Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
On the Main Page
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
List of users...
By nominationsWP:DYKNC
By promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
March 19 1
April 2 1
April 13 1
April 20 1
April 25 1
April 26 1
April 30 1
May 3 1
May 5 3
May 6 2
May 7 2
May 9 2
May 10 1
May 11 2
May 12 5
May 17 2
May 19 1
May 21 1
May 22 1
May 24 1
May 25 1
May 27 1
June 1 1
June 3 5
June 4 1
June 5 2
June 6 3
June 8 4
June 9 2
June 10 2
June 11 1
June 12 1
June 13 1
June 14 1
June 15 4
June 16 4
June 17 4
June 18 4
June 19 4
June 20 5
June 21 10
June 22 3
June 23 1
June 24 2
June 25 4
June 26 4
June 27 4
June 28 4
June 29 5
June 30 3
July 1 2
Total 124 0
Last updated 05:07, 1 July 2022 UTC
Current time is 05:41, 1 July 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Advanced procedures[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]


Pytest logo
Pytest logo
  • ... that technology projects from across the internet, including those of Mozilla and Dropbox, are switching to Pytest from other frameworks for software testing?

Quote: In fact, projects all over the Internet have switched from unittest or nose to pytest, including Mozilla and Dropbox.Okken, Brian (September 2017). Python Testing with Pytest (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 9781680502404. Retrieved 19 March 2022.

Created by Thomas Meng (talk). Self-nominated at 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg An interesting topic and clearly notable. However, the article is correctly tagged as being in need of rewriting, to be less like an instruction manual, and more like a NPOV article. And in that should make hopefully make the article understandable to a normal reader- I understand the article and its details, but only because I work in the field. This will need to be fixed before this DYK can proceed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Thank you for your feedback. In the past few days, I took up an effor to fix those issues you mentioned. Now I think the article is in better shape. Please let me know how far it is now from DYK's standard. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, this slipped my mind. Reviewing properly now:
The article still has multiple paragraphs without citations. The minimum amount of sourcing I'd expect is one source per paragraph- if the sources already in the article support the text where I've added citation needed tags, then that should be quick to fix
The text is better, but it still very technical (which does seem to be the case for a lots of computing articles I've noticed). I understand that it's a technical topic, but there's almost nothing in the article that an average reader would understand. Some articles like Node.js for example has a "History" section, which would be beneficial to a less technical reader. There's still so much code in this article that it's too technical and confusing, and still feels to me like it's a manual on how to use it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Here's what I've done to address the problems you pointed out:
  • Modified every section so that each section's first paragraph(s) would only include pytest concepts, and implementation details are saved for the end. Additionally, wording/explanations are improved where possible.
  • Added a History section for less technical users to read. The lead section should also be understandble for them.
  • Added ~20 wikilinks for programming related concepts.
  • The citations problem is also fixed.
  • Unecessary code templates (e.g. for file, project names) that hinder readability are removed.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, this dropped off my watchlist. I'm busy at the moment, not much time for Wiki, so would be good if someone could finish the review. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can try to shepherd this through. The prose is okay- not great, it'll need a bit more work, but the more immediate concern is sourcing. Some sources are good, some are iffy due to their status as primary sourcing, and some just shouldn't be used:
  1. Dane Hillard's "Effective Python Testing With Pytest"
  2. tim's "Assertion rewriting in Pytest part 1: Why it’s needed"
  3. Microsoft's "Unit test basics"
  4. Klein's "Testing with pytest"
  5. Perfecto's "Pytest marks"
These all appear to be secondary, yet non-professional sources ranging from personal blogs to coding lessons to company blogs. I don't think any of those meet DYK's reliable sourcing standards, and material relying on it needs a more well-developed source like a book, magazine, newspaper article, scholarly journal, or otherwise. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you theleekycauldron for taking the time to review. I'll start editing this article in the next few days and probably finish improving the sources by the end of this weekend. Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron:, thank you for your patience. I have now fixed the five problems you pointed out by

  1. Removing all four references to Real Python — since three of which had already been corroborated by Okken's book, I only had to delete one short paragraph of actual content.
  2. Removing Tim's blog and replacing content and sourcing with Oliveira's book.
  3. Removing this crowd-contributed source and replacing it with a new book — Unit Testing Principles, Practices, and Patterns.
  4. Removing source and replacing with Okken's book with specific page references.
  5. Same as No.4

Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks theleekycauldron. I've actually tried to fix the jargon-y issue for several rounds now, and I ended up with the current version. It seems that most programming-related articles do rely on jargons (e.g. Node.js and Python (programming language), which is GA), but with wiki-links to them. So that's what I've been trying to do — adding wiki-links and improving explanations for programming concepts where there aren't wiki-links. Maybe could you be more specific on where exactly you'd like the prose improved? I'll be in a better position to fix it then.
The current hook is paraphrased from Okken's book, which I thought was quite indicative of pytest's popularity. Could you please elaborate on why it's not viable so that I know how I should fix it? Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it sounds like an ad. Promotional and without any real connection to the topic itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: it reads like an ad. I've struck it; a new hook will need to be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that pytest, an open-source software testing project in Python, supports various types of software testing, including unit tests, integration tests, end-to-end tests, and functional tests? While pytest is useful for unit testing, integration testing, system or end-to-end testing, and functional testing, the strategy for testing the Tasks project focuses primarily on subcutaneous functional testingOkken, Brian (September 2017). Python Testing with Pytest (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 9781680502404. Retrieved 19 March 2022. ALT3: ... that pytest is an all-volunteer contributed, open-source software testing tool in Python and has been classified as a key ecosystem project on the PyPI with over 9 million weekly downloads? [1][2] Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna say the same about the original hook- and unfortunately, I think it applies to both of these, as well. It does feel a little promotional. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] You're still writing a hook that reads like you are trying to persuade Python programmers to use pytest. That's what it means to be an ad. Try taking the point of view of an encyclopedia reader who is not a programmer. What about pytest could you write that would intrigue a reader and get them to read an encyclopedia article about pytest, even if they have no intention of becoming a programmer? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, theleekycauldron It's a bit difficult to write a hook that can hook non-programmer's interest into a programming tool — not going into any of pytest's features (e.g. parametrized testing or assert re-writing) due to understandability, while also not including any easy-to-understand facts like download trend or popular usage. I see that prof David Eppstein has had experience writing DYK hooks for technical articles. Perhaps you could help compose this hook?. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, my usual strategy is to only make DYK nominations when I think there is something in an article or hook that would stand out to a general audience. When I have a chance to nominate an article, but it is more purely of technical interest, I skip it. Not everything needs to go to DYK. I tried reading through the article a couple of times but nothing stood out to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 or ALT4 are hooked and quoted. Long enough, (posted) new enough, DYKCheck all green, no copyvio. All of the issues raised above have been addressed long ago. Neither the hook nor the article strike me as promotional in their current form. This was posted two months ago and now the hangup is "not everything needs to go to DYK"?! Enough already, this is good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than that. The hooks are not interesting to a broad audience. Maybe theleekycauldron or a different prep builder will promote one of those hooks, but I'm against it. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I think ALT4 is perfectly interesting to the average reader. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change "bug-free" to "limit bugs" or some synonym of that? It would suggest that bugs are still possible, just that efforts are being made to eliminate them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, our article itself is almost bug-free: its only use of the word "bug" in the whole article involves pypy but not pytest. In fact, it says little or nothing about why you might want to test your software. That is going to make it difficult to write any hook involving bugs. I don't see how the previous hook could have been approved without anything about "bug-free" software appearing in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "pytest". pytest.org. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  2. ^ "Python Package Health Analysis". snyk.io. Retrieved 15 June 2022.

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Zionism as settler colonialism

  • ... that according to one study, settler colonialism has been successful inside Israel, but not in the territories occupied in 1967? Source: "Israeli/Zionist settler colonialism was remarkably successful before 1967, and was largely unsuccessful thereafter... When we think about settler colonialism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to direct our gaze both towards the West Bank, where it has manifestly failed, and towards Israel proper, where it succeeded." Veracini 2013

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Buidhe: Can we get other hook proposals? Reason: colonization (more recently; settler colonization in the past) is a valid frame to look at Zionism as, probably (?) the correct one, but the lead of the nominated article itself says that it is still not the dominant framing as of 2022. Thus, having a hook which states the view as fact is inaccurate to the subject. While the hook does credit itself to "one study", the phrasing at the moment still states the settler colonialism as pure fact and only the perspectives on its success as what the study is claiming. The other question is if the study in question was cherry-picked for the hook fact, as I do note a recent string of anti-Israel hooks. And, like I asked recently with hooks for even Russia, where there is conflict, we should look to neutrality and accuracy (taken in balance to each other). So is there nothing else to say on the topic? Maybe there is a hook to be made about kibbutzim as proto-settlements? I am surprised the article doesn't mention early IDF objectives to destroy and resettle Arab villages, but recognise it is a work in progress. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsif: I disagree that it states as fact, since it's clearly attributed to one study. As far as I can tell from the reading I've done, Zionism is undisputed as a form of settler colonialism by scholars of settler colonialism and was highlighted as such by the main pioneer in establishing the field, Patrick Wolfe. The journal Settler Colonial Studies has published a lot of articles about I/P but as far as I know, none that reject the paradigm. Rejection comes from outside this specific field of study; many scholars of the I/P conflict analyze it as a national or territorial conflict (although this is not mutually exclusive with settler colonialism). If you do a Google Scholar search, it's clear that the virtually all results discussing the topic (settler colonialism in Israel/Palestine) are using this analysis, so focusing on rejection would require cherry-picking. Obviously, the article is not complete and could be expanded a lot from the sources available. No one complained when I came up with a long string of hooks that reflected poorly on Germany, Turkey or Slovakia, so I think the same is true of any other country. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: As I said, the phrasing attributes the views on success to the study, treating the idea of settler colonialism happening there as a given and just something to be assessed. It would be like saying "that, according to one source, Russia's denazification of Ukraine has been successful, but only in the south and east" - this statement is true (Kremlin as the source), and it sounds like the source is just weighing in on the places of success, with "Russia's denazification of Ukraine" basically in wikivoice. I'm not comparing the two situations, but hope this analogy gets across how the "settler colonialism in Israel" statement does not seem to be coming from the study mentioned. I'm also not saying it's bad or wrong or anything, but that the article doesn't, at the moment, seem to support such certainty. Perhaps a little more expansion would make all well. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise; new enough, long enough, QPQ done. The ref section looks a little unusual, and again concerned about overall coverage. Sectioning also doesn't seem standard for history/ideology article? I presume the article will improve with expanding. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, article has now been expanded and reorganized. If you don't like the original hook, how about:

(t · c) buidhe 04:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you for the update, I think there are still some article issues, but, you know, better quality than a lot out there. Ideally, hooks shouldn't just be X says "quote", so alt3 is the best from that standpoint, but all of them are a little unwieldy. I acknowledge you're trying to work around my comments of stating as fact, so thanks for that. It is for these issues, though (lack of article quality and a suitable hook), that I would, personally, fail this nom. I don't want you to think that I'm out to stop your noms, though, because I'm not, so I'll offer this up for someone else to review. Sorry about that. Kingsif (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your opinion and pushing me to improve the article. When dealing with an abstract topic, I've found quotes to be a successful way of building hooks. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From cursory look I have found at least three sources written by academic or printed in academic press that oppose the notion that presnted in the article [1],[2],[3](p46-47) I think important to include them per WP:NPOV . I am willing to send full text version to anyone intersted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't add the first source because it's a news not academic source. Colonialism isn't the same thing as settler colonialism and the second source is about the former rather than the latter, not mentioning settler colonialism at all. The third source is about campus debates on Israel and does not discuss settler colonialism either, only mentioning it in a few quotes from other sources. Of course relevant criticism can be added (in fact it already exists in the article), but in order to avoid cherrypicking, I would only cite sources that are about settler colonialism of which there are many. (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Buidhe, Kingsif, I am suspending this nomination because of active NPOV challenges (whose merits I do not assess but there is a banner and several largely unresolved talk page discussions) and a merge request which may substantially impact the quality and depth of coverage of this article. When these are resolved in either way, you may resume. (You may request third-party input for the talk discussions so that the NPOV concerns are settled for good). I also ask to start working on it because it's been hanging in the air for quite some time, and we have a backlog here. PS. I will close the talk page RfC and will look into closing other discussions if I think I will be accurate in doing so. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The "X" icon means that the nomination is to be closed as unsuccessful; suspending requires something else entirely, such as what I've used here. In any event, with the extant tags on the Historiography and Criticism sections, the article cannot be approved in its current state. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset The tags were added back still without any consensus that they belong there. How can some editors who don't like it just block a DYK and keep cleanup tags on an article when they cannot get consensus for any of their changes? (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's worth anything, I think the article is accurate and, while I would like it to be broader, I would not have personally added orange tags. I don't have much time at the moment for Wikipedia, unfortunately, so I can't offer much more input or try to help work on the article. But if someone wanted to review it, as it is, and they approved it, I would not personally have objections to the approval. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Frequency modulation encoding

  • ... that early floppy disks used FM encoding that used only half the available storage? Source: Wakeman pg 1
    • Comment: I added this with the DYK tool when I uploaded, but it seems it never got posted to the DYK nom page. Trying again...

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@David Eppstein: FM is a specific implementation of DME in the same fashion that MFM is a different specific implementation of DME. FM referrs to both the encoding of the individual data bits as well as the disk format and the header timing signals. I believe this is well explained in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence of the article says that it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10, and mentions its usage in multiple applications. If it is intended to be only about the way floppy disks were formatted using this code, and not about the code itself, I think it needs significant rewriting to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: The lead sentence of the article is "Frequency Modulation encoding, or simply FM, is a simple type of run length limited code that saw widespread use in early floppy disk drives and hard disk drives." I see nothing like "it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10" and I think it clearly indicates the field is disk storage. I have added a link to DME in the appropriate location and I assume from the wording of your reply that the merge tag can now be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"is a simple type of run length limited code". That describes it as a code. It is the same code as the one described in differential Manchester encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"That describes it as a code" ... in a specific setting. I have added words to this effect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the same code, used for the same basic purpose (maintaining synch). How is it notable for two articles rather than just one? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I am now stating for the third time, this article is not about the code, it is about the entire system of which DFE is used for one part. I have made several changes to the text to make this distinction clear and you haven't commented on any of them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're repeating stuff we've already said, maybe I should repeat that the first sentence of Frequency modulation encoding states that FM encoding "is a type of run length limited code". If you don't want to think the article is about a type of code, maybe you shouldn't say in the first sentence that it is about a type of code? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, suggest alternative phrasing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a preliminary NPP review and have similar concerns plus others. I'm posting separately at that page. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The wording has been changed multiple times to address David's concern and I have changed it yet again in an effort to avoid the issue, hopefully successfully. North8000's concerns have been addressed on the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 20[edit]

Josh Hudson

Converted from a redirect by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg for alt0, Symbol confirmed.svg for alt1. Article was nominated within seven days, significantly exceeds the 1500-character minimum, and is policy compliant. Hook checks out (alt0 is based on an offline source). QPQ was done. No image submitted (only images in article are fair use). No other issues detected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • shame about Claudia Blaise :( Symbol possible vote.svg also, Metro is a deprecated source per WP:RSP—I'm quite uncomfortable with how much of the article is sourced to Metro, and don't think this should be promoted just yet. @Soaper1234: can the Metro sources be replaced? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the consensus was that Metro was to be avoided, and I've taken every available opportunity to replace it where possible. However, the Metro has great soaps coverage and this area of the publication is very well-regarded. I do hope this won't be an issue regarding this DYK promotion. Soaper1234 - talk 23:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron and Soaper1234: For what it's worth, WP:RSP has this to say about Metro: Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. If the coverage was also mentioned in print, maybe they could be used? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I don't believe it is covered in print, no. Soaper1234 - talk 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said at the RSN discussion that it probably shouldn't be used for facts – can the factual citations be switched out, then? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: If the sources can't be replaced and if you aren't able to respond to the concerns soon, the nomination may end up being failed for staleness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

John D'Orazio

5x expanded by Steelkamp (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Steelkamp: Is this ready for a new review? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Steelkamp (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Yi Jeonggyu

Created by Jirangmoon (talk). Self-nominated at 10:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not particularly interesting or notable.
  • Other problems: Red XN - The hook is also not grammatically correct and should replace the comma with "was".
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg The article needs some work and a new hook. SounderBruce 22:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I fixed the grammatical error in the hook and in the article (using Grammarly). As for neutrality and the hook, I don't see any problems - aren't those subjective assessments? If you tell me what is non-neutral, I'll take another look. As for interesting or not, I think this hook is interesting. Do we need a third opinion? --Jirangmoon (talk)
Third opinion: Yeah, I don't think it's a particularly interesting hook either. It's also not particularly notable by itself, given that the crossover between Korean anarchism and nationalism are very well documented. On this issue, Yi Jeonggyu was far from unique. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alts based on items sourced in the lede but they need page numbers for verification. czar 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Thank you very much! For Alt1, the page number is 12 : "Undoubtedly, the goal of Korean independence movement was to regain independence from Japanese colonialism, to which Yi had devoted himself with anarchism."
For Alt2, the page number is 25 : "Yi Jeonggyu (1897–1984), one of the most active Korean anarchists in 1920s China, just like other Korean exiles, began his career as an independence activist and converted later to anarchism." --Jirangmoon (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Jirangmoon! Those sources do not quite confirm the language used in the alts and the article, if you can rephrase both to match their sources? I.e., they do not say he was a "pioneer" or "key", unless there is another section that says so. czar 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Thank you. Can you review the following quote which contains the word pioneer? It's from page 11.

