Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know...?"
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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


Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 22 1
December 3 1 1
December 25 1
December 27 1
January 23 1
January 29 1
January 31 2
February 5 1
February 6 1
February 9 1
February 10 1
February 14 1
February 18 1 1
February 21 2
February 23 1
February 24 1
February 26 1
February 27 3
March 3 1
March 4 1
March 5 1
March 6 1
March 8 1
March 9 3
March 10 1
March 11 4
March 12 4
March 13 2 1
March 14 6 1
March 15 3 1
March 17 1
March 18 7 2
March 19 3 1
March 20 2 1
March 21 3 1
March 23 7 3
March 24 3 1
March 25 3 3
March 26 7 3
March 27 7 6
March 28 7 5
March 29 6 3
March 30 4 2
March 31 7 4
April 1 11 7
April 2 7 4
April 3 10 6
April 4 7 4
April 5 12 7
April 6 7 5
April 7 7 1
April 8 9 5
April 9 10 6
April 10 12 8
April 11 3 2
April 12 9 5
April 13 9 1
April 14 7 2
April 15 9
April 16 13 4
April 17
April 18 4 1
April 19
Total 263 108
Last updated 08:57, 19 April 2019 UTC
Current time is 09:00, 19 April 2019 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

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

To nominate an article[edit]

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

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

Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]


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

Where is my hook?[edit]

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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 November 22[edit]

Joe Kryczka, Andrey Starovoytov, Hotel International Prague, Bunny Ahearne, Fred Page

A place in Prague
A place in Prague
  • ... that Justice Joe and a Russian referee met at a place in Prague (pictured) and agreed to a Cold War on ice, approved by a Bunny and a Page?
    Source 1:The Globe and Mail article which mentions the four signatories on the document, and it taking place in Prague on April 18, 1972.
    Source 2: Specifically mentions the Hotel Internation Prague as the location, and confirms the four men and date.
    Houston, William; Shoalts, David (1993). Eagleson: The Fall of a Hockey Czar. Whitby, Ontario: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. pp. 76–77. ISBN 0-07-551706-X.

Created/expanded by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Starting this review now. Will probably do it in bits & pieces.
  • ☑Y Joe Kryczka is long enough (27,000 characters), nominated just in time (created on 22 November, nominated on 29 November), and article is within policy.
  • ☑Y Andrey Starovoytov is long enough (3341 characters), nominated in time (created 24 November, nominated on 29 November), and article is within policy. Article is well-sourced and glad to see the unsourced content from the Russian article has been left on the talkpage rather than included in this article.
  • ☑Y Bunny Ahearne has been expanded enough (from 831 characters to 6200 characters, which is more than 5x), nominated in time (expanded on 28 November, nominated on 29 November), and article is within policy. Bunny appears to be his common name and so the correct article title, as I've noted in the article.
  • Question? On Hotel International Prague, three of the six sources don't seem to be independent reliable sources. [1] is a primary source, [2] and [3] are tourist sites. As such, much of the text isn't source by reliable sources. Please can you find better sources?
  • ☑Y Fred Page has been expanded enough (688 characters to 7293 characters is well over 5x), nominated in time (expanded on 29 November and nominated on same day), and article is within policy.
  • ☑Y Hook is short enough, interesting and quirky enough for April Fool's hook (or failing that, the "quirky" last slot of a normal set). The connection between articles and the Summit Series is mentioned in all five articles, and the hook is supported by [4].
  • ☑Y 5 QPQs done, as required to nominate 5 articles.
  • ☑Y Image is freely licenced, in Hotel International Prague and Joe Kryczka articles, and looks fine at 100px.
  • Symbol question.svg Hotel International Prague needs more reliable sources, no other issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I did find one other usable source here for the hotel. A google search for the hotel is inherently difficult as almost all hits are for tourism sites. I will try to see if I can independently source the Czech cultural status from another site. Having said that, removing those three sources as citations still leaves almost everything else sourced. The questions then are a "four star rating" which is a tourist term would only come from a tourist web site, and the amenities. How do you feel about listing the number of rooms and conference capacity from a tourist site? Flibirigit (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I found the Czech cultural status from a Czech web site. I also added in the Mark Baker interview here. I have also rearranged the amenities section. It includes one citation from a tourist web site to say that it is a four star hotel, and one primary source to say the hotel has 278 rooms and the conference centre. It's the best arrangement I could find, unless the entire amenities section is removed. That would also mean removing the number of rooms from the infobox. What are your thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ☑Y Seems fine to me for amenities section to be referenced to primary sources or tourist sites, as this is likely the only place to find them. Rest of article is sourced with reliable sources, article is clearly long enough, nominated in time, and within policy.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Overall, this nomination now passes, as issues on the one article have been resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing new hooks below to run as a special occasion on April 18, instead of the April Fool's Day hook above. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hotel International Prague
Hotel International Prague

So Flibirigit, you are saying you don't want this to run as an April fool's hook anymore? Gatoclass (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC).

Correct. Thank you for considering the alternate hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg approving new hook as it's well sourced, and in the articles (the April 18 date is mentioned explicitly on one article, which is enough). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per nominator's request. One or more new, hooky hooks are needed. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding here suggested separate hooks for the Hotel and for the people (copied from WT:DYK); @Flibirigit and Joseph2302: would you be fine with this separation, or would either or both of you prefer a variation of ALT2?
Hotel hooks:
ALT3 ... that the 1972 Summit Series, a series of ice hockey games between Soviet and Canadian players, was agreed upon at the Hotel International Prague (pictured)?
ALT4 ... that the 1972 Summit Series, the first international ice hockey games played between players from the Soviet Union and Canada, was agreed upon at the Hotel International Prague (pictured)?
People hooks:
ALT5... that Joe Kryczka, Andrey Starovoytov, Bunny Ahearne, and Fred Page approved the agreement that led to the first international ice hockey games between Soviet and Canadian players?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked for this nomination to be returned from the prep sets because I feel the best course of action is to split it up into five separate hooks. I will start suggesting hooks tomorrow or Tuesday. I need some rest as real life has been very busy lately. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Flibirigit (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have begun to suggest hooks below. I hope to have some suggested for each article within a couple days. Please note, I am very busy in real life, and may not respond quickly this week. Thank you again for your patience and understanding. Flibirigit (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hotel International Prague
Andrey Starovoytov
Bunny Ahearne
Joe Kryczka
Fred Page

I will propose hooks shortly for Fred Page, as I am actively working on some additions to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

Symbol question.svg Will be claiming Hotel International and Bunny for review, with a tentative preference for ALT8 and ALT12 for the Hotel and Bunny respectively. Another option could be to be to combine ALT7 and ALT8 into something like:

ALT15 ... that the Hotel International (pictured), the tallest building in Prague and a Czech cultural monument, was built to strengthen ties with the Soviet Union?

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The nomination was split up into headers for the sake of organization, and the ability to close certain sections as hooks are promoted. Do you mind splitting up questions into the appropriate sections? Joseph2302, are you interested in continuing a review on these? Flibirigit (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm on a Wikibreak so not going to rereview these. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash
A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash

** ALT1:... that ...security forces in India also use slingshots for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir? Source: The Central Reserve Police Force uses a variety of weapons, including pellet guns, tear gas, and slingshots that hurl stones when glass marbles aren’t available. National Geographic

Source: "The army has recommended replacing pellet guns used by paramilitary forces and state police for crowd control in Kashmir with less lethal weapons such as sound cannons, pepper shotguns and chilli grenades." Hindustan Times
  • Comment: image is entirely optional, only text DYK or text+Image DYK can also be considered. ALT2 if approved would need a different image 2

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk), DBigXray (talk), and Kautilya3 (talk). Nominated by DBigXray (talk) at 18:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Everything looks great. Can you pick a hook and image should I can approve it? All hooks should work, and both images do as well. DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712 test, thanks a lot for your kind comment and review. we did a quick poll among ourselves, we feel that ALT0 is the best among the three along with pic 1, please proceed with ALT0. DBigXray 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Also notify User:DannyS712 DBigXray 05:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: thanks. The test sig was a mistake, the real reviewer is this account. I'll pass this now.
Thank you User:DannyS712. I made a minor correction in the caption above. regards. DBigXray 13:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: still Symbol confirmed.svg passes --DannyS712 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Put this on hold, please. Unless I manage to read the entirety and (possibly) get over my initial feelings of slapping a POV tag. If you see no editorial efforts of mine within the next 48 hrs. at the article, feel free to proceed. WBGconverse 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712:--This's is a blatant POV piece; manifested as an highly effective praise of the Indian machinery. The author has been careful in weeding out any source (of which there is an abundance) that criticizes the methods.
That I'm not involved with the article/ broader area in any editorial manner (and nether with the author in any manner), I don't see any reason to not perform a second-review.
This's a solid ☒N decline from me on grounds of Rule 4 (NPOV). WBGconverse 14:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Winged Blades of Godric thanks for sharing your opinion on the article. The article authored by DiplomatTesterMan as it stands right now covers all aspect of the crowd control in J&K and covers the victims from both sides. This article has recently been created so it does "not" need to pass a GA criteria for being able to pass the DYK nomination stage. That said there is always some room for improvement everywhere, even in a GA/ FA article. So lets contribute collaboratively. If you can elaborate your specific problems with the article on the article talk page and your suggestions on how it can be addressed we all can see what more can be done to improve this article. regardsDBigXray 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I'll re-read the article. I'm sorry I didn't catch this when doing my review --DannyS712 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 it would be very helpful for the article if after your review you can also share (here or on article talk) your suggestions to improve if you find any "major" issues. regards DBigXray 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The article mentions in the lead the number of protestors killed in 2018 - "51 rioters being killed during clashes and 37 rioters being killed during encounters". The article mentions how over 100 protestors were killed in police firing in 2010. The article mentions how "thousands of people in Jammu and Kashmir have suffered pellet wounds, hundreds have eye-injuries, and at least 14 people have died due to their pellet injuries." The article also talks about "One of the youngest pellet guns victims is a 19 month old child, Heeba Jan, who suffered injuries in 2018. Another young person to suffer from pellet injuries is Insha Malik (Insha Ahmed), who was left blind as a result of her injuries." The article also mentions pellet guns are criticised. The article also mentions how tear gas shells have killed people. It also says how curfews have been held for long periods... Winged Blades of Godric is inaccurate according to me in saying that this is NPOV. I would request someone else to go through it, or even better..... expand it so the NPOV is sorted and we can get over with this, rather than say that this is a highly effective praise of the Indian machinery which should be meaningless here... I also think Winged Blades of Godric is throwing his own highly effective propaganda around if they can't help improve the article despite clearly knowing its faults and saying they are uninvolved despite "trying" to touch it up.
@DannyS712: Even after this if you think it is NPOV should I create an entirely new section in the article called "Criticism" and stuff it with criticism of the methods of India dating all the way back to 1947, about the horrendousness of Indian crowd control methods and how severely inhumane and barbaric they are... that is according to the sources Winged Blades is probably talking about? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Without an explanation from WBG about what specifically they object to, and given that, having re-read this, I believe it to be NPOV, this review is still a Symbol confirmed.svg pass from me. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg The page itself is misleading by its name. There is no mention of neutral sources like local newspapers, UNHRC or any representative report of other countries. The page should be renamed as Kashmir Uprising and content included from those hundreds of neutral sources out there and can anyone explain how can be a 19 month old child as a rioter?  MehrajMir (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mehrajmir13: in that case, I'm going to recuse myself from this DYK, and ask for another reviewer: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at [9] another article and you have followed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with. The language used in your comment clearly shows that you are at an impasse.
  • There is nothing misleading about the article title, it has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.
  • Your suggestion to rename this as "Kashmir Uprising" is entirely frivolous because that article on that topic already exists at 2016–17 Kashmir unrest.
  • After your comment I have included the UNCHR report from a local Kashmiri newspaper. I note that the article already includes criticism from notable organisations such as Amnesty International. DBigXray 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Mehrajmir13, that is unfortunately not a productive comment. You very well know that Crowd control in Kashmir and Kashmir uprising can never be the same article. If you would like an article on the latter, you are free to create one. As far as this article is concerned, if you are able to make any suggestions for improvements, either before or after DYK, I am sure DBigXray will take them on board and I will be happy to help to the extent I can. The current sources include the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and Reuters. They are from "third countries" as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the renaming that is suggested in the link above will occur and I have commented the same on the talk page WP:BOLD. The other points raised related to the sources cited can be addressed accordingly, and do not have anything to with this DYK as far as I can tell now since Winged Blades doubts have also been addressed as far as I can tell since there in no reply from his side here above. I request this DYK to continue for now unless no one has any other page rename suggestions, and inclusion of sources which haven't been used, can carry on. Again I repeat, as far as the DYK issue is concerned, I think it can proceed as normal. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be "WP:BOLD" to reply on talk page. Fact that you are completely misunderstanding the concerns and throwing a bunch of personal attacks as per your talk page comments,[10] it only means that that the issue has not resolved. A simple concern, that you are still not understanding, is that this is not a normal crowd but protesters, and this issue doesn't concerns entire Jammu and Kashmir but only Kashmir Valley. The problem is not just with the title but article itself.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 you are acting naive now. Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, ("crowd control"+"kashmir") which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term.
  • DiplomatTesterMan (You do not have to respond to Mehrajmir) let's wait for a neutral DYK reviewer to come along and review this, as I already noted above, Mehrajmir13 has followed my contributions to reach this DYK and to continue his content dispute with me. The points he has raised are clearly frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of stalling tactics. DBigXray 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I watched this DYK since it is concerns one of the area where I frequently contribute and I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you.
  • You should refrain from any more personal attacks now. Your "standard terms" show nothing compared to what we see after searching "protestors"+"kashmir"+"pellet" on Google. Indeed, reliable sources like Amnesty, BBC[11][12], DNA India, The Hindu and many others make no mention of "crowd" but talk about "protestors".  MehrajMir (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Congratulations to you, that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. You have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that you have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this.
  • The comments by Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article) have already been replied to both here and on the talk page. WBG has also warned him against this behavior [13]. The consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article, there is absolutely no consensus for any kind of merge or rename. DBigXray 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I note here, that I will wait for comments from a new DYK reviewer, so that this DYK page does not become another WP:BATTLEGROUND.DBigXray 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed, as noted above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Simple requests: who, what, where and why? I made a few edits but have already been reverted: one to explain that the region belongs to India, and to explain who is using these weapons. I am not interested in an edit war, only in resolving this nomination. I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period.
  • Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?
  • Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • SusanLesch, my aim was also not to start an edit war. I reverted my own edit of your edit. The lead is again as you had put it. Thank you for these points. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SusanLesch, For your point - "I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period." This article clearly has SOPs and laws and incidents and equipment which are prior to 2016 -17. There are plently more incidents which can be added prior to 2016. Hence the shift to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest isn't needed apart from the reason of WP:TOOBIG also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SusanLesch:, You have written - "Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?" It already says that. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?" I have added two lines to the background section accordingly. I also mentioned security forces in the lead again. I think all your points should be covered with these answer? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: SusanLesch, You had written "I am not interested in an edit war". This is exactly how edit wars start. I will let others see how to handle this since this is taking too much energy and I don't have the energy to explain why so many points you have written above are nonsensical in my opinion stemming from not being able to understand what this article is about and seeming to not understand that other Wikipedia articles already cover your points which you want to add here. I am nominating this for article for AFD since if it can't pass a simple DYK then I don't think it should even be an article. Regards. Happy editing. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • AFD link - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @DBX and DTm:- This's getting more and more farcical with the passage of time. This article (though on a notable topic) will need a huge lot of work to be NPOV-free (and be DYK suitable) and rebut concerns of Cforking. Please withdraw this nom. WBGconverse 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    SusanLesch thanks a lot for giving a detailed review along with your concerns. IMHO this is much more helpful than some of the other comments that were made above. DTM is on vacation and I will take time to fix the issues that you pointed. Thanks for your patience. DBigXray
Thank you, DBigXray. Something tells me there's a chance this could work out. P.S. Maybe you can edit down the section I added about the UN report. It sticks out like a sore thumb, maybe that's allright. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WBG that you ought to withdraw your nomination unless one of you is going to fix this article now. Four days have passed since the second rejection, yet the original authors have made zero contributions. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. reviewing material and sources. DBigXray 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working After a much needed break from this article, I am now able to shift to this article again and will take up each point raised one by one, as calmly as possible with the patience this one requires. This is a difficult article and will be given due consideration accordingly, as I had been giving accordingly when I first created it. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a new section on the talk page of the article (Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Points_raised_in_the_DYK) that will deal with all the points raised by SusanLesch one by one. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg, ALT3 is ready to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "the plastic of the soft-nosed shells easily melts and releases a gas that disperses the crowd. These soft-nosed shells cannot cause fatal injuries. According to CRPF officers, another point is that there have been advancements in tear smoke munitions allowing them to be used more prominently as compared to the other crowd-control weapons" with "The plastic of the soft-nosed shells melts very easily, releasing a gas that helps disperse the crowds. So the shells cannot be fatal in themselves. Secondly, we have made advancements in tear smoke munitions (TSM) that can be used more prominently than other crowd-control weapons". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. DBigXray 05:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg article should be reviewed again. As noted above, the issues have been fixed. DBigXray 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

