Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
January 7 1
February 24 2
February 26 1
February 27 1
March 3 1
March 6 1
March 9 2
March 11 1
March 14 1 1
March 15 4
March 19 1
March 20 2
March 21 1
March 24 1
March 25 1
March 27 2
March 29 2
March 30 3
April 1 1
April 4 1
April 5 1
April 6 1
April 8 1
April 9 2
April 11 1
April 12 1
April 13 1
April 16 2
April 18 2
April 19 3
April 20 3 1
April 21 1
April 22 1
April 23 7 1
April 24 1 1
April 25 3
April 26 6
April 27 3
April 28 1
April 29 2
April 30 1
May 1 3 1
May 2 5 2
May 3 2
May 4 3
May 6 2
May 7 5 1
May 8 1
May 9 3
May 10 8 1
May 11 3 2
May 12 1
May 13 4 1
May 14 5 1
May 15 10 2
May 16 5 3
May 17 4 1
May 18 4 1
May 19 5 2
May 20 13 6
May 21 6 1
May 22 3
May 23
Total 169 29
Last updated 03:29, 23 May 2018 UTC
Current time is 05:01, 23 May 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
I.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
III.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.

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.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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 (so that those hooks don't grow stale), 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 above).

Where is my hook?[edit]

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.

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

  • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
  • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
  • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
  • In the prep set...
    • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
    • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
  • Back on DYK nomination page...
    • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • change |passed= to |passed=yes
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Ancient Beringian

  • that the Ancient Beringian are the first population of Paleo-Indians, which migrated from Siberia across Beringia and into Alaska during the lithic stage approximately twenty thousand years ago?

Created by IQ125 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, neutral, cited (but see note after this line), no obvious copyvios (paraphrasing to be checked after cites are improved, again see note). Hook is on the border of being too long and should probably be cut down. There's about three distinct facts in there, if not more. A good interesting hook usually has at most two facts within it, usually one. The biggest problem here is the inline citations. Throwing seven inline cites on every sentence isn't particularly informative about where the information is coming from. Please improve the inline citations so that each sentence is cited only to the reference (or references) being used to support it. After that, I'll check for close paraphrasing and double-check that all of this is verified. ~ Rob13Talk 09:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: article has been proposed to be merged into another article; nomination is on hold until the merger proposal has been closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think "Beringia" and "lithic stage" need explanation, perhaps wikilinks, and the latter is also a proper name and needs a capital. HLHJ (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 24[edit]

An Wasserflüssen Babylon

Copy of Reincken's work by Bach
Copy of Reincken's work by Bach
  • Reviewed: to come Hans Klumbach
  • Comment: ..., which is one of two of his oldest manuscripts, found again in 2005/06[2] - there's plenty of news. We don't see a thing on the image but is RARE ;) - We just had Innocent Victims where we also didn't see a thing.

Converted from a redirect by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Most everything looks good (long enough, timing fits, no copyvio, neutral, interesting hook--and cool image to go with!), just needs a QPQ and then(ETA: done!) ideally an update of the references in the entry to confirm the hook? Given image, it seems like they almost certainly exist; but at the moment that specific sentence has a "not in citation given" flag that's probably worth reconciling before moving the DYK forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It took me a while to read the article ;) - When I nominated, it was a short little thing. I managed to review. What's not in the citation seems to be the exact year, but "as a boy" should be sourced. Perhaps you can tell the two experts what you like and what not, better than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look Gerda Arendt! Indeed this is well outside my own expertise; I just clicked through to the link to check, and as best I can tell, I don't see the bit about copying the manuscript in those Programme Notes? I mean obviously he did or you wouldn't have an image of it, but would you mind either pointing out to me the part that says that, which I'm just misunderstanding/overlooking (highly likely), or suggest a different source we can use as the reference, just so we can remove that flag? I wouldn't be concerned except for it being the hook. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I found this but don't know what the experts will think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just found a book ref as well. Mathsci and Francis Schonken, does one or both of these seem reliable to you? Any other comments before the DYK goes forward? Thanks for having a look! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg the article is unstable, and needs considerable work. The issue mentioned above was addressed by me on the talk page, Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon#Reincken/Bach stories involving "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", "1700" topic. Seems nor Gerda, nor anyone else, took the time to even look at it. All in all the article is a hack job (translated from German Wikipedia without adding proper references). The German Wikipedia article no longer carries "nach den Vorgaben Martin Bucers" (while unprovable by reliable sources) yet that phrase is still adopted in the English version without a source in sight that confirms it. Etc. – I could still go on for considerable time, but prefer to devote that to improving the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback; yes by all means, focus on the entry as you wish! WP:VOLUNTEER and whatnot. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken's decision to remove any mention of Gerda's DYK hook in the lead was not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, the hook doesn't have to be in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It was not in the main body. I have all the source material in the reference. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Re. "It was not in the main body" – incorrect, it has always been in the main body, in every version I've seen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Re. "... Francis Schonken's decision to remove any mention of Gerda's DYK hook in the lead ..." – incorrect, I didn't remove any mention of the hook from the lead. I take offence of Gerda Arendt's "Never mind" in their response to the false accusation: sort of shows they didn't check, though their "the hook doesn't have to be in the lead" is of course correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The source proposed above for the hook (www.thescrollensemble.com) doesn't really cover the hook. I discussed a better source on the article's talk page. For me, this confirms once more that people write here without really checking. Over-all the situation has hardly improved. Again, I could write a lot about aspects where the current version of the article fails, but prefer to improve rather than to write reams of text here. As for this DYK, with all these problems: hardly a good idea, so I continue to oppose until problems are really addressed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Noted and agreed again that spending your time improving the entry sounds like a wise choice. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The suggestions here seem to be purely procedural. Consensus so far indicates that the article is fair at the moment. There will always be new perspectives on the content: since the topic concerns the Reformation—a very wide-ranging topic—that will always be the case. Looking at other Lutheran Hymns, the article here seems to be in a much better state than most articles of this kind. Vater unser im Himmelreich is comparable. Only a few articles on Lutheran articles to have been created at the moment to judge by Category:Lutheran_hymns. Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyhow, with the new Beißwenger content ([3]), the hook as written can not be maintained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The DYK hook still seems to be going smoothly, despite recent edits. On articles like Lutheran hymns, things go slowly by consensus. For example I created the "Hymn tune" on Vorbis-lilypond, choosing my own tempo and a cor anglais as instrument. I used that because soft reeds are usual registrations for this type of piece (as mentioned by organists like Stinson). It's not perfect, but OK for the moment. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, "... which Bach copied as a boy ..." in the current hook proposal can not be said in Wikipedia's voice while at least one prominent Bach scholar (Beißwenger) doubts the contention (considers it at least unproven): what can not be said in Wikipedia's voice is unsuitable for a DYK hook (i.e. intended to be published on Wikipedia's mainspace). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that there are serious difficulties for two of the sources. Several Bach scholars, including some cited in reliable secondary sources, have given an informal description of the recent discoveries of Maul & Wollny. They certainly have given a reasonable informal account for a general readership. On the other hand the Bärenreiter Facsimile of 2006 and the encyclopedic tome "The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach" by 2017 are intended for specialists, way beyond the competence of wikipedia: the first reference—which is only viewable in a non-borrowable music reference library—is at a graduate level; and the same is true of the Research Companion, "aimed at masters and doctoral students" and featuring a galaxy of specially chosen Bach scholars from all over the world. That level of expertise—e.g. deciding whether the handwriting of a relative can be identified with certainty—seems too technical for both sources; where something is too subtle, too ambiguous or just undecidable, only an informal "general readership" description can be given.
What Gerda suggested in the hook—perhaps with "youth" instead of "boy"—is appropriate. If a wikipedia article tries to be too technical, it cannot reasonably speak in "wikipedia's voice", whether the language is that of German, American/British or Esperanto (one of the three options for "An Wasserflüssen Babylon") ☺ Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I meant something different when I said "in Wikipedia's voice": I meant something that doesn't need WP:in-text attribution. If Kirsten Beißwenger, a leading Bach scholar, says something isn't proven, you can't take a stance as Wikipedia implying that it is proven. You can only quote the leading Bach scholars, such as Peter Wollny, who say that it is proven, with an in-text attribution to such scholars. And then quote the opposing view, with an in-text attribution to a leading scholar that says that it isn't proven (to keep within WP:NPOV). All of that is less suitable for a hook on the main page, and anyhow requires the current hook proposal to be rewritten. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There has been borderline edit-warring by Francis Schonken as he edit-wars in his preferred version of the lede. That does not represent "wikipedia's voice". Bach scholars have ascertained that BWV 653 was written in the period 1740–1750, in Bach's late maturity. That chronology conflicts with Francis Schonken's preferred lede: it is quite misleading for general readers. As a comic touch, in this edit[4] Francis Schonken wrote the edit summary Still incoherent, see talk. Those comments, however, were all written dictée by Francis Schonken. On this rare occasion, he seems to have been accurate. ☺ Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this what is normally called "know all"?[5] Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Remains to be done:
  • Address the issues of two banner tags in the article (lead section; history & context section)
  • Address the issues of seven in-line tags in the musical settings section (unless such minor tags are less a problem to go to the next phase of DYK)
  • Update DYK proposal (ALT text proposal; indicate correct source(s); update proposed image caption)
  • (don't know whether there are still other things to do)
I'd invite Gerda Arendt to take, if possible, an active role in sorting these last issues; at least, if their time is limited, indicate a direction for how to address the two banner issues at the article talk page (I fear neither is going to fall off the page automatically, and already spent more time than I should have in trying to get these issues sorted). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Innisfree987 is an appropriate evaluator for the DYK and I would like to thank him for his comments which seem fair. I would also like to thank Gerda for initiating the DYK and for her offer to help me on the article. Gerda did that unprompted and it was kind of her to do so.
The hook seems fine. There is a problem, however, for the DYK image. The high resolution image from commons was uploaded a number of years back (2015), but the source is no longer available: it returns an error and I have been unable to locate the link. It is possible to give some kind of documentation for the source, but not necessarily on-line. The official documentation of Michael Maul and Peter Wollny, which needs to be verified, is a reference section available in a music library (in that case I used the Anderson Room in the University Library, Cambridge) but is not available on-line. The bare link to the 2006 publication of Bärenreiter Verlag is available, but that does not seem to be enough at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I suggest that we focus on the hymn and its creation, and mention only what is certain about Reincken and Bach? We need to work on the Bucer thing then, but can move details on Reincken to his bio, and details on Bach to Orgelbüchlein? Sorry that I was not more helpful, but in March, I focus on women, Passion and Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda. Bucer is not relevant here, nor any wikipedia "hack work", nor any of the original organ works by Bach, such as Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes (BWV 653 from "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"). Only the copying of Reincken's chorale prelude when Bach was a teenager are important for this DYK hook. The image, however, has not been properly sourced on Commons: I know how to rectify that but it will take a day or so. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, that all sounds completely appropriate to me, and the effort is much appreciated! Just drop me a ping when I should have another look. Thank you all! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I have found a properly sourced image on Commons now available on Bärenreiter Verlag. The image was in the "extras" section of the facsimile. See File:ReinckenAnWasser.jpg for the links there. Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
In the hook, perhaps we should say "young man" or "teenager", instead of boy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
"young musician" seems like the best description, given the context. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As mentioned on the user talk page of Gerda Arendt, the current lead follows the same spirit as Gerda's DYK hook. One of the sentence is essentially adapted from Gerda, with some tweaks by several other users:
"The arrangements of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Reincken and Pachelbel—along with the chorale prelude "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein," BuxWV 210 by Dietrich Buxtehude—comprise the earliest extant transcriptions of Bach, copied on a 1700 organ tablature in Lüneberg when he has still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005."
Gerda seemed happy with that and wrote "Thank you!" Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This has been stalled for far too long. Since "youth" has been suggested as a replacement from "boy" (and I've just replaced "has" with "was" in the above article sentence) and fits a Bach of 15 (or soon-to-be 15), here is ALT1 with just that change:
Reviewer needed to confirm that ALT1 is adequately sourced, and given the extensive changes since the original review, should probably recheck to be sure that the "within policy" criteria such as neutrality and close paraphrasing are still met. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you BlueMoonset, I'm afraid the delay (from my POV as previous reviewer) is largely based on debate about whether or not this hook is accurate (see the last paragraph of in the entry, just above "Further reading"). Suggestions for hooks on other topics from the entry would be welcome if that might help resolve this nom faster! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
We could say anything from just "a paraphrase of Psalm 137 which inspired Baroque composers", but Bach's early copy seems the most unusual fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I am comfortable with the alternative of User:BlueMoonset. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To address the debate, how about this version:
Although I'm not sure how effective it would be as a non-lead hook, and "some scholars believe" may be too far in the weasel-wording direction. Still, I offer it up as a possibility. If it isn't acceptable, then someone needs to propose a new hook very soon; the nomination is over two months old. (However, the one about a paraphrase that inspired Baroque composers is pretty uninteresting, in my view, and I like Baroque music.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
That version seems inaccurate and misleading. A slight variant of the current lead is, "Reincken's chorale fantasia on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" forms part of the earliest extant transcription of Bach, copied in colophon in 1700 in Lüneburg when he was still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005." So for example this would be accurate:
Another attempt to wreck the DYK hook and ignore consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Proposing,
ALT4: ... that the hymn tune of the 16th-century "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" ("By the rivers of Babylon") was largely popularized through a 17th-century hymn text, "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld"?
IMVHO the Reincken → Bach topic (respectively one and two steps remote of the 16th-century hymn) is a bit far from the core of the page's topic; besides, there is a An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) article now (... survived AfD), where the Reincken → Bach topic is better placed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Still looking for a reviewer! Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Long Reef (New South Wales)

Long Reef from Dee Why
Long Reef from Dee Why
  • ... that 25 shipwrecks and scuttlings have been recorded at Long Reef? Source
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Filikovalo (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 08:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. I found one sentence copied from the source and I have rewritten it. I have also changed the number of shipwrecks and scuttlings in article and hook from 26 to 25, because one of the wrecks in the database was at a different location (in Queensland). Otherwise, no problems. QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but found many paragraphs without at least one citation, per Rule D2. I also think the image is not interesting; perhaps you could offer an image of one of those shipwrecks or scuttlings? Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The beached SS Colaroy at Long Reef in 1881
The beached SS Colaroy at Long Reef in 1881
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The citation needed tags have since been addressed. I think this picture of a beached ship, already used in the article, works well with Yoninah's suggestion (though it isn't technically a shipwreck or scuttling as referred to in the hook). --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this hook per the relevant discussion at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks everyone. I was aware of the copy and paste issue. Just didn't get around to re-writing it. Filikovalo (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 26[edit]

Isabelle Druet

  • Reviewed: Stanley Gelbier
  • Comment: a bit of a rush job, trimming to only sourced, and I didn't get to the recordings.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 15:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC).

I'm nor sure what you mean about "I didn't get to the recordings." Did you refer to the discography of the artists (like those provided by Discogs, AllMusic and their ilk or other links to YouTube or Dailymotion, which I thought should be used with parcimony?LouisAlain (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I was rushing to rehearsal. For DYK, inline citations are needed, - a match/connection of what disdcogs says and the list, for example. Will do, but not now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citations check out, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Gerda Arendt, the hook feels like a bunch of facts slapped together, could you condense it a bit or suggest others? Omitting the reference to Concepción might help, or combining it with the last part (recording of L'heure espagnole), as they appear to be related. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought we should explain the lesser known work, but here you go:
ALT1: ... that the French mezzo-soprano Isabelle Druet performed as Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf, and appeared as Concepción on stage in Lyon, and on a recording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I was thinking of something along the lines of:
ALT2: that the French mezzo-soprano Isabelle Druet performed as Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf, and was recorded in Ravel's L'heure espagnole on stage in Lyon? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice try. For some reason, we seem to say "she recorded", never "she was recorded". In your wording, that could be some minor role, everybody knows "important female character" for Carmen ;)
ALT3: ... that the French mezzo-soprano Isabelle Druet performed as Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf, and as Puccini's Ciesca at the Paris Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Rather than a list of roles and performances, how about something unusual, such as the fact that she co-founded a theatre company in 2000 when she was in her early 20s (since she was born in September 1979, she was either 20 or 21 at the time, and it's still in business today) and then went on to become a successful Carmen? (The co-founding—not founding—of "La Carotte" would need to be sourced, but that's easily done, though the description of their genres should also be verifiable.) Perhaps something like:
  • ALT4: ... that Isabelle Druet co-founded a French theatre company soon after turning 20, and later performed many mezzo-soprano opera roles, including Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf?
I've heard Druet in concert with Le Poème Harmonique—she's quite good—and I'm very surprised to see no mention of her work with them in the article, even though they account for 40% of her listed discography. Indeed, the article is clearly unbalanced since it makes no mention of her career outside of opera, and as over half her discography is non-opera, this is a significant part of her singing career. The article is also awfully close in tone to an artist's concert bio. Can it be made more encyclopedic, perhaps? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It could, but by whom. It was translated from French, - I thought it was interesting enough for DYK, but reduced things I couldn't find sources for. - I have other to-do, especially now that March is over. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, it's your nomination. I'm afraid I don't have the time myself. You can work on this one, or you can work on others. It's your choice, naturally, but this one needs more if it's to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Repeating: it's my nomination. I noticed a great woman, about whom I knew nothing, and trimmed the article to match requirements. Her concerts and recordings are in hidden text, but lack citations. - The article is higher standard than some others of mine that "make it". You, however, heard her, so I dared to ask if your urge to improve might be higher than mine. I have a GA on hold, that I don't get to (soon( enough (see my talk), and it's a topic dear to my heart. There's real life also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, why not, I just think that DYK rules don't require completeness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Narutolovehinata5. To my view, the article as it currently stands falls short of WP:DYKSG#D7, in particular the section that reads: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. This article doesn't currently deal adequately with Druet's artistic career, though with a bit more work it could do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. If you know that so much better, could you please do this little bit more work? If not I will "in den sauren Apfel beißen" (don't know the phrase in English), meaning: very reluctantly do it, because it's a woman. I just started to make Péter Eötvös a bit more encyclopic, and there's also much room for improvement. - I received bad news in RL. Sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I added some, and GRuban added an image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"Bite the bullet" may be what you want. Which tells you something about what different cultures think about biting, I think... :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 27[edit]

Tribune East Tower

Tribune Tower property
Tribune Tower property
  • ... that the proposed Tribune East Tower is part of redevelopment plans for the Tribune Tower property whose views are being protected by local politicians?

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new and long enough. Sourced adequately. Within policy. QPQ done. Hook is within formatting guidelines, but not particularly "hooky". However, I think it's decent enough to pass unless another reviewer vehemently agrees that a different hook is necessary. This is my first DYK review so let me know if there are any problems with my review. I'm still learning. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The hook facts are not made out in the article which does not mention politicians. Could we have a different hook please? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current article has a well sourced sentence that says: "...prospective buyers of the Tribune Tower property had redevelopment plans that were at odds with local interests to protect views of the Tower..." So I'll go with ALT1, which just removes the last three words of the original hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I find the phrase "whose views are being protected" somewhat ambiguous. How about expressing it differently as in ALT2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps @Skyes(BYU): could consider the wording of ALT2 and give it a tick if appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The article is pretty short, so I'm not sure there is any way to make it more "hooky". If anything, the hook is more clear now and not as overly wordy. It sounds great! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The reason it's so hard to come up with a hook is because there's hardly any information in the article to work with. It reads like a bulletin in a business magazine. I do not think this article meets Rule D7 in its present form. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks, TonyTheTiger, for your new hooks. ALT4 is great – short and snappy. ALT5 is okay, but the part about surpassing Trump Tower as the second-tallest building is not in the article. The article only cites the January 2018 plans where Tribune East Tower would be shorter than Trump Tower. I'll go ahead and approve ALT4, with the hook ref verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 3[edit]

Endsleigh Gardens

Hannah Dobbs
Hannah Dobbs
  • ... that Endsleigh Gardens was originally part of Euston Square, but was renamed following a "gruesome murder"?
  • Alt1... that in 1878, Endsleigh Gardens was the scene of a murder for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey?

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

COMMENT: @Philafrenzy: the hook is ambiguous, maybe even to the point of being misleading. It was named following the murder, not named after as in given the same name as. Umimmak (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Umimmak. Agreed, hook reworded accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Gruesome murder put in quotes as it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook issues have been discussed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Long enough. The DYK submission was made a day and half late, but personally I would be willing to overlook that. There is a citation needed template on the article which must be fixed before promotion. No copyvio detected, images properly licensed. Alt1 hook is ok, the first hook would be acceptable if "Euston Square" was changed to "part of Euston Square". I'm concerned with the general quality of the refs. I only did a small sample, but the results were mixed. Ref#1 does not have a named author, but it is on a university site so probably ok. Ref#2 is a ref to a book, but the information appears to have been taken from the publisher's advertising blurb rather than the book itself. At least, that's where the link goes and there are no page numbers cited. Ref#3 is a blog. Ref#4 checks out, but the cited sentence contradicts the lead. The article (and the source) say the whole square was renamed. The lead says the South side was renamed. Ref#9 goes to the promotional site for Friends House, apparently to verify the location of Friends House, but the word "Endsleigh" does not appear on the page. It gives the address as Euston Road, and that's putting aside the question of using a promotional site as a reliable source. I'm not seeing any contribution from either author on the page cited for QPQ. SpinningSpark 18:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for the review. First hook struck as not needed. Regarding the refs:

  • I agree that Indiana University Bloomington is reliable despite not having a named author.
  • Ref 2 should be acceptable as a page from The History Press which is a reputable publisher.
  • The only function of Ref 3 appears to be so that we can use the quote "gruesome murder". The Alt can work without it and I take your point that it is a blog, however it is Senate House Library of the University of London (nearby) and can't all murders reasonably be described as "gruesome". There are no nice murders. Do you feel strongly about it?
  • Ref 4 replaced with a better source and wording amended accordingly.
  • By Ref 9 do you mean Ref 5 https://www.friendshouse.co.uk/ ? I have removed it as the fact was already supported by the Ordnance Survey map reference.

There is no requirement for the person who did the QPQ to have made any contribution to this article. The QPQ was a gift in consideration for helping out elsewhere. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there is no indication from the reviewer either here or at the reviewed article that the review has been "donated". More importantly, the QPQ requirement is on the nominator of the article: " For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍" (my emphasis). I haven't done a new review, I'll wait till the QPQ issue is resolved first, but judging by your replies it looks like it still has problems. SpinningSpark 22:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Your italics, it just means that it's one for one, hence quid pro quo. If you check the edit history you will see that the review was added by Whispyhistory, unprompted, with the edit summary "(dyk qpq- gift to EdwardX)". It's not a trick to try to get out of doing one. Edwardx and I have done 100s, it was just a nice thought from another user. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Spinningspark, having an uninvolved editor donate a QPQ has been done many times in the past here at DYK. It is perfectly legitimate: so long as a full review has been done of another article, while the onus is on the nominator, someone else can volunteer to supply the needed QPQ in place of the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Bluemoonset, thanks for clarifying that. QPQ is all good now. It would have been clearer if the donation had been stated and linked to the edit summary that actually made the donation. I'll take another look at the article. SpinningSpark 08:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Still problematic
    • "gruesome murder". If this is in quotes, it must be attributed to someone and cited directly with an inline cite per WP:V. If it is not in quotes, it is being said in Wikipedia's voice and runs afoul of WP:WTW.
    • "The Ghosts of Senate House" ref is still a blog regardless of Sarah Sparkes' (the blogger) connection with Senate House Libraary. There is no evidence that Sparkes meets the expert requirement at WP:SPS. The strapline at the top of the page reads "apocryphal stories and the spirit of the place", to my mind, openly declaring itself to be non-RS. The page calls for ghost stories to be sent in, and many of the posts on the page are from authors other than Sparkes with no sign there has been any kind of editorial fact checking. The relevant post is not by Sparkes, but by Chris Josiffe who appears to be an undergraduate, again almost certainly not meeting WP:SPS.
    • On reflection, I accept the History Press source as being reliable, but only because it was written by Jan Bondeson himself, the author of the book being discussed, and he probably does meet WP:SPS. We do not normally accept publihser's blurbs as being reliable, no matter how notable the publishing house is. Basically, they are advertising and can't be relied on to be a true reflection of the book's content or all its nuances.
This will be my last review of this submission. Please do not ping me, if you need another review then wait for anouther reviewer. SpinningSpark 09:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "Gruesome murder" replaced with just murder. Blog removed. New reviewer required for the final tick since everything else has been done as far as I can see. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A lengthy-ish book account of the murder is here. Might make a better ref. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Johnbod:, but as far as I can see everything has been addressed and it just needs a final tick. (perhaps you could oblige?) Philafrenzy (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg article appears quite clear and concise, cited and laid out out well. Very interesting. I might have added a hook about Persephone books wishing a well deserved blue plaque for Amy Levy, but current hook great. copyvio 7.4% ok. Noted slight delay in nomination was ok. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep for further work per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 1 - who is Hannah Dobbs?. New hooks under consideration:
  • ALT2: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT2a: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey in 1879, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Needs the pic I think since it clearly places it in time as a Victorian murder mystery. And since we are saying unsolved we can also say acquitted. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: ALT2a is really wordy. If you want to work in Hannah Dobbs, although she's not notable enough for her own Wikipedia page (maybe you want a double hook?), try:
  • ALT3: ... that in 1879, Hannah Dobbs (pictured), a former servant at No. 4 Eaton Square, was implicated in the discovery of a corpse in the coal cellar, but was acquitted at the Old Bailey for lack of evidence? Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 6[edit]

Mindy Alper

Created by Ringbang (talk) and Girona7 (talk). Nominated by Ringbang (talk) at 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Comment I realize to be subjective: reading the article, I found myself wondering what Alper’s art itself is actually like. Entry has loads of great stuff about her training, places she’s exhibited, teaching she’s done, the film about her (well done!)—but just a handful of sentences about what art she’s produced. (This is also reflected in the lead, which indicates she’s known as a painter and sculptor, but doesn’t say what materials she works with, what school she belongs to if any, what themes she’s known for engaging, or other major identifying qualities for summarizing an artist’s work.) If secondary sources for this just aren’t available, I understand and will be happy to check this off as I think it meets the letter of the DYK criteria; but if it’s possible to add more about the substance of her artistic output before it goes out to DYK readers, I think that would make it much more useful. Let me know! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Related: noticing lead says her media are painting and sculpture but infobox says drawing and sculpture—adding at least enough about the work to nail this down one way or another would be great. I’ll look for refs too. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over a month since the above, and I have just repinged nominator Ringbang's talk page. Perhaps Girona7 can help with Innisfree987's questions, and perhaps Innisfree987, who edited the article last week, can follow up here. Thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I added a bit to the entry about a month ago and then checked back on progress last week. I noticed meanwhile the creators were discussing proposing a different hook, so I was waiting to see where they landed on that. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I'd be happy to help but at present I'm trying to deal with the fact that the image I procured for the article has hit a snag in terms of getting OTRS to accept the permission I obtained from the creator as valid. As soon as this is resolved I'd be happy to follow up on the possible DYK. Thanks for keeping this one alive! And more soon... Girona7 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 9[edit]

Flag of the British South Africa Company

Flag of the BSAC
Flag of the BSAC
  • Reviewed: Timothy Weah
  • Comment: I'd like to request that we use the flag.

