had witnessed great gains in the speed of transportation and communication during his lifetime, and he believed that humanity might soon be travelling even faster than light.

Among the impressionable young Germans who read Eberty and Bernstein was one named Albert Einstein."

The New Yorker
Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 134 past nominations.

Thriley (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is sufficiently long and new, has citations throughout, and appears to be written neutrally. I AGF on offline and German language sources. QPQ is done. There is some trouble in the references with a citation template, and then there's the matter of the hook. The hook says Eberty "inspired" Einstein, but the above quote does not verify that, only that Einstein read Eberty. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Felix Eberty self-portrait circa 1850
I am going to fix this up a bit more. The article is mostly a translation of the German Wikipedia article. Will be done in less than 24 hours. Thriley (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: Are you done with this?--Launchballer 12:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Yes. Sorry again for the delay. Thriley (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't. I just went in to check the article myself and you have an error in ref #20. And I strongly suspect that may have been what @Muboshgu: was referring to. And I think that single-sentence paragraph should be merged and the lead lengthened.--Launchballer 17:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article now says which are considered to have had an influence on Einstein, which is not great. Alt 1 is not either, I'm sure Einstein read a ton of books. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2... that Felix Eberty, who wrote an 1846 book which contemplated a faraway observer seeing "the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham", was called "an original and ingenious person" by Albert Einstein in 1923? Source: "Albert Einstein wrote a foreword for a new edition in 1923 in which he called Eberty "an original and ingenious person"" New Yorker Thriley (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't assess any hooks until the article issues are remedied. I will say that ALT2's cruising for a pruning whether it checks out or not.--Launchballer 05:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hook tops 200 characters – Thriley, could you write a shorter one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2a: ... that Felix Eberty was called "an original and ingenious person" by Albert Einstein? would be my suggestion.--Launchballer 21:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 2

David Fishwick

(
)
Dave Fishwick on James English's Anything Goes podcast
Created by Launchballer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 232 past nominations.

Launchballer 12:01, 2 June 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: Done.

Overall: Good to go! 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I call false positive as that quote is fully attributed and therefore not a copyright violation.--Launchballer 22:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT0. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, The Times published a piece yesterday morning that directly contradicted my hook, which meant it wasn't accurate (he could afford a chip butty, just a slightly smaller one than usual). I also noticed that the Telegraph did not mention lunch, probably because it was in fact dinner. I will propose some more hooks later, but for now, I got severely carried away expanding the article, meaning that around only three eighths of this has actually been reviewed. This will definitely require a new reviewer. (Incidentally, that "Fighting Against the Elite" video is actually Creative Commons, so I have uploaded it to this nomination.)--Launchballer 20:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ... that David Fishwick went from a £27.50 a week pebbledashing job to becoming the biggest minibus supplier in Britain?
ALT4: ... that David Fishwick used to stuff his wallet with paper to appear richer to prospective sellers?
ALT5: ... that David Fishwick married his wife after she told him his music was rubbish?
ALT6: ... that David Fishwick decided he no longer wanted to be poor following an incident involving a chip butty?
ALT7: ... that a Times reviewer of Channel 4's Bank of Dave opined that David Fishwick "could have been one of the best comedy characters of 2012"?
... and if "200 characters" wasn't a thing, I'd propose "that David Fishwick's How to Get Rich Quick "encourages people of modest means to pursue equally modest dreams in the very modest hopes, several weeks of hard work later, of doubling their modest investments"?.--Launchballer 10:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT8: ... that when a writer contacted David Fishwick to express interest in making a film about his bank, he insisted that it was shot in Burnley?--Launchballer 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEclipse: As the original reviewer, please indicate which ALTs above, if any, are approved and if this article is approved. Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has tripled in size since LunaEclipse's original approval. This should probably get another review. With the benefit of a few weeks, my preference is ALT6 as closest to the original struck hook.--Launchballer 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a new review. I prefer the ALT1 hook

