英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基

草榴社区 | 妖娆社区 | 激情小说 | 激情视频 | 色小鬼影视

Template talk:Did you know

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

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
March 19 1
April 2 1
April 13 1 1
April 18 1
April 20 1
April 26 1
April 30 1
May 3 1 1
May 6 2
May 7 1
May 9 2
May 10 1 1
May 11 2
May 12 4 1
May 14 1
May 15 1
May 17 2
May 19 1
May 21 1
May 22 1
May 24 2
May 25 2 1
May 27 2 1
June 1 2
June 3 6 2
June 4 2 1
June 5 3 1
June 6 5 1
June 8 6 3
June 9 5 4
June 10 4 3
June 11 1
June 12 3 3
June 13 3 3
June 14 4 3
June 15 8 4
June 16 6 3
June 17 7 3
June 18 9 5
June 19 4 2
June 20 8 2
June 21 14 4
June 22 7 6
June 23 3 3
June 24 7 6
June 25 9 5
June 26 10 6
June 27 7 4
June 28 7 4
June 29 11 9
June 30 7 4
July 1 7 3
July 2 9 3
July 3 12 4
July 4 6 1
July 5 9
July 6
Total 244 111
Last updated 03:29, 6 July 2022 UTC
Current time is 03:30, 6 July 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced procedures[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Pytest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While pytest is useful for unit testing, integration testing, system or end-to-end testing, and functional testing, the strategy for testing the Tasks project focuses primarily on subcutaneous functional testingOkken, Brian (September 2017). Python Testing with Pytest (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 9781680502404. Retrieved 19 March 2022.

  • ALT3: ... that pytest is an all-volunteer contributed, open-source software testing tool in Python and has been classified as a key ecosystem project on the PyPI with over 9 million weekly downloads? [1][2]

Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

It's more than that. The hooks are not interesting to a broad audience. Maybe theleekycauldron or a different prep builder will promote one of those hooks, but I'm against it. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I think ALT4 is perfectly interesting to the average reader. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change "bug-free" to "limit bugs" or some synonym of that? It would suggest that bugs are still possible, just that efforts are being made to eliminate them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, our article itself is almost bug-free: its only use of the word "bug" in the whole article involves pypy but not pytest. In fact, it says little or nothing about why you might want to test your software. That is going to make it difficult to write any hook involving bugs. I don't see how the previous hook could have been approved without anything about "bug-free" software appearing in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein This is the third instance of this reviewer approving a hook that isn't in the article. SL93 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on pytest § Assert rewriting, something that differentiates pytest from other testing frameworks such as unittest. I tried to write this at a level readable to a general audience; not sure if I succeeded. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, that hook is way too technical for a general audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT6 ... that pytest detects errors in Python computer programs using tests that are structured in an arrange, act and assert sequence known as AAA? Article: "Fixtures practically constitute the arrange phase in the anatomy of a test (AAA, short for arrange, act, assert)." Source 1: "The tests are written in the classical style and use the typical three-phase sequence: arrange, act, and assert (AAA for short...) " Source 2: "I prefer pytest because of some advanced features (fixtures, plug-ins, etc.),... One of the most common patterns you'll find is the 3A or AAA test pattern. AAA stands for Arrange-Act-Assert."
* I'm suggesting this as a possible hook because it is in words a general reader can be curious about. :-) This isn't a hook that will catch an expert's interest, but expert hooks are likely to be overly technical or seen as promotional or both. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think this hook solves the "too technical" concerns. Someone knowledgeable in tech would get it, but the average reader would just see it as word salad. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Zionism as settler colonialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Articles created/expanded on April 18[edit]