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough, well cited, neutrally written, no copyvio found. The online reference says "The BSA Company's own flag had not been received from England...", and at the time "the UK" meant Great Britain and Ireland together and indeed is a term hardly ever used until much later, so I have taken the liberty of changing the hook to say England. Moonraker (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this nomination from q5 as the hook can't be confirmed from the supplied source, which doesn't say the flag "took two years to arrive in Rhodesia from England". Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gatoclass: It does where it says that the Union Jack was raised in 1890 as the BSAC flag hadn't arrived and it was only raised for the first time in 1892. That is two years of waiting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, just to reply quickly to this, Rhodes set out in July 1890 and the flag was raised in 1892 - that might only be 18 months. Also, just because it wasn't "raised" until 1892 doesn't necessarily mean it took all that time to arrive - it might have just remained unpacked for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
*@Gatoclass: ALT1 ... that it took two years for the Flag of the British South Africa Company (pictured) to be raised over the newly founded Rhodesia? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The C of E: that just makes it sound as if they were really slow flag raisers. I think you'll have to do better than that! Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: ALT1 ... that it took two years for the Flag of the British South Africa Company (pictured) to be used in the newly founded Rhodesia? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm ... better, but still not quite there IMO. Perhaps I will take a closer look at the article and see if I can find an angle somewhere. It will have to wait until tomorrow though as I am about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: ? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, I have a heavy workload trying to keep the sets verified during the 12-hour cycle and just haven't found time to get back to this. There are a number of other nominations I had to pull which I haven't found time to get back to yet as well. I'm afraid this one will probably have to wait until we go back to a 24-hour cycle - probably in a few days - when I have a bit more time. Gatoclass (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Mexican–American War monuments and memorials

Created by Zigzig20s (talk), Doncram (talk), and Carptrash (talk). Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk) at 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment - Please see citation # 11 for "Escobedo p. 158". It's a sfn template that is not pointing to anything. I notice on the the talk page that it is from "Helen Escobedo in the book Mexican Monuments: Strange Encounters". Could you make a Bibliography section and list the book? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Maile66: Can we move this forward please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Zigzig20s I wasn't doing a review. I just made a comment, and the issue was taken care of, as mentioned. Someone else will do the review. — Maile (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I would suggest you propose another hook as the proposed hook sounds uninteresting and honestly even like a tautology. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was interesting that there were monuments on both sides of the border, because Mexico lost the war and losers don't usually have monuments to celebrate a war... Perhaps we could add that to the hook?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Well considering Confederate statutes (controversially) exist, it's not unprecedented for "losers" to have monument celebrating a war; I'm pretty sure there are other parallel cases around the world too. As such, both hooks have been struck; perhaps a different hook has to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated because of convict leasing and Jim Crow but I see what you mean.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram and User:Carptrash: Any suggestions please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I previously thought something could be said about how little memorialized this war was, before war memorials became more of a thing (I don't know what the source was, but somewhere in Confederate War memorial controversy I saw mention that war memorials became a thing in Germany in the 1870s or 1880s or 1890s, then the trend came to the U.S. with civil war memorials). [It was source 2 linked below...about post-Franco-Prussion War memorials. --18:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)] Similar to that idea is the poor treatment of the dead, as covered by Steven R. Butler, per this cached version (source 1) of "Burying the dead" summary of his master's thesis (which was published as a book and can be purchased). There existed no provisions for war dead to be brought back for burial at government expense, which came later.
Encyclopedia.com about war memorials doesn't even mention Mexican-American war, but suggests less honorable wars like that don't get memorialized much. It seems it is less memorialized than other wars, but a source stating that is needed.
How about the cemetery in Mexico City being the first U.S. national cemetery anywhere? Source being that cached source 1. Something like: "Did you know that...among memorials of the Mexican-American War is the monument at the first U.S. national cemetery, which is in Mexico City?"
Or something like: "DYK that ... although policy and practicalities precluded bringing home U.S. war dead from the Mexican-American War, as would become standard in U.S. foreign wars later, there were Mexican-American War monuments and memorials established in X number of U.S. states by year 1900?". --Doncram (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, how about use this quite decent source 2 to support: "DYK that ... while the American Civil War 20 years later became the first U.S. war that was heavily memorialized, there were U.S. efforts to memorialize the Mexican-American War, including creating the first U.S. national cemetery, which is located in Mexico City?"
Or perhaps better, use the two sources together to support: "DYK that ... while the American Civil War 13 years later featured the first widespread effort anywhere in the world to disinter battlefield dead and rebury them in central cemeteries after the war, (source 2) memorialization of the dead in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War included first creation of such a U.S. national cemetery in Mexico City with 750 reinterments during 1850-53? (source 1 and other)"
--Doncram (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Trying to make that shorter: "DYK that ... the first post-war widespread effort to reinter battlefield dead to central, national cemeteries was after the American Civil War, efforts to memorialize the dead in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery, in Mexico City, with 750 reinterments during 1850-53?". --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if that's true because Trafalgar Square is a memorial to the Battle of Trafalgar of 1805 (part of the Napoleonic Wars), isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I just modified my wording above, and then tried to shorten it. But if you mean there were previous examples of memorials and reinterments of bodies, sure there have been cases, but apparently on small scale. The source 2, which seems learned enough and cites learned sources, is saying that while there have been occasional monuments/memorials of some kind since at least 800 A.D. there were not widespread memorials in Europe before the F-P War and not in the U.S. before the ACW, and also that there were not widespread reinterments in any war before the ACW. The reinterment of about 750 American dead's bones from battlegrounds around Mexico City to the 2 acre cemetery, during 1850-53, seems likely to be the first effort by the U.S. and was just one effort. And we have a source saying this was not widespread. I am sure this suggested DYK is too long, but hope it can be refined and become acceptable. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The last hook you suggested is too convoluted. We want something snappy and we want to avoid mentioning the Civil War I think. Maybe "DYK that efforts to memorialize the dead in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery outside national borders in Mexico City, with 750 reinterments in 1850-53?". It's a bit convoluted but not as much as the other ones. What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this list is of interest to you and me and to potential readers because of the controversy about American Civil War memorials, but I agree it can be too convoluted to address ACW in a DYK hook. The hook you suggest is fine by me. Perhaps refine that as: "DYK that efforts to memorialize the dead in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery outside national borders, the Mexico City National Cemetery, with 750 reinterments in 1850-53?". User:Zigzig20s, do let's ensure the list-article supports that DYK. Note the assertion that MCNC is a "U.S. national cemetery" needs to be supported as being true, as being said to be that by sources, while it is not officially one of the 147 official ones in United States National Cemetery System. [It was later declared to be an official one.] Authority to create official ones apparently was in an act passed by the U.S. Congress on July 17, 1862. But the U.S. Congress did approve the MCNC purchase and expenses in reinterments and monument-building. --Doncram (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: What about ALT2 please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: @Doncram: ALT2 exceeds the 200 character limit. I think the part about the Mexico City National Cemetery having 750 interments is unnecessary; the hook should merely emphasize that the Mexico City National Cemetery is the first (unofficial?) U.S. national cemetery outside the US. ALT2 is almost acceptable, it just needs to follow my suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg In addition, there's a "citation needed" template in the article; said statement needs to be sourced ASAP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Doncram: Do you mind if we trim it please? And for the CN issue, we need an RS...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: What about ALT3? And I've fixed the CN issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Zigzig20s: ALT3 reflects my proposals best so it is tentatively approved. As for the article itself, it meets the newness and length requirements. Images are all freely licensed. Only two things left to do before I give my approval: first, the cemetery being a "national cemetery" or being established before the establishment of the US national cemeteries system requires a citation, and a QPQ needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram: Could you please add the RS for this assertion? I don't know what you found it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Zigzig20s, about the act of congress in 1862, i was relying upon Wikipedia article about the list of national cemeteries, which doesn't mention the Mexico City one and needs to be developed, but I found and added source now to this MWA article (from the National Cemetery Administration itself) stating that "Counted among the first 73 national cemeteries was an American military cemetery established in Mexico City, Mexico on Sept. 28, 1850, as a result of the Mexican War." ("History and Development of the National Cemetery Administration" (PDF). U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs / National Cemetery Administration. Retrieved April 12, 2018.  ) That source goes on about all of the national cemeteries, including military ones in Europe established during/after World War I, and so on... the Mexico City one was the first-created as far as I can tell from skimming/searching, and it was therefore also the first one overseas. Knock on wood, I think the hook is supported per requirements here. --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Now that the information in the article has been sourced, all that's left before this is approved is for Zigzig20s to provide a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a review...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Non-science.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg And with that QPQ verified, this is good to go. I've struck ALT2 for the reasons I gave above, so only ALT3 is approved for promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but am having trouble finding the inline cite for the hook fact in the article. The lead contains an overlong quote that should be paraphrased. I added a few "citation needed" tags. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
About a CN tag within a note, I don't think it was necessary...everything was covered with sources footnoted in the article. But I tried adding copies of the footnotes into the note, found that didn't work, then put in external links to the sources covered in the footnotes, which makes it look like there are more sources now. This has not really improved the article, IMHO, but okay, done. I think the hook fact is now even more obviously/explicitly supported in the article.
About a CN tag about a Kentucky memorial, I removed the tag. There is nothing controversial asserted. All info from the linked article about the Kentucky memorial, which has sources that are offline. I can't go to the original sources myself. Non-controversial stuff does not need to be footnoted unless it is challenged. If someone seriously challenges the fact of the existence of the memorial and that it relates to 17 burials and whatever, then go ahead and delete the whole item or comment it out. We can add it back later after this DYK is over. This is not how DYK is supposed to work, though. Whatever, this has nothing to do with the DYK hook. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
About a quote being "overly long" and requiring paraphrasing, that is a matter of editorial opinion/discretion. The explicit quoting does help support the DYK hook; I wouldn't want to change it then find DYK editors complaining they wanted more explicit support for the hook again. I wouldn't object though if someone wants to replace by paraphrasing, but this is not an issue for DYK review in my opinion. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Doncram: my reason for adding "citation needed" tags had nothing to do with readers challenging the information, but with DYK's Rule D2, which calls for at least one citation in each paragraph. In this case: at least one citation in each line of the list. The paragraph about the Kentucky War Memorial needs at least one cite; this could be for anything, like the date of unveiling. The second entry under "Mexico City", the Heroic Cadets Memorial, also needs a cite.
Okay, User:Yoninah, thank you for explaining. I was not aware of that DYK requirement; I did 50 or so DYKs many years ago, don't recall it as a rule, but maybe it just never came up. I just commented out the Kentucky War Memorial item, with hidden comment note "Item commented out for duration of DYK expected April/May 2018, because we can't tell which offline sources in Kentucky War Memorial support these statements. It would be okay for these statements to be here, supported by info in the article, but not during DYK, where a rule requires every paragraph or item to have an explicit source apparently." We will keep it hidden (i.e. effectively out of the article, until after a DYK has finished running on the main page. Knock on wood. About the Heroic Cadets Memorial, it looks like you just did add a cite, or at least there is a cite there now, so I hope this is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on your edits, I don't understand why the ALT3 hook calls it "the first U.S. national cemetery outside national borders". The article says it is "the first U.S. national cemetery", period. I admit that the hook fact about being a national cemetery outside the U.S. intrigued me, but it's not mentioned in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I happen to think that it is a more interesting thing to say. It is a true fact obviously if you agree that it is the first national cemetery, but that could be disputed (spending for it was indeed approved by congress and the president, but, as explained at the article, it was before there was an organized, officially named National Cemetery program; a number of Civil War cemeteries were named official National Cemeteries before this was retroactively declared to be an official one in 1870 or so). There were no other official ones (or even any unofficial candidates AFAICT) outside the U.S. before this was declared to be an official one. So the hook is true and undisputable. I think it is better to avoid making a hook about it being the first overall, subject to dispute. Thanks. I do hope this is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note that the Arlington National Cemetery was established a few years later, in 1864. Maybe we could create a chronological list of all the U.S. national cemeteries based on Category:United States national cemeteries. Also the sentence, "The first national cemeteries were set up after the United States Civil War by Edmund Burke Whitman.", in United States National Cemetery System appears to be wrong. Unless the Mexico City National Cemetery is not officially a U.S. national cemetery?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes that statement is "wrong" or at least needs to be explained there, i.e that it was the first official one created after the National Cemetery program was officially created, despite the fact that there already was a Congress-approved cemetery in Mexico City that was already a national cemetery in effect, and was declared to be one officially later, in 1870(?). --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. Does it matter for this nomination, or can we fix this later please? Are we finally good to go?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram: Can you please help with this? You're the one who came up with it. User:Yoninah: I thought the first one was fine but User:Narutolovehinata5 found it boring, not sure why...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: because it's a statement of fact, not a hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But Mexico lost.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The Confederacy lost the U.S. Civil War, and we all know how that turned out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that's the point you made earlier, but with convict labor and Jim Crow they did not think they'd lost. And the hook does not say they were the only losers who celebrated their loss. (Maybe the Confederates took a hint from the Mexicans?) Anyway, do you have another hook you'd like to suggest to be more productive please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • @Zigzig20s: Personally I think ALT3 is actually fine, Yoninah's concern seems to be less about the hook itself but more that the hook fact isn't clearly stated in the article. The solution would this is of course to add an explanation of this somewhere; Yoninah, I have to note that the information is already included in the article as a footnote. As possible alternatives, how about:
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I also think ALT3 is a great hook. But the only sourced statement in the article says it's the first U.S. national cemetery. It doesn't say first U.S. national cemetery outside national borders. The footnote doesn't say this, and isn't sourced, either. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s and Doncram: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think ALT3b will do the trick. Do you want me to approve it? Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes please.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me too. P.S. Yoninah could be right that the list-article doesn't exactly state the previously-discussed hook. It could be remedied by pasting the hook text into the article, with links to the two sources, much discussed above, which in fact do support it, at least with some interpretation. But this is moot if ALT3b goes ahead, which is fine by me. --Doncram (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. But still, what are you going to do about the uncited line for Heroic Cadets Memorial, Chapultepec Park? The Kentucky War Memorial entry is "commented out", but still appears in the article with some dashes after it. And the source for the sentence in the lead, footnote 1, states it was "one of the first", not the first; this needs to be adjusted. Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my editing mistake in commenting out Kentucky item, now fixed. About Heroic Cadets, there was a source in that item and I thought that meant it was okay by you. In case you mean about an unsourced sentence that concluded the item ("Nearby is the Niños Heroes Metro Station, named after the Niños Heroes") I just commented that out. --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And I changed in lede so that it says "one of the first U.S. national cemeteries". --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I know we're all eager to get this on the main page, but a few more careful tweaks and we'll be finished.
  • Doncram, I'm looking at the second entry under "Mexico City": Heroic Cadets Memorial, Chapultepec Park, also known as the Niños Héroes monument. Can you add a cite in there, perhaps one that confirms its alternate name?
  • Doncram, I also think it's unwise to comment out the Kentucky War Memorial. Some knowledgeable reader is going to see this article on the main page and wonder why it's not there. As I said above, all you need is a simple inline cite for the date of establishment, 1850, and the whole paragraph can stay. Per Rule D2 you only need one cite per paragraph, not one cite per line. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate, Yoninah, that you like all of us are a volunteer here. But I think these requirements are unnecessary, and are not properly part of DYK process. It would be fine/great if you would raise concerns at the article Talk page instead. I am obviously not against improving an article, and it would be a shame not to capture legitimate concerns/suggestions. But as I think you should understand by now, you are asking for sources to be provided right here/now when the sources used in articles were offline and are not available to me, to support obviously true facts which are not questioned in the corresponding articles. And you are even asking for new material to be added (or deleted/commented out material to be restored) with sources that are not known to be available. This is unreasonable, is not part of DYK process as I understand it. Nonetheless I will respond:
  • Okay, I restored a short item about the Kentucky War Memorial, with the best/only fragment of info from its article that is clearly specifically supported by a specific source which I copied over (although the source is not online and I cannot consult it myself), namely that the memorial was funded by $15,000 appropriated by a Kentucky state legislature act of February 25, 1848. This leaves the list-article item in odd position of having no connection to the Mexican-American War stated, because I have no specific source about that, but readers can presumably click to the article where MAW connection is explained. Again, after the DYK is over i will restore information about how the memorial is indeed partly about the MAW.
  • And okay about the Niños Héroes monument, i re-named that item as the Obelisco a los Niños Héroes (currently a redlink) with this source and I further mentioned with source that Harry Truman visited there.[strike that, because I don't for sure know which Niños Héroes monument he visited.] That is indubitably a MAW monument. The obelisk is just one of a number of Niños Héroes monuments even within Mexico City alone AFAICT; it clearly looks different than another captioned as "Heroic Cadets Memorial" in first photo of current Niños Héroes article, but I have no specific source saying what that is called (although it is obviously a monument to the Niños Héroes and it is obviously quite reasonable to call it a "Heroic Cadets Memorial"). Whatever.
If someone wants to insist that the photographed one be added to this article, or any further extra demands are made, then I don't know what, i suppose one has to look for processes to appeal against the crime of DYK withholding. Again, I believe all is well-intentioned, but I certainly will hesitate about participating in any DYK about a list-article in the future.
Or let me put it this way: if you want something to be added to the list-article, especially involving unspecificed sources that you think should be available, please add it yourself. --Doncram (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Everything looks ready now. ALT3b hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Narutolovehinata5. ALT3b good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Reams of discussion above and apparently nobody thought to run DYKcheck on this, because if they had done, they would have found that the article is 300 characters too short. Not only that, but the first source for the hook just goes to a generic page,[7] what am I supposed to do with that? I have therefore been obliged to pull the nomination so that somebody can address the issues. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, this was nominated 15 March 2018 and this delay, after all the rest, is bogus IMHO. Just post the darn thing.
The source has two links, one to that "generic page" by "url=" link and one, an "archiveurl=" to this archived version which has the content. I think the "generic page" originally had the content when this DYK process started; I don't know . But okay, I just replaced the url= link by what was at the archiveurl= link. If it was wrong for me to do that for some reason, please give very clear instructions as to what is preferred, as if you were talking to a child please. Also, I don't believe that a live URL is required for a source at all. It is not, or should not, be a valid reason to stop a DYK in progress, particularly not an already-approved one.
About DYKCheck, i had that installed but it doesn't pop up, i.e. I can't run it. I take it that more needs to be in the lede, while stuff in the list-items doesn't count? Okay, I added to the lede just now, adding generic overview stuff about the list-article and moving up one sourced thing about there being no monument on the mall in Washington D.C., getting to this version as of right now. Is that enough? If it is not enough, please take any one sentence and duplicate it a few times. --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
DYKCHECK shows "Prose size (text only): 1693 characters (265 words) 'readable prose size'" which is what is needed. It was nominated within the DYK time deadline, though it is getting less "new" every day.
This seems ready to be approved again (and it has been ready for quite a while), for what that might be worth. --Doncram (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, can you possibly please restore approval of this, or otherwise take it forward? --Doncram (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Everything is fine, according to all I know. Please do fix the situation if I am doing something wrong by following what I can understand about current procedures. I am applying DYKtick here and coping this into a queue. --Doncram (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Doncram, as one of the credited creators, you are not eligible to approve this nomination, nor may you promoted it to prep. I am calling for a new reviewer (or perhaps Gatoclass will have time to stop by). In any event, sometimes DYK nominations end up having to wait longer than this; please be patient. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Yoninah: Would you like to re-review this please? Or User:BlueMoonset, would you like to do it please? I am not sure why you are 'calling for a new reviewer.'Zigzig20s (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a bunch of nominations I pulled during the 12-hour cycle that I haven't found the wherewithal to get back to yet, including this one. I expect to get back to this in the next few days but if somebody else wants to verify it in the meantime I'm not standing in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 11[edit]

Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin

Created/expanded by Ali Ahwazi (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online English-language sources. No QPQ needed for first-time nominator.
  • However, the article needs a copyedit for an English-language readership. It is unclear why the article begins with the section "Al-'Alamin" or what this section is coming to tell us. The rest of the writing is written in an unencyclopedic manner and is hard to understand, like:

Besides, it is quoted that Muhammad said “Fatimah is the leader of the ladies of paradise”, then it was asked of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq that “Is Fatimah the best lady of her time?” then he mentioned Mary as the best lady of her time, and Fatimah as the best lady of the paradise since start till end of the world. Meanwhile, many famous Shia scholars among Shaikh Tusi have quoted such high title(s) of Fatimah in their books.