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - If I understood it correctly, the bank's name is Burnley Savings and Loans, with "Bank of Dave" being just a slogan. If so we should call the bank by its actual name. Also, the previous sentence is 4 lines long.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Cambalachero (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) As pointed, ALT1 needs a bit of fixing. Cambalachero (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut that long sentence in half; if you see any others like it, point 'em out, because it is a bad habit of mine and this is at GA, so I will be pulled up on them. ALT1a: ... that David Fishwick founded Burnley Savings and Loans after big banks abruptly stopped lending his customers money?--Launchballer 20:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article is ready, with the amended hook. Cambalachero (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 3

Over the Hill with the Swords of a Thousand Men (The Boys episode)

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by TarheelBornBred (talk) and Ulises1126 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

TarheelBornBred (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Passerby comment (this is not a full review, feel free for others to take this nomination to review): to a reader without context not familiar with characters in the show, "Stormfront's lightning" will read weirdly, like a misspelled comment on the brightness of the Stormfront website. "Researched" is also a bit high-falutin', it's not like they actually did some physics research for the episode - the source quotes them as saying "we looked at Nikola Tesla". Maybe something like:
  • ALT2 includes Stormfront still if desired, but clarifies that it's talking about a character not the website. SnowFire (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be too late by now, I do not know, but ALT 2 sounds fine to me. TarheelBornBred (talk) 1:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@TarheelBornBred: I am afraid this nomination is ineligible as it does not meet the requirements of WP:DYKNEW, i.e. it was not created, promoted to good article status or expanded fivefold in the seven days leading up to the nomination. If it were to reach good article status then the nomination could be resubmitted. CSJJ104 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can determine, all of the edits prior to 3 June were done in draft space, and on 3 June the article was recreated (rather than moved) in mainspace. This would make the "new" date 3 June, and a nomination three days later, on 6 June, would certainly be eligible for DYK. CSJJ104, do you have any evidence to the contrary? TarheelBornBred, is this what happened? I strongly suspect that this needs a full review, and the sooner that can be done, the better. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset:I finished the draft someone had created and published the article on June 3, and then later the history of the article while it was in draft space was merged into the history of the article after I published it. So, I believe, by your estimation, it should be eligible because it was published in the appropriate window. Thanks BlueMoonset for the oversight. TarheelBornBred (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset and TarheelBornBred: Sorry for the error on my part. After more closely reading the revision history I can see what happened. If noone objects I can review this later today? CSJJ104 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall:

  • I struck Alt2 as it is over 200 characters long. Feel free to suggest an alternative if desired.
  • I don't think it is a blocker for DYK, but as a suggestion the Casting section might read better as a list.
  • Earwig did highlight some similarities, but these are episode titles or direct quotes and cannot be avoided.

@TarheelBornBred: Sorry for the earlier confusion. Hopefully my comments above make sense though? CSJJ104 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 4

Articles created/expanded on June 5

Articles created/expanded on June 6

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 12

Articles created/expanded on June 13

Articles created/expanded on June 14

Birthday of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

(
)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1950s
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1950s
Created by Mehedi Abedin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Mehedi Abedin (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Mehedi Abedin and Trainsandotherthings: Much to whinge about here I'm afraid. Only ALT2 passes WP:DYKINT and it would need an end-of-sentence citation in any event. This could still do with a robust copyedit, which I see it's been waiting for. (I tried, but I physically can't read WP:PARAGRAPHs of that length.) Also, big dislike on using a two year old QPQ when we have a heavy backlog, but WP:QPQ specifically states that QPQs do not expire, so I'll take it. This is also long enough, new enough, copyvio-free, and the image is Creative Commons. I think the first two things you need to do are a) give ALT2 and end-of-sentence citation, and b) break up the paragraphs into smaller chunks.--Launchballer 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find Alt1 to be the most interesting. I find Alt2 to be confusing. What does Indira Gandhi have to do with the birthday of Rahman? VR (Please ping on reply) 13:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Done. Please check the article now. I made the paragraphs smaller except "Bangabandhu's perspective" and "Observances" sections because they are already small. Added end-of-sentence citations for all hook. Let me know if there is anything left to do. Mehedi Abedin 14:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 15