Jesus Christus, Menschensohn

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg A new hook may be needed here as I don't see how the currently proposed hook (i.e. a liturgy being included in a collection for young people) appeals to anyone but specialists. A hook about the stanzas may be more promising here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerda usually has a pretty good reason why she finds a fact interesting, so let's wait for that... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 06:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what you mean about the stanzas. I'd like to be as little theological as possible. I think that this hymn addresses Jesus 3 times, while the normal Kyrie calls "God - Jesus - God" might require rather more knowledge than the present suggestion. - Typically, "old" liturgical things like Kyrie are not for young people, - this one tries to appeal to them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first stanza requests enlightenment to see God face to face. The second stanza recalls that Jesus carried on the Cross what we suffer. The third stanza requests that Jesus, called ("gerufen") from grave and death, may be with us on life's steps ("Stufen"). This part of the article could work as a hook in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a lot of theology, - what should a Muslim reader do with this information? It's also not unusual, but rather typical for Kyrie to word three things - spoken or sung - and end each with "Kyrie eleison" or "Christe eleison". I also would not know how to squeeze it fairly - mentioning all three - in a hook. This author (Schlegel) is good in wording religious things in a way appealling to young people - that's the basic message, and not only for specialists, - perhaps you can word that better? Or do you want to make it quirky by saying that he sort of rhymed the Greek "eleison" with the German "Menschensohn" three times? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the elesion rhyming thing can be mentioned/referenced in the article, sure. I'm also not sure why the theology thing is being brought up since it was far from my mind when I looked at the article and the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • No reference mentions the rhyme because it's just there (son - sohn). What about a Muslim who may know nothing about Jesus carrying the Cross. The concept of "Menschensohn" is hard enough for Christians, so I was shy there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I really don't see how being included in a collection for young people works as a DYK hook. I think something about the content itself could work better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any specific thing without relying on Christian background. It's unusual to call Jesus three times instead of Lord - Jesus - Lord, but I wouldn't know how to say so in 200 chars. - Need (to make) food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems we're stuck here so I'm asking Epicgenius to see if there's another path forward here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping @Narutolovehinata5. Regarding Gerda's statement that "'old' liturgical things like Kyrie are not for young people", I feel that this fact may not necessarily be intuitive. This especially applies if we're trying to appeal to young people, since they tend to be less involved in religion compared with their elders. Perhaps there is a better way to rephrase the hook to make this fact more evident? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I'm no sure I can do that, with my limited English. I think the hook should be about this specific song, not general reception trends.
    ALT1: ... that two versions of "Jesus Christus, Menschensohn", an expansion of the liturgical Kyrie written by Helmut Schlegel, are contained in a 2013 choral song book? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt, what I meant to say is that readers may not necessarily understand the significance of including this "expansion of the liturgical Kyrie" in a song book. That is probably what NLH5 is objecting to. For example, I had to also click on the Kyrie link to understand the original hook.
    As for ALT1, I would say that I don't quite understand why including two versions of "Jesus Christus, Menschensohn" in a choral song book is out of the ordinary. Maybe there's something I'm missing and there is a good reason this fact is interesting. In any case, it seems to me like you want to say that "an expansion of the liturgical Kyrie, which is not typically targeted toward young people, is included in a song book for young people". I suggest we try modifying ALT0 again. Alternatively, we can propose another hook that is unrelated to Kyrie. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the songbook, there is no other entry in it twice that I see, and it's by two different composers, telling a bit how much it is liked. I believe we need the relation to the Kyrie, because that's what it is used for in the liturgy of the mass, and without mentioning it, we'd have to translate (and probably explain) the German title, which would be longer. I bet that many of our readers will connect to Kyrie (Gloria Sanctus ...) without clicking, and for the others, there's a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg To give this a proper review, the article was new and long enough at the time of the nomination, is free from close paraphrasing, the nominator has done a QPQ, and I am assuming good faith on the German sources. To clarify my point above, Epicgenius is right in that I do not see how a Kyrie being included in a collection, let alone for young people, makes for a broadly interesting hook. Regular readers may not immediately get the point, especially the ones unfamiliar with Kyries. As Epicgenius said, the intended idea is probably workable, it's just not working out with the currently proposed hooks. If this hook fact doesn't work out, we may need to use a different hook fact instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... or a different reviewer? ... or a look at ALT1?