  • I suggest you ask at WP:GOCE for help in bringing this article up to English-language standards. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the references a bit and it doesn't seem very satisfactory. Especially the Sunni section, it cherrypicks several opinions of individual Sunni scholars (who might not even use the exact term as far as I can see), and then use those to support the generic statement that "Sunni Islam considers Fatimah as Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin". Many of the citation are primary (using primary texts from centuries ago) and might not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Sunni community as a whole. HaEr48 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, HaEr48, have subsequent edits dealt with the issues you raised, or are there still issues that need to be addressed? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: To be honest I'm still not satisfied with the Sunni section. The references seem to be cherrypicked and not very encyclopedic. There are a lot of WP:WEASEL wording such as "there are quotations from famous Sunni scholar" or " There are also similar narration(s) from Sunni sources", cited to either questionable source or very fringe books. If this is a title that mainstream Sunni use, surely the author should be able to find a more mainstream citation? Therefore, I doubt the suitability of including Sunni in the hook, or even in the article. No comment on the Shia part, because I'm not familiar with Shia sources. HaEr48 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 15[edit]

Robert Sexé

Drawing of Robert Sexé in Moscow
Drawing of Robert Sexé in Moscow

Created by Meanderingbartender (talk). Self-nominated at 07:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Promising, but needs some citations - in the last paragraph (date and place of death) and in the "Around the World Trips" section. The references also need fixing - the titles are missing from some, and the publications from others. Neutralitytalk 22:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank kindly for your review. I think I got everything. Let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Meanderingbartender (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we get one for the Route 66 sentence? Thanks! Neutralitytalk 01:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Route 66 came from fr.wikipedia. Thought I had another reference that confirmed it but apparently do not. I removed it. Meanderingbartender (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Giving this a Symbol confirmed.svg. Neutralitytalk 02:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not see an inline cite for the connection between him and Tintin. You have three citations after a sentence in the lead about him being a reporter; these are completely unnecessary and should be moved to the main body of the article. (In general, noncontroversial statements in the lead do not need to be sourced.) Meanwhile, if this is one of his claims to notability, more should be said about him being an inspiration for Tintin in the body of the article, citing the refs you have. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Added a bit more about Tintin with a new section. Thank you kindly. Meanderingbartender (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, that's much better. Restoring tick per Neutrality's review. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Wait a minute. Is the illustration really freely licensed? The uploader claims it's his "own work", but then there's something about a scanner at the bottom of the Commons page. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I'm fairly certain it was the artist, Christophe Fauret, who uploaded it. The initial fr.wikpedia page was done by the author of the biography of Sexé who used drawings by Fauret. His website. While I do like the drawing, I'm happy for it to be delinked from the DYK. Meanderingbartender (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's a great image, and I would like to use it for DYK. I just need to be absolutely sure it's freely licensed. If not, it needs to be removed from the article as well. Calling on @The Rambling Man: for help here. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. It's certainly entirely not the uploader's "own work", just take a look at this to find the original. It looks like an arty filter applied to someone else's photo, in which case I'd ditch it because the attribution is not sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is this image of a book cover[8] coming from the author of the biography. [9] The artist wanted to portray Sexé in the style of Herge/Tintin. I don't see why somebody would go through the trouble of redrawing a photo where they could just upload the original photo. Meanderingbartender (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So, for clarification, does the person that uploaded the image own it in entirety? As this is clearly a derivative work, I'd expect to see all that kind of information on the Commons page, and last time I look, no such attribution and explanation existed there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: It could run without the image, but if the image is problematic, it needs to be removed from the article altogether. I pinged the nominator on his/her talk page and am still waiting for confirmation that the image is properly licensed and attributed. Yoninah (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5 and Yoninah: As far as I'm concerned the image is licensed. There's no dispute on the commons page. Fail this nomination if you want but don't bully me into doing something I completely disagree with. Meanderingbartender (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Considering the issue with the image, would it be best for this to simply run without it? Seems that the article has no other issues otherwise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As I wrote above, if the image is improperly licensed, it must be removed from the article before it appears on the main page. I pinged The Rambling Man to explain the situation, and he did. As I'm not so up on image licensing, I can't help much here. I know that User:Stefan2 is an active editor in non-free licensing; perhaps he can help here. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The image seems to have been used as a book cover in 1996 (with a photographic background).[10] Do we have any evidence that the uploader is the artist? WP:IOWN describes what we normally require.
There is also the question of the copyright status of the underlying photo. Commons needs to comply with both French and United States copyright law, while English Wikipedia only cares about the United States copyright law.
According to [11], En 1928, Sexé fait un tour d'Europe, puis il met le cap au Nord, et pousse jusqu'au Cercle Arctique. l'année suivante, il "refait" l'Europe, mais en zigzags cette fois. In other words, he travelled through Europe in 1928 and 1929, so the photo was probably taken during one of those years. Was the photo published before the book was published in 1996? If that's not the case, the photo is still copyrighted in both France (copyright term: 70 years from publication) and the United States (copyright term: 120 years from creation), provided that the photographer is anonymous. If the photo was published earlier, then it could be in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that this image shouldn't be run. If it's a derivative work, it's not free, and if it's not a derivative work, it can't be considered based in an RS. Remove the image, and this hook should be okay.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have nominated the image for deletion at Commons. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg I'm not going to waste a single more second on this nomination based on the bullying behaviour of several people. Fail this and be done with you all. Meanderingbartender (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg@Meanderingbartender: I'm sorry, I cannot accept your withdrawal. This is a fine article and worthy of main page exposure. The rules of free-licensing are just really strict; I've had limited experience with it before on behalf of another editor, and I can see it's not pretty. As writers, we're familiar with the intense scrutiny of verifiable sources; this is just the flip side in pictures. It's not my intention to bully you at all. After the image is removed from Commons, this will be ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Body horror

  • Reviewed: This is my first nomination.
  • Comment: Article created in my userspace on March 1, moved to mainspace on March 15.

Created by Itherina (talk). Self-nominated at 02:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. I don't see the first hook fact in the article; could you point it out to me? I prefer the first hook over the others, which divert the focus to films rather than the target article.
  • Regarding the article: I added a few "citation needed" tags. I don't understand why you're listing writers, directors, and artists in separate sections, and also the names of pertinent works in separate sections, without any sourcing. These examples should be put into prose paragraphs in the relevant sections ("Examples of films in the body horror genre include ..."), with a citation at the end.
  • While the article is start-class, it reads like a series of snippets from various books and authors. I notice a talk-page suggestion for fleshing out the presentation under social and cultural influence. Do you have more to add to this?
  • No QPQ needed for first-time nominator. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Yoninah. Thank you for your response! I'll go ahead and clarify a few of the questions you posted above.
  • First, the Mary Shelley hook is referenced across two separate sentences, which can be found in the first two sentences fiction subsection of History. I see how the second sentence doesn't necessarily clearly or plainly state that Science Fiction was created my her, but was instead only implied. I'm definitely happy to clarify these sentences if you agree it isn't particularly clear in order to make the hook more representative.
  • Second, the feedback regarding removing the bulleted lists in favor of narrative was also provided to me earlier within a wikipedia academic fellowship pilot I'm currently participating in, and will be edited soon to reflect the feedback received.
  • Finally, this article will be an ongoing project and will be receiving substantial edits and improvements in the future, especially within the history section and social/cultural areas suggested in the talk pages. This is also in part the result of the fellowship pilot which is helping involve academics in the wiki editing process, so many of my questionable choices within the article are definitely a reflection of my newness to the process and adjustment from academic to encyclopedic writing styles. Any feedback or further changes or edits are much welcomed! Thank you. Itherina (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, the page is looking good. Regarding ALT0, the new offline hook corroborates that Shelley is associated with the body horror genre, but the article doesn't state the first part of the ALT0 hook, that Shelley "created the science fiction genre". This cannot be implied; it must be stated and sourced.
  • The ALT1 hook is not really accurate; the film didn't do the convincing, it was just one in a series of films that led to the ratings change. I edited that in the article.
  • I don't find ALT2 hooky at all.
  • Regarding the hook, would you like to lift a different fact from the article, or would you like me to suggest something?
  • Housekeeping notes: You have some sentences that consist entirely of a quote, without any attribution. As you can see in the Mary Shelley description, I attributed the quote to "Halberstam says". You should do the same with the other sentence-quotes. There's also a "citation needed" tag under the Television section. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah, since I'm so new to the process and am not completely familiar with best/accepted practice would you feel comfortable suggesting a good hook for the article instead? But if you prefer one generated by the article author I'm happy to try my hand at a few more as well. Regardless, I absolutely see your concern with the ALT0 hook and also its source material, so I am planning on fixing the article text to reflect more encyclopedic standards and have clearer langauge. I'll also comb through and fix attribution errors as well; thank you for the feedback on that end, it's much appreciated :D!Itherina (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, here's something. There's not much description to work with in the article.
  • ALT3: ... that body horror, originally a subgenre of horror films and literature, now appears in video games, comics, anime, and manga? Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note the "citation needed" tag under Television and either add a source or delete that sentence. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

5x expanded by Lionelt (talk) and Masem (talk). Nominated by Lionelt (talk) at 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: for the record @Masem: expanded – Lionel(talk) 02:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a review, but I don't think the hook is appropriate. The reason is that this is a very controversial issue (whether US laws on free speech allow anti-abortion groups to masquerade as abortion centers, or whether they can be forced to tell visitors how to find the real abortion centers) but the hook only contains some bland and euphemistic organization names. We should give the readers more of a hint at what issues this case is about and what these groups are fighting for. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "anti-abortion groups to masquerade as abortion centers" Really? Look: I just want to get my 25 DYK Medal. I don't want a hook that is going to trigger a full blown RFC with every pro-life and pro-abortion editor weighing in and delay this 30 days. Thanks but no thanks. – Lionel(talk) 07:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Phrase it however you like, but if you have to hide behind uninformative euphemisms rather than actually giving any hint of what it's about because you're afraid of the controversy that would be kicked up if you actually said what these groups are doing then it's not front-page material. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Compared to most of the hooks that have been on the Main page lately mine is just downright scintillating.– Lionel(talk) 06:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
And maybe you should look up the definition of "euphenism" because the names of the two organizations in the hook are accurate and descriptive.– Lionel(talk) 06:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I agree with David Eppstein that this hook really says nothing about the contents of the article. This is also not a full review, but I have given my comment an icon anyway as it fails rule 3a by not being interesting. Downright boring even. SpinningSpark 23:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well aint this a hoot. Reviewers have been passing boring hooks for years--no make that decades--and all of a sudden my hook gets selected for extreme vetting? What's going on here??? Two weeks ago I hinted--just hinted mind you--that a hook was boring--and it was totally boring--and I was basically told to go screw myself. So I passed it. So why does my hook rate intense scrutiny??? Are we all of a sudden enforcing the "interesting hook" rule and what: noone sent me the memo? I checked my little notifications bell at the top of my browser. Nothing. Nada. – Lionel(talk) 14:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg @Lionelt: Please assume good faith here, we are trying to help you here and working with you so that this nomination will pass. Regardless of the controversy surrounding the case, I agree with David and Spinningspark that the hook is uninteresting by itself. I've looked at the article and there are some parts of it that could work as hooks: for example, the phrase "Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising" could form the basis of a hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You know, Narutolovehinata5, you make a good point. Let's get to the nitty gritty of this case. And what better source to rely upon than the fair and balanced NY Times.– Lionel(talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, said that a California law was "gerrymandered" in order to discriminate against Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Source: "Justices across the ideological spectrum said they suspected that the law had singled out centers run by opponents of abortion. Justice Elena Kagan said she was concerned that the law had been “gerrymandered” to address only some providers, something she said would pose a serious First Amendment problem." from the fair and balanced NY TimesLionel(talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lionelt: The hook seems okay, but I don't think it's necessary to mention in the hook that Kagan is a liberal, only the Supreme Court Justice part is probably necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
What! How did "liberal" get in there???
ALT2: ... that in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that a California law was "gerrymandered" in order to discriminate against Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Source: "Justices across the ideological spectrum said they suspected that the law had singled out centers run by opponents of abortion. Justice Elena Kagan said she was concerned that the law had been “gerrymandered” to address only some providers, something she said would pose a serious First Amendment problem." from the fair and balanced NY TimesLionel(talk) 04:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Since this is a controversial topic, I'll have to ask for opinions from previous reviewers @David Eppstein and Spinningspark: and co-contributor @Masem:. But I'm willing to do the other checks (like eligibility and so on). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Is the rephrasing between the Kagan quote and the hook accurate? I.e., when Kagan said "to address only some providers", but we change "address only" to "discriminate against" and change "some providers" to "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", are we sure that's what she intended to mean? Why? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we're sure that the paraphrasing in the hook accurately represents her meaning.– Lionel(talk) 05:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there any more evidence than your word? Because it does not look like the same meaning to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: revised hook. – Lionel(talk) 10:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Again with the switch from the source's neutrally worded "some providers" to the much-less-neutral "pro-life". (Even assuming that it's fair to call the anti-abortion movement that. I assume you would object to calling them "forced birthers" so why should it be ok to use the equally propagandistic "pro-life" when the actual name of the linked article is "anti-abortion movement"?) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Oops. Fixed the link. It now links to our article United States pro-life movement. Your example of "forced birther" is a red herring since reliable sources frequently use "pro-life." – Lionel(talk) 08:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Yaroslav Halan

  • ... that 11 hits with an axe led to the death of the Ukrainian writer Yaroslav Halan, who was killed for his sharp political pamphlets? Source: "Ilariy Lukashevych [...] and Mykhailo Stakhur, a rank-and-filed OUN member, came to Halan's apartment, on the pretext that Halan would help Lukashevych gain admission to a forestry college. Stakhur hit Halan 11 times with an axe, and the pair fled." ([13])
  • Comment: Article published on March 19, 2018

Created by Катала (talk). Self-nominated at 23:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, so File:Yaroslav Halan's Body After Murder.jpg cannot be used on this page. I'm not sure whether the presence of an image affects a DYK nomination, but please use a freely licensed/public domain image instead if an image is required for nomination purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No action necessary regarding image removal. Review needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg This article is new enough and plenty long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. I have given this nomination a tick, but the creator, Катала, has not had a DYK before, and it is possible that others may think the article needs further work before being ready for the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Катала and Cwmhiraeth: This article does indeed some more work before it can be promoted: quite a few paragraphs lack a footnote, and the "Homage" and "Awards" sections are completely unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 20[edit]

Fleurs de Marécage

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 01:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

  • @Drmies: Have you gotten a chance to do QPQ? The hook is also a bit long and unwieldy. Perhaps
Alt1 ... that Dutch poet J. Slauerhoff's Fleurs de Marécage was published with some new poems in French and some translated from Dutch?
Meanderingbartender (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Meanderingbartender, thanks for the reminder. I'll do one shortly. As for the hook--yeah, cutting Belgium is fine, but I'd like to keep the rest because I want to have Dutch, French, and English in there. I made two minor tweaks--like it better? Drmies (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
QPQ done. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New, long enough, sourced, one inline hook citations checks out and one is offline and accepted as good faith, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Drmies & Meanderingbartender, hooks feels a bit wordy and uncatchy. If the point is to focus on languages, how about:
ALT2: ... that Fleurs de Marécage by the Dutch poet J. Slauerhoff, contains French poems, a translation of the Irish W. B. Yeats, and was published in Belgium? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to capture the linguistics complexity--translations into Dutch from French and English, originally French poems, etc. BTW (and you may find this interesting, Usernameunique) there was significant cross-border literary interest, as I discovered when I was quickly writing up Slauerhoff's publisher, A. A. M. Stols. Maybe it was the interbellum, but Dutch, French, and German mingled much more easily than they did in my childhood. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

23rd Street (Manhattan)

  • ... that the structures along 23rd Street in Manhattan, New York City, range from art galleries and theaters to skyscrapers and expensive residential units? Sources: Too many to quote, but art galleries, theaters, skyscrapers (1, 2), and expensive real estate (1, 2, 3). In the "Description" and "Economy" sections.
    • ALT1:... that New York City's 23rd Street contains an eclectic mix of structures, from art galleries and theaters to skyscrapers and expensive residential units? Sources: See above
    • ALT2:... that at various points, New York City's 23rd Street contained the city's largest residential complex, the world's largest hotel, and the world's tallest skyscraper? Sources: (1) London Terrace is the residential complex. The source is the NY Times (1988): "It was the largest apartment development ever built in New York City". (2) Fifth Avenue Hotel is the hotel. The source is The Encyclopedia of New York City (2010), p. 442. (3) The Metropolitan Life Tower is the world's tallest building. The source is the NY Times (1996): "The Metropolitan Life Tower, the tallest in the world when it was built in 1909".

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article passed GA yesterday, no copyvio concerns. I like ALT2, but I'll have to AGF on the Fifth Avenue Hotel source because I'm not seeing an obvious web hit for it being the world's largest, though online sources do seem to go on about the elevators a lot. I've got Template:Did you know nominations/Tsamma juice still open if you're looking for a QPQ. I think it would be nice to give Beyond My Ken credit for doing quite a bit of work on the article, though I seem to recall he's got an aversion to anything reward-related like GAs and DYKs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Good memory, Ritchie333, you are correct, but I won't beef about whatever decision you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: For the record, the Encyclopedia of New York City says on page 442, "The hotel, at the time the largest in the world, could accommodate 800 guests". That was in the 1850s, though, so I'm not all that excited about a hotel with an 800-guest capacity. Anyway, I've done a QPQ for your article.
    @Beyond My Ken:, I've added you to the credits. I did notice your dislike of DYK/GA credits, which is why I didn't add you at first, but I hope you won't mind that you're credited now. epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I pulled this from the queue because "the world's tallest skyscraper" mentioned in the hook is not on 23rd street, it's on the corner of Madison Avenue and 24th, according to both the given source and, it appears, Google maps. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gatoclass: That's weird, I walk by that building every day and I could've sworn that it took up the block between Park, Madison, 23rd, and 24th. The source itself said, In 1893 the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company moved into its first building at the northeast corner of 23d Street and Madison Avenue. [...] The company later expanded with successive sections of matching design running down 23d Street and around the block onto 24th Street, for a total of six buildings. In 1905 Metropolitan Life bought the southeast corner of 24th Street and Madison Avenue and announced plans for a 560-foot tower, designed by the LeBrun firm. But it looks like the tower itself is at the northwest corner of that block (Madison and 24th) so I guess that 23rd Street can't technically claim to have the world's tallest skyscraper.
      How about this? epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
      • ALT3:... that New York City's 23rd Street once contained the city's largest residential complex and the world's largest hotel?
      • ALT4:... that New York City's 23rd Street once contained the city's largest residential complex and the world's largest hotel, as well as one side of the world's tallest building?
ALT4 looks WP:OR to me, and I can't imagine how one would verify something like that. So I guess it will have to be ALT3, if you're happy to go with that one. Gatoclass (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 sounds good. By the way, Google Maps shows that the base of this building abuts 23rd Street. I suppose I was half right about that, then. epicgenius (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 21[edit]

Aami Ashbo Phirey

Created by Titodutta (talk). Nominated by Lahariyaniyathi (talk) at 04:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article has 1676 characters, and was created on 21 March. I've made a couple of tweaks. No QPQ required. Not sure if the hook is interesting enough to people unfamiliar with Anjan Dutt's work, but it is sourced appropriately. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Agreed, the hook is not hooky for an international audience. Do you have another suggestion? Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg In addition to concerns about the hook, the article itself might need some work: the article at the very least needs some copyediting due to grammatical errors. In addition, much of the "Release and reception" section, apart from needing a copyedit as well, lacks references, and in any case needs to be expanded or at least be converted to prose form as opposed to a list. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I've moved this back to the pending nominations page per my comments above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh! Right after the film's release that section was added, and you are right that the section needs some work. About hook, I do not have any other hook suggestion, unless I force something, which I do not want to do. I'll work on the mentioned section. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I copyedited the article and added a "citation needed" tag under Release and reception. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I could not find the ToI review that gave the movie 1.3/5. I got this one where information is different. I have removed the portion from the article. --Titodutta (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 24[edit]

Louise Mitchell

Moved to mainspace by Grangehilllover (talk). Nominated by Soaper1234 (talk) at 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Reviewing now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough when nominated. More than long enough. Hooks ALT0 and ALT1 are both cited to sources that support them, and are both neutral. Hooks about a fictional character both involve the real world. Hooks are short enough. Article seems to be free of copyvio and close paraphrasing, hits on ECD are cited quotes. QPQ done. Article is neural, as are he hooks. Policy issues: article has a greatly excessive amount of plot summary, as per WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT. I have tagged it with {{plot}}. Much of the sections with plot summery are completely uncited. I know that plot summaries are considered to be implicitly cited to the work summarized, but I believe that DYK rules still require cites, and later plot sections are cited.(MOS:PLOT says in relevant part: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research.") This is more important where the work is a series, not a single work, and cites could at least indicate the episode or episodes being summarized, which is not now indicated. Of course this problem would disappear or be much reduced if the plot summary were reduced to a more reasonable length. These policy issues are the only problems with this nom, it is otherwise OK. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: In the case of plot summaries, the general consensus (and this is usually followed by DYK too) seems to be that citations for plot summaries are not necessary, though they are required for discussion of the plot (like in Themes or Development sections). I took a look at the article and yeah the plot section is way too long, and honestly the length is a far more pressing issue than the sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your review DESiegel and your comments Narutolovehinata5. I would tend to agree that the plot does not require sourcing, although should you feel this to be a pressing issue, I can add a general reference in the reference section. The plot is lengthy so I will try to cut down wherever possible. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am aware of the general consensus - indeed I quoted the relevant guideline above. I do think that at DYK things should perhaps be a trifle stricter. At least the episode, or minimally the season in which a storyline occurs should be cited, I would think. I agree that the overall length of the plot sections of the article is a larger problem. It would also be harder to fix, I would think. In any case I have notified the nominator, and this page is also transcluded on the article talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: So would you be fine with a general reference? I'm thinking something similar to that used on the Babe Smith article. Soaper1234 - talk 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
No Soaper1234, I really wouldn't be "fine" with that. I think that there ought to be a footnote for each story line mentioned, giving the episode(s) in which it occurs. However, given the wording of MOS:PLOT and the comments of Narutolovehinata5 above, I will not try to make this a condition of DYK approval. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
However, the excessive length of the plot summary is another matter. Currently the "Storylines" section runs just about 2,600 words, plus additional plot summary in the "Development" section. And that is after your edit, winch removed some 2,600 characters, perhaps 4-500 words. (It now, after the edit, runs a full 4 pages when copied to a word processor document, without section headers.) By comparison, WP:FILMPLOT suggests an upper limit of 700 words for the plot summary of a feature-length film. I really think it should be no longer than 1,200 - 1,500 words in total. This is for the article quality as much as for DYK. But since DYK rules specify "no dispute tags", this nom can't proceed until the {{plot}} tag is addressed, one way or another. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that WP:FILMPLOT says: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." I think this should apply, and it has not in my view been closely adhered to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point DESiegel, but I would appreciate it if you would not be rude to me. I'm still working with the length of the plot and as I'm sure you can see, I have only edited one subsection of the plot and the second subsection is still to be edited. Please bear with me until this has been completed. Also, I believe when creating the article, the creator tried adhering to the EastEnders MOS rather than WP:FILMPLOT or any plot guidelines relating to films. In regards to footnotes for each episode, at a push, this could be sorted for any storylines since 2016, but I would struggle with storylines between 2000 and 2010. Soaper1234 - talk 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Soaper1234 I am sorry i\that I seemed to be rude, this was not my intention. I was merely trying to make my view as reviewer clear. I did not know if you considered the edit I linked to above merely a first step, or a sufficient correction. I did not want to imply that I thought it an acceptable final state. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I had not previously noticed WP:EE/MOS#Storylines. I now note that it says "This section is not a character's biography and should not be a detailed recording of the character's every move, as this can create an overly long section devoted entirely to in-universe information – the information should be succinct. Try and summarise major events that occur with the character. Avoid using "Biography" in the header for this section, as it can insinuate that the section should detail everything that happened to the character. If possible, use the {{cite episode}} template to source events in the show." I cited the FILMPLOT page as the closest one that I knew of to specify a length for a plot summary, and a reasonable analogy. I note that the page linked to above says that a storylines section should be "succinct" but does not give any specific word count. Of course, as a project page, it is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not override wider guidelines or policies. But I don't see any glaring conflict between it and, say, MOS:PLOT. Again i apologize for any rudeness. And I want to make clear that while I personally think the plot summery should include footnotes specifying episodes described, and it seems that the EastEnders project style guide agrees, that is not a policy issue and I would not make it alone a reason to reject this DYK nom. I accept that your aim here has been to improve the article and the project in good faith, and i appreciate your work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Don't worry about it. This is the most problematic DYK I've encountered so I'm still getting to grips with everything really. I view the linked revision as a first step rather than a final state. I'll continue working on it. I completely understand that it is a project and therefore, it cannot override other guidelines. I also understand how you cannot reject the DYK nom based on a lack of episode references, but I'm glad you brought it to my attention so I will try to look into this in the future. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Out of curiousity, how long would you expect the plot to be, bearing in mind that this is a soap opera, which airs all year round. I've narrowed it down to about 13,000 characters, without references and sub headings. Soaper1234 - talk 19:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 25[edit]

Archery, Georgia

Jimmy Carter in 1937
Jimmy Carter in 1937
  • ... that U.S. President Jimmy Carter spent the majority of his childhood on a farm in Archery, Georgia?
    • ALT1:... that U.S. President Jimmy Carter grew up at Archery, Georgia on his family's farm from age four, in 1928, until he left for college in 1941?

Created by Gilliam (talk). Self-nominated at 04:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC).