Mohan Charan Majhi, 2024 Odisha Legislative Assembly election

( Comment or view )
5x expanded by Dharmadhyaksha (talk), Rohitsetthachok (talk), Magentic Manifestations (talk), and Aditya anu (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 67 past nominations.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Dharmadhyaksha: Articles are long enough and were created/expanded within 7 days of submission. Articles are presentable, sourced, and copy-vio free, though I think the election article could use copyediting to make it more readable (missing punctuation, rephrasing to sound more natural, etc.}. Additionally, the hook's claim that Majhi "formed" a state government isn't stated in the source nor in either article. These things would need to be addressed before approval. Kimikel (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kimikel: Some minor copyediting done. Unfortunately i could not fina any glaring copy editing requirements. But you can help, if you think some sentences need tweeking.
When a Chief Minister takes oath they form the government. Statesman says the new government is formed and that Majhi is the new CM. I don't see what the confusion here is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I have copyedited Mohan Charan Majhi, but 2024 Odisha Legislative Assembly election is very poorly-written and needs an extensive copyedit to meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE; if the article updaters are unable, I would recommend nominating it at WP:GOCE, but that may take too long. There is also the problem of the hook not being very interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting Majhi. I have copyedited the election article now. You can check it and do minor ce if needed. In a democratic country with regular elections, am not sure how many years of incumbency needs to be turned over to make it "very interesting" for DYK. Do we have a DYK guideline for that somewhere? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Have your concerns been resolved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nomination still needs an interesting hook—one which doesn't describe a basic feature of politics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
24 years of overturning a govt is not "basic" in a democratic country. @AirshipJungleman29: there are no specific guidelines for "interestingness". Few days back we had a lead hook about a swimmer swimming at the Olympics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's very common; we just had an election here the UK and many such events occurred—Worthing West (UK Parliament constituency) is an example. We do have a guideline for "interestingness"—see WP:DYKINT. I would not have promoted that swimming hook on those grounds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 16

Articles created/expanded on June 17

Healie

(
)
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: It's a little outside the seven days, but my PC was in the middle of being transferred. I considered an ALT, but I felt that any possible ALT would not be as strong as noting the influence of Healie on the direction of the series.
Improved to Good Article status by Cukie Gherkin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

It's borderline since it's at exactly 200 words, but it might be better for the main reviewer to decide. Given this is your second nomination, the reviewer will probably be lenient about the nomination being slightly late. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at this as second reviewer now. I understand this is your first DYK nomination, so I would also be inclined to be generous. However, there are unfortunately several issues at once here. It was nominated after deadline, and as the previous reviewer pointed out the original hook was too long. It is still long, and winding, and I am sorry to say not very "hooky". I had to read it twice to fully grasp what it was about. The idea of the hook is to be eye-catching, and I think the current hook fails on this criterion as well. IF you can come up with a punchier hook, I'd be happy to take a second look, but otherwise I would suggest we close this nomination. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Falls train collision