XIX Army Corps

  • Reviewed: NA, this is my 3rd DYK
  • Comment: Hook drafted by Ted52

Created by Ted52 (talk). Nominated by DannyS712 (talk) at 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - I'm probably just blind, but I don't see where the article explicitly supports the material in the DYK hook and cites a source supporting it
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I find the article very interesting and comprehensive; I can tell the creator worked very hard on it and that is much appreciated! However, I'm afraid this will require work before it can be eligible. I'd suggest first making sure all material is supported by a reliable sources and then requesting a copy-edit. I haven't fully reviewed for neutrality yet but will soon. Best of wishes, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: can you take a look at this? I'm not any where to as knowledgeable about this page as you are... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: All material can be supported by sources, but I was of the impression that citing the same page over and over again is just bad style. I could go through the work of citing every paragraph? Ted52 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Ted52. Since you're using an inline citation style, then the general rule is that there should be a cite for at least every paragraph, and if a paragraph has material from multiple citations you may sometimes want to distribute multiple refs within that paragraph. Using a cite multiple times it's not a problem; it's certainly better than having unsourced material. The following sections in particular need to be sourced better:
  • Wizna and Brest-Litovsk (6–16 September 1939)
  • The "German-Soviet Parade" and the Conclusion of the Campaign (17 September - 6 October 1939)
  • Preparations
  • Attack towards the Meuse (10–13 May 1940)
  • In the Somme Basin (17–20 May 1940)
  • Towards Dunkirk (21–29 May 1940)
  • Panzergruppe Guderian and southern Redeployment (28 May - 9 June 1940)
  • Southern Offensive (10–22 June 1940)
  • Panzergruppe 2
  • XIX Mountain Army Corps
It's an interesting read, and again, I can tell you worked hard on it. Let me know if you have any questions.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Template:Reply to:SkyGazer 512Very well, will do. Is there a way I can template one reference and use it for the next? Reentering the same book's info over and over again is cumbersome, but I also don't want to do the thing where it's like "p. 100 - 200", because that's silly. I would like to preferably use the same reference over and over again for like 60% of the passages you inquire about, but with a slightly different page notation each time. The reason why most of the paragraphs aren't cited is exactly that 'cumbersome' functionality of having to build the reference from scratch everytime. Ted52 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ted52: Well, I suppose you could convert to using {{sfn}} refs. Basically how that works is you have two reference sections; one of them has a list of sources and the other usually just contains {{reflist}}. For the list of sources section, you include |ref=harv at the end of each citation template. Then, whenever you want to use a reference in the article, use the coding {{sfn|Author's last name|Year the author wrote it|pp=Page number range (or p=single page number)}}, and make sure that in the list of sources section each ref has a last= parameter and either a year= or date= parameter. If you do everything correctly, when you click on a sfn ref used in the article, it will be abbreviated and take you to the ref section with the reflist; then if you click on the highlighted ref there, it will take you to that ref's entry in the list of full sources, which only need to be listed once. It sounds confusing, yes, but once you get used to it it's not as bad as it seems. The documentation page for the template gives a lot more details. I can give you some examples if you'd like and I could help you convert the refs for this one. It's often a good idea to use it when there are book citations which you use a large number of pages from. Another technique sometimes used is having sfn for some sources and the other "main" ref style for others, such as using sfn for only books.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
An example of a page using sfn for only the book refs is Chinese alligator (e.g., the abbreviated Reading & Miller 2000, p. 72. in the reflist which links to the full ref in the sources subsection: Reading, Richard P.; Miller, Brian (2000). Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0313308161. Retrieved December 9, 2018.). Molly Morgan is an example of a page which uses sfn for all references except one. If you have any further questions, please let me know; this can seem quite confusing. I highly recommend that you read the documentation page for the sfn template if you might want to use this style.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
(btw, Ted52, the correct coding for a ping is {{reply to|USERNAME HERE}}, not {{reply to:USERNAME HERE}} :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Another way to repeat citations of the same source, specifying different pages, is to define a reference by name (e.g. SOURCE) and combine that with a page number template e.g.
    <ref name="SOURCE"/>{{rp|6-42}}
    Repeat as needed, just give relevant page numbers each time. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────G'day all, I just noticed this on the Milhist alert list. I thought I'd give you a heads-up that Guderian was the commanding general of this formation at the time, and we need to be careful about accepting what he says as gospel, given he is probably too close to the subject. It would be much better if this hook was cited to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. As a general observation, the article relies far too heavily on Guderian's writings, needs more independent reliable sources, and we need to be wary of the clean Wehrmacht trope associated with many Wehrmacht generals trying to whitewash their activities during the war. Also, the article should be at XIX Army Corps (Wehrmacht) IAW pre-emptive disambiguation arrangements for military formations per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: It's been a while since this nom has received any activity; would it be possible for you to cite the hook to a source that is independent of the subject and reliable, per Peacemaker67's suggestion? Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512:@Peacemaker67: I think I have been quite careful in pointing out the rather obvious flaws with Guderian's writings in terms of the war crimes committed by the German units during the operation, and used them strictly for the purpose of the unit's military movement. Yes, there are authors I could cite - Piekalkiewicz, Mazouwer, Shirer, Frieser, Kershaw, Bishop and others have all at least tangentially written about XIX Army Corps, especially as it was so central to the operational success of the whole campaign. But - and this a big but -, they all go back to Guderian's writings as their source for any troop movements they describe. You'll reliably find his books in their bibliographies, and, if inline citations are used, they either reference him or often earlier authors that also referenced him. You're not going to find precise primary source information about what battle lines the units were to take on Guderian's orders or what crossroads they were to advance to or what towns were or weren't captured in a single day outside of Guderian, who got to use his personal notes for the information at hand. I tried desperately to staff up any information that could be double checked, but even good old Percy Schramm couldn't help me, as his war diaries don't start before August of 1940. So, if it's okay to just phantom cite Guderian through other authors, I guess I can try and do that, but that's hardly intellectually honest. Ted52 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you very much for your work on the article, Ted52. Looking through this nomination and the article, I think it would be best if I let somebody do the rest of the review. It would be nice to have a second opinion on whether the sourcing is sufficient now. Also, it is a really long article and I have been doing quite a bit in both real life and Wikipedia lately, so I'm not sure I would be able to take thoroughly look over so many paragraphs and sources myself. In addition, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the article topic (although it is very interesting) or the languages the refs use. Therefore, I'm requesting a new reviewer. I apologize for taking so long to get back.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 23[edit]

Composite Nationalism and Islam

Created by Anupam (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm honestly not sure if the article subject meets the notability guidelines; I understand that the book is old and was published in 1938, but the sources in the article seem to be more about Maulana than the book itself (at least based on the quotations) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5, if you perform search for the book with its Urdu title متحدہ قومیت اور اسلام, there are a plethora of results, apart from the English ones in the article. As the article was only recently created, there is a lot of expansion that can be done. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd suggest beefing up the article more at this point. While the article itself is long enough for DYK, the article doesn't really seem to go into much detail about the book itself, but rather Maulana's life. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice User:Narutolovehinata5. I'll definitely expand the article when I get some time. Thanks again, AnupamTalk 01:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Anupam: It's been more than a month since your last comment. Are you still willing to pursue the nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5, thanks for your reply. On the same day I said I would expand the article, I did so. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks for the expansion, it looks a lot better now. I think the article now meets the DYK requirements, or at least the technical ones (length, newness, etc.). The main concern I have is the statement that "most British Indian Muslims decided to remain in India rather than move to Pakistan". I am not well-versed enough in Indian history to know if this was indeed this case, so I'm leaving the rest of the review to someone who may be more familiar with the subject matter. One last clarification @Anupam: Is this your first DYK nomination? The DYK credit tool is down for me at the moment so I can't check. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5, you're welcome. Indeed, this fact is corroborated by multiple sources. This article, published in The Conversation, for example, says: "It should be said, however, that the idea of Pakistan was not supported by all Muslims: More than half of them would remain in India after partition." Similarly, this one, published in The New York Times, states: "Despite the mass violence and displacement of the partition, around 35 million Muslims stayed in India after the creation of Pakistan..." The last DYK I did was this one, which User:Royroydeb approved (perhaps he could look at this one). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Anupam has two prior DYK credits: the one in February mentioned in their post, and one back in 2009(!). No QPQ is required for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of expanded article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 29[edit]

2019 Peterborough recall petition

  • ... that the possible Peterborough recall petition, 2019 might be called if the sitting MP who compared herself to Jesus is unsuccessful in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction?
  • ALT1: ... that there will be a recall petition called in Peterborough unless the sitting MP who compared herself to Jesus is unsuccessful in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction? Source: BBC
  • Reviewed: HMS Saracen (P247)
  • Comment: This is a potentially politically charged topic regarding current UK politics so I would suggest holding it for a month or so. Happy to consider any alternate hook proposals or alterations

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC).