    ALT0a: ... that "Jesus Christus, Menschensohn", written in the 21st century by Helmut Schlegel to be used in masses, has been included in several song books for young people[, even in two versions for one of them]?
    I wish it had a year, to be shorter. Better wording welcome, - it's really hard for me and takes time to phrase things to your liking. We could picture Schlegel, which would show sacred context at a glance, but that image was already on the Main page, and I'd find it unfair to repeat while so many images need to be rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 doesn't solve the original issues and is arguably even worse than ALT0: at least there's promise in the idea that a music genre that doesn't normally appeal to young people is being made to appeal to young people. ALT1 simply says that this work was included in a compilation, which isn't really a hook. It's a statement of fact, which works in an article body but doesn't really work for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(you probably know that "eleison" means "have mercy".) All songs of NGL are meant to make old content acceptable - or better expressed - to young people, - that's nothing specific for this hymn. I actually have another DYK in that direction, let's not bore readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All songs of NGL are meant to make old content acceptable - or better expressed - to young people, - that's nothing specific for this hymn Yes, but would the average reader know that? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had several on DYK, successfully, so the interested reader may know, and the others may not even care. I like to say something specific about a subject, quite generally so, as you know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg This nom has been left hanging for two months without a single technical problem being raised. ALT0a appears to address all of the other concerns raised above. I would suggest posting without the braced section simply for brevity. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg ALT0a says that this hymn has been included in several song books for young people, but the article only identifies Junges Gotteslob as being for young people. If other publications were for younger folk, they should be identified as such in the article. If not, then a new hook is needed as one publication cannot be identified as "several". Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: "Junges Gotteslob" and "Freiburger Kinderchorbuch" are both books for young people. I don't think we need to explicitly point out that a book called "Kinderchorbuch" is for children. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: I have never learned German (and I assume this is German) so it's not obvious to me what the English translation of "Kinderchorbuch" is. Perhaps the translation should be in the article? Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I suspect the average reader went to kindergarten and will get the "kids" part just fine. But for the sake of moving this two month old nom along, I will add it in parens. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Readding tick so promoters know this is ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think we need our readers' time spent on reading a translation when it says (intentionally) that it is for "children's choir" which sadly has no link (yet) but should be clear enough, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Re kindergarten: this phrase, is not used in various parts of the world, such as the United Kingdom, so they might not know what kindergarden is. Other readers did not attend school in English and may have used different phrases for these early years of education. I also don't want to assume that the vast majority of readers would make the connection between kindergarten and kinderchorbuch, especially when the word is in a different language. Since English Wikipedia is for an international audience, I think it is better to use as many English phrases as possible for descriptors.
@Gerda Arendt: Re the children's choir: When I read the article, the phrasing specified that Raabe's setting is for a children's choir, but did not specify that Freiburger Kinderchorbuch was a children's choir book. Maury Markowitz added the translation, which specified this, but another solution might be the following change, "Raabe's setting, for choir and piano, is contained in the second volume of Freiburger Kinderchorbuch, a children's choir book published by Carus-Verlag commissioned by the Diocese of Freiburg." This would specify that Freiburger Kinderchorbuch is itself a children's choir book (this also removes the CD mention, which I don't think is needed and made the flow less desirable, in my opinion). Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my thought, and the translation is acceptable, but also in the way of the flow. Die Träume hüten (which has a translation because I believe it helps understanding) is also a collection not for children but mainly for young people. Guard your dreams. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Readding the tick so preppers know that this is ready. I will let others review this for promotion. Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 20[edit]