(
)
1853 daguerreotype of the collision
1853 daguerreotype of the collision
  • ... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 was one of the earliest train wrecks ever photographed? Source: Reed, Robert (1968). Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line. Seattle: Superior Pub. Co. pp. 20–21. Also verified by Heppner, Frank H. (2012). Railroads of Rhode Island: shaping the Ocean State's railways. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press. p. 78
Improved to Good Article status by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 30 past nominations.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to Train Wrecks right now as I'm in the middle of a move. Heppner says "This was the first train wreck ever to be photographed and printed in a newspaper". I have added an inline cite at the end of the sentence. This is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - if we try and run the hook as stated in the sources and article, it will almost certainly be challenged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the circumstances of the nomination I'm pinging some of the commentors in the recent "first" hooks discussion such as @RoySmith, SL93, and Schwede66: for advice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My usual litmus test for "first" hooks is whether there's a finite set of things, making it possible to definitively order them and see which was first. For example, we can be pretty sure George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States; even the most skeptical of us should be willing to accept that there wasn't one before him that we just somehow haven't found yet in a google search. In this case, photography had only existed for about 20 years when this crash happened. The window of when an earlier photo might have been taken is thus limited, so at least this seems likely to be true. On general principles, however, I think we should say "believed to be" or something like that. FWIW, I found mention of this in the George Eastman House 2008 Annual Report which says "[Train wreck on the Providence Worcester Railroad near to Pawtucket], August 12, 1853. Attributed to L. Wright. Daguerreotype. so there may be some uncertainty about the photographer's identity. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the last point. Both the link and the source I use in the article attribute the photograph to L. Wright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally interpret the phrase "attributed to" to indicate a degree of uncertainty. Thus Read my lips: no new taxes says, "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that he said it. Millions of people watched him say it live on TV and we've got it on videotape to go back and verify. But Gospel of Matthew says The gospel is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew because we're not 100% sure. I think the same thing is going on here; the Eastman folks believe Wright took the image, but they apparently have enough uncertainty about it that they felt the needs to hedge in their statement. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. So what we know without a doubt is this collision happened and it was photographed. Photography was very much an emerging technology at this point so I think this is almost certainly one of the first train collisions ever photographed, if not the first. Railroads as we know them only really emerged around 1830 with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Daguerreotype was invented in 1839. It's difficult to definitively prove this was the first photo, but it was almost certainly one of the earliest. The question is how do we word this in the article and in the hook. An ALT1 about the emergence of a very early form of a coordinated time/time zone in the aftermath of this wreck is also possible, as that is somewhat easier to verify. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: As this is your nomination, you will know the contents of this article better than a reviewer. I suggest that you propose an ALT1 along with what you suggest above, or several ALTs, so the reviewer can determine the most interesting ones. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ...that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 led to the creation of the first time zone in the United States? Source: America's First Time Zone, the Harvard Gazette "That first voluntary time agreement among the railroads became mandatory a few years later, after an 1853 wreck occurred outside Pawtucket, R.I., on a blind curve known as the Boston Switch...After that, railroad time was mandated along the region’s tracks...The result of all this, said Galison and Schechner, was America’s first time zone" Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the brouhaha about "first" hooks, we will need a much stronger source for the "first time zone" option, or perhaps a revised version that isn't as strong about it being a "first". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still interesting if we drop "first". Bremps... 03:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is really how to present the hook. We've had issues over "first" hooks for a long while, so if it really is the first we have to be sure that it's right. Otherwise, finding a compromise wording is tricky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]




Articles created/expanded on June 18

Articles created/expanded on June 19

2025 Philippine general election

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

TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm going to overrule this as @TheNuggeteer: is a new user (this is their second nomination) and WP:DYKNEW can be extended for a day or two upon request. (Don't do it again mind.)--Launchballer 07:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The QPQ tool says otherwise, but your funeral. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use the QPQ tool, which is in alphabetical order anyway. I go through users' contribution histories.--Launchballer 08:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 ... that the 2025 Philippine general election is set to be the first to be held under a new voting system provider after the previous one was disqualified over bribery allegations?
Nothing else stands out that is unique to this particular election or seems to meet DYKINT, at least as of right now. I'll leave it to others if "previous one" should link to Smartmatic. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this should be interesting enough sans the wikilink. Thanks, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly suggest that "will be" be replaced by "is set to be" or the equivalent. WP:CRYSTAL applies here to a certain extent: something could happen in the Philippines to change next year's election provider between now and then—it might even revert to the previous provider, however unlikely that seems at the moment—and "will be" is a definite prediction of the future while "is set to be" simply says that this is what's expected as of today. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The option seems better, any option is okay if the article is at-least in the main page. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer: I'll take this one. Long enough, IAR new enough. Hook is short enough, interesting, and cited - though consider replacing 'corruption' with 'bribery'. QPQ unnecessary. However, several sections lack references and in some case lack content and these will need to be remedied before primetime.--Launchballer 10:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which sections lack citations? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several sections of Electoral system and I don't see where Congress is cited. I also think Implementation of Miru Systems should be filled out.--Launchballer 10:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only section in Electoral system I see which is not sources is Congress, which I fixed, anyways, Miru systems already has a bunch of subsections, maybe you want text in the actual section? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 20