Echoes to Sim’s description of his complex life as both an anarchist and a nationalist can be found in Yi Jeonggyu’s recall. Yi, a prominent anarchist active in various educational and rural movements before and after 1945, too poses his life as one with such a tension but, in his case, shifting further toward anarchism that offered him a vision of social revolution, rather than simply a nationalism-driven political revolution that aimed merely at national independence. Yi explains the shift that occurred in his life as follows: The first half of my life had gone through a life for struggle for independence movement, and [then in the second half] turned for a movement for social revolution of an ideological idea [sic] that has been viewed in this world, without any good reason, as too extreme. [The second half has been] a life as one of the pioneers, who has been indulged in anarchism, that is, no-government movement.

Will this be ok for ALT2? --Jirangmoon (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jirangmoon, it looks like that quotes Yi as saying that he himself is a pioneer. Since that is an exceptional claim, it requires an exceptional, secondary source. We could say "Yi thought of himself as a pioneer" for ALT2. I've updated both ALTs to match the source but the article text will need to be corrected for both as well. czar 13:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Sorry for a late reply.
Regarding the ALT2 matter, I am a bit confused in editing things on Wikipedia as a Wiki beginner. I do not remember why I wrote the sentence with the word, “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu because I started the article more than 6 months ago. Anyhow, I have tried not to move or copy source sentences to the Wikipedia articles as they are except for quotations. In that process, even though the source articles does not have the word “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu, I thought that Yi Jeonggyu could be one of the pioneers of Korean anarchist movement because Yi Jeonggyu influenced Yi Hoeyeong who was called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” in the source. So if someone was doing something before the “pioneer”, isn’t he even more of a pioneer?
See the quotations below:
Page 23: In addition, Shin’s friendship with Yi Hoeyeong (1867–1932), often called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism,” must have been a factor as well for his acceptance of anarchism.
Page 27-28: It seems that Yi Hoeyeong surely was impressed with Yi Jeonggyu’s project and anarchist ideas with regard to the proposed ideal farming villages in Hunan. Indeed, it is said that Yi Jeonggyu’s role was decisive in converting Yi Hoeyeong, who was persuaded by the former about the goal of anarchism and thus accepted it in later 1923.38 Discussing with many kinds of independence activists and radicals, including Chinese and Taiwanese, Yi Hoeyeong finally chose anarchism for his own answer. The national goal, of course, was the key that drew him to anarchism.
Page 28: In this sense, to call Yi Hoeyeong “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” is an interesting indication of the coming trajectory and transnational character of Korean anarchism in China in the 1930s and ’40s.
Also, from a Korean article at http://m.kyeongin.com/view.php?key=20190501010000158: “우당 이회영을 아나키즘 사상가로 인도한 이가 바로 이정규다 “ It was Yi Jeonggyu who led Yi Hoeyeong to become an anarchist.
--Jirangmoon (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I've updated ALT2. @SounderBruce, want to take another peek? czar 01:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed czar 21:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg I made some additional minor copyedits, with no change to content. As with the original review, the article is new enough, long enough, no copyvio and no QPQ needed. I did not see anything I would consider strongly NPOV. ALT2 seems very strong and is well supported per the discussion above. GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg I reopened this and I'm marking the nomination for closure. There are substantial copyright violations in the article and this nomination has been around since April. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing is under discussion on the article's talk page. Let's give the editor a chance to correct their edits, as they're new and might be hearing about this copyright issue for the first time. Giving this another week sounds like a reasonable window, considering the work they've put into this. czar 18:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Ok. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 30[edit]

William George Carlile Kent

Commander Kent
Commander Kent

Created by Knightmare 3112 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - explained below
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The article is lacking inline citations with the entirety of the "Later life" section uncited. I am not sure the hook reflects what is said in the source. The source says Bligh later said at trial that Kent 'should have blown down the town of Sydney about the ears of the Inhabitants' and that Kent was tried for "various actions contrary to or without Bligh's orders". To say that he was arrested for failing to blow up Sydney seems like a big jump from this. QPQ not done but I am not sure if this editor is under the 5 DYK credits to get away with this. The article is also in need of a good copy edit including tidying commas and tenses although this is not part of the DYK criteria. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir.copic added inline citations to the uncited sections. What you recommend would be a better hook? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be big uncited sections in the text including an entire paragraph at the beginning of the "New South Wales" section. In terms of the hook, I just think that Kent was arrested, for failing to follow Bligh's order to "blow down the town of Sydney about the ears of the inhabitants" is not a true statement or at least is not reflected in the source. I suppose a more accurate hook would be something like:
ALT1 ... that New South Wales Governor William Bligh condemned William George Carlile Kent (pictured) for failing to destroy Sydney?
I might let another reviewer take a run at this as at the moment I don't think my concerns with the article have been alleviated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic all paragraphs have citations, as long as you've no more concerns can this be approved with ALT1

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested for ALT1. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, driving by. I think ALT1 has some issues that make it a poor hook. It centers on the names of two men that most people unfamiliar with Australian history are unlikely to know the names of. I think the interesting part about the hook is that the subject cared so much about doing the right thing that instead of destroying Sydney as ordered, he worked to restore order, even to the point of getting arrested. So I would suggest something like this:

ALT1.5 ... that William George Carlile Kent was arrested for restoring government relationships in postcoup Sydney, Australia, because he didn't follow his boss's orders to destroy the town?

I'm not allowed to approve my own hook, so if something like that looks good to you, you can propose it and request another reviewer. Ruthgrace (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - explained above
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Looks like the issue with the citations pointed out by the previous reviewer have been fixed. Please mention a specific article for the QPQ requirement if you've fulfilled that. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of reviewing the article and nomination and while Ruthgrace beat me to replying, I generally agree with their assessment (however I would note that Knightmare 3112 only appears to have two prior DYKs and would thus be exempt from QPQ). In an effort to address the concerns about the hook I have also drafted the below ALT2 (please feel free to wordsmith/rework to improve if helpful). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 ... that at William George Carlile Kent's (pictured) court-martial for disobeying deposed New South Wales Governor William Bligh's orders, Bligh stated Kent should have destroyed Sydney to restore his government?

Articles created/expanded on May 3[edit]

Serenidus of Saulges, Oratory of Saint Cénéré, Saint Serenicus

Serenidus and his spring in the Oratory of Saint Cénéré
Serenidus and his spring in the Oratory of Saint Cénéré

Created by Evrik (talk) and Rei Momo (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • On it.

    Wow, that was the easiest review ever. @Evrik: you forgot to source the one thing you find most interesting about the article. Since it's also the most scurrilous part, it would need the cite even if you come up with other ALTs. — LlywelynII 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of all three nominated articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 5[edit]

Mark Lettieri

Created by Bammesk (talk). Nominated by Bammesk (talk) at 01:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - This hook is not interesting at all.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I'm accepting of the explanation regarding the newness of the article. I think the sourcing could probably be improved as things like the podcasts are not especially reliable. The article also needs a good copy edit. The biggest issue however is that the hook is not remotely interesting. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vladimir.copic: About the hook, I agree. I struggled with the hook. I am open to your suggestions or alternative hook proposals. How about something that says he graduated with a degree in marketing but then decided to become a pro musician (an unrelated field)? About the use of podcasts and better sources: He doesn't have many print sources, and in the ones he does have the coverage isn't diverse. He is primarily notable for his solo Grammy nomination and the Billboard charting of his solo albums, and not so much for coverage in multiple sources. I took what I could from print sources, and then used the podcasts to fill in the gaps and some of the details. The two podcasts are direct interviews with him, and the info taken from (i.e. sourced to) the two podcasts are non-controversial facts about his life, not promotional tidbits. I can include the exact timestamp(s) of each podcast citation (minute:seconds) in the citation templates. That will help any reader (and you) to verify the sourced content. Would that work? (On a sidenote: ref. 8 is Part 2, a continuation of ref. 4) About the article needing a good copy edit: please elaborate?, and/or feel free to copy edit as you see fit. Thanks for the feedback. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an alternate hook, feel free to modify it and/or propose other hooks, I am open to any hook. Bammesk (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ... that Mark Lettieri graduated with a degree in marketing and then decided to pursue music professionally? Sources: "He (...) attend Texas Christian University, where he studied advertising and public relations. After graduating, he began taking part in the gospel and R&B scene of the Dallas-Fort Worth area." Source Link 1 "At Texas Christian University, he chose not to be a music major, but rather to head into the family business of public relations and advertising. 'The music thing (…) was a hobby that I was really passionate about, but the idea of doing it as a career wasn't my focus.' After college, PR and advertising jobs were scarce, so Lettieri joined up with a locally based touring country band." Source Link 2
ALT3 ... that jazz fusion and funk musician Mark Lettieri graduated with a degree in marketing?
Would this work as a possible ALT? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the podcast timestamps. I am Ok with any ALT. Also, I introduced the ALT4 below. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 ... that guitarist Mark Lettieri is a member of three different bands? Sources: "Mark Lettieri is a (…) member of projects including Snarky Puppy and (…) the Fearless Flyers" Source Link 1, "and fronting his own trio" Source Link 2
What about this one:
ALT5 ... that Mark Lettieri has collaborated with both David Crosby and Dave Chapelle? Source: Roberts, Samuel (22 May 2019). "Snarky Puppy's Mark Lettieri is making instrumental guitar cool again". Guitar.com. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
It's a bit more fun and doesn't give you what you expect. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic, I think ALT5 is great. I am fine with it. I had a hard time coming up with anything interesting. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT5, and whether the article still needs a copyedit. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I'm kinda mixed on ALT5. I think it's a good hook if you're familiar with the names or are well-versed in music, but it's less meaningful to those unfamiliar with either Crosby and Chapelle. I would have gone with either ALT2 or ALT3 instead, but as I proposed ALT3 and added new hook content I'm not allowed to approve ALT3 anyway. As for the article itself, it's mostly fine, but the "Equipment" section reads weirdly. It has words such as "Guitars:" (in italics), and I don't think such wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I rewrote the "Equipment" section [4]. I think ALT3, ALT4 and ALT5 are all viable options (maybe even ALT2, although I prefer ALT3 over ALT2). In general I am open to the wording of hooks, because it's hard to weigh the interest of main-page readers, they are a diverse group. Bammesk (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: how about an ALT6 similar to ALT5 but with the word "musician" added in front of "David Crosby" and the word "comedian" added in front of "Dave Chapelle", would that work? How about deleting the word "both" as well? Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who isn't that in the know regarding comedians and only heard of Chapelle recently (mainly because the internet was talking about him), I think your proposed ALT6 is better, albeit it still doesn't really solve the "who are these people?" issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: how about ALT4? Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a decent hook, but I'm hesitant to approve it because I already proposed a hook above and ideally I'd want a third party to choose between my hook or ALT4. I do suggest dropping ALT5/ALT6 however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT3 and ALT4. (For sourcing of ALT3 see the small print right above ALT3, or see the article itself.) Per comments above, all other hooks are withdrawn at this time. Many thanks to all participants. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT7 ... that PRS Guitars worked with Mark Lettieri to create a signature Fiore guitar that offers a versatile tonal canvas? Source: "guitarist Mark Lettieri has partnered with PRS to create a tonally sophisticated signature electric guitar ... The Fiore – Italian for "flower" ... An important part of the design brief was the desire to build a dynamic, versatile guitar that gave guitarists a tonal canvas to explore." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fan of ALT7, it sounds too technical and might only really appeal to guitar enthusiasts as opposed to general audiences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like ALT7. It's about a product. It sounds promotional and IMO it is promotional. When the source says: "an important part of the design brief was the desire to build a dynamic, versatile guitar that gave guitarists a tonal canvas to explore", the source is echoing the guitar manufacturer's design objectives, because that's what a "design brief" is. The source isn't echoing the words of an independent reviewer or expert. Also, the words "versatility" and "tonal canvas" appear in the guitar manufacturer's promotional webpage Here. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC) . . . . I removed the (recently added) wording associated with ALT7 in the article, Diff. I struck ALT7. Bammesk (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Muir (doctor)

  • ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Indian cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Source: Macpherson, Hamish (11 January 2021), "Dr Isabel Kerr", The National, High Wycombe: Newsquest Media Group. "A fellow Scot, Dr Ernest Muir, was researching the use of the oil of the chaulmoogra tree to treat leprosy... [Kerr's] writings on the treatment impressed Muir and Rogers and soon chaulmoogra oil was a standard treatment for leprosy across India and beyond."
    • ALT1: ... that the Scottish missionary leprologist Ernest Muir worked in the Ottoman Empire, British India, and Trinidad and served as secretary of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association, now LEPRA? Source: Browne, Stanley George (1974), "Ernest Muir, C.M.G., C.I.E., M.D. (Edin.), F.R.C.S., LL.D. 1880–1974" (PDF), International Journal of Leprosy, Bauru: International Leprosy Association, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 457–458. "Dr Ernest Muir", History of Leprosy: Database, Tokyo: Sasakawa Memorial Health Foundation, 2022.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Omnia sunt communia
    • Comment: Kindly don't add extraneous links to the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg As I usually do, I have made a minor copyedit to the article. I have also removed the links in the article to various years - see WP:YEARLINK. This is a dry article about a dry subject. I prefer the first of the hooks, because it is less dry than the second one. However, it's not clear to me whether chaulmoogra oil really is a "traditional Indian cure" as claimed in the first hook. Neither the article nor the quoted passage in the hook reference actually says so. Additionally, and notwithstanding the apparent views of the nominator, I think the first hook should also be linked to chaulmoogra oil and leprosy. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahnfrend: Thank you for your work! but it's unclear if you're holding up the nomination over the desire to include links in the hooks (no don't & that has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval) or you didn't click the link in the article to chaulmoogra oil (do and cf. WP:BLUE regarding considering herbal cures traditional) or for something else from the comment you left. All copy edits undone, since the grammar 'correction' was mistaken and WP:YEARLINK allows that readers might need to know more about the context of events.