Josh Hudson

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

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

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

@Narutolovehinata5: I don't believe it is covered in print, no. Soaper1234 - talk 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said at the RSN discussion that it probably shouldn't be used for facts – can the factual citations be switched out, then? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: If the sources can't be replaced and if you aren't able to respond to the concerns soon, the nomination may end up being failed for staleness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately Soaper hasn't been very active lately and hasn't edited the article since April despite concerns about sourcing. As such it doesn't seem like the article will be ready for DYK anytime soon. I do hope that someone could adopt the nomination in his place as the sourcing issues do seem surmountable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: That is a shame that the nomination will have to fail, as I do believe the sourcing to be reasonable within the context of the article. Soaper1234 - talk 21:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Yi Jeonggyu

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symbol delete vote.svg I reopened this and I'm marking the nomination for closure. There are substantial copyright violations in the article and this nomination has been around since April. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing is under discussion on the article's talk page. Let's give the editor a chance to correct their edits, as they're new and might be hearing about this copyright issue for the first time. Giving this another week sounds like a reasonable window, considering the work they've put into this. czar 18:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Ok. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg It's been almost a week and the nominator hasn't edited since June 10. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 30[edit]

William George Carlile Kent

Commander Kent
Commander Kent

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

I was in the process of reviewing the article and nomination and while Ruthgrace beat me to replying, I generally agree with their assessment (however I would note that Knightmare 3112 only appears to have two prior DYKs and would thus be exempt from QPQ). In an effort to address the concerns about the hook I have also drafted the below ALT2 (please feel free to wordsmith/rework to improve if helpful). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3 ... that William George Carlile Kent (pictured) was court-martialed for refusing to "blow down the town of Sydney about the ears of the inhabitants"? This could be more hooky since it is a teaser about who gave the orders and why. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 6[edit]

Yosef Shenberger

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

  • Apologies for unlearned contribution (I've very little DYK experience) the first option doesn't work, as synagogues don't belong to architects ("his") and more fundamentally the proposed hook suggests that until he came along synagogues didn't have stained glass windows, when the idea has been around for centuries. The alt hook doesn't seem very interesting to me - a bridge instead of a ramp? Meh. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this comment Dweller. All I found regarding the Hurva so far is this quote: Today, a 16-meter-high stone arch erected by two architects in 1978 spans the space where the Hurva once stood, serving, together with the in situ remains and explanatory plaques, as a stark reminder of what was destroyed. [4] The "two architects" likely being a reference to the partners Shenberger and Katz (the former died in 1982 and the latter in 2016). While it is clear this reference cannot be used as a source, my research tools are currently limited, although I might be able to improve them soon. In regards to ALT0, the language I chose was due to brevity. Also, the article makes clear that while stained glass might not be a new idea, Shenberger encountered some opposition to the idea of including decorative elements in synagogues, due to some conservative leaders (rabbis?) believing they were a distraction to prayer. Please review the revised hook below; and because you said you are relatively unfamiliar with DYK, I am providing a link to the DYK reviewing guide for your convenience.
  • ALT0a ... that architect Yosef Shenberger overcame opposition to adding stained glass and other decorative elements to synagogues through his study of ancient ruins? Havradim leaf a message 00:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a full review of the article has not yet been done. I shall review this from scratch, including hooks, to familiarise myself with the material. Storye book (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you, Havradim, for a fascinating article about an architect who cared about how historical buildings worked.

  • Two paragraphs in the article are not sourced at the ends.
  • ALT0: I disagree with the above comment that the word "his" is inappropriate here. It is common parlance to call an architect's designs and artworks "his" work. That does not imply that the land and the building are his own property. Also, the word "inspiration" does not imply that the architect did it first (i.e. used stained glass in synagogues first). A parallel example might be that lots of people have been inspired by Michelangelo's Laurentian Library, but that doesn't mean that they are – ahem – all the first to build another storey on top of walls and foundations that were never meant for it ... "Inspired" means that it's been done before, and you want to do it too. Just saying. There is nothing wrong with ALT0 and its citation, which is repeated in the article. I approve ALT0.
  • ALT0a: ALT0 didn't need to be replaced, but this alternative is fine, anyway. I approve ALT0a.
  • ALT1: There is nothing wrong with this ALT in respect of DYK rules, and its citation is OK. But it needs some hint of the architect's annoyance to be fun, I think. If you have a preference for ALT1, then please add a bit of that? However it's within the rules, so I approve ALT1.

Summary: Two paras need citations at the ends. If that issue can be resolved, then this nom will be good to go. Storye book (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Thomas de Vogel

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 7[edit]