  • New enough and long enough (barely), neutral and well cited. Hook is cited, verified, and meets requirements. No image to check. Article did have a stub tag which I removed. No other issues.
Symbol question.svg Will be good to go after QPQ review. MB 18:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, it's been years since I've done a DYK review. Please allow me some time.– Gilliam (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that the article is correct. The coordinates given do not point to a railway station or any evidence of a town. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The coordinates are correct. The railway platform is located across the road from the Jimmy Carter Boyhood Farm.– Gilliam (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Your coordinates were off by over 0.8 miles. Anyway, you were stupid enough to believe a government database and then lie straight to my face and say the coordinates were correct. Abductive (reasoning) 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Unincorporated communities in the U.S. don't have official official boundaries; it depends who you ask. User:Abductive, your attitude is entirely inappropriate. Your preceding barbs and an uncivil edit summary like this could be considered a personal attack.– Gilliam (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
It obviously depends on not misrepresenting that you know something which you didn't. You didn't look on any map or make any effect to be an editor. You should be ashamed. Abductive (reasoning) 03:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the article; I didn't add the coordinates. You should be admonished for your WP:BITEy attitude which could drive off editors who write quality articles.– Gilliam (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Symbol question.svg Gilliam, looks like we just need a QPQ. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 27[edit]

Alma Mahler

Improved to Good Article status by Gandhi (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg As interesting as this article is, unfortunately I do not see the criterias of new within the past seven days, or prose portion expanded at least fivefold or prose portion expanded at least twofold fulfilled apart from the promotion to good article status. Or is that enough? If so, more references need to be added though to the hook, I only see one at the moment. Gryffindor (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gryffindor, according to this page recent GAs are eligible for DYK nomination. Could you elaborate about the need for more references to be added to the hook? The reference refers to all the facts in the hook, however, if I'm not understanding something please let me know. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment you have only one source. Do you have another source that can verify the claim of the first? It would be better. Gryffindor (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gandhi (BYU) and Gryffindor: Posting here per Gryffindor's question on my user discussion page. A recently promoted GA is fine (no expansion is necessary if the GA was promoted within seven days of the nomination, which it has). This is long enough at 14,309 prose characters. It is okay to source a hook to a single reference, as long as the hook actually says what is mentioned in the reference. Both hooks do so, but IMO, ALT1 is more interesting. Here is a template to make the review easier. (Gryffindor, you still have to check sourcing, neutrality, and whether this article has any plagiarism. For the plagiarism issue, you can check from this link, though in this case, it looks like someone copied from Wikipedia.) epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gryffindor, the Youtube page cites Wikipedia as its source. At the end of the video's description it says it came from Wikipedia. I have corrected your concerns. Please link me to this page so I am able to know when you next respond and how you would like to proceed. Thank you! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg @Gandhi (BYU): Got it. It looks good, ready to go. Gryffindor (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gryffindor and talk, thank you for looking over the DYK nomination. If you could strike through the problems that were fixed I would appreciate it. Thank you!Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gandhi (BYU): Done. Gryffindor (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - In my opinion, ALT1 is more interesting, but feel free to disagree. epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 hook is fine with me. Rest see comments above. Gryffindor (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC) :Looks good to me now, thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I wrote two more hooks. If there is anything else I need to do please let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm interestd in the woman and ready to review, - please write the two hooks you mean below, - can't tell where in the above I'd find them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, the hooks at the top of the page are the new ones. Thank you for reviewing! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's consider this then (I thought that ALT1 was pulled, sorry), from above:
Alma Mahler by Kokoschka, 1912
Alma Mahler by Kokoschka, 1912
ALT2: ... that many artists, including Gustav Mahler and Oskar Kokoschka (portrait of her pictured), considered Alma Mahler their muse? I added a comma and the questionmark. How about saying that Mahler was a composer, and Kokoschka a painter, and adding architect Gropius? We should not expect people to know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, what about this? Also, will you tag me next time so I get notified when you respond? Thanks! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that many artists, including Gustav Mahler the composer, Oskar Kokoschka the painter, and Walter Gropius the architect, considered (portrait of her pictured) Alma Mahler their muse?
I suggest the other way round, - we want readers to click on her, not all the men ;)
ALT4: ... that Alma Mahler inspired artists including composer Gustav Mahler, painter Oskar Kokoschka (his portrait of her pictured) and architect Walter Gropius? - No I usually don't ping, expecting the nomination to be on your watchlist. I'll ping if weeks pass without a response.
Symbol voting keep.svg Image is licensed and unusual, and a good illustration of the hook. I'll watch for other suggestions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article doesn't say anywhere that I can see that the subject "inspired" either Mahler or Gropius, so ALT4 looks dodgy to me. Gatoclass (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I only translated "considered their muse" to active voice, or what is a muse if not something inspiring art? Our article says "inspirational". Do you have a different way to say the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, I don't know how I'm supposed to find "muse" when the hook says "inspired", but regardless, it seems to be sourced to a satirical song, which hardly qualifies as reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I came here to review, but here you go without musing and inspiration:
ALT5: ... that Oskar Kokoschka portrayed Alma Mahler (pictured), who was then the wife of composer Gustav Mahler, and later married the architect Walter Gropius and the writer Franz Werfel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Jeju Oreum

  • ... that Jeju Oreum is an area of outstanding natural beauty in South Korea?

Created/expanded by Yeon So Jeong (talk) and Na Jieun (talk). Nominated by Yeon So Jeong (talk) at 08:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Note: this nomination was not transcluded after it was created, but after being contacted a couple of days ago, nominator Yeon So Jeong has expressed a desire that it be revived, which typically DYK allows for untranscluded nominations. So even though this will be filed under 27 March 2018, the newness should be based on the original nomination date of 18 December 2017. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 29[edit]

Conflicts of interest in academic publishing

  • Comment: I don't think an image of a journal supplement would add much, but if we need images I could probably dig one up

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (created by HLHJ on 29 March 2018), long enough (17,394 characters "readable prose size"). The article still has three "citation needed tags" (D6) and references 7, 8, 9, 40 and 53 are bare URLs (D3). Main hook is no good; journal staff do not do the peer reviews. (This could be fixed by removing the last three words.) ALT1 approved. QPQ done. No need for an image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll fix the problems you mention as soon as I have time. Apologies for the poor hook, I obviously wasn't thinking. Another suggestion follows. HLHJ (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ...that academic journals' "supplements" and "symposia" may be paid publications, neither independently peer-reviewed nor edited by journal staff?
    ALT3 approved Still have {{citation required}} tags and bare URLs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you. I've fixed those, apologies for the delay. But I found another uncited statement, and am still working on finding a source. Any improvements to the hook are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

BMT Franklin Avenue Line

  • ... that in 1918, the Franklin Avenue Elevated was the site of the Malbone Street Wreck, which killed 97 people and is the worst subway accident in New York City's history? Source: NY Times 1991. "In the annals of New York City subway calamities, the worst remains the 1918 Malbone Street disaster: 97 people were killed and more than 250 were injured in a derailment in Brooklyn that had eerie parallels to yesterday's early-morning crash." This article was published after the 1991 Union Square derailment, which killed 5 people.
    • ALT1:... that after attempts to close New York City's Franklin Avenue subway line failed for over 20 years, the MTA finally decided to renovate the line in 1998? Sources: (1) Amsterdam News 1977 mentions protests after the MTA tried to close the line. (2) NY Daily News 1998. "Service was suspended on the shuttle in July 1998 for the renovation."

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg A recent GA review was successful so, based off my additional assessment, there are no neutrality or copyright concerns. I recommend the first hook, which is sourced in the article with the source provided. Epicgenius I will pass this pending your QPQ. Please ping me so I can respond in a timely manner.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 30[edit]

Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark

Illustration accompanying an early 19th-century publication of "Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark"
Illustration accompanying an early 19th-century publication of "Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark"
  • ... that a theory dating the nursery rhyme Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark to the aftermath of the Norman conquest of England was described as "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? Source: Grace Rhys, Cradle Songs and Nursery Rhymes, page xvii. "Perhaps the most absurd of them all is one ... containg an ingenious if somewhat addlepated theory invented by Mr. Bellenden Ker."

Improved to Good Article status by NewYorkActuary (talk). Self-nominated at 15:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg This is a newly promoted good article and is long enough and nominated in time. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I can't find any mention of the Norman conquests in the supplied source (Ker's book, cite 26). Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Clarification has now been provided in that reference. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Alonzo Ward Hotel

Alonzo Ward Hotel in 2015
Alonzo Ward Hotel in 2015
  • Reviewed: QPQ still to come

Moved to mainspace by Chris857 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, one inline hook citation accepted AGF (paywall), no apparent copyvios. Chris857, QPQ needed, and the sentence beginning with "From 2002 through 2004" needs an inline citation. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Usernameunique: I'm finally back from traveling, and should get to the qpq review in the next few days. Chris857 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Edmond Genet

Edmond Genet taken halfway through his training to become a fighter pilot
Edmond Genet taken halfway through his training to become a fighter pilot

Source:" ...he rounded out a brief but beautiful life and was the first American airman to fall in battle flying the Stars and Stripes." Second col [16] "Genet was the first American to be killed after the United States declared war upon Germany."[17]

"Edmond Genet deliberately deserted the United States navy, but he did so in order to enter a greater thing the war." page xviii [18]

  • Comment: Some sources are saying he was the first American. It might be true but safer to say he was the first flier.

5x expanded by Meanderingbartender (talk) and Danny (talk). Nominated by Meanderingbartender (talk) at 01:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Images in article are freely licensed.
  • I don't think we should use the first hook, because his status is unclear. The secretary of the navy said he had un-deserted because he died in battle; that sounds strange to me. Also, the US hadn't even sent troops to fight, and here he's the first American who dies. I'm worried that someone is going to pounce on this hook at WP:ERRORS. Regarding ALT1, I don't see an inline cite for the fact that he "deserted".
  • I wonder if you could fashion something hookier around his dual allegiances, like the fact that he enlisted in the US Navy, fought for France, died as an American, and was buried in the French flag, or something like that (I read the article, but I'm still not clear on the sequence of events). Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand the hesitation with the first hook, however, it's already fairly hedged. He was unquestionably the first American flier to die. There's no evidence to suggest that any other American had died in the weeks following the declaration of war but there's still a possibility that one did die as there were thousands of Americans already fighting. Regarding alt1, it was the forward to the collection of letters and I added the inline reference. Genet considered himself a deserter as his family did. No formal charges were ever brought.
I've been trying to think of another hook but all are too long or convoluted. Thank you kindly. Meanderingbartender (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding citations to the desertion section. But reading it over, it doesn't say outright that he deserted, just that he could be classified as a deserter, or that his actions could be considered treasonous. We have to be very clear here so we won't run into problems at WP:ERRORS or getting the hook pulled. Here is what I suggest:
  • ALT2: ... that Edmond Genet (pictured) joined the United States naval militia, fought for the French Foreign Legion, and became the first American casualty of World War I?
  • We would need a cite for the sentence Although other Americans had died as part of the Escadrille, he was the first one to do so after the US declaration, which made him the first official American casualty of the war, despite the fact that the US had not yet had time to organize or send any actual troops to Europe. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
You are slightly too good at this Yoninah. I think ALT2 is great. I'll double check but I believe most of the references attached to "While Genet was not a member of the US military at the time.." should work. Meanderingbartender (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Did you want to promote this or should we ask for a new reviewer? Thank you kindly Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Yes, if you like ALT2, we need another reviewer for it. Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 1[edit]

Shmerke Kaczerginski

Created by Copper Dreamer (talk). Self-nominated at 19:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Good topic and article eligible, but sentence needs clarification and specification. (When? Where?) Also needs source attached to nomination.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Copper Dreamer: Still needs to be a bit more specific. What country or countries of Europe? What format were the songs (sheet music? rare book collections? audio format? were they the only copies? Was this a one-time thing or did he save different songs many times? Did he just memorize them?) Also may want to describe who Shmerke Kaczerginski is. (perhaps start off with ...Shmerke Kaczerginski, a musician... or something like that.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A mix of sheet music and having people sing to him, all over Europe. It's hard to both have a hyper-specific and descriptive sentence that simultaneously only uses one source; are composites from multiple sources acceptable? Copper Dreamer (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course! Both of the nominations I've written have two sources. Use the ALT2 template for the new re-write.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The template to indicate the nomination is reworded and re-written.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

Gilmore the lion, Gilmore Oil Company

  • Reviewed: Bernardo De Pace and Unity of the intellect as two reviews are required for a double hook, I believe.
  • Comment: The hook can be confirmed online at the Smithsonian. This is a double nomination and I plan further expansion of the two articles but this should do to get started.

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk) and Rmattconard (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 23:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC).

  • OK the lion is good, with help from Yngvadottir. On to the next. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg So both are long enough, new enough, and plagiarism-free enough, and the image seems free enough. User:Andrew Davidson, there's a cn-tag on the oil company article I need you to take care of: I couldn't find that in the Wallach book. And please have a look at my other edits. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'm pressed for time currently and so will have to do this in stages but will get to it soon, I hope. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It's ready for another look now. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 5[edit]

Issuf Sanon

Issuf Sanon
Issuf Sanon
  • ... that Issuf Sanon went from a locally unknown basketball player to a serious NBA draft prospect in just over a week? Source: "Sanon was virtually unknown even in Ukraine until last summer" ([19])
    • ALT1:... that appendix and ankle injuries, along with documentation issues, delayed Issuf Sanon from joining the Ukraine national basketball team? Source: "...he had never played with the junior national team due to a lack of official documentation as well as an ankle injury." ([20]), Source: "...Sanon, who was not with the 1999-born team at the U16 level in 2015 because of an appendix injury..." ([21])

5x expanded by TempleM (talk). Self-nominated at 22:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg 5x expansion confirmed, the article is large enough and nomination was in time. There are sufficient inline citations, it's written neutrally, and there are no copyvio concerns. QPQ completed and image is OK. Some spot checks on content found a few issues:
    1. While the citation says his hometown was Donetsk, it doesn't say he was born there. Often, sports profile use hometown for where the player grew up, which could be different than his birthplace.
    2. The article says his mother is a "native of Donetsk", but I didn't find it in the citation.
  • Regarding the main hook, it says that Sanon was "locally unknown", but the citation says the he "was virtually unknown even in Ukraine". "Locally" seems too strong as it could be misinterpreted to mean even in his hometown. It's also seems unsupported that he is a "serious NBA draft prospect" and inconclusive that it happened in "in just over a week". Let me know if I missed something.
  • For ALT1, it is verifiable thought the citation, but I'm a bit skeptical about an "appendix injury"; it's possible but it would be a rarity, as opposed to something like appendicitis, which would not be an injury per se. It's also slightly dubious when the ESPN source mentions an ankle injury (more common) but not the "appendix injury". Perhaps we can just generalize it in the hook as "injuries"? Also, the hook links to Ukraine national basketball team, which is an article about the men's team. However, http://www.fiba.basketball under Events->Europe lists the U16 events under "BOYS", and the ESPN source refers to "junior national team": ... he had never played with the junior national team due to a lack of official documentation ... So it would be inappropriate to link to the men's article, but unlinked text to something like "Ukraine junior national team" would be OK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • His FIBA profile, which based on experience has accurate birthplaces, says Donetsk. The second hook can be changed to "... that injuries and documentation issues delayed Issuf Sanon from joining the Ukraine junior national basketball team?" TempleM (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 6[edit]

Vasiura Hryhoriy

  • ... that after the war Hryhoriy Vasiura, a Nazi-collaborator and executioner of Khatyn massacre, pretended a Red Army veteran and even instructed young Soviet pioneers in patriotism until being arrested in 1984? Source: ". Like many other collaborators, Vasiura passed himself off as a Soviet patriot who had fought the Germans as a connection officer at the front. As a veteran and supposed war hero, he even instructed young Soviet pioneers in patriotism." ([22])

Created by Катала (talk). Self-nominated at 16:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Really needs grammar fixes. How about this?
ALT1... that after World War II Vasiura Hryhoriy, a Nazi-collaborator and executioner of Khatyn massacre, pretended to be a Red Army veteran and instructed young pioneers in patriotism until his arrest in 1984? Source: ". Like many other collaborators, Vasiura passed himself off as a Soviet patriot who had fought the Germans as a connection officer at the front. As a veteran and supposed war hero, he even instructed young Soviet pioneers in patriotism." ([23])

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • You have five descriptions in one hook (Nazi-collaborator...executioner...pretend Red Army veteran...instructed young Soviet pioneers in patriotism...arrested). I suggest cutting it down to one or two so it will be hooky. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I took a quick look at the article. Per Rule D2, many paragraphs have no citations at all. Citations need to be added before this goes ahead. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 8[edit]

Piano Quartets (Beethoven)

  • ... that Beethoven composed three Piano Quartets at age 15, which were published in reverse order after his death? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Bingo Bango
  • Comment: I began the article about just one, but the longer I wrote the more it seemed to make sense to deal with them together. Will add details about the other two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I definitely agree these 3 should be in one article. I'm surprised there isn't one already, just goes to show Wikipedia work never ends :-) Although the article is important, long enough (4595), no copyvio [24], new enough (Apr 9), and properly referenced, I don't think it's quite ready yet for prime time until each quartet has it's own (short) description. I took the liberty of laying out the movements in sections just to frame it, and added a reference... hope I did it the way you prefer. I'll change review to green once you've updated them. Ultracobalt (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops forgot to add that the hook is just fine Ultracobalt (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree but will travel for a week, and this seems not urgent, after all these centuries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed :) Ultracobalt (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Added a bit now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Ultracobalt, how does it look now? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Delightful! --Ultracobalt (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi @Gerda Arendt:, I came to promote this, but the hook fact (that the quartets were published in reverse order) doesn't have a reference in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Why would you think so? Ref #2 after the fact in History. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see. Well that might need to be rephrased since it wasn't initially clear in the article. Restoring the original tick. Symbol confirmed.svg Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I had to pull this, the pieces weren't published in reverse order but a different order. Also, the quartets are mixed up, they appear to have the wrong numbers, you need to check the sources again. I don't have time to try and figure out which is which, so back to the nomination page it has come. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused, fixed, hopefully:
ALT1: ... that Beethoven composed three Piano Quartets at age 15, which were published only after his death, in a different order? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you look again, Usernameunique? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on April 9[edit]

Non-science

  • ... that history is non-science?
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by WhatamIdoing (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Starting the review.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • New enough.
  • Long enough.
  • Well-sourced, with one error in formatting (confusion with article title/work) that I've fixed.
  • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • Neutral tone.
  • The hook is properly formatted, short enough, neutral and interesting.
Symbol question.svg *User:WhatamIdoing: Do you have a QPQ please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that I have five DYK credits yet, but I reviewed Superfest International Disability Film Festival last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg By "I don't think", I assume you mean "I am positive I don't." So it's fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hello, I came by to promote this, but the article right now has a big "{{Globalize}}" template in one of its sections. This might need to be resolved first before this is approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SteveMcCluskey: I removed it as undue. Wikipedia is a work in progress, everything could potentially be improved, but I don't see it as a pressing issue and if it's going to block the DYK, that's not good. The issue could potentially be addressed afterwards, although I don't see it as a problem frankly.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg It seems there are no more objections from SteveMcCluskey so I am restoring Zigzig20s' tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg The hook is decidedly not neutral as there are sources (now cited in the article) that put history (and other humanistic disciplines) within the sciences. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Archeology is not history, stricto sensu. History would be the interpretation (or commentary) of archaeological discoveries. Zigzig20s (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Do you have any suggestions for alternative hooks? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the suggested hook works, as archeology is not history. It's a tool of history, like statistics or geography.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@SteveMcCluskey: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, all, I understand that there's some legitimate disagreement about classifying archaeology in this concept (i.e., a concept that separates natural sciences and similar disciplines from other knowledge-generating activities, like religion and art), because archaeology contains both science and non-science aspects, and any given researcher's work might be best described as one label or the other. Steve added information about the OECD's bureaucratic numbering system, but archaeology isn't really the important example there. The OECD's list explicitly includes the whole of humanities as one of the six areas of science and technology. This means that the OECD believes that (for their funding and statistical purposes) art and religion are "sciences". Opera and religious ceremonies are all perfectly fine in their own way, and they are perfectly legitimate Wissenschaftlich subjects – but they are not Science (in what Steve calls the English sense of the word, i.e., the only sense that's actually relevant for this article). The point of the OECD classification is that when a government gives a grant to encourage religious participation, then that should be called "science and technology research". The point of this concept is that religion is not science.
Also, as a general point, I'd like to say that a bureaucratic classification system is a weak source for deciding how one ought to organize knowledge. Epistemiology is an ancient academic subject that is not constrained by the rules written 12 years ago about how governments ought to report their research and development spending to another government agency that they hope will give them money. But if Steve really believes that's the true definition, then I'd invite him to add that definition to Science and see if he can get a consensus for it. If editors agree to re-define Science as including all of these "non-science" subjects, such as the entire list of things called "Humanities" in the OECD list, then we could merge this article away and be done with it. But if they don't – if, as I suspect they will, they insist upon defining Science as being only and exclusively systematic knowledge of a particular kind, and therefore all other knowledge is not science – then we should set the subject of this article accordingly (and probably link to Wissenschaft in the article about the OECD's FOS categories, so readers don't get so confused about religion being considered "science and technology"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: Do you have alternative suggestions for a hook then? It seems the original won't fly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Why isn't the original acceptable? It's sourced, and it's the mainstream position. Finding "history" listed in a document about how to report government funding of "science and technology" does not actually prove that there is a general consensus that history is science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: I'm personally fine with the hook, it's SteveMcCluskey who has issues with it. Anyway I took a look at the source given in the article, and while it suggests history is considered a non-science, the same article suggests that there's significant debate on the matter and the status of history as a science or non-science is controversial. I suppose to be on the safe side, an alternate hook is suggested here while the original hook remains under discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • The cited source says, "The English word “science” is primarily used about the natural sciences and other fields of research that are considered to be similar to them. Hence, political economy and sociology are counted as sciences, whereas studies of literature and history are usually not." That doesn't sound like classifying history as non-science is controversial. At minimum, it's no more controversial than the whole (English and French) idea that there is some significant difference between the study of physics and the study of morality, which some (mostly German- and Dutch-speaking) philosophers reject. It is true that some historians in the 19th century tried to re-define science to include the historians' particular style of creating knowledge, but it didn't fly. (See Nomothetic and idiographic for some of that; 'the proton always behaves thusly under these circumstances' is nomothetic knowledge, but 'this Great Man, in this time and place, behaved thusly' is idiographic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
          • My concern is that the article can be read as taking non-science as an inferior grade of "knowledge" -- or even as not being real knowledge at all. Hanssen nicely addresses this issue in his article in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The German term [Wissenschaft] has the advantage of more adequately delimiting of [sic] the type of systematic knowledge that is at stake in the conflict between science and pseudoscience. The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the misrepresentations of natural science promoted by creationists and homeopaths." Unfortunately, this important concern is not addressed by the Wikipedia article Non-science, which is one of my problems with it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that having this article at all is the first step in addressing your concern. Step 1 in not thinking that non-science is bad information is discovering that (most) non-science is things like history and art and literature, rather than things like lies and fraud. Can you give an example of a sentence in the article that implies that non-science is inferior? I can understand reading it and learning that some non-science is inferior, but that's the parts of non-science that wouldn't be considered Wissenschaft, either. To put it another way, . WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Piotrus, I'm afraid the hook is too long at 240 characters; removing " to the Secretary" will reduce it to 224 characters, which really isn't short enough. Probably the best place to save space is by condensing what comes after "Department" and making it clearer what the State Department did. It's tough, when the full article name uses up 89 of the available 200 characters, but something interesting can be made of the remaining 100+. You could also seek consensus at WT:DYK for an extension of the 200 max, or ask for help devising a hook within the limits. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the WT:DYK discussion produced three hooks by SoWhy, all under 200 characters, which I have included below, but incorporating Piotrus's suggested removal of " to the Secretary" to make them even shorter. (I have struck the original overlong hook now that we have three are short enough. Piotrus has expressed a preference for ALT3:
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that the hook issue has been settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citations check out (struck ALT1 as less interesting), no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Piotrus, this isn't a DYK requirement per se, but the article is slightly confusing. What happened to the report? The article treats it in the past tense with details obscure (e.g., "The document has been described as a 17 or 18 pages-long memorandum."). Was it classified and then destroyed, with its contents staying unpublished? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: The sources I've found did not mention what happened to the physical copy; presumably it was destroyed or archived as most such relatively routine documents. I included all details I've found. I am afraid we could only speculate as the answer about your queries, through it's clear that the report was republished and became public at some point. How did it happen, exactly, I did not see mentioned in the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Fair enough, all set then. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I had to pull this because of possible inaccuracies in the article and hook. I did initially try to tweak the hook to more closely follow the sources, but when I looked at the article I noticed what looked like similar inaccuracies that I didn't have time to resolve. I'm not going to detail them now as I'm tired and about to log off, but the article and hook imply that the report condemned the State Department for preventing the rescue of "European Jews", broadly speaking, a highly exceptional claim to make, when the underlying sources appear to be referring to a particular incident when the State Department allegedly ignored an opportunity to rescue 70,000 Jews. Gatoclass (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gatoclass: Can you be more specific? Yes, the source given for the hook mentions 70k, through the context is not that clear, I assume this number was related to some refugees somewhere. But other sources don't mention this number and support the hook. The report itself is clear on that, and talks about the entirety of the European Jewery: "Unless remedial steps of a drastic nature are taken, and taken immediately, I am certain that no effective action will be taken by this government to prevent the complete extermination of the Jews in German controlled Europe, and that this Government will have to share for all time responsibility for this extermination". See also [25]; two pages in it talks about 100,000+, as far as estimates, and that's just an example. It is clear to me that the generalization presented in the hook is supported by the sources. If you disagree, this is something better discussed on article's talk. As far as I am concerned, the 70k number is a poorly sourced, unclear example, at best, one of several examples the report is presenting as a case for said generalization, and has no place in the hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 12[edit]

Kronans Apotek

  • ... that in 1967, sales in Kronans Apotek amounted to 31,3 million SEK, of which 28 million SEK were to pharmacies?

Created by Newroderick895 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: Remember to wikilink and bold the article in the hook. I've taken the liberty of doing this for you above. (: There's also a grammatical error, which I've fixed too.―Biochemistry🙴 04:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Ranbir Kapoor filmography

Ranbir Kapoor in 2012
Ranbir Kapoor in 2012
  • Reviewed: TBD

Converted from a redirect by Krimuk2.0 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out. Krimuk2.0, QPQ needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 16[edit]

Dafydd Gibbon

Dafydd Gibbon in Poznań, 2010
Dafydd Gibbon in Poznań, 2010
  • ... that Dafydd Gibbon (pictured) started his academic career in London Baptist Students Society?
  • Comment: This is a website created on 16th April 2018.