Edit: Judging the real problem from the template to be a citation issue, added "...the traditional Ayurvedic treatment[4]..." to the running text and a link to Parascandola's article, the relevant part of which runs "Whatever we think of this mythical explanation of the origin of the drug, it appears clear that Chaulmoogra oil has a long history in Asia. The oil was long used in traditional Ayurvedic medicine in India for the treatment of leprosy and various skin conditions. It seems to also have been used for the treatment of leprosy in other Asian countries such as China and Burma.6". Ayurvedic is the article and name for traditional Indian medicine so hopefully that can be left as is. In the alternative if it isn't,
ALT2: ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Ayurvedic cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Cite in the paragraph above.
although that's obviously less clear. Again, no needless links to nonpromoted articles. The point is to increase exposure to the articles worked on, not completely unrelated ones. Interested readers can click through. Thanks again for your time on such a dry article on such a dry topic, all the same! — LlywelynII 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] As my edits have been inappropriately reverted, I am not willing to approve this nomination. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Bahnfrend: (a) That's certainly your prerogative but (b) while your attention is appreciated the edits were indeed wrong (or unnecessary) as noted and (c) this is the icon to use to request a new reviewer, when there actually isn't a reason to declare an article ineligible. In the future, if you don't like an article's topic, you can always look at any of the hundred or so other ones and try to be clearer in your comments and own reasoning as to what's actually necessary under the rules versus things you'd personally like to see. Thanks again for your time, all the same! — LlywelynII 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other reviewers: I know long notes are offputting, but Bahnfrend has already shown the article is within policy aside from wanting more direct sourcing for the specific wording, which has been provided. The argument above is only over unhappiness on unrelated topics. — LlywelynII 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Saying that a disagreement over the hook - whether to link articles that people aren't likely to understand on their own - is expressing "unhappiness on unrelated topics" or "has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval" is strange. I would review this, but since I think that the article has basic readability problems and that the hook should link to these terms, I expect I'd be treated with this weird aggressive behavior (compare). Urve (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Urve: You're entitled to your opinion but, no, links in hooks have nothing whatsoever to do with their eligibility. That said, if there really are readability issues or even some particular passages you could point to that should be rewritten for better clarity, I'm all ears. The whole point of this is to drive attention to new articles and improve them. — LlywelynII 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: There's been no movement here for three weeks. Question: do you want to continue this DYK or close it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LlywelynII hasn't edited since June 13th. I've left them a message on their talk page but if they don't return within a week or so it may be time to close this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have done considerable work on the article, including adding a second source that clearly discusses the traditional use of ch. oil, and citing some text that wasn't fully cited before. I've also added an image of someone with Hansen's disease, if there's any interest in accompanying this with an image. Please re-review. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omnia sunt communia

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • On it. @Ezlev: I can tell you right now that ALT0 needs to be reworded if you prefer it to the others. It's a Christinian communist slogan/maxim/what have you and it's accurate enough to say it's a Biblical principle but it isn't a slogan within the Bible. It's just a Latin translation of something someone said in the Bible that is used a slogan outside it. (I do know what you mean, but something like "biblically derived" would be clearer and better here.) Biblical should be lowercase in ALT0 and ALT3. The article should also include the original Greek form of the expression (I know where to go for that and can add it for you) and the specific Latin translation where this exact expression appears. We'd definitely need to see if it's the version in Jerome's Vulgate (I assume it is but that should be sourced) and it'd be nice if you could look to see if it appears in any Latin translations before Jerome, if any of those survive. — LlywelynII 00:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • LlywelynII, thank you so much for the feedback! Always nice to have experienced eyes on articles in which I've gone out of my typical topic areas. Hook tweaks made as suggested. It'd be lovely if you could add the Greek and the translation details you're talking about, or at least point me in the right direction – I'm not super familiar with the New Testament. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ezlev Well, this sucks for you. I've added the Greek and Vulgate text, but Omnia sunt communia isn't the form that either uses. (1) You'll need to spend a little time seeing where the exact construction came from, whether it was B. Papiensis or someone even earlier who paraphrased the Bible that way. (2) That first use should be added to the new #Origin section. (3) If this began as a legal doctrine, that should come after the #Origin section and the #Historical use section should come 3rd. It might even be treated as a #Legacy section instead if it just represents different cults using the legal doctrine to justify their own beliefs instead of being separately developed uses of the Biblical text. (4) This isn't 100% necessary just to process the nomination but, if this is a slogan central to Christian communism as opposed to being primarily a legal doctrine responsible for eminent domain and expropriation, you should be able to find at least 2 other examples of groups trying to emulate the apostolic fellowship and early church under its aegis. — LlywelynII 03:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That does suck, LlywelynII, because I don't think I can do all you've asked. What's in the article now, after the edit I just made, is all I've been able to find and interpret. There are more sources out there but they're deep enough in subject areas I have basically no knowledge of that I can't understand them with enough confidence to cite or describe them in the article. Of your points, 1 is not done (although Papiensis remains the oldest use of the exact translation I can find), 2 is therefore not done, 3 is done (sections are now "Origin", "Legal doctrine", "Other historical use" in that order), 4 is not done. I still think the article meets DYK standards, so where do we go from here? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • LlywelynII, any thoughts, or should we tag this for a new reviewer? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It's been a month without a response from the original reviewer, so time for a new one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 6[edit]

Yosef Shenberger

Created by Havradim (talk). Self-nominated at 22:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Apologies for unlearned contribution (I've very little DYK experience) the first option doesn't work, as synagogues don't belong to architects ("his") and more fundamentally the proposed hook suggests that until he came along synagogues didn't have stained glass windows, when the idea has been around for centuries. The alt hook doesn't seem very interesting to me - a bridge instead of a ramp? Meh. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this comment Dweller. All I found regarding the Hurva so far is this quote: Today, a 16-meter-high stone arch erected by two architects in 1978 spans the space where the Hurva once stood, serving, together with the in situ remains and explanatory plaques, as a stark reminder of what was destroyed. [5] The "two architects" likely being a reference to the partners Shenberger and Katz (the former died in 1982 and the latter in 2016). While it is clear this reference cannot be used as a source, my research tools are currently limited, although I might be able to improve them soon. In regards to ALT0, the language I chose was due to brevity. Also, the article makes clear that while stained glass might not be a new idea, Shenberger encountered some opposition to the idea of including decorative elements in synagogues, due to some conservative leaders (rabbis?) believing they were a distraction to prayer. Please review the revised hook below; and because you said you are relatively unfamiliar with DYK, I am providing a link to the DYK reviewing guide for your convenience.
  • ALT0a ... that architect Yosef Shenberger overcame opposition to adding stained glass and other decorative elements to synagogues through his study of ancient ruins? Havradim leaf a message 00:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Thomas de Vogel

New Candi in 1917
New Candi in 1917
W. Th. de Vogel in 1921
W. Th. de Vogel in 1921
  • ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel put his money where his mouth was and bought land for Dutch Semarang to improve living conditions for its poor, only to see the city use the area for luxury villas instead?
  • Snijders, Emilius Paulus (10 March 1953), "Hoofdartikelen: Dr. W. Th. de Vogel 90 Jaar Terugblik op een Rijk Leven", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 715. "heuvelland te zoeken, waar de gezondheidstoestand veel beter bleek te zijn. Hoe logisch en vanzelfsprekend het nu lijkt, DE VOGEL heeft jarenlang met taaie volharding moeten strijden om deze eenvoudige inzichten tot gemeengoed te maken. Gesteund un voorgelicht door zijn vriend SOENARIO, later door TILLEMA en WESTERVELD, zette hij door, en risqueerde zelfs geheel belangeloos eigen kapitaal, door ten behoeve der gemeent, die nog weifelde, de vookeursrechten op de onbebouwde grond in deze heuvels van de bevolking te kopen, ten einde grondspeculatie te voorkomen. Hij legde de toegang tot Nieuw Tjandi open; de "de Vogelweg" symboliseert dit op zinvolle wijze."
  • Van Roosmalen, Pauline Katherina Maria (2017), "Modern Indisch Town Planning", The Life and Work of Thomas Karsten, Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, pp. 270–274. "Together with his Semarang council colleague, the medical practitioner Willem Thomas de Vogel (1863-1955), Tillema had appealed to the municipality to develop the hills south of the city for the indigenous inhabitants of Semarang... The plan never passed its preliminary stage. Although the Semarang municipality had already purchased the land, it did not perceive the hills as a suitable residential location. De Bazel's plan and, consequently, Tillema and De Vogel's ambition to develop the area, thus remained in limbo... Karsten revised the plan in 1919, in collaboration with Semarang's new Director of Municipal Housing Service, Johannes Jacobus Gerardus Everwijn Riickert. The outcome was a plan reminiscent of contemporary European town plans... Karsten's final plan incorporated the hill site south of Semarang. While earlier allocated for a new kampong, it was now allotted to an upscale and exclusive residential area."
    • ALT1: ... that the founder of Indonesia's public health service, Willem Thomas de Vogel, was only able to finish med school thanks to his brother-in-law and cousin Dr. Einthoven, the father of electrocardiography? Source: Snellen, Hermann Adrianus (1995), Willem Einthoven (1860–1927) Father of Electrocardiography, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 22 & 70.
    • ALT2: ... that, when Willem Thomas de Vogel began sailing, his family forced him to take up the more respectable career of managing a cinchona plantation instead? Source: Snijders, Emilius Paulus (10 March 1953), "Hoofdartikelen: Dr. W. Th. de Vogel 90 Jaar Terugblik op een Rijk Leven", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 97, no. 12, p. 714.
    • ALT3: ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel blocked any official use of traditional Indonesian medicine after he saw how poorly it handled the 1908 cholera outbreak? Source: Murakami, Saki (2015), "Call for Doctors! Uneven Medical Provision and the Modernization of State Health Care during the Decolonization of Indonesia, 1930s–1950s", Cars, Conduits, and Kampongs: The Modernization of the Indonesian City, 1920–1960, Leiden: Brill, p. 34.
    • ALT4: ... that the founder of Indonesia's public health service, Willem Thomas de Vogel, fought against providing actual health care, preferring to work on improving sanitation and hygiene instead? Source: Winckel, Charles Willem Frederik (19 March 1955), "Personalia: In Memoriam Dr. W. Th. de Vogel", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 99, no. 12, p. 899.
    • ALT5: ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel spent his life fighting malaria, cholera, and bubonic plague in the Dutch East Indies but lived to the age of 92? Source: Eh... See the article xD
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Kindly avoid adding extraneous links to the hooks. — LlywelynII 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @LlywelynII: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. AGF on the Dutch hooks and offline, with ALT3 checking out. ALT1 is too long (201 characters). No textual issues.
  • Can Find a Grave be replaced in re: source for burial location?
  • I really think Semarang, Willem Einthoven, and cinchona should be linked — I know I needed that context.
  • I'd change "the" to "a" before "1908" in ALT3, in part because we don't have an article about this outbreak.
  • Preference for hooks in order: ALT0, 4, 3, 2, 5
Once the Find a Grave source is replaced, I will approve. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: ? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 7[edit]

Ekaterina Novitskaya

Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The only issue is that Discogs isn't a reliable source due to being user edited. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical limits in science

  • ... that scientists don't all agree on the gene concept and this is one of the empirical limits in science? Source: Arabatzis, Theodore (2019-06-11), "What Are Scientific Concepts?", What Is Scientific Knowledge?, Routledge, pp. 85–99, doi:10.4324/9780203703809-6, ISBN 978-0-203-70380-9, S2CID 197990250, retrieved 2022-04-30

5x expanded by Airstarfish (talk). Self-nominated at 11:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @Airstarfish: The 5x expansion occurred in mainspace over the course of around 2–3 weeks. According the the letter of the rules, this would be permissible had the expansion occurred in a draft or sandbox. Since this is a student I'm going to count this as a technicality and say it follows the spirit of being new and long enough. It is within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, and a QPQ review is not needed for a new user.
The hook uses vague language and needs to be reworked or replaced: "scientists don't all agree on the gene concept" doesn't capture the article's discussion of the genotype/phenotype distinction. I'd also double-check that paragraph against the source (which I don't have access to at the moment); my instinct is that evolutionary biologists would emphasize phenotype while molecular biologists would emphasize genotype, which is the reverse of what the article says. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) would it be better if it read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene and this is one of the empirical limits in science?" as this is more consistent with the main point and wording in that section of the article. Also the article has the same order as written in the source in the genotype/phenotype discussion. I've found and cited an additional source [1], which is more explicit (and should preferably be used instead for the DYK nomination), in which the Author of the source also suspected it would be the other way around but upon investigation found it to be the way that it is written in the article. Airstarfish (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): alternatively to be even more specific it could read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene whereby some scientists think of the gene at a cellular level while others think in terms of its apparent effect and this is one of the empirical limits in science?", but this hook might be giving too much away Airstarfish (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): The nominator hasn't edited since late May. Have your issues been addressed yet or do they still remain? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: The nominator responded on the article talk page instead of here; I just moved their response above. @Airstarfish: Does the source explicitly say that this difference in conceptualization is an empirical limit of science? Conceptualization would seem to me to be a theoretical rather than empirical limit. It would be easier if I could see the source myself, but I don't have access to it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since May and the issues raised above remain unaddressed. Unless another editor adopts this I don't see a path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just needs a different hook. I can take a look and suggest one over the weekend. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be willing to adopt the nomination and propose a new hook? We'll probably need a new reviewer at that point, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Stotz, Karola; Griffiths, Paul E.; Knight, Rob (2004). "How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 35 (4): 647–673. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.09.005

Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

Tenta, Cyprus

View of Tenta
View of Tenta
  • ... that Tenta (pictured) is an archaeological settlement in Cyprus? Source: Todd, Ian (1978). "Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta, Cyprus". Archaeology. 31(4): 58–59 – via JSTOR

Created by Cstylus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Cstylus: The hook isn’t interesting I think. What about...
    • ALT1: ... that Tenta's architectural remains, artefacts, human burials, flora and fauna have been “virtually unchanged for two millennia"?
    • ALT2: ... that Tenta's excavations suggests that there was considerable continuity in social organisation as well as technological and economic practices for two millennia?