  • This article is WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL and should probably be moved to draft space until the petition has actually happened. I had seen it pop up on the new article feed and was considering putting it up for deletion TBH. Number 57 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not CRYSTAL as it is legally mandated to occur pending any appeals (Which we have expressed intent of, but none occurred as of yet) At present, it is something that will happen based on the court verdict. When there is an appeal we simply have to hold it until the decision is made. If the verdict is quashed then it can be deleted. Until then, it is just on hold pending any appeal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The page should be moved in keeping with this RfC that determined the year should go first. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Moved. -- KTC (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I have no problem on the question of TOOSOON or CRYSTAL as unless any appeal is successful or she resigns in the mean time, this will happen by operation of law, and the time frame we are talking about is months so not too far away. The hook need to be reworded. Either 'there will be a recall petition unless', or this is kept on hold until appeal is determined. The article itself could do with a bit of copyediting, but I'm happy with it for the purpose of DYK. KTC (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@KTC: I have made the amendments you have asked for. Thank you for making the move, I am unsure if this nomination page needs any further alterations to reflect the move. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg @The C of E: Okay. No, the nomination page shouldn't be moved or anything. Things will redirect so is fine. I've also copyedited the article a little on what I had most problems with. Suggest this be held until at least after the currently scheduled appeal hearing on 5 March. -- KTC (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg The QPQ review had a major flaw, in that the article was passed despite being over 600 characters short of a 5x expansion. Under the circumstances, a new QPQ should probably be submitted, since the original one was problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I have done Template:Did you know nominations/Boston Manor tube station as the QPQ. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg@KTC: I'm surprised you approved this hook, with that BLP violation staring you in the face. Even without mentioning her name, the note that she compared herself to Jesus and is involved in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction is not acceptable for the main page. The C of E please provide a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah You're going to have to be more specific exactly what problem you have with it in terms of BLP. The BLP subject is WELLKNOWN, so BLPCRIME doesn't applies, and even if it does, she have been duly convicted in a court of law, not just accused. The "Jesus" comparison by the BLP subject herself in response to the conviction was 1) a comparison made by the subject herself, and 2) is cited to a reliable source, and for that matter widely reported at the time and after sentencing. The second part is also cited, neutrally and legally correct. She have been convicted and sentence to a term of imprisonment less than or equal to 12 months, which mean by operation of law a recall petition will happen unless she appeals sucessfully. Exactly what is the problem with us saying precisely that? -- KTC (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is not accurate as written; it's backwards. The petition will occur unless she's successful with her appeal to overturn (or occur if she's unsuccessful with said appeal to overturn). Under the circumstances, I think this needs to go on hold until after the appeal (now only six days away) and the ruling from it, after which everything should be much clearer (unless there are multiple levels of appeal, which could delay things even further). We'd want a new hook in that event anyway (and preferably one that doesn't use both "recall" and "called").
If her appeal succeeds, she's considered to be not guilty, right? We shouldn't risk running a hook about her perverting the course of justice if there's a chance the law decides next week that she didn't do so. I'm not well-versed in the intricacies of BLP, but as her fame seems to be primarily due to this incident, it would seem to follow that an overturned conviction would prevent us featuring it on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course if she succeeds, then this won't happen and we can close it. As for the hook, yes it will have to be held until all legal avenues are exhausted, I even said that when I first nominated it which was before she appealed. To reword the hook, ALT3... that there will be a recall petition called in Peterborough as the sitting MP who compared herself to Jesus was convicted of perverting the course of justice? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Her appeal have been rejected, and it have been reported that she have "exhausted her appeal processes". -- KTC (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The only question we have now @KTC: is if this falls under the 30 day elections moratorium. It's not an election as the policy is written but it is going to be treated as one by the media and Electoral Commission (for all intents and purposes) so are we moving forward or holding longer? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: If posting, either post it before the recall petition is opened, or after it has closed. In the latter case, if the petition is sucessful, after the resulting by-election. Opinions may differ on whether it falls under WP:DYKNOT. -- KTC (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The C of E, at this point, since the recall petition has to be opened within ten days, as an electoral matter I think this has to wait until the petition has concluded and, unfortunately, if she is recalled but then contests the seat, it would then have an additional wait until the by-election had taken place. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, we're unavoidably in a holding pattern here because due to the elections provision at DYK, this cannot run while the recall petition is ongoing, which means until after May 1. If the recall is successful and Onasanya is a candidate in the resulting by-election, we would have to delay further until that election takes place. If she isn't a candidate, or if the recall fails and she keeps her seat in Parliament, then this would no longer need to be held after May 1. However, a new hook will be needed in any event, since all the previous hooks assume the recall is in the future, not in the past as will be the case. There will also be, it seems likely, a disagreement as to how BLP will affect the hook wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It might solve the tense part, but the "compared herself to Jesus" part worries me as a possible BLP problem. Is there nothing else that can be suggested that doesn't involve the Jesus thing? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
As KTC said above, she's the one who said it about herself and it is reliably sourced and well reported. I don't think this is a problem so I'd rather stick with what we have. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that: KTC seems fine with it but at least two other editors have concerns. That doesn't look like consensus to use it in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've struck ALT4 due to possible BLP concerns. I know WP:BLPCRIME, but the wording remains too close for comfort. A new hook, one that does not mention the Jesus thing, is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree, I don't think it is a BLP issue because it is something she used to refer to herself. I'm happy to drop the reference to the specific conviction but I'd rather keep the Jesus comparison in there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg As no agreement can be reached for a new hook, add to the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything else in the article that could be used as a hook (I've looked at the article and everything doesn't seem to be suitable, either due to BLP reasons or due to Election reasons), I am now marking this as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Objection. Just because you don't like the hook doesn't mean it can't be used, we already have some 3rd party views that it is fine. Plus election reasons may delay it yes but that is a CRYSTAL argument because the result of the petition isn't in yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not just me who objected to it though but also Yoninah. And even when you consider BLPCRIME, I still think that the hook is a terrible idea. Can't an alternative be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset asked me to comment on this nomination. I agree with other users that the phrase about her comparing herself to Jesus is a BLP violation. Other than that, I'm thinking that this nomination should be held over until the result of the recall petition is known, when the article can be adjusted accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Nomination is on hold until the results of the recall are known late on May 1, or sooner if a new general election is called, but could be delayed further if the recall succeeds and/or Onasanya is a candidate in an immediately ensuing election, in which case this has to wait for the polls to close on election day. ALT3 has been struck; given the number of objections from DYK reviewers here, it isn't going to fly and would surely be pulled from prep or even the main page as a BLP issue so long as the Jesus comparison is included in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @The C of E: As all suggestions involving the Jesus comparison are now by consensus rejected, please suggest a new hook. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E, KTC, BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, and Yoninah: Could a variation of ALT4 without the Jesus part potentially work, or does it still possibly violate BLP?
ALT4a ... that the 2019 Peterborough recall petition was called as the sitting MP was unsuccessful in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction?
Of course, this hook wouldn't be allowed to run immediately anyway, this is just to see if this is a possible option. I'm personally not comfortable with it either, this is just to test consensus. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It may have to be. I'd have thought the conviction reference would have been more of a BLP issue than the Jesus reference given she used it to refer to herself which was reported in several RS's. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I really don't care what the hook is in the end, so long as everyone's happy. However, I object strongly to the characterisation that a factual statement reporting a comparison that the subject (who is a public figure) made publicly themselves, and reported in the national press amounts to a violation of WP:BLP, or even worse the implication that a statement saying that anyone nevermind a public figure that have been duly convicted in a court of law (and whose appeal have been rejected with no more right of appeal) is a violation of BLP or BLPCRIME specifically. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
KTC, just because something is factual does not mean it complies with BLP. In order to comply, content has to be presented neutrally and in a balanced manner. Additionally, DYK rules state that articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. Running a hook which states that the subject "compared herself to Jesus" is anything but neutral, it's sensationalist and is essentially holding the subject up to mockery. It's also misleading, because it implies the subject thinks she's as great as Jesus when in fact all she was doing was saying in effect that Jesus was wrongly convicted too - and it's really not at all unusual for Christians to find parallels between their lives and that of Jesus. To that I would add that the focus on the woman's conviction for perverting the course of justice is also arguably a BLP violation in a DYK hook, because it could be said to be focusing unduly on a negative aspect of her life. We can probably eventually run this nomination, but I think it will have to wait until either the petition is completed or the election held, as BlueMoonset suggested, when it should be easier to find a more neutral hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
And exactly what part of the statement that someone have been convicted of a specific crime that she was indeed convicted of, and that she herself made that certain statement or comparison not neutral or balanced? It's not unduly focusing on a negative aspect when that's the whole legal basis for the article subject existing in the first place. A recall petition exist here precisely because a member of the UK House of Commons was convicted and sentence to a term of imprisonment of a year or less. If there was no conviction, or sentence of imprisonment (or for that matter if the sentence was for longer), we wouldn't be having this discussion since there would be no recall petition, and the article wouldn't exist at all.
"Compared herself to Jesus" does not state any opinion, and there is no judgement attached. It's only holding someone up to mockery if you think such a comparison is a problem, when yourself stated that it's not "at all unusual for Christians to find parallels between their lives and that of Jesus". It's not misleading to say someone made a comparison when they made that comparison! You are adding implication in your mind that's not in that simple sentence.
No one is suggesting that we not wait..... and like I said, I really don't care what the hook is. If people prefer different wordings, by all mean. -- KTC (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 31[edit]

Lorraine 12 D

  • ... that the Lorraine 12D was put into production before the design was finalized?
    • ALT1:... that the Lorraine 12D originally had a horsepower of 350 at the time it was first manufactured, but only 50 were produced before they managed to improve it to 400 horsepower?
  • Comment: Just made this, looks good and rather long

Created/expanded by Username Needed (talk). Self-nominated at 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Review: These aren’t bad facts. My only issue is there is no source for the hook and only one source for the article. Jhenderson 777 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that the Lorraine 12D was put into production before the design was finalized?(source: [14] page 9 (in french) Could somebody verify that please. [Username Needed] 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Note. I might need help on reviewing. I am not familiar with the source being reliable or not. Also I don’t know what it says since it’s in French. I tried googling this particular engine to help find sources but I didn’t find much. Jhenderson 777 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Petebutt may be able to help, he's done some work with this article recently. [Username Needed] 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There isn't much available WYSIWYG I'm afraid. The engine was developed rapidly at the start of its production, that much is clear!--Petebutt (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) The article is presently ineligible because some non-lead paragraphs do not have inline citations, per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines. The Variants section also has no sources. Also, as per the above, none of the hook content is sourced within the article. North America1000 11:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed the variants section, and propose a new, sourced hook. ALT2:... that the Lorraine 12D was the first french engine to reach 400 horsepower?(source: [15] page 9 (in french) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talkcontribs) 13:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that additional sourcing has been provided and a new hook as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment, but I don't find ALT2 to be interesting. ALT0 probably remains the best option if the source mentioned above could be confirmed as being reliable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Nominator has not edited since March 14 and has not been able to address issues with ALT0. If there is no response in a week I will mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry, Narutolovehinata5—they have in good faith provided an ALT2 to replace ALT0, and a drive-by comment is not a review. This nomination still has not been given a full review, and frankly needs one. Until that happens, it doesn't matter how actively the nominator is editing or not editing, so long as they return to address any issues once the review has been given. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including of the hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. For the most part it is adequately sourced: both sources are not in English so they are accepted in good faith. QPQ check is down at the moment but this appears to be the nominator's first nomination (at least from what I can tell on his talk page) so no QPQ is needed. Concerns have been raised on the reliability of the French source, and while I took a look at it and it seemed professional, I'd rather leave this analysis to a French speaker or an expert on this sort of thing. As I mentioned above, ALT2 (and by extension ALT1) do not feel like they'd be interesting to a broad audience, so I have struck them. This will be good to go once the nominator returns and/or the issues with the ALT0 source are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm here, just not very active and not checking very often. [Username Needed] 17:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Mazeno Peak

Created/expanded by Mehrajmir13 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg A new hook needs to be proposed here as the current one is very difficult to understand. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Might still need a little more rephrasing, to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that Mazeno (7,120 metres or 23,360 feet) in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan, has the longest ridge route of any eight thousander? Source: At ten kilometres in length, the Mazeno is the longest route to the summit of an 8,000-metre peak
ALT3 ... that Mazeno, located on the Nanga Parbat massif, has the longest ridge route of any eight thousander in the world? Source: At ten kilometres in length, the Mazeno is the longest route to the summit of an 8,000-metre peak
ALT4 ... that Mazeno Peak (7,120 metres or 23,360 feet) is the highest peak of Pakistan's Mazeno Ridge? Source: At ten kilometres in length, the Mazeno is the longest route to the summit of an 8,000-metre peak  MehrajMir (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
All of the suggestions above need to be checked for grammar and all feel a bit too cumbersome or complicated for DYK. I see some potential with ALT1, but the grammar has to be fixed first. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Grammar fixt. — LlywelynII 20:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Mazeno is not an eight thousander. It leads to the eight thousander, Nanga Parbat, so edited that mistake in first sentence and removed at least two statements not in the sources given. Approved all hooks for citation. Suggest ALT2 or hook to the effect of ALT2 as opinion. Pinging @Mehrajmir13: to ask for QPQ (you must review another DYK for your nomination to qualify) ~ R.T.G 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you think the nom is good to go, you just explain that and post your tick mark. The other guys'll handle closing the discussion and editing the template. — LlywelynII 20:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Rgr, tnky o7 ~ R.T.G 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG:--Which hook are you passing? DYK reviewing guidelines ask reviewers to strike out all hooks other than the approved one; for a quick understanding. WBGconverse 11:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Done, ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 14:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: Mehrajmir13 your use of measurements in this and other hooks is confusing. You don't have to say everything in a hook; you just have to be hooky :) Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Citizen Buttinski.jpg Buttinski) I should suggest using the word "mountain" after eight thousander. Removing the numbers and/or changing to "any eight thousander mountain" on ALT2 is automatically accepted by me as reviewer or will be ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol possible vote.svg Several questionable sources have been removed from the article since the review, and the article, as it stands, is virtually unsourced. If no one is willing to take up this article and improve it, this will need to be closed. feminist (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I propose adopting the nomination and to this end have reverted the article to a previous version. A new review is needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Are you still planning on working on this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: As far as I am concerned, the article is fully sourced now and is awaiting review in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 5[edit]

Nubra River

Created by Mehrajmir13 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article replaces a redirect and is long enough and new enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. A QPQ has been done. @Mehrajmir13: Please check the change I made to the article about the direction of river flow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth:-Sheer pathetic review. Which of my edits over the article; you don't agree with? WBGconverse 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Your reviews directly affect the quality of content appearing at main page. Take the responsibility of your failure rather than blame my rudeness. WBGconverse 05:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop until I take a comprehensive look. Multiple concerns about using fake references (using cites that does not support what's cited) have been raised about the other creations by this author. WBGconverse 14:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • ☒N Fails basic requirements; after a purge of stuff written by the means of fake citations or poor-quality citations.WBGconverse 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I expanded the article once again. The prose is now more than required.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I reviewed the article according to the DYK criteria which does not include reviewing all the references. @Mehrajmir13: I will have another look at the article in a couple of days to see if it is stable and meets the other DYK requirements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow. I presume that it was you who wrote that no policy issues were detected ? Last time I checked, WP:V and WP:RS were both included in our list of fundamental policies and guidelines. WBGconverse 05:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Handing over this acrimonious review to someone else as I have been working on the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Now appears to meet DYK requirements, and was new enough at the time of nomination. My one suggestion is to revise the last sentence to better reflect the source content, to something along the lines of "The toxins eventually reach the Indus River where there is potential to impact millions of people". NoGhost (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Ok looks good, sorry for the slow response. I still find some of the present/future verb tenses in the last paragraph awkward ("20,000 troops stationed[...]" vs. "The toxins will eventually[...]") for an encyclopedic entry, but I think this has more to do with my personal preference and shouldn't impact the DYK nom. NoGhost (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook quickly moves away from the main subject to a glacier and a mountain range. Could you write something more to the point about the river? Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is probably promotionable; wait. WBGconverse 11:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Article rewrote in near-entirety. Struck hook which is factually inaccurate. WBGconverse 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The article creator having not edited recently, I have added some information and restored some content removed by WBoG. Can I suggest:-
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT1 hook; original hook has been struck due to previous concerns. It's probably also a good idea to recheck the article after the recent edits removing and adding content. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 6[edit]

Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures

  • Comment: I know that I have 7 days to take action for nominating DYK, but since it is my first experince, please do not ignore me.