Created by Jolanta Bachan (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Apart from the fact this was moved into the wrong template space. Created 16th April, nominated 24th April. this is outside the 7 day window thus is ineligible. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg We can certainly give one day leeway to a new DYK nominator. However, the article is tagged for primary sources. Can you improve the page with secondary sources? Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Goat Canyon (Tijuana River Valley)

Moved to mainspace by RightCowLeftCoast (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

Would it be too late to add an image for this DYK? If not there is a Category on Commons which we can utilize for sourcing (many of the photos which were taken this month (April 2018)).
For instance there is this one:

Picture taken within Goat Canyon.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, you can add any licensed free image that also appears in the article. (If it isn't in the article, it can't be used in a DYK nomination, though crops of article images can be used at DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 18[edit]

Orgelbau Mebold

Mebold Organ in Idstein
Mebold Organ in Idstein

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC).

Joice Hasselmann

  • Reviewed: coming soon

Created by DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) and Lionelt (talk). Nominated by Lionelt (talk) at 07:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The full review is to follow, but considering how unpopular Rousseff was and how most legislators voted for her impeachment and removal, I don't think the hook is really that "hooky" or quirky. I see that she was a journalist before entering politics: perhaps a hook about that might be more appropriate here. In addition, the last paragraph of the Biography section is unreferenced; also the phrase "The journalist has also been regularly invited..." could probably be rephrased as "Hasselmann has also been regularly invited..." Finally, some phrases in the article are in the present tense when they should be in the past tense. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All criticisms are constructive. I believe that together we can make the article better and better. Let's sharpen it! --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, the creator ran into a little problem with his account. Well to tell the truth, looks like he got indeffed. You know, it happens to the best of us! Anyway I'm kinda waiting to see if his 3rd unblock request is the charm ;-) – Lionel(talk) 06:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, Lionelt, given that DavidStarIsrael7 has had his talk page access withdrawn as part of the indeffing, which was based on checkuser evidence of socking, the odds of a third unblock request (this one offline) bearing any fruit at all are effectively nil. If this is to proceed, Lionel needs to propose that ALT1 soon (I agree that the original hook is not interesting, as is typical of hooks of the form "Did you know that X did Y?"); since he's the nominator, it's his responsibility anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gone over the article and there is nothing remotely interesting about her. – Lionel(talk) 10:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 19[edit]

Tammie Jo Shults, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

Tammy Jo Shults with a F/A-18 Hornet of VAQ-34 squadron
Tammy Jo Shults with a F/A-18 Hornet of VAQ-34 squadron
  • Reviewed: Campanino
  • Comment: There have been many contributors to these articles. I started the article about Shults and then a redirect was merged into its history. The page about flight 1380 has had numerous contributors.

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk) and Jax 0677 (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 23:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is not a full review but a reminder since this nomination is almost a month-old now: @Andrew Davidson: since this nomination has two bolded articles, two QPQs need to be provided here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's only been a week but I take the point, thanks. I'm quite busy currently and so have a backlog that I'm working through but hope to get back to this soon. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Christina Gerstberger

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 10:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Created exactly 7 days before nomination, long enough. My concern about the content is that the notability of the subject isn't established. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should "explain why the topic is notable", but the lead right now is just one sentence describing the subject's occupation. The article body reads like a dry resume as well: this isn't a DYK criteria, but please consider improving it. As for the hook, I doubt that it would be interesting to a broad audience. I don't think general international readers can easily relate to E. T. A. Hoffmann or Ludwigsburg Festival. Can you find a more suitable fact? QPQ is in order. HaEr48 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Then patience, please. So far, I just translated. The typical German lead is one sentence ;) - Returning from a day out, I have many other things that need to be done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
HaEr48, I expanded the lead. If reader know the writer ETA Hoffman only as the hero of Les contes d'Hoffmann, this would be a good opportunity to learn that he also composed opera ;) - They also should rather look at Schloss Ludwigsburg for a change than the Gärtnerplatztheater again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

John G. Hawthorne

  • ... that John G. Hawthorne called it "pioneering" for the University of Chicago to not suppress a sit-in with the military? Source: Chicago Tribune 1969: "U.C. Prof Hails 'Pioneering' in Sit-In Policy: [As Hawthorne said,] 'Where other colleges here and abroad have called in the police, the national guard, the military, this university, dedicated as it is to the solution of problems by intellectual, reasoning, and patient 'confrontation' of human minds has arrived at a decent, fair, and honorable solution of this crisis.'"
  • Like? Not particularly. Would I? That depends on the article itself. The one or two sentences you have in the article suggest she may be notable... or may not. It all depends on the sources available. Googling for "manhatan project women" shows quite a few sources, but whether they would be relavant, I didn't have time to tell. Through if you are interested in those topics, an overview (group article like Calutron Girls, Women in Bletchley Park, Women in NASA, etc.) might be a good start, as event he brief look at those google hits suggests this may be a notable topic (group, that is, notability of individuals is unclear). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 17:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 20[edit]

Alice Hutchison

  • ... that the hospital run by Dr. Alice Hutchison had the lowest rate of deaths from typhoid amongst Belgian refugees after the outbreak of the First World War? Source: "the mortality of her patients from typhoid was lower than that in any manrun hospital"[28]

Created by Meanderingbartender (talk). Self-nominated at 16:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Suggestion—consider changing "amongst" to "among." Include "Dr." in the Wikilink.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Nominated 4/25, created 4/20. 2280 characters, Start-class. See CN tag in article. Neutral. Per Earwig's Copyvio Detector, highest overlap 7.4%, and no plagiarism detected upon manual review. Cited hook source does not mention "Belgian refugees after the outbreak of the First World War." However, the Leneman 1994 source in the article specifies the nature of the war, the refugee status of the patients, and their nationality. The hook is interesting and 155 characters (<200). I believe that "among" is more common than "amongst;" consider changing this wording. Additionally, consider including the subject's title (Dr.) in the WL. No picture used. QPQ done. Made a few copyedits to the article. In summary, couple of minor issues, and a fun article to read. ―Biochemistry🙴 20:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Biochemistry&Love: I don't quite agree that the statement that she was the "one of the first" requires a source as it's hedging already. Sadly, no source says that directly, all of them imply. There's already a source that says she was the first woman doctor sent to France, which in turn, she became the head of a unit. Very few women had been doctors in war-time before the first world war, let alone the head of a hospital. It's very likely she was the first woman doctor to ever lead a hospital unit in war, but because there's no source, I switched it to "one of the first". Meanderingbartender (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Likely or not, isn't it considered original research to assert a claim like that, though? ―Biochemistry🙴 00:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fátima Pinto

Created/expanded by SirEdimon (talk). Self-nominated at 00:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Everything seems to be fine with the article, but the user is currently blocked from editing the site and I'm unsure how to progress with this entry. May need help from an admin. ISD (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Actually some things have been brought to my attention. The hook is too long and needs to be under 200 characters. ISD (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed given the shorter ALT1 hook proposed below:
The original hook has been struck because it was too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Seems good enough now for a good faith tick (has to be a good faith one has most of the references are in Portuguese). ISD (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @ISD: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: OK, here is the review.
1. New - Article is less than seven days old, or at least it was when the nomination was posted.
2. Long enough - Article is over 1,500 characters.
3. Cited hook - Reference seems to be fine, albeit in a foreign language.
4. Within policy - Article appears to obey all the core policies.
5. Review requirement - I blieve this user has fewer than five DYK credits and is thus exempt from QPQ.
ISD (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Thank you. Restoring your tick. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from the queue as I am unable to confirm it from the (Portugese language) sources. One source mentions, I think, that she was the first from Madeira to play in something called the Algarve Cup, but I can see no confirmation that she was the first from Madeira to play in the UEFA Womens Championship. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg I recommend that this nomination be rejected as it was created by a since banned sockpuppet who also created another problematic nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 21[edit]

Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye

5x expanded by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 07:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Long enough and expanded recently enough, references are fine, no copyvio (I've corrected two mistakes in the quoted source text). It feels, though, like there should be a link to murex somewhere in the hook, to establish the mistake that Rubens has made; something like "…depicts a shell like a nautilus, not the spiny murex used in dye-making?" That's still under 200 chars. We need to be careful with the wording: a nautilus, which is what Rubens seems to be depicting here, isn't a snail; it's a cephalopod. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC) (P.S. apologies if I'm being too picky, it's my first review.)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg You are using the wrong review symbol. The DYK?no symbol implies that there is something wrong with the actual article that prevents it being on DYK. If what you want to do is to suggest a new hook, you should do it like
But then since you supplied the hook we would need someone else to review it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, still learning! To be fair, I saw the Symbol possible vote.svg being used on other reviews that only had a problem with the hook. As per your suggestions, here's my alternative hook:
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed, since previous one has supplied ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hello, I came by to promote this, but before I do: @David Eppstein: would you like the hook to include a picture (either the painting itself or a cropped version featuring the shell)? Since the painting itself is in the public domain. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Peter Paul Rubens - La découverte de la pourpre - detail.jpg
      I didn't include it in the original nomination because I thought that even at the size used in the article, the image was too small to be easily legible. I think it would be worse at the DYK thumbnail size. But maybe it would work cropped? I have uploaded a version to commons that might be usable for this purpose. I think we should include the dog as well as the shell. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I think the image is a bit wishy-washy. I really liked the original hook which I would have put in the quirky spot. When I first saw it I wondered what on earth the article was about and clicked on it to find out. I suppose one could have: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I like that better. It gets back to the original hook but avoids the mistake of implying that what it depicts is a snail at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't; just like the original hook, it still implies a nautilus is a snail. But please don't let my objection stand in the way of this being approved and promoted – it's been waiting long enough. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Logically, "the right kind of snail" is the dye murex, and the painting doesn't depict it, so the new hook is accurate. There is no "wrong kind of snail" that the image depicts (if we believe that it shows a nautilus instead), so your initial objection was also accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 22[edit]

Cockroach farming

An American cockroach (Periplaneta americana)
An American cockroach (Periplaneta americana)
Numerous cockroaches on logs
Numerous cockroaches on logs

Created by Violetriga (talk). Self-nominated at 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, and neutral. Hook is verified with reliable source. QPQ is done. Image is freely licensed. One minor paraphrasing issue needs to be fixed: "40 million people have been cured of a variety of ailments by taking the potion on prescription" is too close to the source. -Zanhe (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A good spot, thanks. Rewritten as "According to a government report, more than 40 million people have been cured of "a variety of ailments" after being prescribed the potion." I don't want to deviate too much from what the source says as it is a little vague. Is that sufficient a change? If not I'll take another look. violet/riga [talk] 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good now. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I came to promote this, but while it's a very interesting article, the article seems to give overwhelming weight towards China. Could some information be included here about cockroach farming in other countries? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I've done what I can to balance the article. It is very much a Chinese industry at the moment so sources away from that region are difficult to find. violet/riga [talk] 18:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Noted. Since there's nothing that can be done on that end, I'm restoring Zanhe's tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that much of the article is closely paraphrased from its sources. Compare for example "seeing it as a cheap source of protein as well as the cellulose-like substance on their wings" with "value the insects as a cheap source of protein as well as for the cellulose-like substance on their wings", or "Cockroaches, like all insects, are not susceptible to the same diseases as mammals or poultry are, and are notoriously hardy" and "Notoriously hearty, roaches aren't susceptible to the same diseases as farm animals". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: this has been attended to. violet/riga [talk] 14:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Definitely better, still a bit of work needed. Compare for example "has widely expanded gene families related to taste and smell, to detoxification and to immunity" with "having expanded gene families related to detoxification and immunity". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your diligence. I have attended to this. violet/riga [talk] 11:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Looking for a second opinion on the changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 23[edit]

Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility

The business park in Washington State, a former nuclear plant, where the Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility is located
The business park in Washington State, a former nuclear plant, where the Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility is located
  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, sourced, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Bri, the article is too short: 1268 characters, needs to be at least 1500. Conversely, ALT0 is too long: 209 characters, needs to be <200. How about cutting it down to:
ALT0a: ... that Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility uses space leased from the government at a former nuclear power plant known as "Whoops!"?
Meanwhile, striking ALT1, which is not explicitly backed up by the source, and does not appear in the article (just because they installed more equipment to make power doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't produce the needed amount before). --Usernameunique (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's another "whoops", thanks for reviewing, I'll add a bit to make it a legal DYK length. Am fine with your proposed hook ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: DYKCheck says it's over 1600 characters now. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Approving ALT0a. Though proposed by me, it is a chopped down version of ALT0 that introduces no new facts. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep as it was the company that built the plant that was known as "Whoopsi", not the plant itself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That is technically correct although the general public often refers to Satsop as "Whoops" e.g. [35] and [36]. Even professionals slip into that usage like [37]. But for the main page I suppose it should be corrected. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Bri, you're going to need to propose a new hook, then, and make whatever corrections and source additions are necessary to the article and new hook. (I've struck ALT0a, since it was problematic.) Please be sure to post here when you're ready; if it's going to take you longer than the standard seven days, let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Proposing the tweaked hook above. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT2 hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: The building and not builder. Honestly, removal of the last note and stopping at "a former nuclear power plant" seems better as a hook. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Da der Herr Christ zu Tische saß

Nicolaus Herman on the title page
Nicolaus Herman on the title page
  • Reviewed: Endangered river
  • Comment: It would be nice to mention that the biographer Spitta thought that Bach may have also composed the melody, but not in 200 chars. The title of the hymnal would also be nice: Die Sonntagsevangelia über das Jahr in Gesänge verfasset für die Kinder und christlichen Hausväter (The Sundays' Gospels through the year in songs written for the children and Christian fathers).

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC).

Tony Appleton, Prince Louis of Cambridge

Tony Appleton in 2010
Tony Appleton in 2010

Created by Sceptre (talk) and Jibran1998 (talk). Nominated by Sceptre (talk) at 23:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC).

  • The article currently has unresolved BLP issues. Until that is resolved, I'm afraid the article might not be fit for the main page. Also, I would suggest an alternative hook:
    *ALT1: ... that Prince Louis of Cambridge is the first British prince with an older sister whom he does not precede in the line of succession?
    Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • He’s not, though. Prince Michael of Kent held that status for decades. Advocata (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean; according to the Succession to the British throne, Prince Michael of Kent is 46th and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy is 51st. StAnselm (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And
would be just as true and less clumsy. StAnselm (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic, removing himself from the succession until legislation enacting the Perth Agreement took effect a few years ago. Prior to that, he was a British prince with an older sister whom he did not precede in the succession. Advocata (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, of course. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just as a comment: I originally intended to nominate Appleton, before finding out that the Royal Baby's article was also DYK eligible. I've no objection to two hooks, but I think a double hook is always nicer. Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: While I don't doubt the volume of coverage, it seems Louis of Cambridge is only known for one event: his recent birth. How are we reconciling this with BLP1E? Chetsford (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    As he's fifth in the line to the throne of sixteen countries and is not going to drop below that until 2030 (assuming, of course, the monarchy isn't abolished and he doesn't convert to Catholicism), Louis is not going to be notable just for his birth. I think that royalty this high in the succession in any country would be notable from birth. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is fifth all that high? It would take a disaster that has never before occurred in the 1,000 year history of post-Norman Britain for a 5er to ascend to the throne. What is our cut-off point for "high" in order of succession? I would have thought it would be a crown prince and stop about there in the absence of GNG. That said, you are correct that even Sweden's #5, the 18 month old Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland, has an article. (Though I question whether that is BLP1E, also.) Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Regional council of Grand Est

  • ... that the National Front political group in the regional council of Grand Est split into three separate groups? Source: "C'est une nouvelle crise auquel le Front National du Grand Est doit faire face. Après le départ, en septembre dernier, de dix élus du groupe à la suite de Florian Philippot, six conseillers régionaux de plus vont former un nouveau groupe, éloigné de l'extrême-droite, sous l'étiquette Conseil national indépendants et paysans (CNIP)." (France 3 Grand Est, 28 March 2018)
    • ALT1:... that the French Socialist Party unsuccessfully called upon its own candidate to step down in order to stop the National Front from winning the Regional council of Grand Est? Source: "Jean-Pierre Masseret, tête de liste socialiste en Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine, a confirmé, lundi 7 décembre, son refus de se retirer au second tour des élections régionales. Sa liste a été déposée en préfecture lundi en fin d’après-midi — soit vingt-quatre heures avant la date limite. L’élu a agi en dépit des consignes données plus tôt par le premier secrétaire du Parti socialiste, Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, appelant à faire barrage au Front national." (Le Monde, 7 December 2015)

Created by Mélencron (talk). Self-nominated at 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC).

  • @Drmies: it's about two-thirds of the way down: Dans le décompte des voix pour la présidence, un suffrage est allé à Christophe Choserot (ex-PS aujourd'hui LREM mais toujours groupe de gauche au conseil régional , maire de Maxéville). Mélencron (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mélencron, I got you--I misunderstood; the one vote is in the reference before, and this one does indeed support the article text. Thank you so much; I'll finish this up when I can. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mélencron, just about the only thing left here is the phrase "win the council". We're talking about "winning the majority", right? And in the graphics, in the big one the right-wingers are all in one heap, all 46 of em, but in the infobox they're divvied up, correct? (Why the difference?) Anyway, Philippot's FN is grey in the image but dark blue (or green) in the legend. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • By that, yes, I mean winning the majority of seats – I'd rather make that clear in the hook, but I couldn't keep it under 200 characters. (It should be lowercase, by the way, per WP:DYKSG#B2, and I'm using the name "regional council of Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine" because it was the name at the time of the election – the region wasn't renamed until later – and permitting the redirect per WP:NOTBROKEN as noted in WP:DYKSG#F9.) The difference between the two graphics showing the composition of the regional council is that one shows the election result (with the three lists), while the other depicts the "political groups" in the regional council with whom elected officials decide to sit.
  • As for the color difference in the graphics, it's mainly due to a discrepancy between French and English Wikipedia on this and an outstanding dispute – gray or black is the traditional color of the FN (as a party traditionally classified as being on the "extreme-right"), but some users on the English Wikipedia will insist on using "official" colors of parties, which results in what I view as unusual discrepancies (e.g. when a party has no official color – like LREM – or when there are colors "officially" used by parties that are never used by media and others to depict it, like the purple "officially" used by the UDI, when light blue is usually used to depict the traditional centrist parties). Basically... I could either change the graphics temporarily, use a hardcoded hex code in the table, or see if I can change {{National Front (France)/meta/color}} to use gray (the latter is my preferred solution), but I don't know if that'd just resume a long-running edit war. The last is my preferred solution since it causes minimal disruption, given that it isn't used on many existing maps or graphics (and where it is there's a usually a version that can be swapped out). Mélencron (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Regional council of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté

Moved to mainspace by Mélencron (talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC).

WASP-104b

  • ... that WASP-104b, a Hot Jupiter exoplanet discovered in 2014, has been labeled as the “darkest planet” ever found and darker than charcoal, with about 99% of light observed?

Created/expanded by LovelyGirl7 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg This article is currently not long enough at only 1158 characters. DYK articles must be a minimum of 1500 characters to qualify, so you will need to expand this by another 350 characters or so before it can be considered. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: How about now? --LovelyGirl7 talk 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article is now 1529 prose characters, so it is ready for a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I haven't forgotten about this nomination, but it needs careful scrutiny and some work and I have my hands full with the 12-hour cycle at the moment. I intend to return and complete this review when we go back to a 24-hour cycle, probably within the week. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI Gatoclass: LovelyGirl7 has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. clpo13(talk) 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Article is very borderline when it comes to length, is still considered a stub, and the nominator was checkuser blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Suggesting that we close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

Endangered river

Created by Violetriga (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting topic, on few but good sources, no copyvio obvious. In the hook I'd mention that it's accoding to a certain list, or mention the organization that published it. - Please try to end each paragraph with an ref. - Wishes for the article:
  • any image, illustrating a river in bad condition?
  • separation of natural and man-made influences?
  • mention key threats in the lead?
  • omit "See also" - which does nothing for me?
Striking ALT1 as I think everybody will knw that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Right - I've had the time to go back and get some more expansions in. Thanks for your thoughts. I think that ALT0 is okay but here's an option for the promoter to consider:
Thanks, violet/riga [talk] 17:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, much better. How about alpha order of the rivers in the hook? I'd take the Big Bend image for the lead. Consider linking the rivers in the image captions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
All good now, thanks. violet/riga [talk] 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the image, licensed an a good illustration. I shortened the caption a bit and added a pictured-clause. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from the queue as the url to which the hook is cited has expired. Please fix. Gatoclass (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
How is this instead, https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2007-01/worldstop10riversatrisk.pdf ? (in the article) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately Gerda, I don't think that is sufficient as that report is more than ten years old, I think you would need something more recent to support the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I am only the reviewer trying to help. violet/riga, any better offer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comités Jeanne

  • Comment: The only image is Fair use, so I can't put it here

Converted from a redirect by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is an interesting topic, but at the moment it is written without sufficient context. While this may not be a core DYK criterion, common sense says that an article on the main page should be comprehensible to a person without background knowledge. The "creation" section, specifically, needs two to three sentences of background. Vanamonde (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If I may--this was probably named for Joan of Arc. If you can find an RS, it would make for a hookier DYK.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Intel 5-level paging

A diagram of five levels of paging
A diagram of five levels of paging

Created by Bellezzasolo (talk). Self-nominated at 22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is long enough and has been moved from the Draft namespace on the indicated day. Bellezzasolo has 2 DYK credits so far, no need for a QPQ. I'll still have to check for copyvios. For now I see the following issues:
    1. The article is currently an orphan. I guess this needs to be resolved before it can appear on the main page.
    2. I like the original hook. It is quirky but I'm not sure it is correct: As far as I can tell, it is not a processor walk but a page table walk. I'm not knowledgeable about this topic, and I haven't got access to the ACM DL source, but it seems to me (from an unreferenced section of Page table) that this process is not directly, or not always, handled by the processor. Could the article section be expanded to clarify this?
--Pgallert (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pgallert: I've fixed the orphan issue, it was a natural addition to the IA32E page. Page table walks are performed by the MMU (Memory Management Unit), which is generally a part of the processor. (I mean, processors do a load of different things all at the same time). I'll clarify on the article. (Edit: I think done). Bellezzasolo Discuss 12:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: Ja, and someone undid your edit. I have re-inserted it in another form now. Doing the plagiarism check tomorrow morning, too much to download from my current connection. --Pgallert (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added ALT2, which is the hook, but with a quirky tie in to the picture. Bellezzasolo Discuss 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: I have now done the copyvio check and detected no problems. All meticulously reworded. In fact, I couldn't find one statement in the source, details on the talk page. ALT2 is a good suggestion, but the word "fields" would have to appear in the article for this hook to be good. The picture is self-created by the nominator and can be used for the hook, although without the picture subscript. I have missed that this is now common. Pgallert (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Taking quirkiness a step further, how about ALT3 below? --Pgallert (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Fails criteria - there is no way it is of interest to a broad audience, not by any reasonable definition of that term. Only specialists in Intel CPU architecture will have the slightest clue what this is about. "Will make Intel processors walk farther" is a cute hook but that's not enough; you don't want a DYK to leave readers wondering "what was that about? I never heard of any of that stuff." Anyway, although this particular article is new, Intel has made their CPUs "walk farther" twice before (once with PAE, once with em64t paging). If it's ever actually implemented this will be completely invisible to the average user and even to most developers - hardly a broad audience. And regarding that point, the suggested hook is misleading, even just plain wrong; the reference is to a specification for a possible future implementation. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that Intel is actually going to implement it. So at this time it is a gross overstatement to say that Intel is "planning" this. Correcting the hook will only narrow the interest further. Jeh (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This nomination has been stalled a bit by side discussions, here, on the nomination talk page, and on the article talk page. Trying to sum up, and from my perspective, we have the following:

  1. Most typical formal DYK requirements have been checked by me and are fulfilled. No copyvio, image suitable, long enough, new enough, referenced, etc.
  2. There is a concern by Jeh that the hook statement is not interesting to a broad audience and that it thus violates 3a of the eligibility criteria. I'm not sure how to handle this, or if the various songs, fungi, sports results and low-level biographies fare any better.
  3. There is a further concern about the word "planned" in the various hooks. I'd like to solicit opinions and suggestions about how to make a more realistic statement, preferably keeping a somewhat quirky hook.