Check these two hook and let me know if one of two works. Mehedi Abedin 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg I took a quick look at the article and there are a few issues. Firstly, the article was created way back in 2008, so it is not eligible as a new article. On the other hand, the article did receive a 5x expansion starting on May 9th. The article was nominated on May 17th, which is just a day late; however, as the nominator is a new student editor, that one-day lateness may be forgiven. Finally, the article has a "citation needed" tag that needs fixing. I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and most of the sources (including those for the hooks) are cited to sources I can't access so AGF. I think ALT1 is the best option here. This article is somewhat outside my expertise so I'd like a second opinion from a subject expert as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1982 World's Fair

Fairgoers walking at the base of the Sunsphere, June 3, 1982
Fairgoers walking at the base of the Sunsphere, June 3, 1982

5x expanded by AppalachianCentrist (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg I suppose this is your first DYK entry, AppalachianCentrist. Welcome to DYK. I hope you enjoy it here. Unfortunately, the article that you put forward does not meet the DYK criteria. Please have a close look at the WP:DYKRULES. Under the eligibility criteria, you fall short of 1b and 2b. The former because your expansion started on 13 April, i.e. way outside the 7-day requirement. The latter because the expansion is just under a factor of two and not anywhere near the required factor of five. Under rule 2, you can also find links that work out article prose size for you. I hope this isn't too off-putting and we hope to see you nominate your next article soon. Maybe write a new one? Pro-tip: write articles (or expansions) in user space and once it's done, then publish it and nominate at DYK at the same time. That way you never get in trouble with the "new" requirement. Schwede66 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Schwede66: it does seem a little funky that we incentivize users to develop positive changes out of articlespace so that it can be done in less than a week... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Symbol question.svg: And I would say we should put this nomination on hold. The article was nominated for GAN minutes before making the DYK nomination. If GAN passes, it would be eligible. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine by me but I note that it was nominated as 5-times expanded, not GAN. Schwede66 10:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Given that it's been a month without any progress on the GAN front (the article hasn't even been reviewed yet), the article can't be passed because it didn't meet expansion requirements. There is no prejudice against renominating for DYK if/when the GAN passes and I highly suggest to AppalachianCentrist to try again when that time comes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol question.svg The GA review was opened on June 16. Let's hold off to see what kind of progress is made. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The GA review passed so this is ready for a new review. For DYK purposes this is now treated as a recently promoted GA rather than a 5x expansion, so if there are no remaining issues this should probably be ready. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that a complete DYK review needs to be done, since a full review was not done previously. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I just love these World's Fair's. I have written articles about people who had their careers started because of participation in expositions like this. This fair is particularly interesting because of the technologies which were unveiled. All in all, a very informative history of the event. I prefer ALT1 as it is interesting to me, and I have added a reference for that hook in the nomination. The citations are inline and spot checking reveals that they are correct with the exceptions noted below. No QPQ is needed. From some cursory research it appears that the Sunsphere was copyrighted in 1982 but not renewed. There are many photos of it on commons, and I was curious to know if it is art or a building? Apparently it is a building because a restaurant is in there. We have FOP for buildings in the United States.
Some items to fix
  1. One line in the intro are not supported in the body with references: It was the second World's Fair to be held in the state of Tennessee, with the first being the Tennessee Centennial Exposition of 1897, held in the state's capital, Nashville..
  2. The term the edutainment-applied specialized exposition is used in the intro but not referenced in the body.
  3. I think we have to use a different term than this colloquial term "chipping in" in this line Most of the KIEE's financial support came from the United States federal government, chipping in an estimated $44 million..
  4. I think this conversion needs to be referenced A six-month pass to the fair sold for $100 (equivalent to $281 in 2021)..
  5. The reference that follows this line does not support the sentence Panama never occupied its pavilion space, which was eventually occupied by a group of Caribbean island nations as Panama built another exhibit space than the one provided
Great article and hook, I think our readers will love it! Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed and expanded the Panama section with more info on their no-show and also added an inflation citation. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Mike Chen

  • ... that food YouTuber Mike Chen also runs a YouTube channel documenting strange phenomena? Source: CNBC (article): "Chen, who started making YouTube food videos six years ago, actually runs six different YouTube channels, with more than 5 million followers overall, including “Beyond Science,” where he explores “food, news, Chinese culture and mysterious phenomenons.”"

Created by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg My first impression is that this article seems kind of "peacocky" or promotionally toned. The cites contain long quotations from the subject's YT videos; possible copyvio there. Finally, Reddit is not a reliable source. Please see WP:USERG. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can shorten the quotations to the point of the message, but I only listed them because there is no other coverage on them. Even if the Reddit thread is an AMA, that doesn't count? lullabying (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Just Another Cringy Username: Quotations on videos have been shortened, and the Reddit thread being a Reddit AMA is noted on this article. The AMA was also created in cooperation with Insider, so it's not completely user-generated. lullabying (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:NOYT and WP:USERG. Neither YouTube nor Reddit are reliable sources, as they contain user-generated content. This speaks to the IMO greater problem of this article being essentially a promotional piece for Chen and his content channels. Depending on who created/contributed to this article, there may be WP:COI issues as well. As it stands, this article is at risk of being nominated for deletion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Just Another Cringy Username: I am the original creator of this article and also the only person who has contributed (see the edit history). I can assure you I have no affiliation with him nor any organization he represents. I can remove YouTube and Reddit AMA citations if necessary but I need you to give me examples of how it's promotional so I can rewrite it. I have seen Reddit AMAs be used as sources before, and the YouTube videos are primary sources that were made by him -- they were also used to cite lines that currently do not have secondary sources. If you read WP:NOYT, there's a caveat that says However, official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed. He owns the channels, so they can count as primary sources. lullabying (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess part of the problem is the very lack of secondary sources. If you take out the parts of this article that are sourced from Chen's own channel or from the Reddit AMA, there won't be much left, which is what makes it seem like a promotional piece. To be notable per WP:GNG, a subject needs to have received significant attention in secondary sources independent of the subject. This just makes it seem like there isn't a whole lot on this guy, so you have to fill that gap w/ primary sourced, user-generated content, which in turn weakens your case for his notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC
          • @Just Another Cringy Username: The only coverage that wasn't provided and I had to cover with primary sources were his original channels from when he worked with NTD Television. There is, however, plenty of coverage on his main channel, Strictly Dumpling, as shown in the article, and Strictly Dumpling was even nominated for a Shorty Award. lullabying (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • His main channel is a self-published primary source, which we've already discussed. Another editor is free to disagree w/ me, but I would argue this article has notability issues and is not suitable for DYK in its present state. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Just Another Cringy Username: As previously stated, coverage on his Strictly Dumpling channel is noted in secondary and independent sources, so he passes WP:GNG. Primary sources are used to supplement other info if a secondary source isn't available. The Reddit thread is an AMA that was created and moderated by Insider Inc. Anyways, DYK is not the place to be discussing notability. lullabying (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually DYK can be a place to raise concerns about notability. If reviewers or other editors are unconvinced that the subject of the nomination is notable, they can request an AFD to test consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The channel passes WP:GNG due to its coverage and it was nominated for a Streamy award. I feel that shows notability. lullabying (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been AFD'd --evrik (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination is on hold while AfD discussion is ongoing. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The AfD has closed as Snow Keep; the nomination needs a full review now that notability has been established. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 11[edit]

Shireen Abu Akleh

Nakba Day protestor holding photos of Abu Akleh
Nakba Day protestor holding photos of Abu Akleh
  • ... that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank? Source: "Samodi, working for the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper, told Haaretz that he and Abu Akleh were clearly identified as reporters, wearing their press vests, when they were shot at. In video footage of the incident, Abu Akleh can be seen wearing a blue flak jacket clearly marked with the word 'PRESS.' [...] Israeli forces were operating in the Jenin refugee camp and several other areas of the West Bank to apprehend 'terror suspects,' the military said." Haaretz

Created by Ezlev (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As far as this nomination goes, it is a really good effort and close to closure. New article nominated on time and long enough. The article was linked in Wikipedia:In the news as a recent death between 11 May-14 May; as per DYK eligibility criteria (1.d.) it is still eligible as it has not "appeared on the main page as bold link".
  • With regard to the hooks
    • ALT1- I have some reservations over ALT1. I do not think that ALT1 is "interesting to a broad audience" (3.a.). The article does not go into length about the Nakba rallies; it can be considered as a passing mention. With regard to usage of the word "internationally", the article does not clarify this; going into the reference in question about 20-25 countries are mentioned. Further, the reference does not make it clear if all of these countries had the protests on Nakba Day. On the basis of this, I do not consider the image and coinciding caption suitable. Further a crop of the image to focus on the poster in the ladies left hand may result in a case of derived work.
    • ALT0 - While the article intro mentions "the Jenin refugee camp", the article body does not. I am pointing this out since the ALT0 is giving some emphasis to where she was killed. If you wish to keep the detail, please try and mention this point in the body as well. [Preceeding information has been added. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)] Otherwise ALT0 can be shortened without losing the "interest" (3.a.) value that I think the nominator is intending. Also, along with the mention of IDF, "Palestinian militants" could find there way into ALT0. Since the article covers the multiple narratives with regard to the death, the hook should not convey, or seem to convey a certainty. Point 3 of the eligibility criteria uses the word "fact".[reply]
  • With regard to citations, plagiarism and close paraphrasing etc; earwigs seems to catch some similarities however most of this seems to be quotes and names. A quick spot check throws up some points. The intro mentions "she inspired many other Palestinians and Arabs, particularly women, to pursue careers in journalism" however it does not have a citation, the body does not carry this particular point as well, only mentioning "Abu Akleh's career inspired many other Palestinians and Arabs to become journalists" with no mention of women thus rendering it unreferenced.[Now cited.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)] Another reviewer may want to look at the "Within policy" point more closely, however in good faith I think it meets DYK standards.[reply]
  • FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish that I continue this review following changes/comments, I wouldn't mind, DYK rules permitting. If you wish for a new review/reviewer please just mention that below. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 ... that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces at a refugee camp in the West Bank? Maybe this is better than the ALT0? The Nakba day hook seems fine to me. Thriley (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's too long. The hook should not be longer than 200 characters. --Mhhossein talk 17:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezlev: Any ideas? I think the Nakba Day hook is fine. Thriley (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the ALT4:
Thriley: Do you have any responses for the objections raised against the Nakba day hook? I think if you can omit the Nakba day and just mention the international protests (which is well supported by the sources), then you may have the chance of having the picture along with the hook on the main page. --Mhhossein talk 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not crucial to include Nakba, the picture has it anyway, its enough.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to run the ALT4 hook with the picture of the protest? Thriley (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with a more relevant hook if the protest picture is to be featured, too. Though we may consider sth like:
@Thriley and Selfstudier: Your thoughts? --Mhhossein talk 13:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just get this done, it's been a while now. Personally, if it was me looking for a hook today it would be that subsequent to her death, multiple reliable sources (NYT, CNN, WAPO, AP, BELLINGCAT) have concluded she died as a result of Israeli fire.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier: Could I ask you suggest a hook based on the recent developments? --Mhhossein talk 18:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the same para of the lead as ALT 4, the most recent development (ALT 5?) "Separate investigations by Associated Press, CNN, Washington Post, The New York Times and Bellingcat independently concluded that fire from Israeli forces was the likely cause of Akleh’s death."? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Selfstudier's comment, I suggest the following:
  • ALT5:... that journalist Shireen Abu Akleh (her death protest pictured), killed despite wearing a blue "PRESS" vest, was shot by Israel Defense Forces bullet according to several independent investigations?
@Thriley and Selfstudier: what do you think? --Mhhossein talk 07:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: Are you willing to keep up with the nomination? --Mhhossein talk 04:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This hook is what I would like to see, but I think others should comment on it besides me. Thriley (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley: So you should use a {{subst:DYK?again}} template to request for a new reviewer. --Mhhossein talk 04:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed for hook. Thriley (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


A map of the territory of Ashuanipi in 1900
A map of the territory of Ashuanipi in 1900

Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 10:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Note from the author of the Newfoundland and Labrador-Quebec border - I don't think this one can go as presented (that is to say, change the hook). For starters, Ashuanipi was not a self-governing part, only an internal administrative unit without any hint at sovereignty whatsoever, so we can't write that "Ashuanipi claims" (or claimed). The correct phrasing would be "Quebec claimed that Ashuanipi was..." (or is, with the caveat that the province has relinquished its claim over the area). Another problem is that we should clarify the quote in the place where it refers to the "all other" part (relative to what? the federally/NL-recognised border in the area? The QC claimed border, today or in 1909?). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great points @Szmenderowiecki:! It really means a lot that you have reached out, your thoughts are definitely helpful. I was already aware of the first point, I was not under any impression that Ashuanipi was governing itself, and that is expressed in the article, it was simply an error of my wording. According to the source, it sets out the boundaries (Quebec and the county of Saguenay), and then claims all other waters that flow into the Atlantic. I'll try and reword the hook with that in mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 ... Quebec claimed that Ashuanipi (map pictured) included "all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic" in the poorly-defined borders set out for the region?
I don't think this fixes the problems. Basically the divide here is "rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence vs. rivers flowing directly towards the Atlantic". It still isn't clear for a person not interested in Canadian geography what the "all other part" means. Yeah, in Quebec, all rivers flow into the Atlantic, either via the St. Lawrence or to the Hudson Bay, but among the 150M+ visitors every month of the main page, how many people would know that? Which leads me to the second, I don't feel this would be an interesting hook to begin with. I'd suggest going along the lines of the Quebec law still featuring Ashuanipi despite having relinquished its claim over the area, choosing from the text you already have. If you are able to find more info to expand the article with the content not already in the French article, we can consider the info from there, though I don't think much will be found because mining, on which almost all of the population relies, wasn't a thing there in 1900s and the terrain is (still) mostly unpopulated as the climate is harsh. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly the article kind of does find more info from reliable sources given that the original French article has some portions that remain unsourced. I do get what you mean, and if you have more information that you had come across while writing the Newfoundland and Labrador-Quebec border article you are welcome to send it my way. I'll propose an alternative hook as per your suggestion.
  • ALT2 ... that, according to the Territorial Division Act, Ashuanipi (pictured) is still recognized as one of four territories of Quebec?
  • Comment: The map or the text of the article is wrong or misleading. The article tries to say that Quebec still recognizes the territory while the map is labelled as showing it is not in any way claimed by Quebec. Choose one or the other, rephrasing or adding qualifiers as necessary. — LlywelynII 16:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LlywelynII: To the best of my knowledge Ashuanipi technically exists in that weird grey zone of Quebec not making an active claim over the area after the ruling, but simultaneously recognizing it in legislation as a territory. There are territories that Quebec actively makes claims over (portions above the 52nd parallel), but Ashuanipi isn't included in that. We have instances of official maps that are required to illustrate Quebec's interpretation of the territory it controls, but this does not include Ashuanipi. However, that is complicated by the fact Quebec does still recognize it in some legislation (namely the Territorial Division Act), so I'm not sure myself how to word it. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stronk Kebbek c. 1912
Current disputely disputed territory, none of which falls under Ashuanipi apparently
  • I guess the important bits are here:

    "The territory of Ashuanipi was defined under the terms of the An Act respecting the territories of Abittibi, Mistassini and Ashuanipi[1] (French: Loi concernant les territoires d'Abittibi, de Mistassini et d'Ashuanipi) of 1899. Article 2.3 of the act read: "The territory of Ashuanipi is bounded to the north, to the east and to the west by the limits of the province; and to the south and southwest by the county of Saguenay".[2] The Revised statutes of the province of Quebec, 1909 would recognize the same description of the territory.[3] The Territorial Division Act's description remains largely the same, but alters the south and southwest portion's boundaries by the "electoral districts of Duplessis and Saguenay".[4]
    "The territory, as defined by the provisions of the former act, directly included the river basins of the Ashuanipi River, Hamilton River, and Esquimaux River. It additionally included "all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic".[3]"

    1. If you're using title case, the letters marked in bold should be capitalized in English if not French, and you should delete the "the" before "An".
    2. If you're using sentence case, the underlined letters should be in lower case, although Act should probably stay capitalized and you should replace the "the An" that precedes it with a simple "the".
    3. 1909 either needs to be be followed by a comma, not be preceded by a comma, or surrounded with parentheses without any commas. "Would" is the wrong verb tense for something that happened 111 years ago, given that you're not setting a story in the year 1908 or sth here.
    4. There have been numerous "Territorial Division Acts". Google brings up several by Ontario and several by Quebec. You presumably mean the Quebecker act inclusive of all its modifications through the years (as linked), but you should clarify that—as opposed to 2 specifically dated acts that you've just mentioned—this act is the present form of the law inclusive of all of the amendments since its initial enactment in YYYY.
    5. It's completely opaque what "the former act" means here, given you've referred to 3. Grammatically, ignoring that it's meant to distinguish 2 options, it should mean that you're giving the territory's boundaries as provided by the ARTAMA (1899), which can't possibly be true since you just gave that definition. Presumably, you mean something else. It can't possibly mean the second of the two, since you say that's the same as the first. Possibly you wrote "former" and meant "last", which still can't be true since you just gave that definition. Presumably, then, you wrote "territory" (=Ashuanipi) and meant "province" (=Quebec). It's still unclear whether you meant the first or last of the 3 acts by saying "former", but presumably you mean to define "the limits of the province" that the first act included in its definition of Ashuanipi, which was supposedly repeated in the next 2 acts as well. Of course, the limits of the province aren't defined by any of this legislation. They're defined by some other more important federal act that you've omitted here.
    6. Similarly, the description you've provided here would mean that Ashuanipi's western border was on Hudson Bay and made a wide band across the entire province. That's obviously not the case, although the reason that's not the case is relevant parts of the legislation that you omitted here, explaining that the territories consist only of areas of the province of Quebec not otherwise organized as judicial districts (i.e. organized counties) or registration divisions (cf. §§1, 2, & 13 of the TDA).