Created by M1nhm (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

  • @M1nhm: (QPQ not required for new DYK nominators) You must review another nomination to validate your nomination. ~ R.T.G 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: This appears to be the nominator's first nomination: per the rules, nominators with less than five DYK credits are exempted from the QPQ requirement. With that said, I am not very sure about either hook: the topic has potential, but each hook has inadequate wording and may need rephrasing, and I'm worried that the article itself may not pass due to possible POV concerns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I was trying for a neutral hook. Maybe I have a line, ALT2: "...that insulting Sunni religious figures was not prohibited by fatwa in Iran until the 21st century?" I only didn't review it because I couldn't neutralise the hook... ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds better, but I'd like to hear from the nom first. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: The nominator hasn't edited in almost two weeks and never replied here. What can be done at this point? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:, In fact they haven't edited since a few hours before the first ping to them from this page, except one "mobile" edit to correct a typo. Either I have scared them away from the site or, they do appear to take wikibreaks for a few days up to a couple of weeks. This editor has only edited a relatively few pages for about 1,000 edits, the largest part of which to one draft article and not many talk pages, so they are a hands off editor.
I think the done thing is to post it on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, so I've done that.
I will also suggest slightly less worded, ALT3 "... that insulting Sunni religious figures was prohibited by fatwa in Iran in the 21st century?" ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will give the nominator one week to reply to the messages here. If there is no response, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. I don't see how we can possibly close this without an actual review, since we have an ALT3 proposed that seems to be free of POV issues, and no need for a nominator response unless and until issues are found in the review that need (and do not get) such a response. Thanks to anyone who gives this a full review. (I've done a very minor edit to ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to give this a full review, but it probably wouldn't hurt to at least raise some immediate comments. For example, the "Reactions" sections probably works better in prose instead of as a list. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg While this was nominated a day late (the article was created on February 6 but not nominated until February 14), we typically allow leniency for newcomers to DYK, so that will not be an issue here. What is an issue is that the article is too short: at 1363 prose characters, it's below the 1500 minimum required at DYK. (Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to turn the Reactions lists into prose is one way to solve this problem.) It is really a shame that such a basic check was not made sooner. Another significant issue, I think, is that the Reactions are uniformly positive to the Fatwa. This strikes me as a potential neutrality issue—were there no countries or significant religious figures that objected? Finally, I don't understand why there are so many sources cited in some places: for example, the text of Khamenei's statement only needs a single reliable source, not four separate sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator hasn't edited in almost a month, hasn't edited the article since February, and never responded to reviewer concerns. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've converted the Reactions list into prose, making the article long enough for DYK. Now the main problem is that the section is too positive. Are there any responses to this fatwa by secular/irreligious critics? Surely a legal opinion condemning criticism of religious figures would be a trespass on the freedom of speech? feminist (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I had mentioned my concerns about the neutrality of the article above. I have just added a neutrality template to the article, which will need to be addressed before the nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I won't be that surprised if it turns out there is indeed little criticism of this topic from secular (or at least non-Muslim) critics. It may likely be considered too far from home for non-Muslim audiences, resulting in little coverage. It's the same reason why Christian conservative organizations in the US tend to get outraged easier by an American celebrity than someone from Europe who is decidedly more socially liberal. I've tried Google searching for opinion pieces regarding this fatwa but most results I get that aren't overtly religious seem to concern an unrelated fatwa involving Salman Rushdie. The cited Reuters article suggests that the support this fatwa enjoyed among the Muslim world is unusually broad. This means we are unlikely to find negative coverage from non-progressive Muslims. If the reactions are primarily positive, it's not necessarily inappropriate for this article to cover primarily positive reactions. feminist (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well if that were the case, we'd probably need a source to confirm that reactions were primarily positive, otherwise the neutrality issue still won't be resolved. And in any case, some negative comments might still be needed while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the Reuters source: The fatwa issued on Sept. 30 was not unusual in itself but the fact that Saudi Shi’ites publicly requested Khamenei’s opinion and that it has been so widely welcomed by Sunnis and Shi’ites suggests Iran is winning the regional clout it craves. and Khamenei’s intervention won widespread praise. feminist (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • feminist, even the Reuters article isn't universally positive, as witness the final four paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess we should keep looking then, if that's the case. feminist (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As the article length issue is now addressed, I will give this nomination one more week. @M1nhm: Please respond to the comments left above and leave us a notice if you will be able to fix the issues, so that this can continue. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset:I am sorry for the delay, I didn't access to the net for logging on the wiki. I will do my best trying to solve problems of the article such as length or adding opposite views. For the reason, I ask you to give me time from three days up to one week. M1nhm (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist:Thanks for your precise comment. I added some opposite opinions in the article M1nhm (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 9[edit]

Dolo hospital airstrike

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 10:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, no apparent copyvios. Chetsford, QPQ needed. Also, please clip the newspapers.com articles so that those without subscriptions can also access the content. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Usernameunique - thanks much, I've finished the QPQ now. Chetsford (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, could you also clip the newspapers.com articles so that others can read them? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Note that your clipping request above is not part of the DYK rules, and also that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is advised to "not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". North America1000 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, they are not being rejected, nor are they "difficult or costly to access". Rather, newspapers.com provides a simple way of letting other people access them: clipping. Moreover, since at least one of the articles supports the hook fact, I think it is reasonable to ask Chetsford to clip the articles in question. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I've been a bit behind and haven't had a chance to get around to clipping all the articles. I'm not 100% sure I know how to do it, but I'll figure it out and get to it ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over a month without a response or edit from Chetsford. There needs to be progress on this soon if the nomination is to proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably won't be able to get to this in a timely manner. If clipping is a prerequisite to promotion I may have to withdraw this nomination. Apologies, I will make a note of this for future nominations. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look more closely at this, I wonder why clipping is being required at all—I can't recall ever seeing such a case. Usernameunique, the AGF tick was invented for just this reason, that we assume good faith that the sources are as claimed, even if they are behind a firewall or not on line at all. Clipping might be required at FAC, but at DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, neither FAC nor GA nor DYK requires clipping. WBGconverse 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg--Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it, for there is considerable doubt over the precise death tally. Also, the statement is not hooky, at all. Airstrikes can kill lots more than 30 and it's entirely non-surprising.
    The way to elicit attention of the reader is to emphasize upon the extraordinary fact that Italy was bombing a hospital; something which is now deemed as a war-crime. So, a new hook, please:-) WBGconverse 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem changing the hook, but on what basis is it "blatantly wrong"? Three sources report death totals of 22, 28, and 30. The hook establishes that between zero and 30 people were killed. If you have better sources and could add them to the article, that would be appreciated. "Something which is now deemed as a war-crime" - under customary international law I'm certain attacking a hospital was a war crime in 1935 as well, and it was most certainly a codified war crime under the convention of 1864. A hook which suggested otherwise would be blatantly wrong, I'm sure. Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong. As many as means different things to different readers across different contexts and it does not always equate to maximum.
AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. Also, I was not asking for any insertion about war crime bit, either and I mentioned the particular locus as to locating a more interesting angle (violation of war-conventions) to write a hook. Something of the form:-
ALT1 ... that Italy chose to assault a Red Cross Hospital during the Dolo hospital airstrike in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?
WBGconverse 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
... when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong ... No.
...AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. As I said, the inviolability and neutrality of hospitals was codified in the convention of 1864. Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's wrong. 22 is not as many as 30. WBGconverse 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Yep, that's wrong." As I, and others, have counseled you: no, it isn't. If you require further clarification or would like to debate and/or promote any alternate theories of predicate logic, I suggest you take this to a Talk page or to DYK discussion as there's probably no point in continuing it here since we've moved to a new hook. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have no idea why Winged Blades of Godric gave this an AGF tick when saying "Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it", because that tick means the nomination has passed, which is clearly not the case. The slash icon is the best given the hook strike. Also, Chetsford is correct: saying "as many as 30 people were killed" when the reports include the number 30 is not wrong at all, since "as many as" gives an upper limit. It is, however, not a good idea to give the high number of a range of reports in a hook, because it gives emphasis to a number that may well be incorrect. (I don't know the comparative reliability of the sources and their source material.) While the article gives the number dead in the lead as 22 to 30, if there were 2 Swedes and between 18 and 28 Ethiopians killed, shouldn't that range be 20 to 30? For ALT1, I'm wondering why "Italy chose to assault" rather than "the Italian Air Force chose to bomb" (when I see "assault", I imagine a ground assault), and would suggest a piped link rather than the direct one to the article: "a Red Cross hospital in Dolo during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?" (Still not happy with the flow of "chose to", but couldn't find any better wording that was as clear that this the hospital was picked for bombing, not struck as the result of targeting gone awry.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not thrilled by the use of "chose" simply because it's an unusual, albeit not necessarily incorrect, word to use in reference to a corporate body. I'd suggest -
We can't name Tito Minnetti by name since Italy never attributed their retaliation specifically to him, only to an unnamed Italian aviator (the article, itself, is careful to only mention that Minnetti was lost at Dolo right before the attack but doesn't make a direct connection). I think this is hooky, though, as the casual observer will wonder what the circumstances of the execution were that caused a Swedish installation to come under attack. And, indeed, since the role of Sweden in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is not widely known, it will be unlikely anyone will realize this occurred in Ethiopia at all until they click. It also maintains a NPOV by acknowledging both of the war crimes that occurred on the part of the two separate parties to the conflict. Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is damn good. WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BMS:-The article was solidly crafted with due sourcing and the tick for that. That, I've struck the hook, there did not lie any possibility of mistaken promotion. WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A tick indicates a nom is ready for promotion. You can't strike the hook and then tick the nom. We can't promote blank space to the main page. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We can't promote blank space to the main page--I have my assurances that not all are fuckwits. WBGconverse 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to formally approve ALT2 and the rest of the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 10[edit]

The Unending Game

Vikram Sood during the book launch
Vikram Sood during the book launch
  • Reviewed: Not applicable, with only 2 DYK credits

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk) and DBigXray (talk). Nominated by DBigXray (talk) at 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT0 is approved as per discussions and review at Template:Did you know nominations/Vikram Sood. Flibirigit (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Close paraphrasing issues, as noted at the Sood review - some of the examples discussed there apply here as well. Suggest the nominator also review other articles created/expanded that may be similarly affected. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Green tickY done, Nikkimaria The CLOP issues were largely introduced by User:DiplomatTesterMan who is currently on a wiki hiatus. I have gone ahead and did a copy edit of the entire article to fix the concerns that you have pointed. Kindly review again and let me know if the DYK can now proceed. DBigXray 16:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We've somewhat centralized discussion at the other nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Flibirigit: I have addressed issues with the bio article (Vikram Sood) first on its DYK nom. Just waiting for an update from Nikkimaria related to the close paraphrasing issues. After that one has been addressed then I think I will move to this one about the book and address any remaining issues. Maybe doing it one by one will be simpler now that it is clear there are two different DYKs here? Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • DiplomatTesterMan, the Vikram Sood nomination has been promoted to prep. Where does this nomination stand, since you're now free to concentrate on it? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will not be able to follow up on this DYK anytime soon sadly. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg CLOP issues have been addressed, courtesy ping, BlueMoonset, Nikkimaria, Flibirigit DBigXray 12:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg I have not seen any new paraphrasing edits to this article since the completion of the Vikram Sood article. The easiest solution here would be to copy the approved text from the biography to here, then rephrase the remaining text as needed. Flibirigit (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit both the articles were being copyedited in parallel, anyway who cares if the edits were made prior to completion of Sood's bio. I am not sure what you mean by approved text. The article as it stands right now should be reviewed. Requesting you to kindly do the needful. DBigXray 16:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It's in decent shape. There are a few bits that could still use reworking, such as the comment about psychological warfare. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen any changes lately. I will be offline until Monday. Nikkimaria, if you see the changes while I am gone, feel free to approve. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 Working to resolve the concerns.DBigXray 07:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
There has been no edits to the article in over a month. @DBigXray: I will mark this for closure if there is no response within the next few days. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg article is ready for a new review DBigXray 06:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 14[edit]


The cities of Charibael and his neighbors in the 1st-century Periplus
The cities of Charibael and his neighbors in the 1st-century Periplus
  • ... that the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea credited the Yemeni king "Charibael" (Karibʾīl) with control of the major ports of the Swahili Coast?
    • ALT1:... that "Charibael" (Karibʾīl)—and not the Roman army—was probably responsible for the destruction of Aden shortly before the composition of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea?
  • Reviewed: Will do "From Dixie with Love".
  • Comment: No, I don't want many other extraneous links in these hooks—just the ones to the page being promoted. Thanks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 15:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC).

  • @LlywelynII:, please forgive my propensity to meandering discourse. This category of information interests me greatly, the origins of language and culture interspersed with situational trivia through the eyes of historical historians. I am compelled to attempt reviewing this DYK. And I tried about two nights ago. However I failed after a couple of hours with little to report, but the DYK has languished with no input, so I will explain what stopped me. The first few citations are in foreign languages and in the old day, for the purpose of DYK, an editor in good standing and literacy was to be trusted for minor translations. So I confirmed the names I could, no obvious mistake, and moved on to the Description section.
It says, "He is said to exercise control over..." three or four named towns and villages. So as I went about checking this part, I had to figure out and repair a small error to linking of the Periplus notes section, minor issue but may explain my failure to sufficiently concentrate, so on to the confirmation of sovereignty, he, Schoff, waffles on a bit about the history of royalty in that particular area, relating and supposing lineage and miscalculations in route based on other books, fine. I believed however that he was telling us about the kings which came before Charibael in relation to some of these towns, particularly Muza, that the kingdom was split up before Charibael. Between the notes and the Periplus itself, nothing seemed to say explicitly say he was king of Muza in particular and perhaps one or more of the others. Nine or ten days between ports may represent a thousand miles, so I had to reread and reference and reread and eventually, I failed concentration with little to report except that I don't believe that part is accurate.
I did not study even to the very end of the paragraph yet, however, this subject interests me enough to try again perhaps by tomorrow or after, but it is best I give you the opportunity to review my review, and perhaps even guide me in part if you are familiar enough to since researching the article. I do intend to have another look when it is out of my mind again, perhaps by tomorrow or later.
If any of that was confusing, I intend to attempt a meaningful review of this DYK over the next few days. I am not sure the extent of Charibaels sovereignty, particularly regarding Muza, is accurate to the source. Checking was longer than expected and broke my concentration. I invite you to review that one part and I will hopefully return with a simpler and more complete review during this week. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 13:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, as promised review never materialized and it's been half a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 21[edit]

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

  • ... that after the Czarnik v. Illumina Inc. patent law case, if you are an inventor and have been left off the inventors list, legal remedy is available?

Created by AWCzarnik (talk). Nominated by FamJoshua1 (talk) at 08:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC).

@Narutolovehinata5: Please find the new hook for your review -
  • ALT1: ... that for the first time, in Czarnik v. Illumina Inc., a court has ruled that an inventor has grounds to sue if their name has been left off a U.S. patent?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamJoshua1 (talkcontribs) 09:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It might need to be rephrased further, it's still a bit difficult to read. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Sure, please find the new hook for your review -
This hook is inaccurate; as a district court decision this is not precedent as the hook implies. Indeed, the article's intro says this has created a split among district courts that has yet to be resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If it does, we can call for a reviewer to do a full review of the nomination. I'm not sure what text is best being the bold link, and if another placement works better, go for it. Thanks. (I've struck ALT2 because it is indeed inaccurate.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It's good for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 23[edit]

Ramesh Sumant Mehta

  • ... that Ramesh Sumant Mehta was the first chairman of the pollution control board of Gujarat state of India?Source: Parikh, Dinesh (January 2002). Thaker, Dhirubhai, ed. ગુજરાતી વિશ્વકોશ [Gujarati Encyclopedia] (in Gujarati). XV (1st ed.). Ahmedabad: Gujarat Vishvakosh Trust. pp. 527–528.