I'll weigh into the discussion but am currently uncomfortable to approve or disapprove the nomination in general, or a specific hook. --Pgallert (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding planned, the fact that intel developers added the code required to handle this to the Linux kernel is very indicative. The impression given by the secondary sources is that this change is in the pipeline, so I don't see anything wrong with planned. Planned extensions may not come to pass, and still be planned - and notable (e.g. SSE5). I didn't say "upcoming" because of this uncertainty, and "proposed" may be accurate, and would work in the hook. However, "planned" does have a basis in our primary source - "This document describes planned extensions". From WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" (emphasis added). This would merit an article if it comes to pass or it doesn't, so shouldn't be a problem on that front. As for interest, support for lots more RAM is an important advance, and will have be significant in the future, even if very much behind the scenes. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding interest, 3a applies to the hook. We don't want hooks to be dry and boring, but to rather entice people in. Obviously subjective, and I'll leave that to others. But it only applies to the hook. The purpose of the articles, stated as an aim of DYK, is

To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure
To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers.

I'd say that this means we cover somewhat quirky, niche topics, not shun them. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should say it's "planned" unless and until it appears on an Intel CPU roadmap.
"Support for lots more RAM is an important advance." But this isn't about RAM! 4-level paging already supports a 52-bit physical address space, and the 5-level paging hierarchy doesn't change that.
Even if it were about RAM, current processors can already address far more RAM than motherboards have places to plug it in, or that anybody outside of a supercomputer center could afford.
I do not agree that the extremely specialized nature of this topic is not a problem here. I know what you are saying in that rigorously interpreted, point 3A only applies to the hook. But the whole concept will still be completely opaque to the vast majority of readers. As in "no, I didn't know that, and even after reading the article I have no idea what it meant." What good will it do the general reader to attract them to an article that they're not going to understand? Heck, most developers aren't aware of or care about this stuff any more. Jeh (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not the case. I assure you that the developers are aware of this stuff. I think that given the sort of readership we have, the article will do alright at DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Double depression

Created by Dmaynd2019 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Dmaynd2019: Date and length fine however the hook fact in the article needs an inline citation. QPQ not needed as this is the nominator's first nomination. No close paraphrasing. Just needs that fixed, please ping me when it is, then I can pass this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Cyclothymia

  • ... that Cyclothymia is a subtype of Bipolar Disorder in DSM-5? Source: "DSM-5" [38]
    • ALT1:... that Cyclothymia has received the least attention of all the mood disorders but is in fact very common? Source: "Perugi" [39]

5x expanded by Emcmanus1 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Y Y Symbol confirmed.svg

Cgorman4 (talk)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think it is important that an experienced, independent DYK reviewer check this, as both reviewer and nominator are new to DYK and to Wikipedia in general, and both appear to be taking the same class at Notre Dame. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg At the moment this is ineligible for DYK because it has some "medical citation needed" tags. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Serra Cross (Ventura, California)

Serra Cross in 2018
Serra Cross in 2018
  • ... that the Serra Cross (pictured) in Ventura, California, was sold in response to a threatened lawsuit challenging the use of public funds to maintain a religious symbol on public land? Source: The newspaper articles at notes 24-26 and 29 all report on the settlement which mandated the sale of the cross.
  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC).


Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - I can't actually read the sources, but they seem to be reliable, so am accepting in good faith.
  • Interesting: ????

QPQ: Red XN - QPQ needed
Overall: Symbol question.svg Not strictly necessary but I think you should add references to "The first road was built in 1920." and "The park has remained closed for several months since the fire." epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WSFN (programming language)

...? Source: entire Dr. Dobbs article

5x expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough (recent 5x expansion), long enough, and neutral, but referencing needs work. Reference #1 is a dead link. The info in the lead about extended WSFN lacks references and is not mentioned in article body. The hook is mildly interesting, but I can't find a source that says Wang created Tiny Basic. IMO what the acronym stands for (Nothing) would be a far more interesting hook, if a source could be found (other than the dead link). -Zanhe (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Intuitive eating

  • ... that eating intuitively is positively associated with self esteem, positive affect, and life satisfaction? Source: "Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2013)" [40]
    • ALT1:... that research shows women who eat intuitively are more satisfied with their bodies? Source: "Bacon, L., Stern, J. S., Van Loan, M. D., & Keim, N. L. (2005)" [41]

5x expanded by Cgorman4 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg I'm afraid I and another editor both have concerns about the article as it stands; as the subject is in the vicinity of a medical topic, standards are very high for sourcing, verifiability, neutrality, etc. and it seems to me there's quite a bit still to be worked out, ideally with input from a number of editors experienced with this kind of topic, before it would be ready for Main page. I truly appreciate the efforts to improve this entry and hope you won't feel discouraged Cgorman4; for most other topics, your expansion would be quite appropriate for DYK. It's just that medical topics really are handled somewhat differently from most of the rest of the encyclopedia so it can be a bit of a longer haul (see WP:MEDHOW for a general intro and links to more detailed instructions) than other topics require. Doesn't mean the work isn't appreciated, just that even more work (whew!) is still ahead; so I thank you for your past and future contributions! Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I agree that the article needs more work and so would classify this as a maybe. We need to see how the AfD turns out and then take it from there. Andrew D. (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Mania

Created by Bwilli18 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Annaleisg (talk)

Symbol confirmed.svg

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think it is important that an experienced, independent DYK reviewer check this, as both reviewer and nominator are new to DYK and to Wikipedia in general, and both appear to be taking the same class at Notre Dame. I should point out that reviews are supposed to state which hooks (if more than one) are approved, and as hooks with red links are not allowed, that would disqualify ALT1 as it currently stands. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Confirming that this nomination meets the DYK criteria of newness, length, cited hook, neutrality and absence of copyvios. Either hook could be used, but I favour ALT0, as the other is just a definition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 27[edit]

Centre interarmées d'essais d'engins spéciaux

Created by Chumash11 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article was expanded 5x. It is neutral and cites sources inline. Following issues need to be addressed: 1) In the infobox under "Site History" the reference #1 for "In use" does not support 1947-1967,2) There is no mention of “"Elevation" as "491 m" under "Airfield information" in the infobox, 3) Establishment of the site "on April 24, 1947" is given by ref #3 and not by ref #2, 4) "CIEES remained in use until June 1, 1967" is not supported by ref #2 nor #3, 5) The entire text under "List of directors of CIEES" lacks citation, 6) The number of total launches as "230" does not adds up in ref #8. No noteworthy similarities are reported by "Earwig's Copyvio Detector". The hook (I prefer the original one) is well-formatted and interesting. Its length is within limit. Its fact is referenced offline, for which I AGF. QPQ is not done. Possibly, the nominator has less than five DYN's. I will approve after all six a.m. issues are addressed. CeeGee 08:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've addressed the issues you brought up. Please take a look at the article and let me know if you have any further concerns. And I have less than five DYN's. Thank you for reviewing my submission! Chumash11 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Everything is fine now. Good to go. CeeGee 06:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Looking to promote this, I find the proposed hooks are not supported by the article. I would like to suggest ALT2.
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg @Chumash11: Not sure if all the bolding in the History section is necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svgThanks for the feedback. I changed the bolding to italics and further referenced the hook. The book I cited can be found on Google Books here (the fact that Felicette is the only cat to have successfully traveled to space is on p.228). I also added a video (in French, unfortunately) of a 1963 broadcast from the French national public broadcaster about Felicette mentioning her launch from CIEES. With these new references, I would vote for the original hook, or "ALT3" below:
ALT3... that the only cat to successfully travel into space, Felicette, was launched from the Centre interarmées d'essais d'engins spéciaux? Source:Burgess, Colin; Chris Dubbs. Animals in Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle p.228

VDM-1

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment - Why are you nominating this article? Is it new, expanded at least fivefold, or has had its prose portion expanded at least twofold? Barbara    13:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC
  • New enough, long enough, neutral enough. Oddly interesting. Only thing this needs is a QPQ. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Mexican–American War monuments and memorials

Created by Zigzig20s (talk), Doncram (talk), and Carptrash (talk). Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk) at 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment - Please see citation # 11 for "Escobedo p. 158". It's a sfn template that is not pointing to anything. I notice on the the talk page that it is from "Helen Escobedo in the book Mexican Monuments: Strange Encounters". Could you make a Bibliography section and list the book? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Maile66: Can we move this forward please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Zigzig20s I wasn't doing a review. I just made a comment, and the issue was taken care of, as mentioned. Someone else will do the review. — Maile (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I would suggest you propose another hook as the proposed hook sounds uninteresting and honestly even like a tautology. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was interesting that there were monuments on both sides of the border, because Mexico lost the war and losers don't usually have monuments to celebrate a war... Perhaps we could add that to the hook?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Well considering Confederate statutes (controversially) exist, it's not unprecedented for "losers" to have monument celebrating a war; I'm pretty sure there are other parallel cases around the world too. As such, both hooks have been struck; perhaps a different hook has to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated because of convict leasing and Jim Crow but I see what you mean.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram and User:Carptrash: Any suggestions please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I previously thought something could be said about how little memorialized this war was, before war memorials became more of a thing (I don't know what the source was, but somewhere in Confederate War memorial controversy I saw mention that war memorials became a thing in Germany in the 1870s or 1880s or 1890s, then the trend came to the U.S. with civil war memorials). [It was source 2 linked below...about post-Franco-Prussion War memorials. --18:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)] Similar to that idea is the poor treatment of the dead, as covered by Steven R. Butler, per this cached version (source 1) of "Burying the dead" summary of his master's thesis (which was published as a book and can be purchased). There existed no provisions for war dead to be brought back for burial at government expense, which came later.
Encyclopedia.com about war memorials doesn't even mention Mexican-American war, but suggests less honorable wars like that don't get memorialized much. It seems it is less memorialized than other wars, but a source stating that is needed.
How about the cemetery in Mexico City being the first U.S. national cemetery anywhere? Source being that cached source 1. Something like: "Did you know that...among memorials of the Mexican-American War is the monument at the first U.S. national cemetery, which is in Mexico City?"
Or something like: "DYK that ... although policy and practicalities precluded bringing home U.S. war dead from the Mexican-American War, as would become standard in U.S. foreign wars later, there were Mexican-American War monuments and memorials established in X number of U.S. states by year 1900?". --Doncram (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, how about use this quite decent source 2 to support: "DYK that ... while the American Civil War 20 years later became the first U.S. war that was heavily memorialized, there were U.S. efforts to memorialize the Mexican-American War, including creating the first U.S. national cemetery, which is located in Mexico City?"
Or perhaps better, use the two sources together to support: "DYK that ... while the American Civil War 13 years later featured the first widespread effort anywhere in the world to disinter battlefield dead and rebury them in central cemeteries after the war, (source 2) memorialization of the dead in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War included first creation of such a U.S. national cemetery in Mexico City with 750 reinterments during 1850-53? (source 1 and other)"
--Doncram (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Trying to make that shorter: "DYK that ... the first post-war widespread effort to reinter battlefield dead to central, national cemeteries was after the American Civil War, efforts to memorialize the dead in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery, in Mexico City, with 750 reinterments during 1850-53?". --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if that's true because Trafalgar Square is a memorial to the Battle of Trafalgar of 1805 (part of the Napoleonic Wars), isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I just modified my wording above, and then tried to shorten it. But if you mean there were previous examples of memorials and reinterments of bodies, sure there have been cases, but apparently on small scale. The source 2, which seems learned enough and cites learned sources, is saying that while there have been occasional monuments/memorials of some kind since at least 800 A.D. there were not widespread memorials in Europe before the F-P War and not in the U.S. before the ACW, and also that there were not widespread reinterments in any war before the ACW. The reinterment of about 750 American dead's bones from battlegrounds around Mexico City to the 2 acre cemetery, during 1850-53, seems likely to be the first effort by the U.S. and was just one effort. And we have a source saying this was not widespread. I am sure this suggested DYK is too long, but hope it can be refined and become acceptable. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The last hook you suggested is too convoluted. We want something snappy and we want to avoid mentioning the Civil War I think. Maybe "DYK that efforts to memorialize the dead in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery outside national borders in Mexico City, with 750 reinterments in 1850-53?". It's a bit convoluted but not as much as the other ones. What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this list is of interest to you and me and to potential readers because of the controversy about American Civil War memorials, but I agree it can be too convoluted to address ACW in a DYK hook. The hook you suggest is fine by me. Perhaps refine that as: "DYK that efforts to memorialize the dead in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery outside national borders, the Mexico City National Cemetery, with 750 reinterments in 1850-53?". User:Zigzig20s, do let's ensure the list-article supports that DYK. Note the assertion that MCNC is a "U.S. national cemetery" needs to be supported as being true, as being said to be that by sources, while it is not officially one of the 147 official ones in United States National Cemetery System. [It was later declared to be an official one.] Authority to create official ones apparently was in an act passed by the U.S. Congress on July 17, 1862. But the U.S. Congress did approve the MCNC purchase and expenses in reinterments and monument-building. --Doncram (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: What about ALT2 please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: @Doncram: ALT2 exceeds the 200 character limit. I think the part about the Mexico City National Cemetery having 750 interments is unnecessary; the hook should merely emphasize that the Mexico City National Cemetery is the first (unofficial?) U.S. national cemetery outside the US. ALT2 is almost acceptable, it just needs to follow my suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg In addition, there's a "citation needed" template in the article; said statement needs to be sourced ASAP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Doncram: Do you mind if we trim it please? And for the CN issue, we need an RS...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: What about ALT3? And I've fixed the CN issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Zigzig20s: ALT3 reflects my proposals best so it is tentatively approved. As for the article itself, it meets the newness and length requirements. Images are all freely licensed. Only two things left to do before I give my approval: first, the cemetery being a "national cemetery" or being established before the establishment of the US national cemeteries system requires a citation, and a QPQ needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram: Could you please add the RS for this assertion? I don't know what you found it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Zigzig20s, about the act of congress in 1862, i was relying upon Wikipedia article about the list of national cemeteries, which doesn't mention the Mexico City one and needs to be developed, but I found and added source now to this MWA article (from the National Cemetery Administration itself) stating that "Counted among the first 73 national cemeteries was an American military cemetery established in Mexico City, Mexico on Sept. 28, 1850, as a result of the Mexican War." ("History and Development of the National Cemetery Administration" (PDF). U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs / National Cemetery Administration. Retrieved April 12, 2018.  ) That source goes on about all of the national cemeteries, including military ones in Europe established during/after World War I, and so on... the Mexico City one was the first-created as far as I can tell from skimming/searching, and it was therefore also the first one overseas. Knock on wood, I think the hook is supported per requirements here. --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Now that the information in the article has been sourced, all that's left before this is approved is for Zigzig20s to provide a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a review...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Non-science.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg And with that QPQ verified, this is good to go. I've struck ALT2 for the reasons I gave above, so only ALT3 is approved for promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but am having trouble finding the inline cite for the hook fact in the article. The lead contains an overlong quote that should be paraphrased. I added a few "citation needed" tags. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
About a CN tag within a note, I don't think it was necessary...everything was covered with sources footnoted in the article. But I tried adding copies of the footnotes into the note, found that didn't work, then put in external links to the sources covered in the footnotes, which makes it look like there are more sources now. This has not really improved the article, IMHO, but okay, done. I think the hook fact is now even more obviously/explicitly supported in the article.
About a CN tag about a Kentucky memorial, I removed the tag. There is nothing controversial asserted. All info from the linked article about the Kentucky memorial, which has sources that are offline. I can't go to the original sources myself. Non-controversial stuff does not need to be footnoted unless it is challenged. If someone seriously challenges the fact of the existence of the memorial and that it relates to 17 burials and whatever, then go ahead and delete the whole item or comment it out. We can add it back later after this DYK is over. This is not how DYK is supposed to work, though. Whatever, this has nothing to do with the DYK hook. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
About a quote being "overly long" and requiring paraphrasing, that is a matter of editorial opinion/discretion. The explicit quoting does help support the DYK hook; I wouldn't want to change it then find DYK editors complaining they wanted more explicit support for the hook again. I wouldn't object though if someone wants to replace by paraphrasing, but this is not an issue for DYK review in my opinion. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Doncram: my reason for adding "citation needed" tags had nothing to do with readers challenging the information, but with DYK's Rule D2, which calls for at least one citation in each paragraph. In this case: at least one citation in each line of the list. The paragraph about the Kentucky War Memorial needs at least one cite; this could be for anything, like the date of unveiling. The second entry under "Mexico City", the Heroic Cadets Memorial, also needs a cite.
Okay, User:Yoninah, thank you for explaining. I was not aware of that DYK requirement; I did 50 or so DYKs many years ago, don't recall it as a rule, but maybe it just never came up. I just commented out the Kentucky War Memorial item, with hidden comment note "Item commented out for duration of DYK expected April/May 2018, because we can't tell which offline sources in Kentucky War Memorial support these statements. It would be okay for these statements to be here, supported by info in the article, but not during DYK, where a rule requires every paragraph or item to have an explicit source apparently." We will keep it hidden (i.e. effectively out of the article, until after a DYK has finished running on the main page. Knock on wood. About the Heroic Cadets Memorial, it looks like you just did add a cite, or at least there is a cite there now, so I hope this is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on your edits, I don't understand why the ALT3 hook calls it "the first U.S. national cemetery outside national borders". The article says it is "the first U.S. national cemetery", period. I admit that the hook fact about being a national cemetery outside the U.S. intrigued me, but it's not mentioned in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I happen to think that it is a more interesting thing to say. It is a true fact obviously if you agree that it is the first national cemetery, but that could be disputed (spending for it was indeed approved by congress and the president, but, as explained at the article, it was before there was an organized, officially named National Cemetery program; a number of Civil War cemeteries were named official National Cemeteries before this was retroactively declared to be an official one in 1870 or so). There were no other official ones (or even any unofficial candidates AFAICT) outside the U.S. before this was declared to be an official one. So the hook is true and undisputable. I think it is better to avoid making a hook about it being the first overall, subject to dispute. Thanks. I do hope this is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note that the Arlington National Cemetery was established a few years later, in 1864. Maybe we could create a chronological list of all the U.S. national cemeteries based on Category:United States national cemeteries. Also the sentence, "The first national cemeteries were set up after the United States Civil War by Edmund Burke Whitman.", in United States National Cemetery System appears to be wrong. Unless the Mexico City National Cemetery is not officially a U.S. national cemetery?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes that statement is "wrong" or at least needs to be explained there, i.e that it was the first official one created after the National Cemetery program was officially created, despite the fact that there already was a Congress-approved cemetery in Mexico City that was already a national cemetery in effect, and was declared to be one officially later, in 1870(?). --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. Does it matter for this nomination, or can we fix this later please? Are we finally good to go?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram: Can you please help with this? You're the one who came up with it. User:Yoninah: I thought the first one was fine but User:Narutolovehinata5 found it boring, not sure why...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: because it's a statement of fact, not a hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But Mexico lost.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The Confederacy lost the U.S. Civil War, and we all know how that turned out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that's the point you made earlier, but with convict labor and Jim Crow they did not think they'd lost. And the hook does not say they were the only losers who celebrated their loss. (Maybe the Confederates took a hint from the Mexicans?) Anyway, do you have another hook you'd like to suggest to be more productive please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • @Zigzig20s: Personally I think ALT3 is actually fine, Yoninah's concern seems to be less about the hook itself but more that the hook fact isn't clearly stated in the article. The solution would this is of course to add an explanation of this somewhere; Yoninah, I have to note that the information is already included in the article as a footnote. As possible alternatives, how about:
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I also think ALT3 is a great hook. But the only sourced statement in the article says it's the first U.S. national cemetery. It doesn't say first U.S. national cemetery outside national borders. The footnote doesn't say this, and isn't sourced, either. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s and Doncram: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think ALT3b will do the trick. Do you want me to approve it? Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes please.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me too. P.S. Yoninah could be right that the list-article doesn't exactly state the previously-discussed hook. It could be remedied by pasting the hook text into the article, with links to the two sources, much discussed above, which in fact do support it, at least with some interpretation. But this is moot if ALT3b goes ahead, which is fine by me. --Doncram (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. But still, what are you going to do about the uncited line for Heroic Cadets Memorial, Chapultepec Park? The Kentucky War Memorial entry is "commented out", but still appears in the article with some dashes after it. And the source for the sentence in the lead, footnote 1, states it was "one of the first", not the first; this needs to be adjusted. Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my editing mistake in commenting out Kentucky item, now fixed. About Heroic Cadets, there was a source in that item and I thought that meant it was okay by you. In case you mean about an unsourced sentence that concluded the item ("Nearby is the Niños Heroes Metro Station, named after the Niños Heroes") I just commented that out. --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And I changed in lede so that it says "one of the first U.S. national cemeteries". --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I know we're all eager to get this on the main page, but a few more careful tweaks and we'll be finished.
  • Doncram, I'm looking at the second entry under "Mexico City": Heroic Cadets Memorial, Chapultepec Park, also known as the Niños Héroes monument. Can you add a cite in there, perhaps one that confirms its alternate name?
  • Doncram, I also think it's unwise to comment out the Kentucky War Memorial. Some knowledgeable reader is going to see this article on the main page and wonder why it's not there. As I said above, all you need is a simple inline cite for the date of establishment, 1850, and the whole paragraph can stay. Per Rule D2 you only need one cite per paragraph, not one cite per line. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate, Yoninah, that you like all of us are a volunteer here. But I think these requirements are unnecessary, and are not properly part of DYK process. It would be fine/great if you would raise concerns at the article Talk page instead. I am obviously not against improving an article, and it would be a shame not to capture legitimate concerns/suggestions. But as I think you should understand by now, you are asking for sources to be provided right here/now when the sources used in articles were offline and are not available to me, to support obviously true facts which are not questioned in the corresponding articles. And you are even asking for new material to be added (or deleted/commented out material to be restored) with sources that are not known to be available. This is unreasonable, is not part of DYK process as I understand it. Nonetheless I will respond:
  • Okay, I restored a short item about the Kentucky War Memorial, with the best/only fragment of info from its article that is clearly specifically supported by a specific source which I copied over (although the source is not online and I cannot consult it myself), namely that the memorial was funded by $15,000 appropriated by a Kentucky state legislature act of February 25, 1848. This leaves the list-article item in odd position of having no connection to the Mexican-American War stated, because I have no specific source about that, but readers can presumably click to the article where MAW connection is explained. Again, after the DYK is over i will restore information about how the memorial is indeed partly about the MAW.
  • And okay about the Niños Héroes monument, i re-named that item as the Obelisco a los Niños Héroes (currently a redlink) with this source and I further mentioned with source that Harry Truman visited there.[strike that, because I don't for sure know which Niños Héroes monument he visited.] That is indubitably a MAW monument. The obelisk is just one of a number of Niños Héroes monuments even within Mexico City alone AFAICT; it clearly looks different than another captioned as "Heroic Cadets Memorial" in first photo of current Niños Héroes article, but I have no specific source saying what that is called (although it is obviously a monument to the Niños Héroes and it is obviously quite reasonable to call it a "Heroic Cadets Memorial"). Whatever.
If someone wants to insist that the photographed one be added to this article, or any further extra demands are made, then I don't know what, i suppose one has to look for processes to appeal against the crime of DYK withholding. Again, I believe all is well-intentioned, but I certainly will hesitate about participating in any DYK about a list-article in the future.
Or let me put it this way: if you want something to be added to the list-article, especially involving unspecificed sources that you think should be available, please add it yourself. --Doncram (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Everything looks ready now. ALT3b hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Narutolovehinata5. ALT3b good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Reams of discussion above and apparently nobody thought to run DYKcheck on this, because if they had done, they would have found that the article is 300 characters too short. Not only that, but the first source for the hook just goes to a generic page,[44] what am I supposed to do with that? I have therefore been obliged to pull the nomination so that somebody can address the issues. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, this was nominated 15 March 2018 and this delay, after all the rest, is bogus IMHO. Just post the darn thing.
The source has two links, one to that "generic page" by "url=" link and one, an "archiveurl=" to this archived version which has the content. I think the "generic page" originally had the content when this DYK process started; I don't know . But okay, I just replaced the url= link by what was at the archiveurl= link. If it was wrong for me to do that for some reason, please give very clear instructions as to what is preferred, as if you were talking to a child please. Also, I don't believe that a live URL is required for a source at all. It is not, or should not, be a valid reason to stop a DYK in progress, particularly not an already-approved one.
About DYKCheck, i had that installed but it doesn't pop up, i.e. I can't run it. I take it that more needs to be in the lede, while stuff in the list-items doesn't count? Okay, I added to the lede just now, adding generic overview stuff about the list-article and moving up one sourced thing about there being no monument on the mall in Washington D.C., getting to this version as of right now. Is that enough? If it is not enough, please take any one sentence and duplicate it a few times. --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
DYKCHECK shows "Prose size (text only): 1693 characters (265 words) 'readable prose size'" which is what is needed. It was nominated within the DYK time deadline, though it is getting less "new" every day.
This seems ready to be approved again (and it has been ready for quite a while), for what that might be worth. --Doncram (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, can you possibly please restore approval of this, or otherwise take it forward? --Doncram (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Everything is fine, according to all I know. Please do fix the situation if I am doing something wrong by following what I can understand about current procedures. I am applying DYKtick here and coping this into a queue. --Doncram (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Doncram, as one of the credited creators, you are not eligible to approve this nomination, nor may you promoted it to prep. I am calling for a new reviewer (or perhaps Gatoclass will have time to stop by). In any event, sometimes DYK nominations end up having to wait longer than this; please be patient. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Yoninah: Would you like to re-review this please? Or User:BlueMoonset, would you like to do it please? I am not sure why you are 'calling for a new reviewer.'Zigzig20s (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a bunch of nominations I pulled during the 12-hour cycle that I haven't found the wherewithal to get back to yet, including this one. I expect to get back to this in the next few days but if somebody else wants to verify it in the meantime I'm not standing in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 28[edit]

Gevninge

The Gevninge helmet fragment
The Gevninge helmet fragment

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 16:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article was created on 28 April, so is new enough, it has 1640 characters, so is long enough to comply with the rule, and is neutrally written and well-cited. The problems are with the hook and the image.
  1. The text in the article can be taken as based in good faith on the offline sources, but the first part of the hook offered here says something not claimed by the article. What the article does say is "Gevninge may have thus served as the "port of Lejre"... This role is evocative of the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, for the titular character passes through such a place..." and that is quite different.
  2. There's also the problem that Beowulf is legendary and we have no evidence that he ever lived or did anything at all. We can't really treat him as if he were a historical figure.
  3. The second part of the hook, about the helmet fragment, can be accepted AGF, but the image of the fragment is of very low quality, and there is no link from the Wikimedia image to a Lejre Museum page, no photographer name, and nothing to say how or why or by whom a CC licence was created for this low-grade image. "An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS" does not really meet the case.