    That probably ends up answering your confusion, although it requires a complete rewrite of the current article. Ashuanipi Territory includes all the land in the province of Quebec in watersheds flowing south to the Atlantic or its inlets which is not otherwise organized into counties. Correspondingly, it includes no land, since there are no lands within the province of Quebec which meet that definition. It may have always been a dead letter or it may at some point in the past have included land that was notionally Quebec's but, once whatever legislation occurred that established the present provincial border between Quebec and the Newfies, its size went to exactly nothing. Revise the map to show the dates of the valid claim or remove it there were never any valid claims to any of Newfoundland's part of the relevant watersheds.

    Of course, if this is a papal situation where you have the Quebec government still naming and paying titular administrators of its entirely notional "territory", that would be interesting and maybe even involve some newspaper stories and corruption trials. — LlywelynII 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

    Edit: Ok, now I'm even more confused.

    Apparently, Labrador has a good section on the Quebec boundary dispute, some of which should be included into your article; you should also link your article from there and the 52nd parallel north article. There's also the Newfoundland and Labrador–Quebec border article that you're already linked from. As near as I can understand: i. René-Lévesque is apparently the present name of Saguenay. You can leave Saguenay in historical legislation but you should clarify what its present name is at least once. The borders of the district seem to have changed over time to the point that it's completely irrelevant to Ashuanipi. That Ashuanipi's entire southern border would be with Duplessis, it looks like. That should be mentioned and ideally shown on a map of Quebec's local divisions if possible. ii. Your map appears to be based on the idea that René-Lévesque and Duplessis have northern borders defined by watersheds, which seems to be right although that isn't explained or sourced. It should be. iii. Your map appears to be based on the idea that the western and northern boundaries of Ashuanipi are determined by the course of the Ashuanipi and Hamilton Rivers, which doesn't appear to be correct at all, isn't explained, and isn't sourced. It should be, if it has any basis other than the map you found. iv. Historically, Quebec's claims against Labrador would have made Ashuanipi take up the entire continental part of Newfoundland outside a strip one mile deep from the ocean and its inlets, right? That should be explained and shown. v. The legal issue isn't resolved because Quebec never fully accepted the 1927 ruling after all. Parizeau had been willing to concede it in 1995 but that doesn't seem to have been made official and other Quebec pols since have continued to complain about the line. Quebec nationalism makes this all actually kind of important. vi. On the other hand, Quebec does seem to have fully conceded Ashuanipi. Its extraterritorial claims (see EQ's Cote-Nord map) only include the bits of Duplessis's watershed claims that inch north of 52°N. I don't know when Quebec stopped claiming everything except the Newfies' coastal strip but they seem to have, meaning that even if they got independence and threatened war to reclaim "their" land, it wouldn't include anything from "Ashuanipi" even though they continue to use the name. It might be a dead letter or might not, depending on how maximal their rejection of Labrador's expansion has been. — LlywelynII 23:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i. Yep.
ii. If we assume the Quebec's claimed border since 1927, that's correct.
iii. Well, the only map we have is the one already provided in the article. There's also a description contained within this opus of a document, which says on p. 4790 that Ashuanipi is defined as being "the territory so bounded [that] comprises the basin of the River Ashuanipi, Hamilton or Esquimaux, as well as all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic." So not the course itself, but the basins. The northern and eastern boundaries definition are on page 5142-3. Ashuanipi, Hamilton and Esquimaux appear to be alternative names for the same river (not to be confused with Hamilton/Churchill Falls, which is a constant generator of electricity and Newfie butthurt).
iv. Yes, though a. it was Canada's claim, b. I don't know to which extent the part of Quebec's Labrador would belong to Ungava/Nouveau-Québec. The map is certainly valid for 1898-1912, but I see no newer map for 1912-1927, and I can't really access it. BAnQ doesn't seem to have a map of Ashuanipi (what would they plot there anyway?), and most maps of Quebec of the time ignore the region we know now as Côte-Nord for about the same reason.
v-vi. I removed the Parizeau statement as nothing seems to support it (maybe it's in the 2010 book by Dorion? but I have no access to it). The legal issue is in general considered to be resolved, but just like Newfies have butthurt about the Churchill Falls, Quebeckers have butthurt about the strip of land no one lives in. To be short, Canada stopped claiming the majority of Labrador following the 1927 ruling. Quebec insists, as is written in the article on the border, that it was wronged and the strip of land between the watershed and the federally/NL-recognised border should belong to Quebec, but no one seems to buy it (except for these guys, but even that video was botched because the map appearing in 0:37 has a straight border :)). Quebec tried to claim the whole of Labrador in the 1960s (as I've just got to know) when the Churchill Falls deal was being negotiated, but their maps no longer indicate the claim, so it most likely suggests they've learned to live with it. So yes, Ashuanipi is a relic of the books, just like the portions in the US Constitution about counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.
As an interesting side note, Ashuanipi has a lot of literature in the geological topics. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I assume that I have now scared away anyone else with that text wall, I guess I'm on the hook for doing the full review now.
i. seems settled.
ii. No, given that it forms part of Ashuanipi's putative southern border, you should find out where they claimed that watershed line or (at least) figure out and mention by name which specific watersheds are clearly being used by the Quebeckinese. If it already is there and I didn't notice, apologies, but go ahead and work it into the territorial description instead of leaving things off at the "northern border" mentioned in the legislation.
iii. & iv. The p. 4790 definition ("as well as all other...") would seem to repeat the maximalist claim that Quebec wanted everything in continental Terre-Neuve except the one mile beachhead, unless there's something specifically around that setting a northern boundary. Certainly the Hamilton isn't only watered from the south. I'm getting unsafe address and other errors when I try to access the pdf, though. What does pp. 5142–5143 say? Anything about the midpoint of the Hamilton? or the map is wrong? or based on something else?
v. & vi. It really doesn't seem like it. We had a series of terrorist campaigns, massive war, and a series of nationally-involved amendments to fix that slavery business. It seems just the opposite here. Quebec drops the subject when there's no hay to be made and then immediately "remembers" this enduring "injustice" when it suits its purposes. It sounds like if anything valuable (nickel, lithium, oil, &c.) were discovered or they finally did go independent that this would be a major thing again, pending any formal renunciation of the claims.
 — LlywelynII 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough at time of submission; long enough (3.9k elig. chars.); neutral and well cited; no likely copyvio per Earwig; I'm always leery of AGF avoidance of source checking given how easy autotranslation is becoming, but if the promoter didn't have an issue with it then it's fine for QPQ; the image can't be used without additional assurance that it's in the US public domain (I assume it is but it still needs the confirmation and template); more importantly, it seems to be off. We're still working through issues with the article regarding the core of the subject above. Maybe once we have, there will be more interesting hooks, but there's nothing wrong with the current ALT2. — LlywelynII 04:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly with how a deep of a dive you have taken on the subject, I do appreciate the time you have taken to look into the topic. All of this is quite frankly overwhelming, so I have taken some time off the review. I don't have any way of verifying whether the images are appropriate, and they were not uploaded by me in the first place. If I was better acquainted with US copyright law I would give a more concrete assertion, but you are welcome to remove the image if it is in violation. If there is more that needs to be addressed, other than the minor grammar issues you have brought up earlier that need to be addressed, please do let me know. I do wish you avoid what seems to appear to be slighting my previous reviews, as we do need to remember that this community tends most often to do work in good faith. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ornithoptera: Apologies for any personal offense caused. It's more of a general thing and not at all a slight on your decency. You're right that it's more appropriately addressed in the category talk as far as amending the rules given that foreign autotranslation is so generally possible that we as reviewers should at least show a good faith effort to have tried. That is admittedly hard in the case of nonhighlightable images of (eg) Chinese, Thai, Indian language, or even German Franktur books. If you're at all interested, see my review of the German Tarok article for how to go about addressing that. (The reviewer should obviously have a command of the language involved, so they should be able to transcribe the relevant quote for confirmation of existence and autotranslation.) No, that's not in the current rules so, no, there's nothing untoward in your not having done it. — LlywelynII 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 12[edit]

Erik Johansson (artist)

  • ... that Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? Source: Kerr, Euan (25 January 2019). "Johansson's surreal images delight, provoke thoughts". MPR News.

5x expanded by Jane6592 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg A quick look shows this artist is well known internationally, to the point of being mentioned by the V&A which I think is a bar few can cross. I didn't think the article was too promotional outside the glamor shot. The primary author appears entirely unconnected. @Jane6592: My only concern: the statement about hundreds of images being combined is exactly what the ref states, but the article itself has images that appear to be made of perhaps as few as three elements. A more accurate hook might add "... that some of" but that is not what the cite states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Maury Markowitz: Symbol question.svg hmm, I wonder why you don't find any? I had an issue with the article calling his creations "witty and striking" in wikivoice, as well as "well known" with no citation. The lead claims that he "captures ideas" and combines images "in innovative ways", and the first line of "artworks and projects" claims in wikivoice that he "create[s] a new narrative and express[es] freely the 'dream world'". In addition, the "Creative process" section feels oddly personal (although that's shakier). theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the 5x expansion appears to have taken over a month, beginning with this edit on 2022 April 4 at 1572B. By a week before the nomination, the article stood at 6989B, and stood at only 9285B at the time of nomination. A 5x expansion needs to take, in general, a week or less to count as new (eligible) content – it's generally helpful to use your sandbox to incubate these kinds of changes so that you can make real 5x expansion in one fell swoop. You can IAR if you wish, but I did want to alert you of that rule. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting with reviewers addition

  • ... that some of Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? —Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg Undoing promotion, since the article's tick had been superseded by theleekycauldron's "query" icon, which hadn't been addressed. It is highly significant that the nomination took place 53 days after the expansion began: I can't recall any prior article that was given that much expansion time. I could see an IAR if this were taken from the 5/12 expansion—an extra week for new nominators is not uncommon, and this is an extra eight days only. However, 5/12 isn't a 5x expansion yet: the article was 2393 prose characters prior to 5/12, and would need to be 11965, while it's currently 9017 prose characters; another 2948 would be needed. Jane6592, do you think adding that much material would be feasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Before promotion I posed the question about this issue on DYK Talk. Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, I'm afraid I disagree with the response there. (In addition, promotions should simply never happen unless a tick is the latest icon.) I also think the original review by Maury Markowitz was inadequate: in addition to failing to mention the 5x issue, there are three paragraphs in Biography that are unsourced and should have been taken care of prior to approval. SL93 has dealt with the wikivoice and other textual issues that theleekycauldron brought up. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: All three are from the same cite, combined for clarity. Is there anything else remaining? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset and Maury Markowitz: Yes there are a variety of cite styles - I have that learned from studying the NPP guides. I am unsure if the proposal above is to close this as unsuccessful or we should discuss it further on talk? Bruxton (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset, Maury Markowitz, Theleekycauldron, Victuallers, and Jane6592: Hi all, I am wondering what we should do with this nomination. On a personal note, I found the article interesting. But if the article does not qualify and we are not making an exception - what should we do with the nomination? Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still see some textual issues – I'll write them up later today. Once they're fixed, I'd be happy to IAR and provide a tick. The low-profile nature of the work, combined with the new status of the editor and the effort they put in, suggests to me that we shouldn't deny this because we expect faster work / a draft space incubation. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tricky article. Amazing images ... and they all infringe copyright IMO Victuallers (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and Victuallers: Interesting, we should probably remove the images. And thanks Leeky. I do not know if we should get more opinions about approving it because of the objection. Cheers! Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, theleekycauldron, I think that before anyone approves this citing IAR they should first bring the matter up at WT:DYK. We've had lots of articles that were interesting but nominated over a week or over a month late—new or expanded, school-based or not—that have been failed due to the lateness; I don't see why this should be the exception. The article could at some future date become a GA and become eligible then, or it could still be expanded to 11965 prose characters at present and qualify that way, if someone wants to take this on; it seems pretty clear that the nominator posted this as their last act on Wikipedia at the end of the school term and is very unlikely to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, while I do agree that this needs further discussion at WT:DYK on whether or not it should be granted an IAR exemption, it's arguable that this being the nominator's "last act" may actually be a point in favor of granting in this case. The nominator is a student editor and appears to have ceased editing and is unlikely to return, so it's not like they'll get another shot at DYK. It can be argued that the article being featured on DYK could serve as a sort of parting gift. I would have been much less inclined to favor IAR here if the editor was either a veteran or a new editor who is still editing and thus still has other chances to nominate articles for DYK. On the other hand, I understand where the concerns about the "other similar nominations were rejected, why should this be accepted?" point, which is why I'd suggest this get a wider hearing before deciding what to do with it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at WT:DYK, I agree with Narutolovehinata5, we should just run this.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't agree at all with the "parting gift" argument: DYK is not a consolation prize to be given out to students who are assigned by their instructor to send their work our way when said instructor is new themselves to Wikipedia and doesn't really know what's involved, and none of them are doing us the courtesy of sticking around to see things through. In any event, the discussion at WT:DYK is far from a consensus that we should IAR on this very late submission, so unless things change, this should not run. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg There doesn't seem to be consensus to grant an IAR exemption for this nomination and so it appears to be time to close this as ineligible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • ... that it took 13 years to ratify the standard for Full BASIC and it still had "intolerable" problems? Source: Guntheroth for intolerable, the ECMA spec doc for timing

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is long enough. It was created on May 12, but the nomination is dated May 26. This is longer than the allowed 7-day window, but the nomination states that a technical failure of the DYK tool is responsible for the late listing so I recommend that this requirement be waived per WP:IAR.
  • Earwig flags some potential copyright violations, mostly in the example program listing ("Program CRAPS"). It is properly attributed, but I'm concerned that the length of the copied material exceeds any fair use. It doesn't really add anything important to the article, so my suggestion is to delete that entire section.
  • I did not exhaustively examine every reference, but overall the bibliography looks to be all WP:RS and the article text appears to be adequately cited to those sources.
  • There are no WP:BLP issues.
  • QPQ is satisfied.
  • Regarding the hook, I don't see where in the article is says that it took 13 years to ratify. This needs to be clarified.
  • Overall, Symbol possible vote.svg -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Group formed Jan 1974, ratified by ANSI Jan 1987 = 13 years. Those dates are reffed, I don't think we need a ref for math. Source code is widely found in most language articles, I've never seen an issue with CQ being raised before, but I'm not sure the rules here, I can't find any comment on it. I can say it was not raised during Minimal BASIC which has a similar example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1974 is when the ratification of Minimal BASIC was started. The ratification of Full BASIC didn't start until 1977 (at least according to the article), so that's 10 years. It's a bit confusing. I'll leave the fair use question about the source code to somebody better versed in copyright/fair use than I am. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: No, they are both the same effort, the split happened during the effort. It's like you want to build a car to go to the store, but then you realize that it's going to take longer than you like so you quickly put together a gocart and then return to building the car. The effort is and always was to build a car, and in this case, the effort is and always was to make a standard BASIC. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed cities

The mixed city of Nof HaGalil
The mixed city of Nof HaGalil
  • ... that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing? Source: Hawari, 2019, p.177: This rejection of the "mixed city" notion by Johnny and others reflects the spatial reality on ground and the political and social marginalisation faced by the Palestinian community everywhere inside Israel… The narrative of continuous historical coexistence and a mixed present-day reality in Haifa serves to support Israel's self-image as a pluralist and democratic society. In addition to giving the settler-colonial reality legitimacy, the existence of mixed urban spaces leads many to assume that under the current structures of power, a shared life is possible. The reality, however, is a space in which both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews live mostly separately and with vastly different experiences.
    Tzfadia 2011, p. 160: "Israeli mixed cities, particularly after 1948, cannot be perceived as multi-cultural cities, a point poignantly reflected in the absence of this term in the indexes of the reviewed books. Although localities were divided between the culturally distinctive Jews and Arabs, the cities still did not bear the potential to become multicultural. This absence of a multi-cultural vision in Israeli mixed cities impinges on the concept of "right to the city." For example, Yacobi maintains that the Arab community in Lod does not enjoy freedom in the city--it lacks the legitimacy to maintain individual and collective identities and lifestyles, to take part in decision-making, and not to be excluded. Thus, Holston's (1999) project to oppose and undermine dominant narratives of the state within the urban framework and to create alternative local narratives that do not necessarily reflect the rationale of the nation, has failed in mixed cities in Israel."
    Yacobi 2009, p. 1: "However, a critical examination forces us to question the term "mixed city," which might originally suggests the integration of society, while instead the reality is controversial. As in other cases of ethnonationalism, a clear spatial and mental division exists between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and hence the occurrence of "mixed" spaces is both exceptional and involuntary. Rather than occurring naturally, it has resulted from a historical process during which the Israeli territory, including cities that were previously Palestinian, has been Judaized. This book attempts to discursivelv undermine the term "mixed city," which raises images of mutual membership while ignoring questions of power, control and resistance."