Created by Nizil Shah (talk). Self-nominated at 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Can a better hook be proposed here? It's just not very interesting, to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: It was difficult to find a good hook. Let me try with another one. Feel free to propose new hook.-Nizil (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that new hook has been proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article meets the general DYK article requirements and is free of close paraphrasing. ALT1 is interesting and cited to an offline source. This will be good to go once a QPQ is done. @Nizil Shah: Just a clarification though: is that municipal drainage system still the largest in India, or was it only at the time of his tenure? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5:, thanks for the review. QPQ added. I could not find which is the largest municipal drainage system in India now but assume that Delhi had the largest at the time of his tenure. Should we reword the hook?-Nizil (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the hook could be reworded. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1a: ... that Ramesh Sumant Mehta implemented the largest municipal drainage system in India as of 1958?
Reworded.-Nizil (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: What about something like this?
ALT2 ... that during his tenure as chairman of the pollution control board of Gujarat, Ramesh Sumant Mehta implemented what was at the time the largest municipal drainage system in India?
The wording would of course depend on if the drainage system remains the largest to this day. I might also need to ask for a second opinion from another editor (preferably Indian) on this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: He implemented what was at the time the largest municipal drainage system in India in 1958 as the Chief Engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He was appointed the first chairman of the pollution control board of Gujarat in 1975. So merging these two is a false statement. I believe that it must not be the largest drainage system anymore because it was built in 1958, 60 years ago. I have clarified it with as of 1958 in ALT1a.-Nizil (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Would you be fine with this?
ALT2b ... that Ramesh Sumant Mehta implemented what was at the time the largest municipal drainage system in India?
ALT2c ... that while chief engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Ramesh Sumant Mehta implemented what was at the time the largest municipal drainage system in India?
The "as of" wording feels awkward to me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am OK with both hooks. ALT2c is bit long btw.-Nizil (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This will probably need a new reviewer then as I was involved in writing suggested hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 24[edit]

View of Venice

View of Venice represents artistic culture as well as a map
View of Venice represents artistic culture as well as a map
  • ... that 1500AD View of Venice is "an achievement of astonishing visual and intellectual control"? Source: "the View remains an achievement of astonishing visual and intellectual control, demainding incredible patience and a notable ability to visualize forms from inaccessible viewpoints." (and [16] the source)
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Comment: This article is older than 7 days. It was proposed as part of another DYK and languished so requesting an oversight on that basis to encourage further expansion of an interesting historical topic.
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Nickey Barclay

Created/expanded by Theramin (talk). Nominated by RTG (talk) at 13:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough but ... it is nowhere near ready for primetime. Much of it is uncited; the list of references at the end is ... well, it gives me wikiflashbacks to 2006 or so when that sort of thing was acceptable. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
lol, received and on todo for today or tomorrow. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Several of the resources are behind paywalls so I could not cite the whole article at this time. Apologies, ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Am just starting to read the Jstor listed art mag now, but there is another which only seems to exist in 4 or 5 countries in the world. The Jstor says it is 50 pages so I'm reading it, but slowly so answer maybe tomorrow, sorry for letting your request sit this time, ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 26[edit]

1 the Road

  • ... that artificial intelligences have have begun to write novels...? Source: "On March 25, 2017, a black Cadillac with a white-domed surveillance camera attached to its trunk departed Brooklyn for New Orleans. An old GPS unit was fastened atop the roof. Inside, a microphone dangled from the ceiling. Wires from all three devices fed into Ross Goodwin’s Razer Blade laptop, itself hooked up to a humble receipt printer. This, Goodwin hoped, was the apparatus that was going to produce the next American road-trip novel." (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that at nine seventeen in the morning, the house was heavy...? Source: It is a partial quote of the AIs first words "The novel begins suitably enough, quoting the time: “It was nine seventeen in the morning, and the house was heavy.”" (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy, and the hook meets the hook criteria. Good to go. In my personal opinion, however (@RTG: this is more food for thought if anything) that the premise of the article is interesting enough as it is (the first book to be written by AI!) that it doesn't really need a super quirky hook like ALT1 to capture the reader's attention, and the primary hook might be a tad confusing as readers may think that it's an article talking about AIs writing novels in general when it's instead about a specific novel. I personally think something super simple like ALT2: "...that 1 the Road is marketed as the first novel to be written by an artificial intelligence?" would work best, but again, that's up to you Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes the primary is clunky. ~ R.T.G 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 is the best hook listed here. It is very catchy, properly cited and mentioned in the article. Accepting hook, with the rest of the review as per User:Satellizer above.Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't find an inline cite for the ALT2 hook fact. I also don't think the article is start-class yet. It has a largely uncited lead section and one paragraph of authorship, also cited to a single source. Aren't there any production details or publishing history? Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry I musn't have pressed send. In fact the first article is called "The First Novel Written by AI Is Here—and It’s as Weird as You’d Expect It to Be" and it goes on to say, "1 The Road is currently marketed as the first novel written by AI." A quote from the AI creator Goodwin. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: OK, I moved the cite up to the first sentence in the lead. But the article still doesn't seem start-class. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 27[edit]

Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel)

Friedrich Kiel
Friedrich Kiel

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Can another hook be proposed here? I'm afraid that it might be a bit too technical for people unfamiliar with classical music. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest something, - off for vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am currently unable to suggest alternative wording, as I can't seem to glean from anything that's in the article right now. @Yoninah and BlueMoonset: Any possible suggestions? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Giving this a stab: the hook below is a rephrasing of the original, to make it less technical and easier to read. I'm not sure if it's interesting enough to a broad audience and personally I don't find it too catchy, but for now it seems to be the best option forward.
ALT1 ... that Friedrich Kiel (pictured) set Psalm 130 and other psalms for choir a cappella in his composition Six Motets, Op. 82?
@Gerda Arendt: Are you fine with this suggestion? Because I took a look at the article and there doesn't seem to be much else that could work as a hook. The only other suggestion I can think of is how the work apparently focused on the dark themes of the psalms, but I'm not sure if that's hooky enough for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you expect people to know by the number that Psalm 130 is a call from out of the depths? - I am on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed the title because I didn't see it necessary to mention it in the hook, I will add it back if you think that it is needed. I will wait for your return and see what we can do from here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe the title is the one untechnical thing. Other titles mention "tears", "valley of death" and being forgotten, setting a mood. "Motet" is so awfully general. Will be back on Wednesday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, back, I expanded a bit. I could add more, getting from a footnote that the motet highlighted is the only one performed in Vienna in the 1880s, also that he set it first as Op. 29. I'd prefer to stay with the hook we have, - the text must have been dear to him. - We might say that two choices of text are like those by Brahms in is famous Requiem, but what would that say about Kiel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sorry Gerda but I didn't really understand what you were trying to say in that comment: can you please explain in simpler terms? I am not very well-versed in classical music so when explanations are too technical, I find it difficult to understand. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a footnote in the thesis, saying that Psalm 130 from the six was one of few works by Kiel performed in concert in Vienna after Kiel's death. Does that help (to explain that it is worth mentioning that particular one of the six)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really I'm afraid. And besides, the thing being discussed here is the hook wording, not the article content. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That much I understood, so offered to add content in order to write a new hook based on it. Your answer is : not really, in which case I won't bother. How is this then (although I really love to begin with the bolded thing):
ALT2: ... that "Aus der Tiefe rufe ich" (Out of the depths have I cried) is one of six 1883 psalm settings by Friedrich Kiel (pictured), published as Six Motets, Op. 82? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, we sang it yesterday. Will you continue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

When the Moon Was Full

Iranian drama movie which is about terrorism
Iranian drama movie which is about terrorism

5x expanded by Forest90 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, adequately referenced. I did a thorough copyedit on the article to bring it up to English grammar standards, but it is still confusing to me. The two brothers have nearly identical names, and I wonder if one is being named in the article when it should be the other? We have articles on Abdolmalek Rigi and Abdolhamid Rigi. Please check my editing.
  • As it currently stands, the article is top-heavy on plot and awards. The Production and Reception sections need to be expanded. The quote from the producer doesn't read like English. It's unclear why the Aftermath section even belongs in this article about a film. The image posted with this nomination doesn't appear in the article per WP:DYK#Images.
  • Regarding the hook, Wikipedia standard is to say "film" rather than "movie". I think that once you add a little more detail to the article, you will find material for a better hook. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • you edited correctly and use the brother names at correct places.
  • I don't have any suitable sources for expanding The Production and Reception sections. The quote from the producer wasn't in the English language, a website translated the producer quote to English only. The only existing film aftermath was that incident which mentioned section. And I think you deleted the Article Image instead DYK Image.
  • Ok, ThanksForest90 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm resolving issues which expressed by the referee.Forest90 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, in your recent edit you added mistakes in English grammar, which I corrected. There is still a tag in the first paragraph under Reception regarding which critic(s) said that. I still have a few questions:
    1. In the second paragraph under plot, you tell what became of Abdolmalek Rigi, but you don't say anything about what happened to Abdolhamid Rigi, who died the same year (2010). Does the movie discuss that?
    2. The Aftermath section doesn't belong in this article. The source ties them together, but I don't see the connection between a movie and this terror attack. I removed this section and replaced it with an Awards section.
    3. My original observation that the article is still mostly plot and awards still stands. Are you sure you can't add any more information about the production or reception from Iranian-language sources?
    4. I think you are making the Fajr International Film Festival and the 37th Fajr Film Festival two separate festivals, when they seem to be the same thing.
    5. I have restored the image to the article. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. Hi Yoninah. thanks for helping me to improve my Article. I'm working in my mistake and will resolve them. I will work in the first paragraph under Reception regarding which critic(s) too.
    2. Abdolmalek Rigi was the terror group head and I will check about his brother, Abdolhamid, faith in movie.
    3. I will work about award section instead aftermath section which you deleted.
    4. I will resolve my mistake about the Fajr International Film Festival.
    5. Thanks for allow me keep the image.Forest90 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Yoninah. I change the Article. Please read again the Article and if need any changes, say to me. And I'm sorry about changing some of your work which did in Article. I hope you accept my apologize.Forest90 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Forest90: thank you for the changes. Before I check it, I'd like you to file a request for copy-editing at WP:GOCE. Each time I've edited the article, I've fixed it up so it reads like English. Now it doesn't read like English again. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Virgin and Child (Sirani)

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Hi JeBonSer - the DYK check states this article isn't long enough - It's only 1449 characters in length. The prose for the most part isn't inline cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, this article has some very severe issues. The first is that the entire "Description" section is uncited, and its prose is highly problematic: ungrammatical, repetitive, and reads as if it were pieced together from various sources without regard to whether the sentences are workable. The entire "Legacy" section was copied directly from the Elisabetta Sirani article without credit, which is against Wikipedia rules—see copying within Wikipedia for what must be done when copying material from another article. Also, the description sourcing must be supplied and its prose greatly improved if this nomination is to succeed. Here's an improved phrasing for the hook:
@BlueMoonset: Nominator hasn't edited in two weeks and never responded, he also hasn't edited the article at all since last month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, as the nominator never responded in this page and hasn't edited the article since he created it and nominated it, coupled with the fact that he hasn't edited in over two weeks, unless another editor is willing to adopt this, I am now marking this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: the nominator has just added refimprove and copyedit tags to the article. I'm not sure if this means this DYKN should be disqualified or it's a sign that this should be put on hold until the issues are sorted out. @JeBonSer: Please leave a comment here explaining your edits, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It should probably be noted than an article that was already too short is now even shorter: 1287 prose characters. There's no point putting an article on hold unless the nominator specifically requests it here. A copy edit is still badly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It should also be noted that the nominator has never responded and in fact appears to have never actually replied to any messages left on their talk page. This makes it unlikely that they will ever respond here. I will give then a final message to respond here by Sunday, but if there is no reply forthcoming, I will close this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Task complete. References improved
  • Not sure: Prose & grammar
  •  Question: Number of prose characters
JeBonSer (talk | sign) 05:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is now long enough, but the prose remains a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 3[edit]

The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables

  • ... that The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables (pictured) is exhibited at the Museo del Prado in Madrid, Spain, which was painted by a Spanish artist Bartolomé Esteban Murillo in c. 1678?
    • ALT1:... that the alternative name of The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables (pictured) is "The Immaculate Conception of Soult" after Jean-de-Dieu Soult the Marshal who looted it from the Hospital de los Venerables? Source: "La relación de Soult con el Museo del Prado está motivada por el hecho de que algunas de las pinturas que fueron de su colección y que habían sido sustraídas en Sevilla han terminado formando parte de la pinacoteca madrileña. La primera de ellas es La Inmaculada Concepción de los Venerables, obra de Murillo, que había robado en la iglesia del hospital de dicho nombre en Sevilla y que se subastó en 1852 a la muerte del mariscal, y la adquirió el Musée du Louvre por 615 300 francos, la cifra más alta que hasta entonces se había pagado por una pintura. En 1940 el gobierno francés acordó con el español un trueque de obras de arte en el que se incluyó esta pintura que inmerecidamente se ha venido nombrando como «la Inmaculada Soult», sobrenombre indigno que debe ser sustituido por «la Inmaculada de los Venerables» en honor a su origen y en rechazo del infame robo perpetrado por el mariscal." Museo del Prado (in Spanish)

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 04:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

  • The information in the article does not have inline citations;
  • The text requires a bit of work also:
  • there are constructions such as "commissioned to" that are not used in English
  • the "History" section is one very long sentence
  • I cannot understand the passage: "since in Spain it had spread extraordinarily since 16th century the devotion for the Immaculate Conception of Mary, being also said country the main defender of the mystery and the one that fought with greater insistence until it became one of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, although it would not officially occur until the year 1854."
  • The "Description" section at times refers to the Virgin Mary in the masculine ("his feet ... his eyes")
  • I think a more intriguing hook is required. It is not interesting that a painting is hanging in a particular gallery
More than happy to take another look at this one if the above is addressed. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article, at 1146 prose characters, is too short for DYK. The minimum is 1500 prose characters, so the article needs significant expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I just discovered that JeBonSer had not been notified on their talk page about the issues with this nomination, so I have just done so. It has been over two weeks since they last edited on Wikipedia, and another DYK nomination has just been marked for closure due to a failure to respond. Allowing another seven days for a response, but if nothing is posted here or the article remains too short at the end of that period, the nomination will also be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset. I didn't post on their talk page but I did ping them above on 5 March. Happy to pick this up again if they get back with the required article improvements - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Dumelow, JeBonSer has greatly expanded the article, which now more than meets DYK's length requirement. However, there are still three uncited paragraphs, and the prose is still problematic in places. A new hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Hi JeBonSer. Thanks for improving the article. I've gone through it to try to make the text sound more natural but there were some sentences I didn't understand and I do not, alas, read Spanish. Could you take a look or perhaps pass it by somebody else for a second opinion? Further to this the main stumbling block here is a lack of WP:references - as a minimum there needs to be one at the end of each sentence. It'd be great to see this featured on the main page in a DYK but the improvements need to be made (and relatively quickly) to get it there - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, as a minimum there needs to be one reference in each paragraph. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)#
Thanks Johnbod, you are correct - I meant paragraph. Article at present just lacks a citation for "Soult left behind the frame of the painting which was preserved in Spain and was recently restored". It still needs work to the prose though, expecially the "Description" section - Dumelow (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 4[edit]

Werner Schneyder

Werner Schneyder in 2012
Werner Schneyder in 2012
  • Reviewed: to come Zond 5
  • Comment: our hook size is not compatible with him who described himself as allround amateur