This hook needs rethinking: perhaps an actual quotation from one of the sources could be added to the article and the new hook could be based on that? Or it could be cut down to just the second part, as the two parts are trying to marry up quite unrelated facts. To be used on the Main Page, the image should really be of better quality and there should be some details of how it comes to be in the public domain. Please ping me here when you have the answers. Moonraker (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Moonraker. How is ALT1 instead? (Grendel isn't mentioned in the article at the moment, but can be easily added.) I think "poetical" describes Beowulf's nature adequately, though "legendary" or "fabled" would also work. The image is OTRS pending, which I understand to be allowed for the main page; there's a 66-day backlog for such emails, so it would be hard to do otherwise. The email in question was sent on April 12 by the head of communication for ROMU, who kindly offered a commercial-use-allowed license for a low-resolution photo (would want it to be non-commercial for anything higher). I think it looks nice in the small size afforded for the main page, although I agree with you that when blown up it gets fuzzy.
    • Symbol possible vote.svg All right, we are now on ALT1. On the image, the Reviewing guide says "Make sure the image is free of any copyright restrictions... Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page". The volunteer moving this on might feel we have made sure of the copyright status here, not sure. The clarity is all right at 100 by 100 pixels, but it's still a low-grade image, and it might or might not be used. Without it, the hook doesn't work well. Another reviewer has drawn my attention to Rule C6, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." That might help, although here the subject is Gevninge and not Beowulf. Also, I can't find Grendel mentioned in the article, and I don't think Grendel can be parachuted into the hook like that, we are supposed to be able to verify everything in the hook. Could you please quote the exact passage from Christensen (2002), p. 45, that you are relying on? It's just that I think we need to see what Christensen actually says. Could you give it in Danish and English? Moonraker (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. The image is clear at 100x100 pixels; it is up to the promoter whether to include it or not.
  2. I've added Grendel to the article.
  3. If Rule C6 applies here (I don't think it does), it is clearly satisfied by the hook, which involves the real world in some way: Gevninge is a part of the real world. Indeed, the hook is really about how the fictional world of Beowulf intersects with contemporary reality.
  4. The offline Danish sources could be accepted as good faith, but since you asked:

For en besøgende, der kom sejlende til Lejre, matte vejen mest naturligt gå via Gevninge. Her skulle man stige i land og foretage resten af turen langs ådalen til fods eller til hest. Her må man også have mødt en af Lejrekongens betroede mænd, der bevogtede vejen til Lejre. En sådan strandvagt optræder i kvadet om Bjovulf. Her modtager han helten og hans mænd, da de stiger i land på kysten på vej til danerkongen Roars kongsgård (i Lejre?):
“Ridende på sin hest drog Roars stridsmand
så ned til stranden, i næverne svingede han
kraftfuldt sit spy dog spurgte med hofpli:
‘hvem er I, som er kommet kampklædte her
skærmet af brynjer, med skibet det høje
sejlende hen over havets vej,
over bølgerne til landet? længe har jeg været
vogter af grænsen, holdt vagt ved havet
for at ingen fjende skulle anrette skade
i danernes land med ledingsflåde”

For a visitor who came sailing to Lejre, the road that made the most natural walk was through Gevninge. Here you should go ashore and take the rest of the trip along the river valley on foot or by horse. Here one must also have met one of the trusted men of Lejre's king, guarding the way to Lejre. Such a shore-guard appears in the quarters of Beowulf. Here he receives the hero and his men as they go ashore on the way to Hrothgar's kingdom (in Lejre?):
"he rode to the shore,
this horseman of Hrothgar’s, and challenged them
in formal terms, flourishing his spear:
'What kind of men are you who arrive
rigged out for combat in coats of mail,
sailing here over the sea-lanes
in your steep-hulled boat? I have been stationed
as lookout on this coast for a long time.
My job is to watch the waves for raiders,
and danger to the Danish shore.'" --Usernameunique (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    • Symbol possible vote.svg Usernameunique, progress. I agree with your points (1) and (3), thank you for (2), and (4) overcomes my doubts. So ALT1 is cited for everything except Grendel. If you want Grendel, there should really be a reference to cover it, I don't believe the rules allow us to parachute things into hooks (or, indeed, articles) that rely on people's general knowledge. Please would you ping me here when it's sorted? Moonraker (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks Moonraker. I've added a source for Grendel to the article. It's paywalled, but the relevant part reads: " The news of the inroads of Grendel reaches the ears of Beowulf, and he sets out to the court of Hrothgar. But the departure, the journey, and the landing are shrouded in a fog of hazy speech that not only makes the geographical identity of their destination a matter of question but has given modern scholars cause to write reams about the nationality of the Geats. The journey is safely accomplished and the warriors disembark. They are met by a mounted sentry, who challenges them and then points out the hall? [Same Beowulf passage as above.] This seems to indicate that the distance from the ship to the hall was not very great. The warden of the coast rides with them a little way until the hall may be seen in the distance and then lets them follow the path. If the march were long, it seems reasonable to suppose that there would be a definite reference to a somewhat more involved journey." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article created on 28 April, so is new enough, is long enough, and is neutrally written and well-cited, with no copyvio found. Offline sources for the ALT1 hook can be accepted AGF. On the image, we read that this small version of it has been licenced by the museum organization it belongs to, per Commons:OTRS, and it looks all right at the size of 100 x 100. The ALT1 hook is rather a complicated one, and the words "with an associated helmet fragment" might be better left out if the image is not used. Moonraker (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As you know Usernameunique, I pulled this hook last night, mainly because I was unable to confirm the hook in a timely manner. But my issue with it at the time is that the hook says the warrior "may have passed through a place like Gevninge", but Gevninge isn't mentioned in the supplied source (Herbert), indeed Herbert doesn't mention any kind of settlement where Beowulf lands, and neither, apparently (judging by what I presume is an extract above) does the poem. So how can he have passed through "a place like Gevninge"? Also, Herbert (page 937) says that the notion that the Heorot of Beowulf was the same place as modern day Lejre is "utterly untenable", and says that Heorot was "miles away". Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, as mentioned above, Herben is used only for verification of plot summary, i.e., for the fact that Beowulf's journey to Heorot is to fight Grendel. His own theory of where Heorot is is an outlier, and has been debunked (see p. 290 n.8: "Since the time of Chambers and Klaeber, most scholars have been willing, if pressed, to locate Heorot at Lejre even if with caution. n.8: Again, voices dissenting from this orthodoxy have occasionally been heard. In an article published in 1935 titled simply "Heorot," Stephen Herben proposed to locate the action of Beowulf at a village to the northeast of the city of Roskilde, ... but the connection that he proposes remains practically groundless."). As also noted and quoted above, Christensen 2002 is the source for linking Gevninge with Beowulf. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Firstly Usernameunique, your new source doesn't "debunk" Herbert, in fact, it says the opposite to what you claim (page 292): "No one today would agree with Sarrazin that this landscape "is" that of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf ... traces of ancient halls are being excavated now, in "the very place" (as Sarrazin liked to say) where the Beowulf poet may have imagined Heorot to have stood, even if the poet never ventured near that place in person." (my emphasis). Also, note that Christenson above doesn't assert that Heorot and Lejre are the same place, he merely suggests, very tentatively, that it might be. But it appears that his subject is Lejre and how one might have got there in ancient times, and is only touching on the Beowulf connection in passing. Regardless, saying that Beowulf "may have passed through a place like Gevninge" is highly misleading IMO, because it implies that he passed through a similar settlement when the poem itself only mentions a "lookout" on "the coast". [Addendum: I notice you added a quote while I was researching my response - I missed that before making this post. I'm not sure it changes anything substantive though]. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, I can see both sides of this, but for now I am agreeing more with Gatoclass. In the middle of this page I asked you to quote Christensen (2002), so that we could see what he actually said, and you gave us a passage including "For a visitor who came sailing to Lejre, the road that made the most natural walk was through Gevninge". At first sight that supports Alt1; at second sight, it does name Gevninge, but it says nothing about "a place like Gevninge", and when Christensen later says "to Hrothgar's kingdom (in Lejre?)" that seems to suggest that a reasoned link with Lejre might be beside the point because Lejre may not be the real or fictional seat of Hrothgar. Also, we now gather there is scholarly controversy on these matters. If you want Beowulf in the hook and he does get into it, I see no problem with Grendel as well, but to link Beowulf and Gevninge you need to rely on something actually said in a reliable source. Can you perhaps come up with a hook that does exactly that, without any interpretation of it? If not, then I see nothing wrong with Vanamonde's suggestion of "Gevninge, a small village, may have been the port for a royal capital?" as that is a fair summary of something you can cite from the sources. Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on April 29[edit]

Simone Téry

  • ... that Simone Téry was reputedly the only journalist to ever interview the Irish revolutionary Micheal Collins? Source: "Téry is reputed to have been the only journalist, French or otherwise, to have ever interviewed Collins."[45])

Created by Meanderingbartender (talk). Self-nominated at 11:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC).

  • 5x expanded within the seven days preceding the nomination, in time, long enough, sourced, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Meanderingbartender, inserted the word "reputedly" into the hook to match the source and the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg - the word "reputedly" should not appear in the hook, as it is a WP:WEASEL word, and is not attributable to anyone. Who did the reputing? The source is also slightly questionable, being an essay by a PhD student on the National Library of Ireland's blog. There seems to be a better source at [46], although this does not assert that she was the *only* journalist to interview him, just one of very few. Might I suggest rewording the article and the hook to reflect the verifiable assertion that she was one of very few?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My first question, is why did it take 36 hours with no notification at at all that the hook had been pulled until this nomination was reopened? Secondly, who decided to pull the hook and was there any discussion about it? Meanderingbartender (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nous Citoyens

  • ... that the French political party Nous Citoyens recruited list leaders in the 2014 European elections by soliciting applications from members? Source: "Dans les 8 régions-circonscriptions, nous présenterons des candidats compétents, pas comme les grands partis qui recyclent les élus dont ils ne savent plus quoi faire... Nous ouvrons les candidatures auprès des membres de Nous citoyens, des gens sachant ce que bien gérer veut dire." (Le Parisien, 13 February 2014)
    • ALT1:... that the French political party Nous Citoyens sought to present an "alternative offer" to the National Front by creating a program through "participatory democracy"? Source: "Décidé à construire «une offre alternative au FN» en faisant jouer la «démocratie participative» grâce à sa plateforme interactive" (Libération, 11 December 2013)

Converted from a redirect by Mélencron (talk). Self-nominated at 16:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 30[edit]

Franz Seraph von Kohlbrenner

F. S. von Kohlbrenner
F. S. von Kohlbrenner

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 14:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg*New enough, long enough.
  • I am unable to check the German sources, but it looks well-cited--except for one CN tag I added.
  • No copyright violation detected. Sounds neutral.
  • The hook is interesting, short enough and catchy. However, the article does not mention "Latin." This needs to be made explicit in the article, and possibly in the lede too.
  • I think the inscription should be translated into English for our readers.
  • The image is copyright-free (1760).Zigzig20s (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I added the ref, and asked Moonraker for an idiomatic translation of the old German. Will look for the Latin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please look again, Zigzig20s. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
OK. Symbol voting keep.svg Zigzig20s (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Franz Seraph von Kohlbrenner (pictured), a civil servant at the Bavarian court, published a hymnal that contained the mass ordinary in German? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 1[edit]

Qabaniso Malewezi

  • ... that Q wrote Wikipedia? he performed a selection of poems from his latest “People” album which is already on sale online. Among other pieces, he performed “Wikipedia”. Nyasa Showbiz
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Iselilja (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Long enough (just short of 1500 characters - I'll take it), new enough, no obvious copyvios, and hook has an inline citation. I quite enjoyed the hook - it was the first one to catch my attention while scanning through the list of noms needing to be reviewed. I fixed the formatting of the hook so that the title appears in bold. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 16:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg I did some minor copyedits to the article and it now stands at 1515 characters. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that the second to last statement (about him appearing on several major television shows) has no source. Iselilja, could you try to find sources for that statement? I'm a little iffy about whether or not he meets notability guidelines, but sources for that statement would help a ton. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, I removed the trailing ellipses from the hook as they are not needed. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Signaling of the New York City Subway

  • ... that some parts of the New York City Subway's signaling system are 80 years old? Sources: (1) NY Times 2017. "On a recent evening, Mr. Habersham walked along the train tracks near 34th Street in Manhattan as workers replaced antiquated switches and cables. A signal system should last about 50 years, he said, but the one that guides trains through this slice of Manhattan has been in place for about 80." (2) NY Daily News. "Twenty-first century straphangers are reliant on sometimes obsolete mechanical equipment installed as long as 80 years ago — when Franklin Roosevelt was in the White House and Babe Ruth in Yankee Stadium."

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk) and Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 01:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Good article status confirmed.
  • Long enough
  • Neutral
  • Interesting and concise hook - Barbara    04:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure why the review is in small type; it shouldn't be. Barbara (WVS), I was wondering if or when you were planning on completing the review since the first part was posted: there is nothing mentioned about neutrality, hook or article sourcing, copyvio/close paraphrasing, or whether the submitted QPQ was adequate, and no icon was given. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 2[edit]

Samuel Croker-King

Samuel Croker-King
Samuel Croker-King

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 08:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, created day of nomination. Prose length of 2797 exceeds requirement of 1500. Article written in neutral manner, and cites sources with inline citations. Some of the phrasing is close to one original source, but the Cameron source, from 1886, is clearly public domain so there are no copyright violations. Earwig only detects book titles, and no other copyvio issues found. The hook is within policy and of interest to a general audience. Hook fact is found in the article directly supported by inline citation, and source clearly supports the claim. Image is licence as public domain. Remaining issue: QPQ needs to be completed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Well, that is interesting, a tag-team review of another DYK by this article's creators. Where's the rule on that? Blast any rule, IAR and all that. QPQ done. This interesting article deserves mainpage exposure, all criteria now met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 06:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Given the amount of copying from the PD source, this doesn't meet requirements for amount of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It just has to be text new to Wikipedia. The original PD source has since been extensively reworked as you can see if you compare the first and most recent versions. Here is the PD source. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I have compared them, and that's not correct. See WP:DYKRULES 2b. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you exclude the quotes and verse? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The quotes and verse are copied from the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I made some copyedits to the article and compared it in Earwig to the source material which I pasted into a sandbox here excluding quotes and headings etc. This gave a match of 13% which was mainly names, so I think it is OK now. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The 1500-character specification is for original prose. While this is now not identical to the source, it would be a stretch to call it original. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
If it were any more original it would break the rule against original research. Paraphrasing existing sources without crossing over into plagiarism is precisely what we are required to do. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two sentences which are close paraphrases of the original. ("His family was originally..." and "A Miss Jane King...") Taking these out, and removing the 2 poems and the quote leaves a character count of 1808 without spaces or 2176 with spaces, which surpasses the requirement of 1500 characters of "original prose". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I slightly reworded those two bits rather than remove them. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a question of removing them, it is just a matter of whether or not it counts toward the DYK criteria. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mette Ivie Harrison

5x expanded by Gandhi (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Starting review.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Preliminary remarks: User:Gandhi (BYU): Could you please add more references to the first paragraph? Also, are you able to find a date of birth please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have standardized the layout. Please add more in-line references and then ping me here. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, I have added in-line citations. Unfortunately, I do not have access to her date of birth. Thanks!Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, well-written, long enough.
  • The sources are not all third party. "Harrison, Mette Ivie (2018d). "You Are Whole". Sunstone." is cited four times and it is self-published. This is problematic.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on May 3[edit]

Solomon Richards (surgeon)

  • ... that Irish surgeon Solomon Richards (died 1819) acquired fame by performing a tracheotomy in public?
    • ALT1:... that Solomon Richards was said to be the fattest surgeon in the United Kingdom, requiring him to enter his carriage sideways?
  • Reviewed: Cauca molly
  • Comment: Alt might be a bit negative but he has been dead for nearly 200 years.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 10:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I prefer hook 1. Would suggest removing the date of death; I don't think it adds to the hook, and even if this was an early notable tracheotomy, I'd imagine performing one in public is a somewhat notable event in itself (regardless of date). Anyhow... WP:DYKCHECK says all is good, and I've added a new citation to further reference the hook. HOWEVER... it seems that the article prose is lifted directly from [47] (Cameron 1886). The source is obviously public domain, and there are a number of citations to the work (so it's not as if it's WP:PLAGIARISM). I'd be happy to pass this once there's been a second opinion, if someone wouldn't mind. MIDI (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was as acknowledged in the edit history but its been fairly heavily edited since then. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg I've also added Template:PD-notice to the Cameron reference, so I'm happy. Given that this acknowledges the text used verbatim in the article, I'd be happy to approve this one, either with or without the date of death (perhaps a matter of personal preference; as above, I think it's superfluous but no dealbreaker!). MIDI (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Not enough original prose to met the 1500-character minimum. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have done some more copyediting and am getting low similarity with the PD source once quotes and titles are excluded. Note there is a large piece of verse that is of course identical. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Maurine Whipple

  • ... that Maurine Whipple, author of the Mormon epic The Giant Joshua, had two polygamous grandfathers? Source: "Maurine's father, Charlie, was a complicated man, not at all convinced it was all right that a society had allowed him to be left in poverty with a second-wife mother while his father took a younger wife to Mexico. [...] Maurine's mother, Anna, daughter of a left-behind third wife, was delicate, sickly and gentle, confused by desiring to follow the acceptable Church line." (Maurine Whipple and Her Joshua, Juanita Brooks Lecture Series)
    • ALT1:... that in 1989, Maurine Whipple's Mormon epic The Giant Joshua was the most-borrowed book in the Salt Lake City Public Library? Source: "As a consequence, Mormons showed little interest in purchasing reading copies—though Salt Lake City Public Library records indicate that guilty curiosity was sufficient to make it the most-borrowed book in the system." People of Paradox I followed the footnote, which got the statistic from a 1989 newsletter.
    • ALT2:... that Mormon scholars unanimously chose Maurine Whipple's Mormon epic The Giant Joshua as the best Mormon novel before 1980? Source: "Morgan wrote that Maurine Whipple's The Giant Joshua (#37) "has claims to be considered the best Mormon novel so far published... " He calls it "a law unto itself" and says the book "overflows with life" and is "richly rewarding." Later critics tend to agree with Morgan. In fact, this seems to be the unanimous choice of all I asked to name the best Mormon novel. Sunstone"
  • Reviewed: Schlafes Bruder
  • Comment: I wish I had worked on this as a draft in my sandbox... I'm not done with the page, but the expansion deadline is today, so I'm nominating it now. Some of the material on the Maurine Whipple page should probably go on The Giant Joshua page. I'm taking a wikibreak soon and will be back on the 23rd. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

5x expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 20:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The lead states she won the 1938 Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellowship for writing The Giant Joshua in 1941. Surely there's something wrong here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 4[edit]

Juliet Appiah

5x expanded by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg I forgot who chooses. Both hooks are acceptable. I recommend hook 1 Vanguard10 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled by Fram from prep due to issues discussed on the DYK talk page at WT:DYK#Pulled incorrect hook from prep 3. I have struck the original hook; I gather that ALT1 is still under consideration, but a new review should be done to be sure it is adequately supported and the other issues raised have been addressed, since the original review was wrong about the other hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Thanks for the review. I must point out that you struck out the wrong hook. The fact that she is first Police officer to be awarded a FIFA badge is a fact and has not been disputed. It is rather the fact about her being the first woman to referee a match that has been removed. 09:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Crosstemplejay, thanks for the correction. I have reversed the strike-outs, so it's the original hook that is unstruck, and ALT1 that has been removed from consideration. I would like to point out that although the lede claim matches the hook, in that she was the first police officer to have a FIFA refereeing badge, the body of the article also specifies "female", which could mean a male had been given such a badge before her (the source just says first without qualification). I recommend that this is straightened out before a reviewer is called in. It would also help if you would not have separate references for identical reprints of the same news article published in multiple sources: 2, 4, 6, and 8 are all the same article (though some are only partial reprints), which is credited to a footballmadeinghana story (which is not one of the sources). Only one is necessary. You've also misattributed the statement about who "admonished" her (it was the IGP), and I'd recommend against "admonish", which comes from "to warn"; a more neutral word would be better. Finally, I was interested to see in one of the sources that there's a Joyce Appiah who is also a Ghanian international referee, and had started four years before Juliet did. A relative? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Thanks for another review. The issues raised have been addressed. The surname "Appiah" is quite a common name in Ghana so though I am not talking on authority, it is most likely just a coincidence. Research I have done shows that there is no other police officer with a FIFA badge, hence the special ceremony organized to honour her when she got the license. The references part has also been worked on. Please go through once again. Thanks. CrossTemple Jay 09:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Changpeng Zhao

  • ... that Changpeng Zhao, in less than eight months, grew Binance into the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by traded value...? Source: "In less than eight months, the founder of Binance has grown his company from an idea into the world’s largest digital-asset exchange by traded value. He has vaulted from obscurity to the cover of Forbes magazine, steered Binance to a $200 million profit in its second quarter of existence, and amassed a personal fortune that he claims is worth as much as $2 billion." ([50])
  • Reviewed: None. First DYK.

Created by Perrythwi (talk). Self-nominated at 21:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, (barely) long enough, and neutral. QPQ exempt. Some close paraphrasing issues need to be addressed, for example, "11 days after raising $15 million in an initial coin offering". See report. And the article appears incomplete. The "career" section is very short and ends abruptly, while much of the info in the lead does not appear in the article body. Detailed info should be moved to the article body and summarized in the lead. -Zanhe (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: I have made the corrections exactly as you suggested. Perrythwi (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sơn Tùng M-TP

Tùng performing in July 2016
Tùng performing in July 2016

5x expanded by Beyoncetan 2 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was expanded within the time frame (in fact, I would suggest that the article be nominated for GA since it's likely to pass at this point), and is adequately sourced. Article is stable, free of plagiarism or copyvios, and has sufficiently licensed images. Some of the article's sources are in English but most are in Vietnamese; these are accepted AGF. As for the hooks, I've struck ALT0 due to BLP concerns and ALT1 due to lacking "hookiness" (i.e. interest to a broad audience); as such my preferences are ALT2 and ALT4. This will be good to go once a QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 6[edit]

Evacuation of Ayvalik

Otto Liman von Sanders
Otto Liman von Sanders

Created by Alexikoua (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Drift whale

Created by Carbon Caryatid (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk) at 17:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC). 7&6=thirteen () 17:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg This interesting article is long enough and new enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Although either of the suggested hooks could be used, I do not care for them much. What about a hook relating to a drift whale bursting, or one about the botulism that affected the Bering Sea fishing villagers who consumed parts of a drift whale? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 7[edit]

Young blood transfusion

Created by Violetriga (talk). Self-nominated at 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: Will complete a full review in the upcoming days. However, due to the fact that clinical studies have a tendency to contradict each other, I prefer ALT1. Too many variables count when taking lifespan length under consideration. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Review:

1- New: The article was created on May 5 and nominated to DYK within two days. It was published directly (not moved from userspace) and the only thing resembling it that I could find was a tiny mention that BT began with an "interest in eternal life" in the entry for Blood transfusion.

2- Long enough: The article is 7,677 characters long, well above the threshold of 1,500 to be considered long enough.

3- Within policy: The first paragraph of the "Trials on mice" section could use better reference placing, but there are no loose links or lists of references. Nothing has been copy/pasted from any of the sources as far as I could tell; a Google search did not bring back results close enough to be of concern. The piece is neutral, which is difficult in a topic that is -by its nature- full of promotional hype.

4- Hook length: Both of the hooks are under 200 characters.

5- Interesting hook: The idea of rejuvenation is inherently interesting. However, as noted before, I prefer the language of the ALT.