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: I get that Google pushes the Israeli use to the fore but, no, this term has been in common use since the mid-1800s. The fact so many cites are "sneer quoting" the term suggests they're just calquing some Hebrew term and don't really consider it the main and proper meaning of mixed city in English. This article shouldn't be parked at the main namespace here, and fwiw the plural form is also wrong. It should be at something like Mixed city (Israel). — LlywelynII 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the title Mixed cities without any form of disambiguation is supported by peer-reviewed scholarly research in the Journal of Urban History: Karlinsky, Nahum (2021-08-09). "Revisiting Israel's Mixed Cities Trope". Journal of Urban History. SAGE Publications. 47 (5): 1103–1129. doi:10.1177/00961442211029835. ISSN 0096-1442. A search for the phrase mixed cities in English, conducted on Google on June 14, 2020, unequivocally showed the significantly frequent usage of the term in its exceptional Israeli interpretation even if English is used. Of the first forty results, twenty-eight (70%) were about Jewish Arab cities in Israel. Most of these entries referred to quotidian matters and much less so to scholarly studies. Six (15%) denoted articles about the “Most Diverse Cities in America” and in the world. Four (10%) dealt with the notion of mixed use in city planning and various functions; one (2.5%) addressed Apartheid South Africa’s so-called “grey” inner cities areas. The last reference (2.5%) was to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian, written by the influential urban scholar Saskia Sassen, in which she enthusiastically characterized the “mixed city” as a social, ethnic, and cultural barricade to the ills of globalization. A search for the term mixed cities in English as an exact phrase (set within quotation marks) produced similar results: thirty-six entries out of the first forty (90%) concerned Israel’s multi-ethnic/multi-national urban space.10 These entries comprised many daily reports along with some references to scholarly studies, underlying the fact that this concept is widely used not only in research literature but mainly in discussing daily life in Israel. Similar searches in leading journals of Urban Studies and in Google Scholar produced comparable results to the searches cited above. Thus, a search on Google Scholar on February 17, 2021, for the term mixed cities, found that fifteen of the first twenty results (75%) were about scholarly publications that discussed Jewish Arab urban space in Israel or in British Palestine. An exact search, set in quotation marks, produced even more significant results, as eighteen of the first twenty entries (90%) led to scholarly publications on Palestine/Israel’s Arab Jewish urban spaces. Moreover, the above-mentioned searches unequivocally show that an overwhelming majority of scholars who employed the terms mixed cities or mixed towns in their studies of the Arab Jewish urban scene in Israel went through some of Israel’s formal and informal socialization systems. These include mainstream Israeli Jewish scholars as well as Arab scholars who were educated in Israel and critical Israeli Jewish scholars. Since most research on this urban space is conducted by these scholars, the unique employment of this term inadvertently creates an exceptional interpretative framework. As mentioned above, as a graduate of that hegemonic discursive regime myself, I have also used that term in a previous publication. Hence, the current critical look is also a self-critical examination of the power of hegemonic discourse on one’s own identity construction and scholarly work.
As to the origin of the term, Karlinsky writes: "scholars concluded that the term was coined by the British authorities during the time Britain controlled Palestine as a League of Nations’ Mandatory Power (1918-1948)." He goes on to argue the British borrowed it from Zionist discourse (which was written in many languages including English).
This is also underpinned by the fact that in 20 years of Wikipedia each of the terms "Mixed cities", "Mixed city", "Mixed towns" or "Mixed town" have remained unused and never even been a redirect.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I just said that Google wasn't a reliable source for this. Finding a printed work using an unreliable methodology doesn't validate the same unreliable methodology. It just means you found a shoddy source and still need to fix the namespace. Even within Google, the 2nd highest scoring 'mixed city' is Kirkuk, which (last time I checked) still wasn't within Israel even under the widest territorial claims. See also here for the JUH’s general provincialism and shoddiness, not that it matters given the obviousness of the problem. As far as needing to see broader use of the term, cf various standard phrasings like "mixed cities of the" ~ (ranks just below "mixed cities of Haifa...") and the results range from the ancient Near East to imperial Germany. More generally, "mixed cities of" pulls up modern Israel, ancient Israel, modern Israel, Central Europe, London & Westminster, modern Israel but *not* talking about the formal designation you mean, ancient Israel, ancient Israel, North Africa, modern Israel, ancient Israel, ancient Israel, modern Israel, central Iraq, modern Israel, North Africa, early modern Israel (not the formal designation you mean), British India, modern Israel, the towns of the European Diaspora of Jews, modern Israel, the Ancient Middle East, &c. You're batting about 30-40%, which is a lot but doesn't make this the PRIMARYTOPIC for the lower-case words. Alternatively, if you truly hate dabbing, just capitalize it as a formal class designation instead of a general use of "mixed" + "city", which isn't Israeli focused in the English language.
As far as their previously having been left unused, sure. It's a general term that Wikipedia would leave to Wiktionary to take care of. Even Wiktionary probably considers it mostly SOP. That doesn't make the Israeli sense the PRIMARYTOPIC by default.
It's great that you're helping discuss this topic. Fix the mistaken pluralization, dab the title as a specific use of a general term, and move on. — LlywelynII 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be aggressive. You are criticizing the methodology used by a peer-reviewed journal article. If you wish, you can share your opinion on this with the editor of the Journal of Urban History (contact details here). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proving further proof that you're mistaken isn't aggression. You took the time to find a (single) source buttressing your point; I respected your work and interest enough to provide a more thorough rebuttal and to remind you that (like I already discussed) the methodology your source used isn't trustworthy, regardless of having been allowed to be published. — LlywelynII 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The aggressive areas of your response were: (1) emphasizing "just"; (2) calling a peer-reviewed article "shoddy"; and (3) implying that your side of this debate is "right". I respect your argument and hope you respect mine. I suggest we cordially agree to disagree and open an WP:RM discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't aggressive. It's accurate and important to point out that your "rebuttal" had already been addressed. The journal has problems (sourced) but isn't shoddy. The methodology used by the article you quoted is shoddy, again for the reasons already addressed before you posted it. I didn't use the word 'right', but that part of your comment seems nonsensical. If people didn't believe they were correct they wouldn't need to disagree with one another, with all the attendant unpleasantness when the other person takes it personally, as you currently are.
I can't respect yours at the moment because you're just appealing to authority. Normally that's fine (WP:RS and all that) but here you can specifically see their reasoning for their point and it's slapdash vanilla Google results which, as already discussed, is problematic. If you had some actual rebuttal to the points I'm making besides "where's your peer review huh?" that would be more helpful. It's very clear that the peer review involved was about the article's actual research and not nit-picking about their term or the mistaken argument they made about it. On the other hand, since it means your current article violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SINGULAR, it does mean we need to hold up the nomination over this until it gets fixed. You're welcome to do a WP:RM and/or WP:RFC to pull in more voices though. 30-40% certainly is debatable (not entirely wrong like you seem to think I'm saying) but it does seem unhelpful to tie such a basic term to just 8 or so towns in Israel.
As far as research that helps buttress your case a little, "mixed cities like..." does pull in more Israeli results: modern Israel x2, "Boston and San Francisco", prepartition Israel, modern Israel x2, Kurdistan, "Yonkers, New York, or Hayward, California", "Jakarta or Medan", modern Israel, Kurdistan, modern Israel, Kurdistan x2, modern Israel x4, Kurdistan... At least there, you're over 50% on something besides trusting Google's vanilla algorithm. It still seems too mixed to me to hold up the lower-case form of the words, but maybe other editors would think it rises to PRIMARYTOPIC. In any case, you still need to fix the singular issue regardless. — LlywelynII 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an eye-opener. Put "the term mixed cities" (using the quotation marks) into google or google books. I believe 100% of the results relate to Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an eye opener. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The entire problem is that "mixed city" is used as a generic descriptor rather than a term. Yes, as a specific term to a specific class of cities, the Israeli use would be the primary topic. The problem is all the generic use. That's why I was suggesting Mixed City might be more appropriate, although of course you can't force the capitalization onto scholarship or the Israeli government if they don't already use it. — LlywelynII 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LlywelynII, thanks for your last two posts. To address this first, I see this as a common situation across our project. See for example: cold ironing, stomach division, dog watch or free company. Each of these articles have uncapitalized names which are frequently used generically, but the articles are focused on a specific technical use of the terminology. None of those articles have disambiguating brackets because the first sentence of each article makes it abundantly clear what the article is about. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those is that there aren't common uses of other senses of those words. I guess "cold ironing" could be using an unheated iron or "dog watch" could be a canine timepiece, but I can't imagine many people would ever actually use either. With "mixed cities" you're looking at somewhere between 30-70% of people using it in printed works to talk about other topics. Anyway, I've raised my point and made my case. I'll shut up already before I scare off your genuine reviewers and they can weigh in on which of us they agree with. Thanks for coming back around to seeing that it's nothing personal at all, just a difference of opinion about the primarytopic here. (Plus, use the singular form as the article title but I'll let other people nag you about that xD.) — LlywelynII 22:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that initial discussion has run its course. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is long enough and new enough.
  • The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph The eighth city is Jerusalem ... is not recognized as such under international law needs a citation to a WP:RS.
  • Symbol question.svg a clear spatial and mental division exists between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and hence the occurrence of "mixed" spaces is both exceptional and involuntary is a direct quote, so it needs to be quoted and referenced. Other than that, I'm not seeing any copyvio/paraphrasing problems.
  • This isn't a DKY issue per-se, but replace several uses of "c." with {{Circa}}.
  • Symbol question.svg I'm not totally following the history here, but the article was tagged with {{NPOV}} in Special:Diff/1091862473 which was removed by RMCD bot in Special:Diff/1091864638. I suspect the bot mis-parsed things because of an unclosed <noinclude> tag. @Tombah: is this still an issue, or has the NPOV been resolved to your satisfaction?
  • No WP:BLP or other policy issues except as noted above.
  • QPQ has been satisfied.
  • The hook is OK, but a pithier verion might be:
  • -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RoySmith: many thanks for your review. I have added the source for the Jerusalem sentence. The "clear spatial and mental division" sentence is in quotation marks in a footnote sourced to Yacobi 2009. I have replaced the occurances of c. with {{Circa}}. The three questions raised by Tombah were addressed by (1) the RM discussion, and (2+3) their and others' edits to the article which have remained in place, together with the talk page discussion. I like your ALT1 a lot - much more "hooky". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: can you confirm (or not) that the issues you raised when you added the NPOV tag have been resolved to your satisfaction? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RoySmith:, I think not. Leaving aside the terminology, which still prefers in many case one term over the other, more accepted one, this article is still missing other views on the subject. I am still not sure this article adds something to Wikipedia that cannot be expanded in the respective city articles or the article about demography in Israel. Generally, I am not entirely convinced the Israeli case of mixed cities justifies its own article at all. Tombah (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Based on the previous comment, I've restored the {{NPOV}} and marking this as requiring additional work. If the issues raised by Tombah can't be resolved, then this submission will need to be declined, but I'll leave the final decision on that up to the DYK regulars. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I was hoping it wouldn’t come to this and so chose to avoid complicating the discussion. But now I am left with no other choice. The history is as follows:
Note: the Khirbet el Ormeh article has nothing to do with the article we are discussing here
Apart from the obvious “tit for tat” behavior, Tombah’s comments at this article are unsupported by sources, and have been opposed by other editors, both in the RM discussion and in the specific comment thread Tombah created. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, this has to be resolved. DYK can't accept an article with a NPOV template on it. As far as I can tell (see upthread for details), the original template was removed by a bot which misfunctioned due to incorrect markup causing the page to be mis-parsed. That's not a valid resolution to the dispute. I can't take sides in a content dispute. It's something the editors of this article need to resolve among themselves, and a DYK nomination is not the right place to be doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, correct. There is no ongoing content dispute, irrespective of whether one editor with provably questionable motives wants to repeat their points. The editor's points failed to gain consensus, after being discussed by other uninvolved editors. The dispute has thus already been resolved, per wp:consensus – we must not expect unanimity. To be clear, the editor made three points:[6]
(1) the scope of the article. Per this RM discussion, three editors (including me) disagree with the editor's concern. Above, the editor did not repeat the point, presumably for this reason.
(2) terminology for Palestinians in Israel / Israeli Arabs. The editor made a number of edits to this effect,[7] removing the word Palestinian in multiple places. I don't agree but left the changes, in order to minimize the dispute. A third editor stated we should just follow the sources, which is what the article does.[8] Above, the editor says "Leaving aside the terminology", which I assume to be a silent acknowledgement of this.
(3) other opinions; this is the point the editor repeats above. The problem is the editor has not provided any new sources, so this is impossible to resolve. A third editor made a suggestion to address the concern, which I have implemented.[9]
New point above: the editor's final two points in the comment above suggest proposed article deletion. That is obviously nonsense, given the huge scholarly coverage of this topic. But the editor is welcome to open an AfD
There is no consensus for that NPOV template, which is why it has stayed out of the article until you re-added it. The editor has had three weeks to gain consensus for his concerns, and has found multiple editors opposing all his points. WP:consensus tells us we can move on.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there are consensus for removal? --Shrike (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, there is no basis for it. Produce sourcing to back up personal opinions or leave things be. Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Mariani (doctor)

  • ... that Italian dermatologist Giuseppe Mariani protected the Jews of Genoa during the Holocaust by hiding them in the city's leprosarium? Source: Barabino, Gianfranco; et al. (June 2020), "Genoa and Leprosy from the Middle Ages to the Present", Giornale Italiano Dermatologia e Venereologia, vol. 155, no. 3, Turin: Minerva Medica, pp. 346–348. "In the early 1900’s, Radaeli promoted the construction of a leprosarium behind the San Martino hospital. In 1936 Giuseppe Mariani was known for using the leprosarium to hide Italian Jews during deportation to the extermination camps."
    • ALT1: ... that dermosyphilopathologist Giuseppe Mariani received a silver medal for his bravery under fire at the Third Battle of the Isonzo? Source: Farnetani, Francesca (2008), "Mariani, Giuseppe", Dizionario Biografio degli Italiani, vol. 70. "Chiamato alle armi allo scoppio del conflitto mondiale, il M. fu assegnato a un ospedale da campo in prima linea: nel corso delle azioni svoltesi sulle pendici del monte S. Michele (altopiano carsico) tra il 21 e il 23 ott. 1915 fu ferito nel tentativo di soccorrere i militari colpiti giacenti allo scoperto, e per questo fu in seguito insignito con la medaglia d’argento al valor militare."
    • ALT2: ... that Italian veneral disease experts like Giuseppe Mariani are traditionally known as doctors of dermosyphilopathy? Source: Gibson, Mary (1999), Prostitution and the State in Italy: 1860–1915, History of Crime and Criminal Justice (2nd ed.), Columbus: Ohio State University Press. The history of medicine, however, belies his words, for at midcentury knowledge about veneral disease was rudimentary. As the denomination of this branch of medicine as "dermosifilopatia" shows, these diseases were traditionally diagnosed and treated like skin infections.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/German Tarok
    • Comment: Kindly don't add extraneous links to the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

ALT1a: ... that dermatologist Giuseppe Mariani received a silver medal for his bravery under fire at the Third Battle of the Isonzo?