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but what do you think of the following ALT?
Looking at the article, it seems that he did both singing and sports commentating, but that contrast in careers might be more interesting to general audiences than performing cabarets alone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
He was legendary in Kabarett, - is that different from cabaret? Should we change links? Sports was rather "also", therefore I won't go for ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure: as I mentioned before I am not very familiar with classical music, so I can't help out much on that end. With that said, you mentioned that you found that it would be difficult to emphasize his many careers in a hook. How about this suggestion then?
ALT2 ... that cabaret singer Werner Schneyder (pictured) also worked as a journalist, writer, actor, stage director, television presenter and sports reporter?
Readers might find it interesting that he had several careers, at least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I found that interesting, therefore I made the original hook, with a focus on two pinnacles, rather than a multitude. - Can you tell me if we should prefer to link to Kabarett? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure but considering the lede only talks about cabaret, I suggest that the hook reflects that (meaning just stick to cabaret). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
For expanding the lead, I need to know if I should better link to Kabarett, implaying political satire, nit just entertainment. I thought cabaret is just a translation, but it seems to have a different meaning. Nothing about him has connection to classical music ;) - Happy Bach's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
ps: do we have rules now which request that a hook fact has to be in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Before I can return to him, I have a full day of RL, want to expand an article about a Bach cantata, have to nominate a DYK or it will be too late, and was shocked by another death, expanded his article from stub at least. Sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article meets newness and length requirements. QPQ has been done, no copyright violations were found, and German sources are accepted in good faith. As I suggested hooks, the final decision on what hook to promote will be left to a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I read the hooks and the discussion again. I came to think that we should say Kabarett (serious and political), not cabaret (light and entertaining), quote: "Unlike comedians who make fun of all kind of things, Kabarett artists (German: Kabarettisten) pride themselves as dedicated almost completely to political and social topics of more serious nature which they criticize using techniques like cynicism, sarcasm and irony." - I am sure that "singer" is misleading, - a master of the sharp written and spoken word he was, not a singer so much. Sorry for not noticing that sooner. So here's mine, revised:
ALT3: ... that Werner Schneyder (pictured) performed political kabarett programs with Dieter Hildebrandt and commentated on television on boxing at the 1984 Summer Olympics?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 5[edit]

Mädchenkantorei Limburg

Limburg Cathedral
Limburg Cathedral
  • Reviewed: to come see below

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg A neat little article which is well written and fully sourced. I've made some stylistic tweaks and added a reference for the final sentence. I've also tweaked the hook slightly at ALT1 so that it flows better. Just needs a QPQ, then I'm happy to give it the green light. Bermicourt (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed now: Template:Did you know nominations/Coccothrinax jimenezii. Thank you for the review. How is it the other way round, dropping "sacred" which is kind of redundant to "cathedral":
ALT2: ... that the girls of the Mädchenkantorei Limburg performed exclusively contemporary choral music in a 2019 concert at the Limburg Cathedral (pictured), joined with a women's choir? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The English doesn't quite flow as smoothly as it should, especially "joined with a women's choir" which seems tacked on at the end. Here is a suggested minimal change. I can't really tell you why it sounds better; it just does.
ALT3: ... that the girls of the Mädchenkantorei Limburg, together with a women's choir, gave a performance of exclusively contemporary choral music in a 2019 concert at the Limburg Cathedral (pictured)? Bermicourt (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
If you say so, - why "gave a performance" vs. "performed"? I was a bit afraid that readers would not get to the "all contemporary" bit which is the most astonishing. I was there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It's just "performed exclusively contemporary choral music" seems rather complex phrasing to me and may not be easy to follow; even a little confusing. For example, does the adverb "exclusively" modify "performed" or "contemporary choral music"? In changing it, I was trying to give your main emphasis on "all contemporary" a bit of breathing space. It's the "contemporary" that's exclusive, not the performance and I wanted to stress that. I've run the sentences past my wife and she concurred that the original sentence was difficult to make sense of, whereas the modification flowed better in her view. I've taken "the" out as well, we don't tend to use the definite article before proper names like Limburg Cathedral. All that said, I'm very happy to have another editor comment. Amazing that you were there - it must have been quite an experience! :) Bermicourt (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Understand, but how about shortening "gave a performance"? Could be "performed" or just "sang"? Trying.
ALT4: ... that the girls of the Mädchenkantorei Limburg, together with a women's choir, sang a concert of all contemporary music in a 2019 concert at Limburg Cathedral (pictured)? - I took "the" out, but think Limburg Cathedral is no proper name, just a bit sloppy for "Hoher Dom zu Limburg". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 6[edit]

C. W. Stephens

Harrods, c. 1905
Harrods, c. 1905
  • ... that C. W. Stephens was the architect of Harrods (pictured), Harvey Nichols, and Claridge's? Source: "In the 1890s Stephens was very active with big commercial projects – Harvey Nichols (1894) in Knightsbridge and Claridge's Hotel (1894-1898) in Mayfair ... Stephens became architect of Harrods from 1892 until his death" [18]

Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 00:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. My only quibble is that he does not seem to have actually designed Harrods building (rebuilt after being burned down in 1883), only taken over as its architect in 1892. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 8[edit]

British Rail Class 458

A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.
A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.

Improved to Good Article status by Pkbwcgs (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg QPQ not needed. Promoted to GA on March 8. Hook is interesting. Article is NPOV with no obvious copyvio. Image is currently CC licensed. (I took the liberty of adding (pictured) to ALT-1.) The hook is inline cited using the term "reconfigured" instead of "converted" which I think is fine. The source used to cite that is offline (Modern Railways), however, meets what I would consider a reasonable definition of RS. All looks good. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. I was wondering if it's obvious that the hook is referring to British Rail Class cars (it's not obvious to me). I also wonder if anyone cares. This is a GA; could you suggest a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: How about ALT3 which replaces "Class 460" with "trains" with a link to the article Class 460. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: I have a feeling you're so familiar with the subject that you can't see it like an outsider. I don't live in England. I have never taken a train. I'm afraid that ALT3 isn't even remotely interesting to me. What would make it interesting is adding another fact that I could relate to, like the cars were too squishy, or cars were eliminated in the process of renovation, or...? Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: How about ALT4? Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: Better, thanks! Please add an inline cite after that sentence. Chetsford could you review ALT4 please? Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: This source. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: thank you. I meant you should add a cite to the article after this sentence: Six of the eight Class 460 trains lost three carriages in the process, leaving them as 5-car trains that were also reconfigured as class 458/5 trains. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: That is the best source I can find to give the general idea that the eight-car Class 460s were converted to six five-car Class 458. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. So are you going to add the citation to the article?
    Meanwhile, I see someone else has deleted the part about losing 3 carriages. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: I reverted the edit as the previous version was more detailed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. Please add the inline cite to the sentence about losing three carriages. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: I can't find a citation that says that the Class 460s have lost three carriages. The best I could give was the website I have stated above. I may need help from another user who has expertise in British railways. Maybe User:Redrose64 could help. I have done a detailed search and the citation from railnews was the best I could find. Perhaps this citation could be better but it doesn't make a specific mention of the Class 460s losing carriages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. So from a DYK point of view, we need another hook. From a GA point of view, that sentence does need to be sourced, or deleted. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    From what I understand, it goes something like this. Class 458 was originally 30 x 4-car units, total 120 cars; class 460 was originally 8 x 8-car units, total 64 cars; for a grand total of 184 cars. Of the 8-car units, six have been reduced to 5-car units and redesignated class 458, releasing (6 x (8-5)) = 18 cars; the other two 8-car units were disbanded, releasing 16 cars of which four have been stripped for spares and scrapped. This means that the cars released from class 460 units totalled (18 + 16 - 4) = 30 cars, exactly the number required to strengthen all of the 4-car Class 458 units to 5-car. The final tally is 36 x 5-car units, total 180 cars. So in terms of factual accuracy, ALT4 should have the word "each" inserted before the word "lost". But I don't have a source explicitly stating that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    The more I look at this, the more shaky ALT4 becomes. Having now analysed the individual car numbers allocated to the units before and after conversion (using various editions of the Platform 5 "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock"), here is the breakdown:
    Former units 460001 and 460002 were entirely split up, each car ending up in a different unit, with six cars from each (12 in all) going to former 4-car units, three cars being redistributed among the other former Class 460 units, and one car scrapped
    Former units 460003 to 460008 were partially split up, with three cars from each unit (18 in all) going to former 4-car units, but the remaining five cars of each were not kept together:
    • 458531 includes two cars from 460008 and one each from 460002, 460003 and 460006
    • 458532 includes three cars from 460007 and one each from 460004 and 460005
    • 458533 includes three cars from 460003 and one each from 460006 and 460007
    • 458534 includes four cars from 460004 and one from 460008
    • 458535 includes four cars from 460005 and one from 460001
    • 458536 includes three cars from 460006 and one each from 460002 and 460008
    The four scrapped cars were one each from 460001, 460003, 460007 and 460008.
    So I find that there isn't a single instance of a class 458 unit containing five cars from the same class 460 unit, which is what we would expect if three cars had been removed from six of the 8-car units. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 9[edit]

Episode 8052

Moved to mainspace by JuneGloom07 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Of the hooks proposed, I think the only option moving forward is ALT2, but I'm not fond of its current state, since it seems to assume the reader is familiar with Neighbours (and I doubt most of our non-Australian readers do). Why not try focusing on the death of the character being due to the budget cuts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. I disagree with your statement about non-Australian readers being unfamiliar with Neighbours though. I'm British and the show has a bigger following in the UK than Australia. It has been broadcast in over 60 countries, and with actors such as Margot Robbie going on to have big success in the film industry, there are more non-Australians aware of it than you think. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I've added some further ALTs and a QPQ. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT4:... that "Episode 8052" of Australian soap opera Neighbours marks the final appearance of actress Eve Morey, whose contract was not renewed in a bid to reduce production costs?
  • ALT5:... that Neighbours actress Eve Morey's contract was not renewed due to budget cuts, leading to her on-screen exit in "Episode 8052"?
  • ALT6:... that actress Eve Morey was written out of the Australian soap opera Neighbours to help reduce production costs, and she made her exit in "Episode 8052"?
The hooks sound nice, and going forward, my preferences would be a choice between ALTs 2, 4, and 5, leaving the final choice to the reviewer. The full review will follow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I had been very busy since I said I'd do this. Will try to finish this in a day or two. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Susan Montgomery Williams

Though not the brand Susan used, the colors remain visually appealing
Though not the brand Susan used, the colors remain visually appealing
  • ... that Susan Montgomery Williams was not only the world record holder in blowing the largest bubble gum bubble, she was arrested at least three times for making "sound explosions" with the gum and while popping in the courtroom one day, the bailiff mistook the sound for a gun? Source: "Susan Montgomery Williams, 47, had TV fame from bubble-blowing". Press Telegram. 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2019-03-09.
    • ALT1:... that you can get arrested for making "sound explosions" with bubble gum as world-bubble-blowing champ Susan Montgomery Williams discovered during her career?
  • Comment: Please include this dyk in the April Fool's edition.

Created by Barbara Page (WVS) (talk). Nominated by Barbara (WVS) (talk) at 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Drive-by comment: neither hook sounds suitable for April Fools methinks. ALT0 is too long, and ALT1 has possible BLP implications. Please suggest alternative hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There's not BLP issue since subject's been dead 10+ years. EEng 01:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any value, really, in a joint nomination, and neither of the proposed hooks is April Fools material because they have no "fooling" quality and could run any day of the year. There may be some AFD potential in
ALT2 ... that champion bubblegum-blower Susan Montgomery Williams died when her aneurysm popped?
but honestly, even that one could run any day in the "quirky" slot. EEng 01:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. I wrote it specifically because it would be one of those topics that would make people wonder....? PPerfect for April 1st. I like the short alt2 version. I don't want to lose the arrests that she enjoyed but WP is all about consensus. Best Regards, Barbara 19:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, while I think ALT2 works, in its form, it could work even as a hook on a quirky slot and not necessarily an AFD hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, a full review is needed of the article and of the only remaining hook, ALT2. This is no longer eligible for April Fools' Day. Original hook has been struck as far too long (275 prose characters). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Mahendra Nath Pandey

Mahendra Nath Pandey in 2017
Mahendra Nath Pandey in 2017

5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment: According to the guidelines of DYK, hooks that focus on negative aspects of the subject must be avoided. Well, I am aware of it. But in this case, getting imprisoned during the emergency is not something "negative". Emergency is a period during which, civil rights were curbed amongst others. All those people who protested, who were imprisoned during this period are considered as "heroes" in India. So, imprisonment during emergency is not similar to imprisonment due to rape/loot/murder etc.
  • 1. Size check: Before expansion - 121 words. After expansion 379 words. This is not a 5x expansion. Please check and clarify.
5x character expansion and not word expansion. DYK tool shows "article is at 5x now". RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
So on checking character expansion - Before - 121 words (Characters no spaces = 618) (Characters with spaces 731). After - 379 words (Characters no spaces = 1992) (Characters with spaces 2363). This is not 5x expansion even considering character count. Yes, the DYK tool shows "article is at 5x now" but is the DYK tool 100% accurate? Why am I getting different values? Why not just increase the article so as to make sure even on manual expansion the character expansion is correct? Maybe this difference could be because it is counting the date of 5x expansion from 9 March and not 2 March. If we have to consider 7 days from 9 March would 2nd March be included? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Supplementary article length rules - Character count includes spaces and excludes lists, tables etc. The most recent version ahead of expansion is this. It has 415 charatcers. The current version has 2293 characters. The ratio is 5.525. The tool User:Dr pda/prosesize.js also confirms the same. Also 2nd March is included. You can check here, the current active nominations run from 10 to 17 march (a difference of 7). RRD (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 2. Spot copyvio check: Fine.
  • 3. It would be nice, if not required, to explain why he was imprisoned and when since the DYK is emphasizing this. The article only says "Pandey spent five months in prison during The Emergency." You have explained something in your comment, but the article of Mahendra Nath Pandey doesn't mention this, and we can't assume everyone knows this.
That is not given in the source. Also other sources say the same. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This is what I mean too. Aren't there any other "older sources" about him describing his experience of the emergency? Or atleast add a note about it on the page for the line related to the emergency with a note with sources saying that "getting imprisoned during the emergency is not something "negative"" as you have mentioned in your comment. You are telling me this, but we can't assume the readers know this. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Sources only say that he was imprisoned during the emergency. Such a note in the main article is not required as it would bring bias in the article. Also emergency is linked in the article. RRD (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 4. Why does the hook have to say he is 'BJP MP'? Why not just 'Indian MP'? I have no objections really to this, but since Wikipedia caters to an international audience, wouldn't "Indian MP" be better?
Ok. I have no problem in the change. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 5. The DYK has an image, but "(pictured)" has not been added to the DYK text. Also the caption of the image is currently "Pandey in 2015". I think it would be better just to have his name "Mahendra Nath Pandey" in the caption.
Done.RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 6. The image of Mahendra Nath Pandey is just about ok according to DYK criteria "Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page." But there are more images of him in Wikipedia commons which can be considered and which are of higher resolution.
Done. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 7. "He belongs to Bharatiya Janata Party".... belongs sounds weird. This sentence should be copy-edited and rephrased.
Done. @DiplomatTesterMan:. RRD (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: RRD (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg In good faith I will say that all the issues related to this DYK have been sorted out from my side, apart from point number 3. I request a new reviewer to go through it. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion--For an even better hook, replace BJP MP with his' being a current minister. A minister who got imprisoned is definitely more hooky to an average reader than a random MP who got imprisoned. WBGconverse 06:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 10[edit]

Minnesota History (journal)