Orca Shipwreck

(
)
  • ... that the Orca Shipwreck, dating from the Late Bronze Age and recently discovered in the eastern Mediterranean, is the earliest deep-sea shipwreck ever found?
Created by Owenglyndur (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Owenglyndur (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This article was created 4 days ago and on the same day i nominated it for DYK. The reason for the name derives from the news articvle staitng it was found next to Israels' Orca gas field. Here is the quote from the article: "While scanning the seabed ahead of developing Israel's Orca natural gas field , Energean observed an anomaly that would change our understanding of ancient navigation skills" Owenglyndur (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New enough and long enough. Hook fact checks out. Nominator was QPQ-exempt. They have been indefinitely blocked for copyvio issues, though Earwig gives a clean bill of health to the existing sources in page, at least in English. Given the nominator's block, I would like this to be double-checked by someone with Hebrew fluency before approval to see if there is copyvio to the Hebrew-language source in this page. I will manage any changes necessary. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nominator has been blocked for copyright violations, and no one has stepped forward to offer to check the sources, then I think it's time to close this as unsuccessful. We have enough nominations that this does not have to run. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on June 21

Good to go. Changed the wording of the hook slightly to more natural English. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chand Sifarish

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

KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article was recently recreated from a redirect so if tools say this is an old article then that is inaccurate. Thus the article is technically eligible. There are however multiple major issues with the nomination right now. The first is that the article is in need of a copyedit, and second, the hook is too vague and broad to meet WP:DYKINT. It lacks context (it doesn't make it unambiguously clear that the subject is a song), and the "#1 on the popularity charts" claim also lacks context. I should also note that the article isn't more specific about which charts are being referred to here either, so that is also an issue with the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any information about those popularity charts. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then that hook can't run as it won't pass scrutiny on either WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. A new hook will need to be proposed here, but if one can't, then the nom will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New hook: ALT1 ... that the song "Chand Sifarish" was produced in the voice of Kishore Kumar and Mohammed Rafi, with the help of Artificial intelligence. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The context of that hook is a bit unclear. Did you mean the song was covered by Kumar and Rafi with the help of AI? Given this is a music-related hook, maybe Launchballer can come up with a clearer and more grammatically-correct wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the hook is telling me what I think it's trying to tell me, then I would suggest words to the effect of ALT1a: ... that an AI-generated cover of Shaan and Kailash Kher's "Chand Sifarish" became popular on social media? Also, what makes The Times of India reliable?--Launchballer 13:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the tools are saying this is an old article because it used to be one; the article was deleted at AfD in 2012. I think the AI stuff takes it over the line in terms of notability.--Launchballer 13:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that ToI has a yellow rating at WP:RSP, but the hook's claim seems uncontroversial and not something they likely made up. If there are no other sources that cover that information I don't think it should be an issue to use ToI in this particular case (unless this is one of their paid articles), but to be on the safe side maybe another source should be added to strengthen the claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook belongs to Hindustan Times. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Have your concerns been resolved? If not, what else needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing issue still needs to be addressed and Launchballer's objection be lifted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KunalAggarwal95: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source is reliable. https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/what-if-kishore-kumar-and-rafi-sang-chand-sifarish-ai-made-video-impresses-people-101705313694145.html KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if my original post was not clear. The two Times of India pieces are currently used to back up a claim of plagiarism and the winning of an award, which I regard as needing stronger sourcing. I have no objection with the Hindustan Times being used for the hook.--Launchballer 07:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added another source for winning award. No other source found for plagiarism. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest that you take that bit out and put something else in to take this back above 1500 characters.--Launchballer 17:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No further objections from me, although for a low-profile individual like that fan, you probably shouldn't be including their name per WP:BLPNAME. I've removed this for you, and made a few other edits while at it. Also, without evidence that the 'popularity charts' are anything other than Hindustan Times' own chart, that had to come out per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Passing you back to @Narutolovehinata5:.--Launchballer 08:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we definitely can't run with ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ... that when Anshuman Sharma uploaded an AI-generated cover of Shaan and Kailash Kher's "Chand Sifarish" to Instagram, his post scored nearly five million views in two days?--Launchballer 13:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 seems good. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then another reviewer needs to tick it off.--Launchballer 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]




Articles created/expanded on June 22

Keegan Baker

(
)
  • Source: Hughes, Johnathon (22 March 2018). "EastEnders to tackle knife crime in hard-hitting new storyline". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2 July 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2024.
Created by FishLoveHam (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