6- Overall: Good to go. Symbol confirmed.svg

Old School WWC Fan (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Pulled from prep. Significant issues about WP:FRINGE, also article has reasonable maintenance templates. See discussion at WT:DYK. Also significant concerns at WT:MED. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Superseding tick with a more appropriate icon since nomination was pulled from prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yellow Sand Society

  • ... that the Yellow Sand Society believed that it would be spared in the coming armageddon by fighting for a self-proclaimed Emperor of China? Source: Perry, Elizabeth J. (1980). Rebels and Revolutionaries in North China, 1845-1945. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, p. 159.)
    • ALT1:... that the Yellow Sand Society supported the restoration of the Ming dynasty three centuries after the latter's fall? Source: Perry, Elizabeth J. (1980). Rebels and Revolutionaries in North China, 1845-1945. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, p. 159.)

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 12:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 8[edit]

2018–19 RFU Championship

Created by Steven a91 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article checks out the requirements: it's new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, with appropriately-licensed images, and with a QPQ provided by the nominator. Earwigs gives a score of 2.0% confirming that it has no copyright infringing material or plagiarism. However, @Steven a91 and The C of E:, I have concerns about the hook: while rugby is a popular sport worldwide, I'm not sure if the hook is interesting to a broad audience since the British and Irish Cup may not be familiar to those who do not regularly follow rugby. Perhaps an alternate hook could be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, and The Rambling Man: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Basically meaningless jargon and almost certain to drive readers away. Either more links are required or a different hook should be proposed which complies with the DYK rules (see 3a - interesting to a broad audience.") This clearly does not meet that requirement. (P.S. I played rugby for ten years, and I certainly don't think this is even that interesting to a rugby fan, let alone "a broad audience). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • ALT1 ...that Coventry RFC will return to the 2018–19 RFU Championship for the first time in eight years?
    • ALT2 ... that the 2018–19 RFU Championship will feature London Irish after their relegation from the Premiership? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
      Both boring, just plain statements of what happens in a league structure. Teams go up, teams go down. And the refusal to link the teams is detrimental to the reader who may not be aware of "London Irish" for example. This may be one of those articles which just needs to be failed because it contains nothing of interest to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In your opinion of course, Interest is subjective and furthermore I am not "refusing" to link the teams as I do not want WP:OLINK and I can leave it to the prep builder if they want to add extra links. Nevertheless ALT3 ... that the 2018–19 RFU Championship will be the first season of English rugby's second tier without Rotherham Titans in 14 years? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I think I may have to agree with TRM on this one. None of the other alternate hooks appear interesting to a broad audience (if anything, perhaps ALT2 might be the closest to being interesting; perhaps it could be approved with some changes). This is because, honestly, few non-rugby fans would be aware of these teams and thus won't be able to appreciate the hook. At the very least, I suppose I suggest we stick with ALT2 and find a way to make it have a broader appeal (as the London Irish appear to be a particularly famous team in the world of rugby union). Narutolovehinata5 t ccsdnew 08:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm just ensuring you comply with DYK rule 3a. These proposed hooks are, of course, not interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The original hook looks okay to me but you'd have to link British and Irish Cup. I'm not keen on the alts, I'm inclined to agree with the others that relegations up and down are pretty standard fare. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

Anito

A 15th century wooden carving of an anito in the Louvre
A 15th century wooden carving of an anito in the Louvre

5x expanded by Obsidian Soul (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was 5x expanded within the required timeframe, and is adequately sourced. Hook fact is cited inline; the citation is a book but an online link is provided and the fact is verified. No copyright violations were found. The hook is of the required length, the article is neutral and stable, and a QPQ has been provided. However, as someone who studied social studies for my bachelor's degree, and who once interned at the National Museum of the Philippines, I don't really think the hook is that "quirky". Animism in general was and still is a fairly common religious belief: there's for example Shinto. Instead, I suggest that, for alternate hook suggestions, some hooks containing information about actual aspects of the anito could instead be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'll see if I can come up with a catchier hook later this afternoon.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hm. How about the following? It's proving a bit difficult to find an alternate hook. The ones I came up with end up being too wordy or are too vague because I'd have to explain every term involved. I wish I could link babaylan, but the article on that at the moment is iffy and needs to be rewritten (which I'll probably do later). -- OBSIDIANSOUL 12:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be away from editing for a few days so I might not be able to finish the review until then, but I suppose I can wait for the babaylan article to be improved, and see if other hooks based on that could be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Heh. Might take a while. A bit busy here as well and that's another massive topic (I'm merging Catalonan into Babaylan as well, the only difference between them is terminology). But we'll see in a few days. Cheers. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 13:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

List of rulers of Liptako

  • ... that two of the emirs of Liptako were deported from their own country? Source: "Il [Bokari Sori] fut déporté, l'année même de son élection, à Kidal, au Mali, où il mourut un an après. (...) L'administration coloniale l'accusa [Abdurraman Amadu] d'exactions, entre autres d'empoisonnement, et le déporta à Bilma, au Niger, en 1932, où il mourut la même année de manière suspecte." (Pillet-Schwartz 2003, p. 906; see Google Books, when its cooperating)
    • ALT1:... that the emirs of Liptako replaced the kings of Koala? Source: Broadly, all of Chapter V of Irwin: "...the kings of Koala are an offshoot of the imperial lineage [of Nungu], and eight of them ruled in Liptako" (p. 94), and then most of the rest of the chapter dedicated to the jihad that established the emirate.
  • Reviewed: Green iora
  • Comment: I prefer the base hook. ALT 1 included in case someone quibbles that Liptako was no longer "their own country" while under French colonial occupation.
  • Because there's now somewhat more information about the kings of Koala, I have a more positive opinion about ALT 1, which might actually attract attention from some readers for the unusual name. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Created by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk). Self-nominated at 17:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC).

Unity of the intellect

Created by HaEr48 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article currently focusses on the ideas of Averroes, crediting him with the main thesis. But he was interpreting Aristotle and was not alone in this. When one searches for the phrase unity of the intellect, one finds this attributed to other earlier thinkers such as Avempace. For example, "Ibbn Bajja was known preeminently as the proponent of the theory of the unity of the intellect". So, there seems to be two ways that this can be resolved. If the article keeps its current title, then it should present the development of Aristotle's idea of the passive intellect as the work of many philosophers over time and not start with Averroes. If it is to focus specifically on Averroes' ideas then it needs a narrower title and some justification for being distinct from Averroism. Also, a QPQ is needed too, of course. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Thanks for your review. QPQ is added. As for your question. Yes he interpreted Aristotle, but that doesn't mean it's not a distinct idea. During his time, the scientific method wasn't commonly practiced and progress in thoughts was often made by exegesis and drawing new conclusion from previous texts (especially Aristotle). The background section had a little bit more about previous theses on a single intellect, and also how Averroes' idea is distinct. Basically the other thinkers hold that each individual human has their own intellect which somehow cooperates with the single, superhuman intellect, while Averroes' idea says this singe intellect is the human mind itself, and there is no individual intellect. The sources I cite clearly associate this thesis with Averroes, e.g. "Averroes' proposal was greeted with derision" or "Averroes' best known philosophical doctrine holds that there is only one intellect for all human beings" (see also surrounding texts in both sources). As for Ibn Bajjah, I haven't read about his thesis in detail, but Adamson p.190 says that "Averroes decided he could not accept Ibn Bajja's teaching", which indicate his idea is different from Averroes'? Does this make sense? HaEr48 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I'm waiting for your reply. HaEr48 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg My point has not been addressed and so I'm not willing to pass this. As we don't agree, I suggest getting another opinion to help establish a consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Mimi Mondal

  • Reviewed: QPQ To Come
  • Comment: Both hooks are supported by several other sources already cited in the article

Created by Draken122 (talk), DESiegel (talk), TheOneWorkingAccount (talk), and Ymblanter (talk). Nominated by DESiegel (talk) at 09:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

Ryan Watts (politician)

Created by Hameltion (talk). Self-nominated at 03:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Date and length fine. I would go for ALT1 as I think we can reasonably imply he's American otherwise how could he run for Congress? Maybe further clarify the hook by stating which Congressional election it is and what year. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing @Hameltion:. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Made the edits – let me know if anything could still use changing. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 11:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The source only says he's the youngest candidate "as of this writing" (February). If he isn't definitely the youngest, is this a worthwhile hook? 28 doesn't seem to be especially young to me anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have updated it with a citation from May 9 (after the primary). The Constitutional minimum age for Representatives is 25; Watts is the youngest person currently running. He is not, however, the youngest historically. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"Youngest person currently running" is not much of a hook, he might be the tenth youngest in a month. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
How about:
Hope one of these works (I prefer ALT6). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Tuzex

  • ... that Tuzex issued a shopping voucher of 71.5 crowns as well as 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 crowns...? Source "Odbûrní poukazy emisí 1959 a 1960 mûly sérii oznaãenou jedním velk˘m ãern˘m písmenem vyti‰tûn˘m souãasnû s ostatními texty. Sériové písmena vytváfiela postupnost koordinovanou s nominále – nejvy‰‰ímu nominále 100 TKãs odpovídá písmeno A, zatímco nejniωímu 0,50 TKãs písmeno G. Dodateãnû doplnûné nominále 71,50 TKãs mûlo pravdûpodobnû písmeno H. âíslovaní je ‰estimístné, ãervené, typu „Fojtá‰ek mal˘“ – typ 1 (odpovídá typu 2a,

BAJER 2003)“".: Odběrní poukazy Tuzexu, by Šustek et al., 2005 page 15

    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by Chemical Engineer (talk). Self-nominated at 09:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately this has to be a fail. First, the article was not created or expanded fivefold within the nomination period of 10 7 days before. Although the article was indeed expanded from the original, it was only at best a 2x expansion rather than the required 5x. In addition, the article is currently classified as a stub. Finally the hook does not meet our guidelines of being quirky or hooky. The work on the article is greatly appreciated, but unfortunately it does not meet the DYK requirements at this time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought a denomination of 71.5 crowns was pretty quirky for what was effectively a form of money. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Chemical Engineer, the article was 543 prose characters before you expanded it, and it is currently at 1526 prose characters. It needs to be 2715 prose characters in order to reach a 5x expansion. Articles are sometimes nominated on time yet fall short because they don't have a good way to count prose; if you think you can expand the article by another 1189 prose characters (a bit more than your initial expansion) over the next several days, the nomination could then continue, since at that length it would also no longer be a stub. Perhaps the hook would be more interesting if it specified the reason for the 71.5 crown voucher. Something along the lines of "that Tuzex, which did not accept Czech koruna for goods but would take shopping vouchers purchased with foreign currency only, issued 71.5 koruna vouchers in exchange for a US $10 bill?" (It definitely needs cleaning up, but at 189 characters it is below the max of 200.) Please let us know whether you wish to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jadwiga Szamotulska

Wanda Wiłkomirska
Wanda Wiłkomirska

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 14:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Patnagarh bombing

  • ... that a fatal parcel bomb in Orissa led to an arrest after a suspect, a disgruntled colleague of the groom's mother, allegedly sent an anonymous letter to the police months after the bombing?
    • ALT1:... that a fatal bombing in Orissa where the parcel bomb looked like a wedding gift is being made into a film?
    • ALT2:... that an arrest of a suspect, a disgruntled colleague of the groom's mother, occurred after he allegedly sent an anonymous letter to the police months after a fatal parcel bomb in Orissa?

Created by Vanguard10 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC).

CopyVio shows one article with higher percentage due, I believe, because a few quotes from the people involved are in the article.

Hook 1 citations: that a fatal* parcel bomb in Orissa led to an arrest* after a suspect*, a disgruntled colleague of the groom's mother*, allegedly sent an anonymous* letter to the police months after the bombing*? all facts noted by * are in citation 3 from the BBC.

Hook ALT1 citations: that a fatal bombing in Orissa that looked like a wedding gift (3) is being made into a film (6)? Citation 3, BBC. Citation 6, Hindustan Times.

I believe Hook ALT2 has the best grammar.

Comment: The topic needs to be bolded, and I would not pipe it, certainly not to just "parcel bomb" because that would be misleading, as about parcel bomb in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and fixed. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lucy Heartfilia

Improved to Good Article status by Flowerpiep (talk). Self-nominated at 02:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

Campanino

Campanino apples (National Fruit Collection, UK)
Campanino apples (National Fruit Collection, UK)
  • ... that Campanino apples (pictured) have high content of antioxidants (up to 4 times more than Golden Delicious apples), high content of pectin and polyphenols, as well as ascorbic acid (vitamin C)? Source: E. Cocci; G. Sacchetti; M. Carboni; G.G. Pinnavaia; D. Mastrocola (2003). "Caratterizzazione e valorizzazione tecnologica di antiche varietà di melo dell'Emilia Romagna: studio sulle proprietà funzionali di trasformati in purea". Rivista di Frutticoltura (3): 69-72. , cited here
    • ALT1:...that Campanino apples can be easily preserved for six months after harvesting, without any use of refrigeration? Source: Agriculture department of Regione Emilia-Romagna; Sacchetti G.; Cocci E.; Pinnavaia G.G.; Mastrocola D.; Dalla Rosa M. (2008). "Influence of processing and storage on the activity of apple derivates". International Journal of Food Science and Technology (43): 797-804. , cited here

Created by Holapaco77 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC).

Review


Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The first hook seems too technical to be easily verifiable from an Italian language source. ALT1 is better but the source seems to indicate that the apples were preserved using natural cold and frost. That might not be easy and is arguably a natural form of refrigeration. I suggest focussing on the fact that the frost makes them taste better.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 11[edit]

Li Qiang (minister)

Li Qiang
Li Qiang
  • ... that Li Qiang (pictured), the communications head of the Chinese Communist Party's intelligence agency, was forced to take refuge in the Soviet Union after the defection of his friend, the head assassin? Source: [53] Google translation
  • ALT1 ... that Li Qiang (pictured), China's Vice Minister of Foreign Trade, secretly visited the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam War? Source: same as above

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 05:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 12[edit]

Sir Gustavus Hume

Captain Hume (right)
Captain Hume (right)
"Lt. General Sir John Campbell & Captain Hume" by Roger Fenton
"Lt. General Sir John Campbell & Captain Hume" by Roger Fenton
  • Comment: 2nd pic is for Alt1.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 13[edit]

Madeleine Moreau

  • Reviewed: 4th nomination

Created by Toreightyone (talk). Self-nominated at 13:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

Pierre Boulez

Pierre Boulez in 1968
Pierre Boulez in 1968

Improved to Good Article status by Dmass (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Flame Con

  • Reviewed: QPC exempt

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 14[edit]

Mary Greyeyes

Improved to Good Article status by Alanna the Brave (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

Zoë Porphyrogenita

A mosaic of Empress Zoe
A mosaic of Empress Zoe
  • ... that five years after Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married, aged 50, her husband was murdered by her teenage lover, who married Zoe the same day and was crowned emperor the next? Norwich. Byzantium: the Apogee pp. 270–71, 276, 278–79. Garland. Zoe Porphyrogenita (wife of Romanus III, Constantine IX, and Michael IV). Kazhdan. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium p 2228
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: Only my third nomination, so no QPQ required, although I have reviewed 2 other DYK articles.

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

Maribel Parra de Mestre

Maribel Parra de Mestre
Maribel Parra de Mestre

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 11:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

James Francis Dwyer

5x expanded by Freikorp (talk). Self-nominated at 07:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 15[edit]

Four Out of Five

  • ... that the Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino has a taqueria at its rooftop, which got rave reviews with ratings of four stars out of five? Source(s): "'Cute new places keep on popping up/Since the exodus, it’s all getting gentrified/I put a taqueria on the roof/It was well reviewed/Four stars out of five'" ... This is where we get shown around the fictional Tranquility Base Hotel + Casino." ([56]); "About halfway through Arctic Monkeys' new album, Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino, Alex Turner invites you to his taqueria on the moon. And it's not just any taqueria on the moon: It’s a rooftop taqueria, and it’s getting rave reviews. "Four stars out of five," he promises, his voice seething." ([57])
  • Reviewed: Kahk
  • Comment: I can come up with an ALT1 if this hook doesn't suffice for whatever reason.

Converted from a redirect by EL Foz87 (talk) and Jimmio78 (talk). Nominated by Aria1561 (talk) at 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Deutsches Hochamt (Michael Haydn)

Michael Haydn
Michael Haydn
  • ... that a Deutsches Hochamt (German High Mass) by Michael Haydn (pictured) has been described as "musically the epitome of south-German/Austrian Catholicism"? Source: [58]

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Passing on the Right

  • ... that, in Passing on the Right, researchers found that conservative professors often have to use "coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments"? Sources: [2][3]
    • ALT1:... that, according to the study Passing on the Right, conservative professors often have to use "coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments"? Sources: [2][3]
    • ALT2:... that, according to the study Passing on the Right, conservative professors often have to "pass" among liberal colleagues, in much the same way gays and lesbians "pass" among straight people? Sources: [2][3]
  • Comment: This is my first time through the DYK process. Any help is appreciated. Alternate source for study Google Books, pg 5 (hit or miss visibility). -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Created by Netoholic (talk). Self-nominated at 07:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Miguel de Buría

  • ... that after leading the first slave insurrection in Venezuela's history, Miguel de Buría had himself crowned as king? Source: El Rey Miguel: Héroe puertorriqueño en la lucha por la libertad de los esclavos. by Ricardo Alegría
    • ALT1:... that Miguel de Buría created a social hierarchy that included naming one of his followers as bishop? Source: El Rey Miguel: Héroe puertorriqueño en la lucha por la libertad de los esclavos. by Ricardo Alegría

Created by Old School WWC Fan (talk). Self-nominated at 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Comment: Due to the region of origin, most of the references are in Spanish. However, there are some in English that can be used for convenience here. This one, for example. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy

5x expanded by Shobhit102 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

Adso of Montier-en-Der

5x expanded by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 04:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC).

{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=May 2018 |passed= |2=

Titus Awotwi Pratt[edit]

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 16:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

}}

Cockchafer soup

  • ... that cockchafers used to be a main ingredient of a soup?

Created/expanded by KamillaŚ (talk). Self-nominated at 18:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @KamillaŚ: There are quite a few problems with this. First I count 1,085 characters, short of the minimum requirements. Secondly the spelling and grammar is very poor here and there are no sections in there. Plus the hook isn't even linked in the nomination. I'm going to give you the chance to fix these and please ping me when they are but if they are not done, I will have to fail this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on May 16[edit]

Henry Goodeve

  • ... that on retiring to England in 1845, surgeon Henry Goodeve took four Indian Hindus with him to complete their medical training?
  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Buick XP-300

Buick XP-300
Buick XP-300

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 04:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 17[edit]

Sven (Frozen)

  • ... that the animation team of the film Frozen studied a real-life reindeer as a model for the character Sven? Source: [62]
    • ALT1:... that the animation team of the film Frozen was originally going to give the name "Thor" to the character Sven? Source: [63]
    • ALT2:... that the animation team of the film Frozen developed the character Sven based on the mold of a dog? Source: [64]

Created by Flowerpiep (talk). Self-nominated at 11:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC).

Güzide Alçu

  • ... that the TFF referred Güzide Alçu and her two teammates to its Disciplinary Board because the three displayed V sign after their team won a playoff match by 24-0 that was interpreted as insulting?

Source: "Zafer işareti ilk kez suç sayıldı!" (in Turkish) [65]

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 11:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

1KUNS-PF

  • ... that 1KUNS-PF, the first Kenyan built satellite in space, is used to monitor the country's coastline and aid in the fight against illegal logging in Kenya ? Source: [66]
    • ALT1:... that Kenya's 1KUNS-PF satellite, deployed in May 2018, is only the third to have been built by an African country? [67]
    • ALT2:... that 1KUNS-PF of Kenya, GhanaSat-1 and Nigeria EduSat-1 are all African built satellites that orbit the earth? Source: [68]

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 18[edit]

Potato race

  • Reviewed: Pending.

5x expanded by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Railway surgery

  • ... that some railway surgeons opposed the introduction of first aid kits on trains maintaining that only doctors should carry out this work? Source: Aldrich (2001), pp. 286-287

Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

  • reviewing, long enough, interesting, well written Whispyhistory (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: ????
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Really a very well written, thorough article. copyvio ok. Pleasure to read. Sampled some references, most I do not have access to, but appear very well thought out. Did you want links to general practitioner (links to modern version) or physician? AGF on most references. Everything is cited. The hook is correct but should it be in the article? Article says "There was some opposition to first aid through fear that it eroded the professional status of doctors and that local contract railway surgeons would lose the fees they would otherwise have accrued for the work". In addition, a hook centred around the attempt to remove an accidentally appointed female railway surgeon might be considered. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand why you think that the hook is not cited. Do you think that the article does not say that doctors should be rendering first aid rather than other railway workers? I would maintain that that is what the article says through the device of enumerating the reasons that railway surgeons argued this. In any case, the source cited is perfectly clear on this:

Yet if some railway physicians embraced first aid, to many others it was anathema. In the discussion of a paper by Dickson presented to the Association of Railway Surgeons in 1902, W. B. Outten of the Missouri Pacific claimed that “it is very difficult to teach these ignorant men very much about rendering First Aid as it ought to be rendered.” Yet the real complaint of those who opposed first aid training was not that the men were uneducable, but just the reverse: that rather than becoming an extension of the surgeon, as Jonas saw them, they would be a substitute. Thus, Outten went on to claim that “those who have no hospital department in connection with their railroads are naturally friends of first aid.” Another physician, Dr. James H. Ford, worried that “we should not permit them to have the idea enter their heads that they are to displace the local surgeons.” Dr. W. A. McCandless also worried about economics: “I believe much of the work entrusted to railway employees in rendering First Aid should be assigned to physicians. They are poor and they need the money for rendering such service,” he candidly observed.

— Aldrich, 2001
I don't think that general practitioner or physician should be linked. The doctors they had especially in mind were other railway surgeons or local doctors under contract fulfilling the duties of railway surgeon. On Sofie Herzog, I think the first aid issue is more directly relevant to the article and is thus a better hook. Although her case is astonishing to modern sensibilities, I rather think the company would have reacted in exactly the same way on discovering a female train driver had been appointed. The fact that the post was for railway surgeon is almost incidental. But put that article up for GA if you like and get it in DYK that way. As far as I can tell, it's never been to DYK before. SpinningSpark 14:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Ok to hook wording. Will let you decide about your GP links. The hook fact in the article still needs an inline citation at the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief, I thought we were supposed to be WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The cite is a dozen words away and those twelve words are still talking about first aid kits. Maybe I'll do it in a couple of weeks time if I happen to be overcome with the urge to do something utterly pointless. SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: IMO What Whispyhistory asked is a simple and reasonable request in good faith. Please just address it without snarky comments. HaEr48 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @HaEr48: What you are all forgetting is the actual purpose of that rule. It is there so that reviewers do not have to trawl through the refs to find the cite, they can go straight there and verify the fact. There is little doubt what the relevant cite is in this instance, but in any case, I went to the trouble of transcribing a lengthy passage from the ref so the need is now moot (and it's behind a paywall anyway so you can't verify it directly). That took some effort on my part, but I did it with good grace and without any "snarky comments". So sorry if I have now run out of good grace, but I have a long list of articles to write and I'd rather be doing that than servicing useless bureaucracy. You can wait your turn – I'm a volunteer, I'll do it when I feel like it, if ever. SpinningSpark 23:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bruce McArthur

  • ... that landscaper Bruce McArthur is alleged to have killed several men and hidden their dismembered bodies in garden planter boxes? Source: "Kanagaratnam's remains were among seven recovered from planters at a central Toronto property where McArthur, who is facing eight counts of first-degree murder, once worked."1
    • ALT1:... that the probe of alleged serial murderer Bruce McArthur is expected to become the largest investigation conducted by the Toronto Police Service? Sources: "McArthur [...] is now the subject of what's poised to become the most ambitious homicide investigation in the city's history. [...] This will end up being, including in terms of the potential scenes, the largest Toronto has undertaken."2
  • Comment: Article may be moved

5x expanded by Reidgreg (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 19[edit]

Tom Hom

  • Comment: Although I made two edits to the article prior to the improvement period, I did not begin major improvement until 16 May 2018, after Tom.Reding (talk · contribs) made an edit. From 16 May 2018 until today, I expanded the article from 590 bytes (101 words) of prose to 3380 bytes (590 words) exceeding the fivefold expansion requirement (to expand to 2950 bytes of prose). The article exceeds 1,500 characters of prose. No CopyVio is intended with the highest score being 11.5%. I have yet to complete a QPQ, and will add that review upon its completion.

5x expanded by RightCowLeftCoast (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

QPQ completed with the review of this DYK for the article Baron Kilkeel.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Alligator Man

Created by StewdioMACK (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Should mention that Atlanta is a TV series in the sentence, but otherwise ok.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

James Willing

Created by DavidDelaune (talk). Self-nominated at 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 20[edit]

Duck Donuts

Created by Winterene (talk) and Kingoflettuce (talk). Nominated by Kingoflettuce (talk) at 12:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC).

Wally Schirra