Moved to mainspace by Bobamnertiopsis (talk). Self-nominated at 02:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg A better hook probably needs to be proposed here as, even as someone who is interested in academic research myself, this is rather bland. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
How are these? (courtesy pings @Narutolovehinata5:, @Bobamnertiopsis:)
= paul2520 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The new hooks are far far better (with a preference to ALT2 as it shows the contrast in topics in greater detail). My only concern though is if the mention that it was provided free to the MHS is necessary. That and that the notability tag has to be resolved first. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Narutolovehinata5. We're working on dealing with the notability tag--we have some sources that will take a little time to track down because they're offline. In lieu of that, here's ALT3:
Thanks! —Collint c 01:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 11[edit]

Lady Ponce

Lady Ponce
Lady Ponce

Created by Toreightyone (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Nominated on the 7th day, 1806 characters, Copycvio unlikely, 0% at EarWigs. Hook is 136 characters.
Issues: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • albums and singles unsourced, should be cited or can be commented out. Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • the article focuses almost entirely on tabloid fodder. Can you add some info about her music. Since that is her basis of notability why is it not discussed. Why is she called "the queen of Bikutsi"?
  • I don't think this article demonstrates notability as written.
  • please add some location info to the hook, easiest way: "..her wedding in Les Clayes-sous-Bois a secret", either that or add "Cameroonian singer". I don't see any location marker to orient the reader. Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • how do we know this photo was legitimately added to Commons. Anyone could have uploaded it

Sorry to do this. Please ping me and I will return. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Coffeeandcrumbs, how does this hook sound?
  • ALT1: ... that Cameroonian singer Lady Ponce (pictured) invited the paparazzi to her wedding at 3:30 pm, but actually held it at 9:00 am to keep her wedding a secret?
As for the image, how does the one on the side look? I can message Sergelowe (uploader) with any questions you have. As it stands right now, the citations for the singles and appear at citation 16 on the discography box on the right. I can add info regarding her music and her nickname either today or tomorrow. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Who is Sergelowe? The uploaders for the images are Rogeraepoh and Photokadaffi. I think we have to go with no photo. Her face is not visible in the other photo and I have suspect that the main photo is COPYVIO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you add some sentences about when she release the albums. Something like: "Lady Ponce released her debut album in ... Her second album, Le ventre & le bas-ventre, came in ..." I can not pass the article as neutral when it focuses so much on tabloid-y stuff. Right now, her biography is mostly rumours, weddings, and hoaxes claiming she died. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sergelowe is the uploader for the image I added. It may be possible to crop the one I added in a way that focuses on her face - but if it cannot, then no photo is fine with me. Toreightyone (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg OK, both photos are no good. Moving on the article, it fails WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It has an undue focus on the subject's personal life. It does not appear that the subject is only notable for her personal life.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MLS Cup 1996

  • Reviewed: TBD
  • Comment: Article is still being expanded, so things are a bit fluid.

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @SounderBruce: This article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has not yet been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Deep water cycle

  • ... that recent research has shown the presence of a deep water cycle all the way down through the Earth's lower mantle?
    • ALT1:... that minerals in Earth's transition zone and lower mantle make up the deep water cycle and have the potential to hold large amounts of water?

Created by Smcminn1234 (talk) at 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg large enough, written neutrally, sourced. Age ok. Can't use wikipedia as a source (footnote 1). Also, sources seem to call it "Deep water cycle", not "deep earth water cycle". Also, the sources seem to be less definite about the subject's existence than the article is...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Neither the nominator nor RockMagnetist has been able to respond. This will be marked for closure if there's no response in a week. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg I know it hasn't been a week yet, but RockMagetist edited a couple of days ago, and yet failed to respond to a talk page message inviting them to return here. Marking for closure for lack of responses from the nominator. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I didn't respond because I assumed that by "respond" you meant address the concerns that Casliber has with Deep water cycle. To do that, I need the time to read some of the secondary sources that I added to the reading list. Casliber is questioning the very existence of the subject! You promised me a week - please give me that week. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, please note that RockMagnetist and RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) are separate accounts. When logged in as RockMagnetist, I don't see messages for RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar). RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Morpeth, Northumberland

Improved to Good Article status by Dreamy Jazz (talk) and SkyGazer 512 (talk). Nominated by Dreamy Jazz (talk) at 12:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Full review will follow later, but I think ALT4 has the best wording, so let's go with that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 12[edit]

Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC), co-nom by DBigXray 12:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) .

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, since the nomination is continuing rather than being withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Kate Gallego

Kate Gallego
Kate Gallego
  • ... that Kate Gallego (pictured) is the youngest and only female mayor of the ten largest cities in the United States? ABQ Journal
  • Reviewed: IOU and I know I'm behind on a few....
  • Comment: She'll be sworn in March 21. YMMV on the hook so please help me write a better one if you can.

Created/expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 02:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Th eimage is license and strong eve in small size, I am not happy with the hook, a sonstruction of some record. Sorry to have missed the day of her being sworn in. - How about something mentioning her position, but also that she was/is interested in air quality? I believe that ecological topics are welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1* ... that among the current mayors of the ten largest cities in the United States, Kate Gallego (pictured) is the youngest and the only female? - more grammatical and perhaps more accurate. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Historical significance

  • ...that historical significance is subjective and open to challenge? Source: "But historical significance is often a subjective decision, something that makes it contestable (open to challenge)." (and [19] the source)
    • ALT1: ...that historical significance defines history books, street names, museum displays, pictures on stamps, bank notes, and television shows? Source: " Ideas about historical significance help to shape how the past is remembered and represented and influence who gets remembered and who gets forgotten and who and what gets included in history books, commemorated on bank notes, in the names of streets and squares, in museum displays, in television programmes, and so on" (and [20] the source)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Leaving aside a review of the article itself, I've corrected some grammar issues with the hooks; struck ALT0 as unsupported by the source ("often" ≠ always in all cases) which itself isn't remotely a qualified WP:RS for a point of that magnitude, however WP:BLUEy; and struck ALT1 as unsupported/ungrammatical/tautological. It isn't "defining" "pictures on stamps" or "museum displays" and, to the extent historical significance shapes others' inclusion in that laundry list, such reshaping is the very essence of the concept of historical significance. The hook essentially says "historical significance is historical significance", which fails the "be interesting" criterion for DYK. — LlywelynII 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 seems bland but unobjectionable. ALT4 is a quote quoted by your source; Febvre's original work should be found and cited and it's just his opinion, not a fact. ALT5 isn't cited in the article. — LlywelynII 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • To check through the rest of the list, though, the article is timely but currently consists of an overlong intro from one source (WP:LEADCITE; WP:ONESOURCE) and three lists without commentary (MOS:LEADREL; WP:LISTDD); all three lists are theoretical and sourced to historians unimportant enough that they lack existing biography articles (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE) rather than any discussion about the actual criteria used by major past or present historians; it's barely long enough (1520ish elig. chars.) but full of grammatical mistakes and needs a rebuild (e.g., the WP:LEADSENTENCE vaguely describes the topic instead of defining it) that will change that number; removing the current deadweight would put it under the requirement; Earwig finds no major copyvio, but the lists need an overhaul to make more sense even if they're found to be notable; QPQ done.

    At minimum, ♦ the lead sentence needs to define the topic; ♦ the lead section needs to be an overview of the body of the article, not the body of the article itself; as such, ♦ the running text in the body of the article needs to be (at minimum) 2–3 times longer than the text in the lead; ♦ the citations in the lead need to be moved to the body; ♦ the lists that are currently being used should have some indication as to who these people are and why anyone should care about their opinions on historical significance; ♦ the lists that are currently being used should be rephrased to explain exactly what each point means and how it is different from the other points, ideally with clear examples.

    I've often said that this is DYK, not GA, and that's completely true (a good article would include discussions of changing historiography over time discussing major international historians/schools from Sima Qian to hagiographers to Gibbon to the Marxists) but there are some minimum standards that aren't being met here that really should be. — LlywelynII 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: Thanks Llywelyn, I have added a separate short lead and I understand what you are saying about referencing the lists against each other, but these were simply the lists that seem to be used a lot in a relatively superficial search and read up on the topic. I will look into validating the lists a little better but it will be down to online availability. ~ R.T.G 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you see what I'm saying, then you understand that online availability doesn't actually make these lists NOTABLE or non-FRINGE. There has to be some context that other people actually pay attention to these particular writers or that their ideas represent widespread consensus in the field, established practice among actually noteworthy historians, etc.

If that's really impossible to manage, then we're better off moving this to a sandbox for future work and redirecting to the good general treatment at Historiography or sth. — LlywelynII 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I have expanded the article a little. Historians notoriously do not get the kind of recognition you seem to be trying to demand. I assure you, there is more than copy and paste going on here even if there is no FA yet, so I invite you to the articles talkpage to discuss further relevance of the lists.
I invite you to read historiography for that context, as I have done. This subject is widely published and is not covered on Wikipedia. I am sorry that you cannot bear start class articles, but that's where articles start. If you are offended by this article or believe it misrepresents sources, is based on unreliable sources or is unbalanced by fringe views, discuss on the talkpage or request deletion. DYK is asking for stub-class articles recently. Well, here's one both of us would have expected to be covered already. I've put it on the history project. Let's get it through the DYK and see if an article comes of it, ~ R.T.G 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like to help, find me a connection that says Lis Cercadillo, Ministry of Education (ESP), various important university postings, is the same author. If she is not, why can I not find the Spanish Lis, referred to all over the place in English, who is? ~ R.T.G 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII:, I invite you now to review the article again and remember, it is a start, and as such is written to encourage participation and interest, not instil authority, so I encourage you to help me improve the rationale of the lists as an important part of the subject rather than simply demand credentials. ~ R.T.G 14:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 14[edit]

Given (manga)

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

  • While I suppose this an okay hook, I think the hook as currently written might be too niche for most Wikipedia readers, who are likely not familiar with anime and have no idea what Noitamina is. Perhaps it could be rephrased? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ...that the manga series Given will be adapted into an anime in July? Source: Anime News Network
  • ALT2: ...that the manga series Given was adapted into an audio drama in 2016? Source: Natalie
  • I realize these are pretty dry, but there's not much more I can do with the somewhat limited English sources the subject material has. Morgan695 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, those are even more niche. Manga being adapted into audio dramas and manga is so common it's not even hooky anymore. The Noitamina hook actually has potential but there might need to be some clarification there, like mentioning that Noitamina is a television block. If you need Japanese sources, I can help you find some, if you want. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided. However, I still see a couple of sentences without references, particularly in the Media section (no references needed for the character section since it's assumed they're sourced to the work itself). As anime and manga is my main editing specialization, I'd like an outside opinion on which hook to be promoted (in particular, to see if ALT3 could work for non-anime fans). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • All sentences should now be cited. Morgan695 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think this should be okay now on my end; will leave the review of ALT3 to another editor. I've also struck ALTs 0, 1 and 2 for lacking interest to general audiences. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orvar Swenson

  • Reviewed: Lu Xiaopeng
  • Comment: Note that congenital megacolon is synonymous with Hirschsprung's disease.

Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Reviewing. New enough, copyvio ok. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi @97198:. Did he do it solely or with Alexander Bill? All else ok.Whispyhistory (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Whispyhistory: From the sources it doesn't seem 100% clear. Bill and Swenson certainly developed and reported on the technique together, but whether Bill was in the operating theatre is unclear. That the surgery is known as the "Swenson pull-through" is maybe an indication. In any case, I don't think the hook is inaccurate – whether or not Bill was directly involved, Swenson certainly would have had assistance. 97198 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Olivia Jade Giannulli

  • ALT1 ... that there has been a delay in the processing of the trademark for Olivia Jade due to "poor punctuation" on the application? [23] [24]
  • Reviewed: forthcoming / needed

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size (bare minimum but passes), copyvio check, neutrality, hooks, pass. QPQ review needed. But I also have one more concern that would be best answered by a second reviewer. The article is borderline with regards to WP:BLP - most of the content is tabloid-level criticism of the subject. I am unsure if it is due weight to discuss such incidents including the one the hook is citing. And frankly, removing even one sentence from this article could make it not eligible as it will be too short. Not sure if we want this type of content for the front page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is currently at AfD; therefore no decision on DYK can be made until and unless it is kept. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Outsider comment; courtesy ping to all parties as AFD is closed as keep and article has been further expanded. Review can be continued although the problem of recentism would need to be addressed per tag. Daniel Case, Piotrus, Chetsford. :) Adog (TalkCont) 15:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article passed AfD (which I have not been aware of), this suggests it is at least notable. It also has been expanded. As for the tag about 'being slanted towards recent events', I am not sure it is justified - is there any coverage of her that's not about 'recent events'? I am inclined to change my vote to GTG unless counter-arguments are presented (please ping me if anyone wants to address me). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of notability or recentism issues, the hook seems to be a BLP case and personally I don't feel comfortable using it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Would you be able to propose an alternate hook? I'm concerned that the current one falls afoul of BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
Sure, Narutolovehinata5. Alt proposed, above. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Piotrus: Thoughts on the new hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. Possible BLP issues... but I guess we can leave the choice of the hook to the closing admin, both are ok-ish, if we squint long enough... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pacific baza

Pacific baza
Pacific baza
  • ... that although the generic name of the Pacific baza (pictured) translates to "bird-killer", it is actually a docile and usually unobtrusive species? Source: [25] p. 55, "Both scientific names are drawn from Latin: Aviceda combines avis (bird) with caedere (to kill) - that is, bird-killer, a misnomer; [26] p. 104, "The Pacific Baza is an unobtrusive and docile hawk, usually only obvious during its vocal aerial displays"
    • ALT1:... that the Pacific baza (pictured) has been rumoured to imitate the calls of tree-frogs when hunting, persuading them to return the call? Source: [27] p. 104, "It is said to find tree-frogs by imitating their calls and so inducing them to call back"

5x expanded by SkyGazer 512 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting birds, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed but not too great in stamp size. Please find a hook that is attractive without image. Being docile, unfortunately, will not "sell" well, and "rumored" is not what I like. "baza" told me nothing, how about saying "Pacific cuckoo-falcon" also? - Suggestion: the images in the article - except the lead image - look too big to be placed easily without sandwiching text. Drop one, perhaps. The on now left would be better right, to make the bird "look in ". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough review, Gerda Arendt. It is true that the image isn't the best ever, how about this one? I think that would show up better at such a small size. Being docile alone wouldn't sell well, but I found it quite interesting because of the contrast to its generic name, "bird-killer". It's true that ALT1 isn't really a definite fact, I still found it interesting, but I understand if it won't work. The only other thing that I found interesting about the bird is that some specimens held in captivity would not breed without lettuce in their diet, despite the fact that a few decades before there were reports that this bird ate solely meat intentionally and only took in plants by accident. I'm not sure the best way to incorporate this into a hook, however. I could try to search some more or request full access to the hbw article to see if there's anything hooky there. Let me know if you have any particular suggestions.
I don't want to make the hook much longer by adding "also known as the Pacific cuckoo-falcon", if that's what you're suggesting, but I agree we should somehow point out a common name that readers are familiar with. How about something like "that the hawk Pacific baza"? I don't think we should drop any of the images, as they are all quite helpful for illustration to the readers, but I have aligned all of them right and I see that you have made them smaller. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
How's this?
ALT2: ... that the Pacific baza is a docile hawk, although its generic name translates to "bird-killer"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The other image shows better, but will probably still not be taken because we have so many bird images that it has to be outstanding ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I've gone ahead and replaced the image; if the promoter doesn't think this hook is image-worthy that is fine and makes sense, but there's no problem with having it there just in case. :-) ALT2 looks great to me, thank you!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 14:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Fine, lets look for another reviewer then, unless there's a rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 15[edit]


  • ... that the medieval Perso-Arabic legend of al-Nadirah was the source of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Princess and the Pea"? Source: "The widespread popular legend about the Hatrene princess Nażira and her betrayal of the city for love is still lives on in the modern fairy tale (by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen) “the princess and the pea”" [28]
  • Reviewed: coming soon

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Thank you. The hook is excellent. The Princess and the Pea is one of my favourite tales and no doubt this information will be of interest to many. QPQ to do, copyvio okay, new enough, sourced and cited. One bare url needs a fix. Character count too low. Can you expand a bit more, maybe add the information of why it linked with the fairy tale? Another source [29]. Ping me when done. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Whispyhistory, I get the character count of the prose at around 2,000, shouldn't that be enough? I think the hook needs to be reworded though: neither its source, nor the first relevant thing I could see in a quick search [30] suggests that the legend was the actual source of the fairy tale. All that is stated is that they share a theme, stopping short of implying a causal connection (which is likely but not certain and it would be otherwise quite difficult to establish). – Uanfala (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Time Traveler (roller coaster)

  • Reviewed: Mary Stuart Fisher Pending (I've had one DYK published (though I know the exemption for QPQ is 5), I wish to partake in a review and will post soon).