FishLoveHam (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

DI MA-1 Mk. III

(
)
  • ... that the DI MA-1 Mk. III rifle was made in Myanmar without license despite claims that it was made entirely in Myanmar?
Created by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: No - Debatable. I don't see a single source that actually agrees that the rifle is actually indigenous, as the Myanma claim. At the same time, I don't see a single Myanma source. I suspect these two issues are related. I understand Myanmar does not have a great media compared to the US and China, but not a single source? Even a government press release? How did the Chinese and English language sources get the information that Myanmar claims the rifle is indigenous?
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Unknown
  • Interesting: Unknown
  • Other problems: No - See below.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: * The words "despite" both in hook 1 and in the article seems misplaced. Was made in Myanmar despite claims of being made in Myanmar? Despite claims it was indigenous it was made without license? I think what you're trying to say is something like "is an unlicensed clone despite claims of being made indigenously", which is what Military Today says.

  • For hook 2, I worry about a Vietnamese source citing Chinese media about a Myanma rifle (for an English language article!). I don't see an article about kienthuc.net.vn, but looking at the site, it seems to have Very Intrusive ads, which at least in the US is usually a sign of low quality. Is it really a high quality source? Any chance we can find the actual Chinese media source they're talking about?

Then there are other issues; you don't technically have to fix all of these, but addressing some might be good.

  • Lowercase "bullpup" in lede
  • "The MA designation on the weapon means Myanmar Army"
    • Why is Myanmar Army bolded?
    • What does DI mean?
  • Link Tatmadaw (History) and QBZ-97 (Lede)
  • History: Can you explain that the EMER-K1 was also a QBZ-97 clone? You sort of hint at this but don't say it outright.
  • " they were reported to be suitable for the Tatmadaw in jungle operations and for use by an average Myanma soldier." Er - what is the difference between the Tatmadaw and an average Myanma soldier? Aren't the Tatmadaw the majority of Myanma armed forces?
  • "ergonic"? GRuban (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban:: I did most of the editing based on your suggestions. I removed the "despite" part from the article and switched it to another word. And yeah, I'm trying to use something like that based on the MT article. For any Myanma-based article, I could only find those written/uploaded on reddit, facebook or Youtube, either by the pro-Tatamadaw/PDF crowd, which aren't a good source. In addition, the Myanmar Directorate of Defence Industries doesn't put up a website (likely) as part of an effort to mask their production/related info. Some of the info done is based on research done by those who use open source information. While the DDI debuted with new brochures and all in Thailand in 2019, they didn't show brochures for the MA-1 Mk III.

For Chinese articles, I'll try and see if there's anything worthwhile to add. It's the only area that's worth going on. It wouldn't surprise me if it's mostly because the Tatmadaw went behind China's back to clone the QBZ-97 without at least notifying Beijing. It's also likely the only place to go to. Ominae (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 23

Lahug Airport

(
)
Created by TheNuggeteer (talk) and Mastodon554 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: No - After copyediting, it does not meet the 1,500-character threshold.

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - Neither hook is particularly interesting to a broad audience. The papal mass at the airport sounds far more interesting.

QPQ: No - Still needed.
Overall: Went ahead and copyedited the article, but it seems to have brought it below the length requirement after removing some filler. SounderBruce 01:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"PacificWrecks.com" does not exactly scream "reliable". The CDN piece seems to be an opinion/contributor reflection rather than a proper news article. I imagine a papal mass would have plenty of coverage, no? SounderBruce 02:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: PacificWrecks seems pretty popular and reliable, but in case, I found this website, which seems like a copy of a book? And the other statement about the CDN piece, yes, It seems like that, but they would not change the facts, since they are one of the most reliable sources in Cebu City. And the 3rd and last statement, yes, It feels like that, but it was pretty old, so im not sure about the last one.
Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There still isn't sufficient citations; coverage of the papal mass from beyond the one author (Oaminal) would be ideal. SounderBruce 01:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce:Found six citations, SunStar, Augnet, The Vatican, CDN (another), Inquirer, and a Reuters video (which stated that there were a million people, which probably can be included in the hook.) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, what else needs to happen to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed unless SounderBruce returns. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Those citations need to be added to the article (and could help expand it a bit more). SounderBruce 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]






Articles created/expanded on June 24

Henrik Igityan National Centre for Aesthetics

(
)
Work in collection
Work in collection
Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 97 past nominations.