@LlywelynII: I changed one word and added inlinks to the hook. I would prefer ALT0 for pure eye-catching capacity, but I'm also concerned about the cite - and for some reason its DOI doesn't work for me so I can't get the original. ALT1 is also pretty good though. I expanded the lede in the article and unlinked the years per MOS (ping me if you question this). If you are good with this version of the hook I'll review it ASAP. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suspecting it to be a misprint, I tried to find an email for the primary author without luck. I have written to one of his colleagues in Genoa so hopefully he can forward it on or answer directly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're looking for suggestions on your list, it seems an article on San Martino Hospital is long overdue! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White-nosed saki

White-nosed saki
White-nosed saki
  • ... that the white-nosed saki monkey (pictured) is the only species in the genus Chiropotes which has a brightly coloured nose? Source: Emmons, L. H. (1997). Neotropical Rainforest Mammals (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-20719-6.
    • Comment: I have added a lot of information to this article for an educational course and would love to have wiki editors/viewers check out the revised article.

5x expanded by Vikster28 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hey there, I am unsure if the source provided is able to be checked without purchasing the book. This information was already included in the article prior to my expansion so assumed it would be correct. Only after submitting my DYK did I see that those revising the posts needed free access to the source. I attempted to make a new DYK entry but couldn't as I had submitted this one. Hoping this can still be accepted but let me know what I am able to do if not. I would love to have this newly updated article published on the main wiki page for everyone to check out as I am a new wiki creator and have worked hard on this article! Vikster28 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Vikster28, welcome to Wikipedia!
First thing: I moved your comment above for technical reasons, as you are supposed to use the "review or comment" button directly above your hook to reply to it (it's a technical thing and only applies in DYK, and it confused me as a newcomer as well). So yeah, click that thing and you'll be replying in the proper way, and the comment won't get lost accidentally ;)
Second: Nope, sources don't actually need to be available only for a hook to pass review. I can't find the actual rule atm, but there's a special little icon reviewers can use to indicate that they can't access the source themselves, but trust the article editor enough to pass it. So for example, if you'd try to convince me that the book by Emmons ("Neotropical Rainforest Mammals") proves that spaghetti was discovered in Antarctica, I'd strongly doubt that and request you to procure the book. However, with a claim that sounds very reasonable and an otherwise splendid article, we Wikipedians trust in one another to not actively lie to hurt the project ^^
Okay, so much for that. I'll be reviewing shortly, but one more thing: Please hang in there! A lot of student editors leave/disappear before the DYK can be approved, which is a shame especially with good articles. Just check back every few days if there's something to do still, it won't take that long :) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Red XN - There might be a better one
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Greatly expanded, went from Stub to B-Class, earwigs finds nothing. The claim in the lead section about the "pink nose", although somewhat obvious from looking at the picture, is actually not supported by the source cited – this needs to be rectified. And that also begs the question: Wouldn't this be an even better hook? Something about the white nose being in fact reddish. I'll check the article body in more detail still, but it looks solid. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more observations about the article: Solid quality, you definitely spent some time digging up sources and expanding. But I'd still like to see some small adjustments, because anything appearing on the front page should be as polished as possible:
  1. The species is listed as vulnerable, but there's currently no explanation why, or whether there are protection efforts. This is no must-have, but a short section would be nice and could be easily compiled from e.g. this source, which has the interesting note that their tails are used as dusters.
  2. The main issue is the confusion on white nose (hair!) vs reddish-pink nose (skin!), which this source doesn't explain properly. There's an explanation in the lead section that dead specimens had lost the reddish hue and retained only their white facial hair, hence the ill-fitting name. But in the "Physical characteristics" this explanation is not given, and the claim that their nose might be white or red now confuses readers. This needs to be re-phrased to be crystal-clear (and sourced!) for the article to pass DYK.
  3. There are some instances of needless repetition, which isn't terrible and won't disqualify the article, but it reads clumsy. For example, "terra firma" (which sadly doesn't have its own article) is repeated thrice in a row. Likewise, "very few [means of] communication" is repeated needlessly.
  4. Statements that are poorly worded:
  • "Both the female and male are considered a “medium-sized” species." The male and female are probably not different species, right? ;)
  • "The two body parts which they require for feeding and movement is their tail and teeth." This reads weird, as they certainly use their legs to move as well (again, this source points out their quadrupedal movement); and on the other hand it is quite commonplace to use teeth for feeding. Don't get me wrong: Canine teeth are certainly extraordinary, and a tail that changes flexibility with age also. But I think you could change the sentence quoted above to better reflect why these two body parts are important.
  • "... and possibly a small area east of Bolivia." Should that read "in eastern Bolivia"? Because to the east of Bolivia there's Brazil, which seems weird as it's already mentioned above. And in any case, to the east of some country is a very vague statement. I know it was in the article before you started, but with your knowledge you can probably tell what it's supposed to mean.
Apart from that, splendid! The structure is solid, the amount of footnotes is commendable, and I love that you even made a pie chart for their diet. That's how a Wikipedia article should look like! I'm sure you'll easily fix what I nitpicked above, and this nomination will get approved :)
--LordPeterII (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your extensive feedback and advice. Also, thank you for moving my initial comment. I wasn't sure where to add the comment since I initially pressed on "review or comment" and it didn't allow me to. Luckily now its working! (or at least i'm hoping i've now responded in the correct place, please let me know if not). I am planning to add some more to the article (e.g., on conservation which you have mentioned) so will definitely look into fixing up the article where required based on your suggestions. It really does help to have someone look over the article so I can improve on it where needed :) Once I manage to get this all done, should I be re-nominating the article or will this nomination remain active? Once again, Thanks for your help!
Vikster28 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikster28: Yep, your reply was done in the intended way now :)
The nomination will stay in effect. I'll approve it once you've rectified the remaining issues.
Oh, and as stated above, I encourage you to explore some other hook. I'd approve the first one if need be, but the white/red nose thing sounds way catchier to me. I'd give an alternate hook myself, but then I'd be barred from approving the nom. If you can come up with one, just add it in a comment and call it ALT1. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that makes it easier. I will just let you know that (like i've stated in my previous comment) I will be adding a fair bit more information by the end of this month. This is the point at which I would also make the adjustments you have suggested. I wasn't sure if this would cause issues with the nomination considering I am further expanding the article and this may therefore create a need for more editing upon suggestion. Sorry about this, I hadn't previously considered waiting until I added everything. The only reason I haven't yet uploaded the extra information is because I am still working on completing it/editing it. And I'm not able to wait before doing this as I need to have it uploaded by a certain date as part of my education course. Do you know if this will affect my nomination at all? If I do need to resubmit because of this I completely understand as it was my error in getting too ahead of myself with the DYK nomination. Sorry for all the questions. I'm a new wiki editor so am still learning the ropes of how everything works. Truly do appreciate your help though! :)
Vikster28 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Yeah ordinarily you'd submit after you're finished with major editing. But dw, I can wait. DYK is one of the few areas where time is of any importance in Wikipedia; but even here we are just volunteers. Your real-life education course deadline is probably more critical ^^ If it's happening within the next month or two, just add the rest when you're ready. Then once you're actually satisfied, best ping me with this {{ping|LordPeterII}} in a comment here, so I get notified and don't miss it. Then I'll check the article again. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, that was my bad getting too carried away. Will ping you when the article has been updated. Thanks! Vikster28 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vikster28, just checking in since it's now almost a month since we last spoke. What's the status of your editing? It's fine if you still need time, but I wanted to make sure you didn't forget about the nomination. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Vikster28, an update:


  • A Conservation Section! Now their status as vulnerable is explained.

Remainign Issues:

  • Lead Section: In living individuals, it is actually bright pink (though with fine barely visible white hairs), and the pelage is black. – This sentence needs a citation that supports its statement. The currently provided source (Wisconsin National Primate Research Center) does NOT talk about a pink nose with white hairs. There are, however, sources that do... (hint hint) (It's actually sourced correctly in the article body, just not the lead)
  • Lead Section: This species are considered to be “medium-sized” – Now the sentence makes more sense, but we need are->is (minor, but easy fix).

... and that's it! Other parts of the article have been expanded nicely as well, and nothing seems off there. Basically two easy fixes to do, and then I'll approve the DYK nomination. Do it once uni lets you, and ping me back so I can add a green checkmark :) --LordPeterII (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I forgot one more thing: Vikster28 did you consider an alternate hook? I still believe the white-nosed-but-actually-pink-nosed thing is more interesting than the originally proposed (more generic) hook. A DYK code of honour prevents me from approving my own hooks, so again I ask you to consider proposing an alternate one :) If not, I'll approve the original hook. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 17[edit]

Gothic double

  • ... that the doppelgänger motif in Gothic literature was inspired by supernatural figures in Celtic folklore such as the "fetch"? Source: Yeats, W. B. (2016). Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry. In Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry. Newburyport: Open Road Integrated Media, Inc, pp. 108

5x expanded by Snowdrop Fairy (talk). Self-nominated at 08:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is a very impressive expansion which makes for an interesting read. One minor quibble, you wrote "[t]he period from 1750 to 1830 is known as a “Gothic and Celtic revival” in which Irish, Scottish, and Welsh folklore became absorbed into British literature as a result of colonial expansion into these territories." This sounds a bit strange to my ears as the expansion (at least into Wales and Ireland) predates the revival by many centuries. I haven't checked how it's described in the source but maybe there is a way to make the connection clearer? Alaexis¿question? 06:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, does the quote come from a review of the book Irish Folk Stories and Fairy Tales or from the book itself? Right now the review published in the Western Folklore journal is indicated as the source but I don't see any mention of fetches there. Alaexis¿question? 06:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your review! And thank you for the feedback, I'll edit that sentence to make it clearer. The quote does come from the actual book itself, I'll edit the reference to make it correct. Thank you again! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Alaexis¿question? 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alaexis, Snowdrop Fairy, where does this nomination stand? There appear to have been issues with the hook citation, and many images have been added since the review that will have to be checked. What's left to be done? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowdrop Fairy, could you update the citation? I really want to support the nomination and this is the only stumbling block. Alaexis¿question? 19:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alaexis Apologies for the delay! I have edited the citation and made the section on the Gothic and Celtic revival clearer. Let me know if there are any other issues, and thank you for supporting my nomination, I really appreciate it. Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I'm a bit confused now. In the article itself the fact is sourced to Gothic: an illustrated history whereas in the hook the citation is to Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry. Which one is right? Which work makes the connection between fetches and the gothic double motif? Alaexis¿question? 05:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Created by JIP (talk). Self-nominated at 01:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Alt0a ... that the Enkeli-Elisa story about a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide because she had been bullied at school was investigated as a fraud by the police? Source: Enkeli-Elisan kirjoittajaa epäillään petoksesta, Turun Sanomat 24 July 2012. Accessed on 26 July 2012. TSventon (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JIP: do any of the sources definitively call the story a hoax? Given that fraud charges wouldn't stick, we should be careful how we use that about a BLP... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 05:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the sources definitively call the story a hoax. However, it is clear that neither Elisa or her parents really existed as actual people, instead the story seems to be more like a dramatised novel. It might be based on real experiences but still the specific person called Elisa never existed, neither did her parents. Minttu Vettenterä was under investigation from the police suspected of fraud, but she was never actually convicted. It was apparently not her motive to gain financial profit by deceiving people. As the article says, the media should have been more critical of the sources. JIP | Talk 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @JIP: Hmmm. Could you walk me through how we can call it a hoax without any sources after the fact calling it one while staying afoul of WP:OR? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't necessarily have to call it a hoax if a better term can be found. The point here seems to be that Elisa's story was first presented as a story about a real person but it later became known that she never really existed but was a dramatised character invented by Vettenterä. JIP | Talk 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not seeing clear source support that she didn't exist? That could just be me, though... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have added an alternative that is supported by the reference and the article. Google translate says fraud rather than hoax. TSventon (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here is a link to Minttu Vettenterä's own blog page, latest updated in 2014, which plainly says: "Elisa, Miksu ja Riikka ovat Minttu Vettenterän luomia hahmoja, mutta jokainen saa itse määritellä miten todellisilta tapahtumat ja tunteet tuntuvat.", "Elisa, Miksu and Riikka are characters created by Minttu Vettenterä, but everyone is free to define for themselves how real the events and feelings feel." Also I have seen numerous online newspaper articles saying Elisa was fictional. JIP | Talk 19:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JIP and Theleekycauldron: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. I have supplied evidence that Elisa and her parents were fictional and have just waited for User:Theleekycauldron to comment on it. JIP | Talk 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do understand they are fictional, but if we could just not call it a hoax, due to the word's negative connotation, we'd be on our way. If a source uses "fraud", that's fine too. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 04:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then the hook can be edited to avoid the use of the word "hoax". Can you suggest a better hook? Would "... that the Enkeli-Elisa story about a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide because she had been bullied at school turned out to be a fraud, resulting in a police investigation of the author?" (italics added for emphasis) be OK? JIP | Talk 14:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • JIP, what do you think of my Alt0a above? Fraud is a crime and Wikipedia should not say that the author committed fraud if she was not convicted of it, see WP:BLPCRIME. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 19[edit]

Climate change in Italy

Created by Belindapr (talk), Manongouraud (talk), and Muninnkorp (talk). Nominated by Belindapr (talk) at 18:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Not a review, but do note you must link the article in question in the hook. This has not been done at present. And bold text should only be used for the article (or rarely, articles) nominated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've sorta taken care of the linking/bolding (without any rewording), but anyone should feel free to do it differently.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  18:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added ALT1 and struck the original; the back half of the hook just seems promotional, and i think it's better to just focus on the first part. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 21[edit]

Franco-Greek defence agreement

Created by Dainomite (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Technical language

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The article itself is off to a decent start. However, there are three issues with this nomination.

  • The hook is quite lengthy and sounds somewhat technical. I would recommend "...stipulating stating that in the event if either country is attacked by a third party, the other will come to their its defense?"
  • The article is only 1284 characters (of prose) long without the lengthy direct quotations of Article 2 and quotation of Turkey's announcement. It would be fine if the article reached 1500 with minor quotes (such as the Turkish announcement), but quoting the entirety of Article 2 is the only thing really bringing this article over 1500 at the moment.
  • Based on your history with other DYK submissions, you are required to do a quid pro quo review, and I did not see one in your recent edit history or otherwise linked in this template.
    Nmarshall25 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, I like your recommended changes with the hook. I will work tonight on expanding the article to fit the size requirements. I used the "page size" link to the left (under Tools) which must have included those 2 quotes in the size. Oh shoot, I thought it was my 5th DYK. I'll work on getting a QPQ done soon. —  dainomite   20:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nmarshall25: I believe size requirements should be satisfied now. Just have the QPQ left to tackle. —  dainomite   15:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Hook

  • ALT1: ... that in 2021 France and Greece signed a defense agreement, stating that if either country is attacked the other will come to its defense?