Improved to Good Article status by Adog (talk). Self-nominated at 20:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Article gained GA status, and was nominated for DYK on time. It is long enogh and neutral. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports high-rate text similarities, even paragraph-long: 51.0% at [31], 23.7% at [32], 23.7% at [33], 15.3% at [34], 15.3% at [35], 12.3% at [36]. Copyediting is needed. The hook is well-formatted (I prefer the original one). Its length is within limit and its fact is cited inline. QPQ was done. CeeGee 16:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • CeeGee; Hmm, I don't think it needs a copy edit. The video description seems to be a copy and paste of the article's page well before the video was published (1), same goes for the two sources from "IndianPoint" as the article's content was first (2) & (3), the rest (4-6) are used as quotes in the reception of the article (or share common words/phrases within the article as other sources use as well) and thus doesn't seem to be a problem as they're properly cited thereafter. You would think the GA reviewer would see that, if not, then the article wouldn't have passed so easily. :P Adog (TalkCont) 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg CeeGee 10:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 17[edit]

Felipe Reinoso

Created/expanded by Vycl1994 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The lead is too short. In the original hook "state legislature" must be replaced by "state legislature of US". RRD (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The article lede now mentions Reinoso's tenure on the Connecticut House, and his election to the Peruvian legislature. ALT3 above specifies U. S. state legislature in addition to the wikilink state legislature (United States) that was already present. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vycl1994: The lead claims that he was born in circa 1950. However, there is no source for it in the article. I have also added a when tag to the article. The article needs a little copyedit also. RRD (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: The biographical sketch attached to Reinoso's interview with Reyes states "Reinoso was born in Peru and immigrated to Connecticut in 1969" Keating, Pazniokas, and Lender (2008) states "Rep. Felipe Reinoso, a Bridgeport Democrat, flew back from his native Peru - where he lived for 19 years before moving to Connecticut".... Both references are linked to the sentence "Reinoso and his family immigrated to the United States in 1969, settling in Bridgeport, Connecticut." at the moment. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 18[edit]

Chowkidar Chor Hai

  • ... that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministers prefixed the name 'chowkidar' (watchmen) to their social media profiles in response to election slogan Chowkidar Chor Hai? Source: "In recent days, leaders and supporters of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have launched a coordinated effort to popularize his watchman campaign, with many changing their social media names to add the prefix ‘chowkidar’" Reuters, "Prime Minister Narendra Modi today changed his personal Twitter account name to -- Chowkidar Narendra Modi. Following Prime Minister, BJP president and other BJP leaders also changed their profile names to Chowkidar Amit Shah, Chowkidar Piyush Goyal, etc. The campaign has been launched to counter the Congress President Rahul Gandhi's " chowkidar chor hai" jibe against the Prime Minister."Economic Times, Telegraph

Created by DBigXray (talk). Self-nominated at 07:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I've modified the hook slightly to include "Narendra Modi" in it. The article is new enough and long enough, and QPQ is present. However, the article has some slight grammatical issues and most pressingly it is up for AfD. I'd like to reevaluate pending the result of the AfD. Raymie (tc) 17:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "his ministers" seems quite strangely put. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming his government ministers? Not exactly a big leap of faith in a parliamentary democracy... Raymie (tc) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article was kept at AFD, but the 2019 Indian general elections are currently ongoing, so in light of the rule at WP:DYKHOOK for avoiding articles featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the election, it would seem that the promotion at least will have to wait until they have concluded. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's also an RM now on this page, as a note, requesting a move to Main Bhi Chowkidar. Raymie (tc) 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


Nakrajeny mazanec (4).JPG

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Can a better hook be proposed? The current one is very niche and I don't think that it could be interesting to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Really? I think it's quite eye-catching. People play games for money, for points, for chips and counters but never for currant buns! It's so unusual it's almost April Fool's Day worthy! Sometimes 'niche' is the new 'cool'! I've added an alternative which is a bit more succinct. Bermicourt (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think most people know what currant buns are to be honest (neither did I until this nomination). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I can't speak for America, but in Britain and Europe everyone knows what currant buns are. But the name is also a real giveaway: it's a bun with currant in it lol!. Anyway the update now includes an image of a Hedewig a link to another new article which explains what Hedewigs are as well - so even more interest for the DYK reader! Bermicourt (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I think the hook would only work if there's an image, otherwise it's not very eye-catching. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

High Orchard

Llanthony Provender Mill, High Orchard
Llanthony Provender Mill, High Orchard
Fielding & Platt 150-ton rivetting machine (1885)
Fielding & Platt 150-ton rivetting machine (1885)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. The image is in the public domain but I don't think it goes with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find the hook more a statement of fact than hooky. It's also not clear that High Orchard is an industrial area. Could you come up with something more attention grabbing, perhaps playing on some of the names or the incarnations of the area? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that an arson attack on Llanthony Provender Mill (pictured) in Gloucester's High Orchard area left it a "dilapidated shell"? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: thank you for the alt, but isn't that an obvious result? I've combed the article for other hooks, but the material is very dry. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I will have another look at my sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That's interesting, thanks. Do you have a link for "rivetting machine"? Calling on new reviewer to look at ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Linked, using British spelling. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Ehud Arye Laniado

  • ... that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado died during penis enlargement surgery? Source: "Billionaire Jewish diamond trader dies during penis enlargement operation. Belgian-Israeli Ehud Arye Laniado, 65, suffers heart attack after unnamed substance injected during cosmetic operation in France" ([37])
    • ALT1:... that ...?
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created/expanded by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Snickers2686 (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new and seems well referenced but does not come close to the minimum length required for DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That's true, it's about 300 characters short. I expect Edwardx will expand it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Surtsicna:, it's now long enough. Please continue review. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Philafrenzy "it's now long enough" - trust that is a reference to the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Oh yes, it's BBC quality now. The sources are all fine, the hook is excellent and referenced, but we still need a QPQ review. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 20[edit]

Coach's Corner

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

The "blood spray" hook is not an April fool's hook IMO and is not much of a hook either IMO. I would go with one of the other hooks for another day. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on March 21[edit]

Wolfgang Meyer

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 13:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I wonder if it would be a better option to split this hook into two separate hooks, it seems to be cramming too much information without really connecting either fact. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree: there are early music specialists, for whom the first half would be good. There are jazz clarinettists, for whom the second would be good. HE was both, and I'd like to show. RIP --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from Gerda, but as of the moment the current hook is simply not working out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
For you. Do you have a suggestion which shows his versatility differently? Putting him in a specialist corner wouldn't do justice to a great person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions based on what I could glean at the article:
ALT1 ... that German clarinetist Wolfgang Meyer led masterclasses in Brazil, Canada, Finland, Italy and Japan?
ALT2 ... that German clarinetist Wolfgang Meyer was part of a chamber music ensemble together with his sister and his brother-in-law?
ALT3 ... that Wolfgang Meyer recorded Mozart's Clarinet Concerto on a historic basset clarinet?
ALT4 ... that reviews praised the performances of clarinetist Wolfgang Meyer for his "beautifully rounded, velvety tone" and for his voice being "always perfectly tuned and with extremely light articulation"?
If you don't like any of these suggestions, let's see what we can do with the original hook, but it won't work in its current form (it might work if rephrased, however). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. I asked you particularly for a hook showing his versatility, not a restriction to one small item. It's unuusal that a classical musician plays jazz!! None of your suggestions has anything about his broadness of approach, and the masterclasses are so boring that I strike them. Almost any classical musician with some standing does that, nothing unique to him. ALT2 might work if you name the sister (one of the most famous clarinetists there ever was, for her sensational entry as the fist woman with the Berlin Philharmonic), instead of playing down to someone making music with family. In ALT3, at least mention Harnoncourt, THE first promoter of historically informed performance. ALT4 is not wanted in general by the DYK crowd as possibly the view of just one critic, so I strike that also. I still like the original best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Slight tweak to ALT2, what do you think?

ALT2a ... that German clarinetist Wolfgang Meyer was part of a chamber music ensemble together with his sister Sabine and his brother-in-law?
I really tried to make a hook that would be a summary or overview of his many activities, but it proved too difficult without making the wording awkward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I don't remember asking for summary, just a hint at versatility. Someone else will have to review.
ALT4: ... that Wolfgang Meyer, who recorded Mozart's Clarinet Concerto on a historical basset clarinet, played his last concert with jazz saxophonist Peter Lehel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Captain (2019 film)

Created by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Reviewed:Joravarsinh Jadav
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook is not interesting. The cast section is unsourced. There is one unsourced sentence in box office sub-section. RRD (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Royroydeb: I've added more alts and added refs to cast section and removed unsourced sentence in box office sub-section. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd also like to mention that the article needs to be copyedited before it makes the main page, and have made a request over at WP:GOCE/R. I know that crore is linked in the article, but I'd also suggest that a conversion to USD be added to the article, if only for clarity (remember that not all readers are familiar with lakhs and crores). As the hook fact for ALTs 0 to 2 is no longer in the article, I've struck all of the above; @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: please suggest new hooks if possible, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I would wait till the copyedit is over. RRD (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg ALT1 still isn't a very good hook. And in any case, this can't continue until the copyediting is done, because right now there are several grammatical issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The article looks better now but the hooks proposed here are still grammatically incorrect. Do you need assistance in fixing them? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: yes please. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT1a ... that Nepali Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli praised the 2019 film Captain for "delivering patriotism"?
Honestly I don't find the hook or the hook fact spectacular, but I'll let another reviewer take a look at this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This is probably worth giving a second look. Requesting a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 23[edit]

Ruth Hesse

  • Reviewed: Hermann Herlitz
  • Comment: Article comes with a rich list of roles and detailed recordings which I have no time to reference bit by bit.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg There's just too much information being crammed here in the hook and it's rather difficult to read. I understand that you want to show the variety of roles she's had, but there might be another way to word the hook if you really wish to go in that direction. Will be suggesting alternatives below, the first based on ALT0 and the second is based on how she's performed internationally. I've also suggested an ALT3 but I honestly don't think it might appeal to non-classical music fans:
ALT1 ... that among the roles that mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse has performed include the Nurse in Die Frau ohne Schatten and a part in the premiere performance of Henze's Der junge Lord?
ALT2 ... that German mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse has performed at opera concerts in Spain, Sweden, Russia, the United States, South America, and Japan?
ALT3 ... that German mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse was appointed a Kammersänger in 1982?
Another issue I have with the original hook is the words "created a role" - did she really invent the role or merely played it? I don't think I've ever heard the word "create" used in that sense. I will be leaving comments on article wordings later, including apparent typos and redundant words. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You should know me for long enough not to waste time on proposals such as ALT2 and ALT3. A laundry list of places is not even wanted in articles of project opera, and the year of Kammersängerin says nothing if no birth date is supplied. ALT1 is possible but I don't see how not mentioning the highly notable and well-known places the things happened makes it better. Drop the ROH if you have to, - it was meant to illustrate that it's more than German speaking. The Salzburg performance, recorded, and alongside the most prominent singers of the time, should be mentioned, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Remember that we are writing for a broad audience, and non-opera readers and editors are unlikely to see the significance of those factors. What may be obvious to those in the scene may not be to those who don't know. With that said, I can't really see any way else of moving forward here: suggesting more alternatives seems difficult considering the content in the article. Thus, I'll be requesting a second opinion here on ALT0 and ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-opera readers will not be interested in the article at all, and we should not lure them into it, imho. Readers can expect that something said in a hook has relevance, and if curious enough, they can click and find out the details. What we should not do is tell those who may be interested nothing more than a boring list of places without any music, and you can almost exchange the same list from one singer to the next. Remember ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Raja Koduri

Created by Feminist (talk). Self-nominated at 10:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I wonder if a better hook could be proposed here as, to be frank, neither are spectacular. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I am open to hook suggestions. Do you have any ideas? feminist (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe ALT2: ... that Raja Koduri heads a team of 4,500 people at Intel to design graphics processing units? Though I am not sure if relying on the interview (a primary source) for this is appropriate. feminist (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: From what I can tell, primary sources are accepted for stuff like personal information and uncontroversial statements. If you have concerns, you can always as WP:RSN. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but my concern isn't with reliability per se (Barron's is certainly reliable for an interview), but rather whether it would be considered undue/promotional to use such a claim as a fact for DYK. It's, after all, a claim about a company division made by a company executive, and we have no way to verify this with a secondary source. Alternatively, ALT2a: ... that Raja Koduri says he leads a team of 4,500 people at Intel to design graphics processing units? feminist (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I have concerns that that hook might be too promotional or too praiseworthy. Are there any other options? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
See, that's my point. feminist (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure at this point. Apart from the one where he compared one of his companies to Pixar (which might also count as promotional), I don't really see anything else that's hook-worthy here. I'm starting to wonder if closure might be the ultimate option here: not every topic is meant for DYK unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Does anyone else have ideas? Maybe ... that Raja Koduri joined Intel after working at its competitor AMD twice? This specifies the fact that Intel and AMD are competitors, highlighting the significance of him jumping ship. feminist (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know but that kind of sounds routine to be honest. People in business jump to rivals all the time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that Raja Koduri developed hardware that enabled Apple to launch its Retina displays? I'll leave the choice to the reviewer/promoter. feminist (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that would have actually been