Lajmmoore (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Lajmmoore: Love this! New enough, long enough, Earwig comes up clean, no image, QPQ has been done, and hook is damn interesting. Unfortunately, visityerevan.am, farusa.org, hamazkayin.com, armeniadiscovery.com, thecaucasustours.com, and evnmediafest.com are not reliable sources. Once those are replaced or removed, I can go ahead and pass this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an image now, and I think there might be WP:FOP problems. Also, "first" is going to be very hard to verify, as we can't rule out there being an earlier, smaller museum in a distant country the authors of the sources never heard of. Bremps... 10:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yes, there is an image! I'm also not convinced the licensing checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment RE: image - the file name states the painting was done by Ruben Igityan, who was the son of Henrik Igityan. He died in a plane crash in 1975 with his mother. Henrik would therefore inherit the rights? I assumed that since Henrik is still involved with the NCA, and the image was donated as part of a partnership, that the licensing was OK. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1... that the Yerevan Children's Art Gallery shows "the unexpected beauty of children’s art"? Source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000063186

  • Forgot to sign and ping people yesterday (blame my tired eyes), but I think the article is now improved @Theleekycauldron: & @Bremps:, thanks for your input! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lajmmoore: I still see some unreliable sources, and that the Centre itself is being used to support controversial claims. I don't think ALT1 communicates anything more interesting that the name already implies – sure, someone said it's a children's art gallery and that it's surprisingly good. One person saying that doesn't make it all that intriguing, I would think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Theleekycauldron: I think I quite liked the hook, because I don't think most people would automatically think children's art was beautiful?! (it did have a grammer mistake in that I removed now)- I'll look at the rest later on :) Lajmmoore (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right, fair enough. But the hook can't be phrased in wikivoice, so we'll need an ALT that provides some attribution. Let me know when the other changes have been made :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks @Theleekycauldron: - I've added a couple of new citations and trimmed the NCA ones now - I don't think they support anything contentious, just numbers of artworks. I've also toned down the "world's first"-ness. In terms of an ALT2, how about:
ALT2... that Zhanna Aghamiryan described how paintings at Yerevan Children's Art Gallery (pictured) showed future generations "the unexpected beauty of children’s art"? Source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000063186
What do you think? Lajmmoore (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Does the above satisfy your concerns, and is this approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore: I've removed some of the references, so the article looks fine now – i didn't catch earlier that the quote is from the director of the museum, and now I feel uncomfortable approving it. if it were from an independent source, i might've gone ahead, but i'm a bit concerned about puffery now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of further options @Theleekycauldron::

Either of these work better? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]




Articles created/expanded on June 25

Articles created/expanded on June 26

Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)

(
)
Converted from a redirect by Skyshifter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Skyshiftertalk 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Man, I haven't heard this record in years. @Skyshifter: Not a review, but I would question whether this deserves a standalone article when the content could be merged into Not in Love (Platinum Blonde song). This would not affect eligibility here because it can run as a 5x expansion.--Launchballer 18:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with a merge as this version got coverage of its own for being its own thing. It certainly meets WP:NCOVER ("Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably detailed based on facts independent of the original"). I think this is a valid case of having a separate article. Skyshiftertalk 18:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. Not that it's your problem, but the original's really short and I'd question its notability. Might redirect it to your article and see if anybody whinges. Full review needed.--Launchballer 18:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandiose

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

Kimikel (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The source provided says that the $4 million in sales is based on the team name, not Brandiose's design.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: My first DYK review and I'm not sure about the hook, so requesting another reviewer. Thank you. GoldRomean (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to the original source, I added another (the NYT link) that directly attributes the merchandise sales to Brandiose's rebrand. Kimikel (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kimikel:: Is Brandiose responsible for the name change/rebrand? If so, perhaps you could remove "design" from the hook, maybe that would work better?
      • @GoldRomean: The name itself was chosen by a fan poll. Brandiose was responsible for the design of all the branding. Based on that, if there's a better way to phrase that part of the hook, I'd have no problems with it. Kimikel (talk)
        • @Kimikel: What about "... that Brandiose's design work for the Rocket City Trash Pandas helped the team sell $4 million in merchandise before it played its first game?" But I'm still hesitant... I'll leave for more experienced DYK people. GoldRomean (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I agree. Proposing:
ALT1: ... that Brandiose's design work for the Rocket City Trash Pandas helped the team sell $4 million in merchandise before it played its first game?
Kimikel (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRomean: Is the above ALT approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: @Kimikel: Apologies, I wrote a reply, probably forgot to publish it, and forgot about this till now. I think there needs to be better sourcing for the alt, like, a source that more directly backs up the hook. I want a second opinion anyway, but that's just my two cents. Sorry again :D. GoldRomean (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kimikel: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] [5]: both directly attribute success of rebrand to Brandiose. [6][7]: mention $4 million sales before first game. Feel like this should be sufficient - Kimikel (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Nam