Symbol possible vote.svg Review @Dainomite:

  • Links to redirects Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbols for example "$" (use words) and date format for example "7 Oct 2021" (use full date) Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[the US] strongly supports Greece's role in creating stability in the region.” - non-standard quotation mark at the end Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead is an summary of information in the text, but here is a lot of information mentioned only in the lead especially this quote Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there is "publisher" in the references than "website"? You quite website. Reference 2 and 4 has bare link. Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(...) Macron sought to build an more autonomous defensive posture for Europe less reliant on U.S. protection" - shoudn't be "US"? Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not connected to Wikidata (it was connected by me). Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken some initiative to fix most of the formatting issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 04:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of this hook are dull. One would expect two countries reaching a defense agreement to agree to some sort of mutual defense provision like that. This is like saying that "... that water from the XXX River will wet your hands if you touch it?" Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 22[edit]

Irving L. Branch

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: I think "eighth-crappiest" needs to be in the prose, not just the source title. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a requirement for DYK, and I didn't think it rated a mention in the article body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: doesn't WP:DYK#gen3a say that The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in the article. I've seen hooks based on the footnotes before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with theleekycauldron. The information is only in the title of a reference. It doesn't look like it would be complicated to add it to the article body. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 24[edit]

Richard Peck (RAF officer)

Created by Cagliost (talk). Self-nominated at 16:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg The article is long enough and was new enough when nominated. The hook is 106 characters, so nice length, and is cited (behind a paywall, so AGF) . With only 2 DYK credits, QPQ is not applicable yet. The key issue is that the hook isn't interesting. A guy who's job it was to order military equipment ordered some military equipment? The hook needs to be re-written to show why his ordering the Mosquito was newsworthy. I can't read behind the paywall, but the hook should probably start off with something like, "despite the military being unsure of the value of the plane, ..." Once you've reworked the hook to show more context of why ordering the planes was controversial, ping me and I'll take another look. Onel5969 TT me 11:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to Cagliost. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've put the paywalled text here. I've expanded the article a little. Basically the aircraft was almost cancelled because it wasn't clear that it would be suitable for any purpose. Even its champion, Freeman, almost cancelled it, but Peck persuaded him otherwise. It turned out to be extremely versatile and was used until the end of the war.
How about the ALT1 I've added? I don't want to make the hook too long, hopefully readers will infer (from the fact that it was almost cancelled) that it was controversial. Then they can click through to the article to find out why. cagliost (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to Onel5969. Did a bit of reordering in ALT1. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 19:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that Air Vice-Marshal Richard Peck prevented the de Havilland Mosquito from being cancelled in 1940? Source: https://www.key.aero/article/far-better-we-thought

Brevity is the soul of wit. And hookiness. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3: ... that Air Vice-Marshal Richard Peck prevented the de Havilland Mosquito from being cancelled by ordering 50 of them in 1940?

Just a bit more explicit, I think it's important to say how he prevented it. Courtesy ping to Sammi Brie and Maury Markowitz for input. I think ALT2 would be okay, but I like ALT3 better. Onel5969 TT me 17:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg on ALT3, as cited in the url above. All else as original review above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg@Cagliost and Maury Markowitz: Two statements were missing citations, which I have indicated in the article with citation needed tags. Can you resolve those before this is promoted to a prep set? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both are in the first ref. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see Maury Markowitz has added references. Thanks all! cagliost (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Readding the tick so promoters know this is ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Maury Markowitz Z1720 The bit about cancelling isn't in the article. Why is it that multiple members were so worried about the hook that the article was never checked to see if it was there? SL93 (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Fixed, it is now in the article. cagliost (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg @Cagliost, Maury Markowitz, SL93, and Onel5969: reopening this as the hook fact doesn't seem to be exactly the same as what the article says. "Richard Peck prevented the de Havilland Mosquito from being cancelled by ordering 50 of them in 1940?" implies that it was Peck's decision to order them that directly prevented the cancellation; almost like he was being a bit stealthy or something by putting the order in before they had a chance to cancel on him? The article, however, says "In 1940 Peck ensured the RAF ordered 50 de Havilland Mosquitos for reconnaissance. This was planned to be one of the fastest aircraft of its time, but there had been disagreements about its purpose and it was almost cancelled" which to me says that Peck was influential in preventing the cancellation, but it wasn't *directly* his decision to order that saved the project. I don't have access to the source as it's behind a paywall (and perhaps that means it should be an AGF promotion?). Also, looking at the most recent tick it looks like the nominator approved their own hook here, which of course isn't allowed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I've just seen that the source has been copied to a "paste bin" for us to view, (which is probably technically a copyvio, but an offsite one so that's on the OP rather than Wikipedia! Also it means we're technically still AGF that the uploaded text is the same as the original, but of course no reason do doubt that.) Anyway, having read the source myself, it appears that the hook fact is simply incorrect. The order of the 50 planes was made *before* the meeting on whether or they should cancel, so it was purely Peck's arguing for the case, rather than the order of the 50 planes itself, that saved the day. I think a modified or new hook will be required. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article again. If this is unsatisfactory please feel free to be bold and change it to your liking. cagliost (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly the key.aero article isn't paywalled for me. cagliost (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 ... that in a "heated meeting" with Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman, Air Vice-Marshal Richard Peck prevented the cancellation of the de Havilland Mosquito in 1940? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 25[edit]

Dijon Talton

Moved to mainspace by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough in mainspace and long enough. QPQ present. Hook checks out (only mentioning singing backup or not singing at all: Heather Morris, Harry Shum Jr. and Dijon Talton are fantastic dancers, but as their roles on the show grow, we wonder if they'll get to perform anything but backup.) and is interesting. Article has no textual issues and is decently sourced. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 20:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Since the article says Talton never sang a solo on screen in Glee, the hook is not adequately supported by the source, which is in any event far from ideal for this purpose. (While it seems unlikely that he did any background vocals in the recorded music, he could well have hit some notes in scenes when the glee club was fooling around; he does have recorded music credits elsewhere.) Further, the article has two bare URLs, which are not allowed at DYK. I'm glad to see an article about Talton, but more work is needed before this can be approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: If you have some wider knowledge of Talton that would supplement or add context to the sources, are there any hooks you'd suggest, as definitely accurate or more relevant to the subject? Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsif, I'm afraid I don't have wider knowledge, beyond general knowledge of Glee itself. Much of the "chorus" behind the solo singers was sung by studio/session vocalists, who are credited on the albums; certainly, that first season, it's unlikely that Morris, Shum, or Talton appeared on any of the pre-recorded songs when you compare those lists. However, as those lists do have errors (as noted in the articles), it's dangerous to use them as proof of any kind. I can't remember whether it was an interview with Shum or Talton where it was noted that the two never knew ahead of time whether they'd be in an episode or not. It's been over a decade, and while I thought that Talton's first line as Matt was in "Theatricality" (after the boys performed as KISS), the reviews don't mention it, and there's no way to back it up. (A comment on the Glee wiki says he had lines in both "Theatricality" and "Journey"/"Journey to Regionals", which confirms my memory of the former, and I know he also had at least one in "2009".) One possibility might be that Dijon appeared in most of Glee's first season and then not again until its final two episodes, in season six, though adequate sources may be hard to come by. (I checked the season and episode articles, and he started in episode 4, continued through episode 22 with a couple of misses in between, and then not again until the final episodes, 120 and 121. So not quite a 100 episode gap.) I can't think of anything else, though "catching" Tyra Banks is cute. It may be that this is one of those articles that doesn't provide a useful hook; that happened a number of times with Glee episode articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: Thanks for the input; I thought it was interesting that someone could be a main character on Glee and not sing, but if that can’t be certain, there’s not too much else there, besides that wordplay. Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cites are the respective award pages. I think this is more "hooky" as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: pass on ALT1? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, I'm not fond of it, because the whole cast of Glee won the award, not Talton himself, so it feels misleading to me. But if others like it, I won't stand in the way. What does stand in the way is the two bare URLs that still haven't been fixed; no matter how good a hook is, this can't pass (and shouldn't have originally) without those bare URLs being taken care of. Reminder ping to Kingsif to get that done. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I should have caught that and didn't, so I've taken the initiative to clean up the bare URLs myself. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which leaves us only an appropriate hook:

  • ALT2: ...although he only appeared as a regular on Glee during its first season, Dijon Talton reprised his role as Matt Rutherford in the final two episodes?

How's that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 27[edit]

Arming teachers

Created by Bluerasberry (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • The image I used has been the subject of controversy on the talk page. Regardless, this DYK nomination could proceed without the image if necessary. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That image is going nowhere near the main page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A drive-by comment from me... I fear that this could turn out a lot like the very messy Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka nomination I handled some time back. The article is in a very hot-button topic, has very high activity and pageviews, is leading to disputes (the big orange banners at the top are an automatic obstacle to DYK listing per WP:DYKSG#D6), has two [citation needed] tags, and there are multiple talk page discussions with activity in the last 7 days. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I can resolve the warning banners but I cannot cool the talk page. Under what circumstances is a lively talk page a barrier to DYK? Bluerasberry (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another drive-by comment: although the article itself looks neutrally written, I wonder about the hook. The wording "a proposal to stop stop school shootings" is written in a way that suggests that there is reason to believe that arming teachers would stop school shootings. However, the article contains no evidence to support this suggestion. The caption for the image ("teacher protects") is also quite non-neutral; one could easily read the same image as "teacher threatens students with gun", reflecting more accurately the actual incidents described in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "globalize" problem template is removed - special:diff/1092348842/1093279561 Bluerasberry (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THIS NOM REQUIRES ADMIN COMMENT A single remaining cite-needed has been addressed. Both hooks are sufficiently cited. There appears to be mo remaining issues in terms of DYK, as the article is long enough, new enough (when posted) well cited and the nom has completed the QPQ. The image has been dropped and is no longer a topic for discussion here. However, there are arbcom posts on the talk page and it is not clear what this means in practice. The issue was raised above as D6, but that's not quite the same thing. This issue was not resolved as far as I can see. @Sammi Brie:, I believe the ball is in your court. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guerillero, I don't understand your comment regarding the image. This is a controversial topic to be sure, but in what way is that image inherently unsuitable for the main page? However, the image is currently the topic of a deletion discussion, so we should put this nomination on hold until that's resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fanciful depiction of arming teachers that has no connection to a serious issue and was subject to a long discussion that resulted in its removal from the article --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I did not realize it had been removed from the article. That certainly obviates the need to wait on the commons discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg - I have added an expand lead template to the top of the lead, for reasons discussed at WT:DYK, so this will not be ready to go until that's resolved. I'd also caution that we pick the hook text carefully, per David Eppstein, to avoid giving the impression that this is a proven method of reducing shootings.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the image has been removed from the article, I have removed it from the nomination, since images here must be in their respective articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 1[edit]

Bias response teams

Created by FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk). Self-nominated at 12:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Striking ALT0. Looking for an alternative. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, would you reconsider the cut off ALT0 now that I have added another inline citation for it which can be read along with the FIRE cite, and partially supports the FIRE content used with regard to the hook? Please see the first line for the section '#Background and context' and the section cite Miller et al. 2018 with the quote parameter/field reading "... flurry of scholarship in student affairs in the 1990s followed judicial rebuke of colleges and universities that created rigid campus speech codes in the 1980s and early 1990s [...] Since campus speech codes began to be struck down..."
Either way I think it may be better to shift to a new ALT, such as below:
FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk)
We aren't posting opinion-derived hooks as DYKs (I mean, we won't post hooks sourced to opinion pieces); besides, you've made the matter worse because you can't trump one opinion piece with another one you personally prefer, as you did in the criticism section (it's a clear violation of neutral point of view, whatever my opinion on the article subject). In particular, saying in WP-voice: "we have opinions 1,2,3,4,...,15, but THIS PARTICULAR PIECE says/explains they are bullshit" is not the way to go. If you have opinion pieces that say that the critical point of view is exaggerated or relies on falsehoods, you may show the debate as "proponents (name) say XYZ, opponents (name) say ABC/disagree with proponent's X, arguing that...", in proportion to the weight of the argument. But this version is untenable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki; thank you for this explanation.
  • ALT2... that reports to bias response systems in American universities have included an incident of insults shouted from a car, denial of leave for a cultural holiday and a drawing in the snow? Source: Please see section "#Reporting examples" for sources to back up the hook.
I do have some doubts that the hook now picks up routine news. However, I will leave this to the discretion of the validity of the hook to the reviewer. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - ?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The sourcing and POV seems mostly solid but the FIRE article is obviously an opinion piece, so it shouldn't be quoted directly as a source for basic info in the "Background and context" section. As you mention above, the second source only partially supports the FIRE cite. This should be removed for the same reason that the first hook was rejected. The hook is cited, but I'm also unsure of whether a series of reported incidents from UMass is interesting enough.(On that note, I'm not even sure if the article needs a section listing incidents reported to various campus response teams.) Are there any alternate hook options? BuySomeApples (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 3[edit]

W. P. Mahoney

Mahoney in 1924
Mahoney in 1924

Created by Onel5969 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg @Onel5969: The article is good, but it suffers from not being chronological and is difficult to read when just skimming through which is what most people will do. I will reorganize the article and then okay it. The article is about a pretty interesting guy, but it would be semi-confusing for somebody who just browses Wikipedia. Also for some reason there were a bunch of empty parameters in the infobox, but that was just a honest mistake (I sometimes do that too lol). Jon698 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "W. P. Mahoney Sr. Dies; Ex-Sheriff and Legislator". Arizona Republic. August 1, 1967. p. 9. Retrieved June 3, 2022 – via Newspapers.com. open access

Generation Drag

  • ... that model Tyra Banks produces the show Generation Drag, a competition for children competing in a drag show? Source: [1]
    • ALT1: ... that the show Generation Drag, which features children competing in a drag competition, has had allegations of grooming? Source: [2]
    • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Kbabej (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg New enough and large enough expansion. QPQ-exempt with fewer than 5 nominations. There is one textual issue, which I address below.
* I cannot support ALT1's phrasing because I feel it parrots Boebert's bad-faith allegations right onto the Main Page without sufficient context. I feel like there should be some mention at the beginning of the Controversy section that all of the media outlets and commentators mentioned, from Bounding Into Comics to Outkick, are conservative. If I were not up on my US politics and media, I might miss this detail—and I certainly had to look up Bounding Into Comics and Bleeding Fool to see if they had the same general orientation.
* ALT0 needs a word tweak to more closely match the show's format (and to reduce redundant wording); it's not a competition in and of itself. @Kbabej: let me know if this is OK: Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0a: ... that model Tyra Banks produces Generation Drag, a TV series which follows five children competing in a drag show?
Thanks for reviewing @Sammi Brie: That makes total sense on contextualizing the critical reviews; I've added a description into the 'Criticism' section to state that. And yes, the suggested ALT0a looks great! --Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg I think this is ready with ALT0a only. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 19:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg @Kbabej, Sammi Brie, Theleekycauldron, and Fram: per the discussion at ERRORS, I've reopened this nomination page so that an accurate updated hook can be agreed. The key objection seems to be that the article doesn't say that the children competed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, though "teens" isn't wholly accurate, as two out of the five performers are 12 and not yet teens. If the word "teens" is changed to "children", I think it looks good. Proposing the word change below. --Kbabej (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that model Tyra Banks produces Generation Drag, a TV series which follows five children preparing for a drag show? --Kbabej (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I had checked the first two sources in the article, both of which referred to them as five teens. But since some were preteens, I've struck ALT2.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  23:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support ALT3. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Schonfeld, Alexandra (May 31, 2022). "Watch Teens Discover Their Self-Expression — and an Amazing Pair of Shoes to Boot — in Generation Drag". People. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  2. ^ Shatto, Rachel (May 2, 2022). "Lauren Boebert Says Tyra Banks's New Show Generation Drag Constitutes 'Grooming'". The Advocate. Retrieved June 2, 2022.

Kai Bumann