(
)
  • Source: Ravenholt 1968, p. 38, [8]
  • Reviewed:
Created by Vortex3427 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @TheNuggeteer: New enough and long enough. Nominator is QPQ-exempt. Can't view the source. I do have an issue with the wording in the hook. Article says he founded Wa Yan with 3,000 pesos, sold it, and then founded Ling Nam (no peso number given). This needs reconciling with the hook fact. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, though it sounds less interesting. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Does the above satisfy your concerns, and is this approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed unless Sammi Brie returns. Z1720 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies — I have had a hectic month, and small items are especially prone to just falling off the table. It's...okay, though I feel it is something of a stretch. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 27

Articles created/expanded on June 28

ABC Cinema, Brighton

(
)
The former ABC Cinema, Brighton, in 2016
The former ABC Cinema, Brighton, in 2016
  • Source: Allen Eyles (2003), Brighton and Hove Cinemas, p.71. "At midnight on Thursday 8 January 1948, the world premiere of Brighton Rock took place at the Savoy (no other cinema was in the running, as it was made by ABC's associated production company)." (First sentence from a full paragraph about the premiere. The Savoy was the name of the cinema at the time, as noted in the article.)
Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 99 past nominations.

Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not aware of any other examples of this happening, and I would think it is quite abnormal for a world premiere to take place in a smallish provincial town; but I'm happy to have alternative hooks suggested. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Vatican City

(
)
5x expanded by Arconning (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Arconning (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - See comment
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Source 1 doesn't seem to mention the facts in the hook, and the second source seems somewhat partisan and I'm somewhat suspicious of the quality of an article starting with "Did You Know". Does the academic source mentioned in the same paragraph in this article ([12]) mention it in any way? That would be much better. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Flemmish Nietzsche: Sadly, the academic source doesn't back the claim up but it does back up the claim that an area in the Vatican was once a chariot racing track. Though I'm not sure what's Wikipedia's and the DYK's policy on "possibly statements" (i.e. ...that sport in Vatican City possibly started in the 1st century, when a chariot racing track was built in what was then ancient Rome?" I suggest using ALT1 instead if that's the case. Though I can make another hook if it isn't interesting enough. Arconning (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning I checked that journal I suggested, fand you're right about it not being definite that the chariot track ever actually existed there. ALT1 is not the most interesting, but I could accept it if there's nothing else better you can find. How about "... that sport in Vatican City began in the 16th century with the first ever match of calcio fiorentino, an early form of football?" This might not be the "start" of sport in the area that is now the Vatican, but it seems to be the first major event when that area was under the control of an independent Papal State, so I think it would pass. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche For the hook that you suggested, I'm all for it but with some minor tweaks. Since we can't really determine when sport in Vatican City really started, I think we should put something like "governed by the nation", "started by the nation", or something shorter. (i.e. ... that sport in Vatican City started by the nation began in the 16th century with the first ever match of calcio fiorentino, an early form of football?"). Arconning (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning "started by the nation" seems somewhat iffy, as it could be confused with "nation" meaning a group of people sharing a common identity rather than a sovereign state; maybe "state-sponsored" or "officially" would be better? (... that state-sponsored sport in Vatican City began in the 16th century with the first ever match of calcio fiorentino, an early form of football?") Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche "Officially" works fine with me. Arconning (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ... that sport in Vatican City officially began in the 16th century with the first ever match of calcio fiorentino, an early form of football?" Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]



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=1231553452"