Empirical limits in science

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

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

  • Symbol question.svg @Airstarfish: The 5x expansion occurred in mainspace over the course of around 2–3 weeks. According the the letter of the rules, this would be permissible had the expansion occurred in a draft or sandbox. Since this is a student I'm going to count this as a technicality and say it follows the spirit of being new and long enough. It is within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, and a QPQ review is not needed for a new user.
The hook uses vague language and needs to be reworked or replaced: "scientists don't all agree on the gene concept" doesn't capture the article's discussion of the genotype/phenotype distinction. I'd also double-check that paragraph against the source (which I don't have access to at the moment); my instinct is that evolutionary biologists would emphasize phenotype while molecular biologists would emphasize genotype, which is the reverse of what the article says. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) would it be better if it read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene and this is one of the empirical limits in science?" as this is more consistent with the main point and wording in that section of the article. Also the article has the same order as written in the source in the genotype/phenotype discussion. I've found and cited an additional source: Stotz, Karola; Griffiths, Paul E.; Knight, Rob (2004). "How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 35 (4): 647–673. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.09.005, which is more explicit (and should preferably be used instead for the DYK nomination), in which the Author of the source also suspected it would be the other way around but upon investigation found it to be the way that it is written in the article. Airstarfish (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): alternatively to be even more specific it could read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene whereby some scientists think of the gene at a cellular level while others think in terms of its apparent effect and this is one of the empirical limits in science?", but this hook might be giving too much away Airstarfish (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Narutolovehinata5: The nominator responded on the article talk page instead of here; I just moved their response above. @Airstarfish: Does the source explicitly say that this difference in conceptualization is an empirical limit of science? Conceptualization would seem to me to be a theoretical rather than empirical limit. It would be easier if I could see the source myself, but I don't have access to it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since May and the issues raised above remain unaddressed. Unless another editor adopts this I don't see a path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just needs a different hook. I can take a look and suggest one over the weekend. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be willing to adopt the nomination and propose a new hook? We'll probably need a new reviewer at that point, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg What about this? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH):. I like your ALT3. Your suspicion about the genotypic/phenotypic paragraph appears to be correct, given the source below which was cited. If you want to go ahead and correct that problem in the Wikipedia article, and ping me, I can do a final round of review. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hypothesis One. We expected to see a strong divergence between molecular and evolutionary biologists, given the emphasis on the investigation of the intrinsic, structural nature of the gene in the former discipline and the emphasis on genes as markers of phenotypic effects in the latter discipline. " ... "Hypotheses one and two, which suggest, in broad terms, that biologists whose research focus is in evolutionary biology conceptualize genes primarily via their effects on phenotypes, are supported in some tests but not others. The fact that the hypotheses are supported when indirect questions are used, but not when direct questions are used..." How Biologists Conceptualize Genes: An empirical study


References

Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

Tenta, Cyprus

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

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

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

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

Thank you @Mehediabedin:, I really appreciate your suggestions! I prefer ALT1. Cstylus (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I took a quick look at the article and there are a few issues. Firstly, the article was created way back in 2008, so it is not eligible as a new article. On the other hand, the article did receive a 5x expansion starting on May 9th. The article was nominated on May 17th, which is just a day late; however, as the nominator is a new student editor, that one-day lateness may be forgiven. Finally, the article has a "citation needed" tag that needs fixing. I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and most of the sources (including those for the hooks) are cited to sources I can't access so AGF. I think ALT1 is the best option here. This article is somewhat outside my expertise so I'd like a second opinion from a subject expert as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I don't have access to the sources. Can anyone investigate the article for DYK? Mehedi Abedin 08:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg We may need some help from a subject expert. Maybe Buidhe can help? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I would not call myself an expert on Cyprus or archaeology (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1982 World's Fair

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Articles created/expanded on May 11[edit]

Shireen Abu Akleh

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

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

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

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

In light of Selfstudier's comment, I suggest the following:
  • ALT5:... that journalist Shireen Abu Akleh (her death protest pictured), killed despite wearing a blue "PRESS" vest, was shot by Israel Defense Forces bullet according to several independent investigations?
@Thriley and Selfstudier: what do you think? --Mhhossein talk 07:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: Are you willing to keep up with the nomination? --Mhhossein talk 04:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This hook is what I would like to see, but I think others should comment on it besides me. Thriley (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley: So you should use a {{subst:DYK?again}} template to request for a new reviewer. --Mhhossein talk 04:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose Alt5, you can't say this with certainty in Wiki's voice. The US and others said that it most likely came from the IDF but they can't know for certain. As such, Alt5 is not an acceptable blurb. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be misreading what is said in Wikipedia's voice. We dont say the IDF shot her, we say several independent investigations have concluded the IDF shot her, and they did. nableezy - 13:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US for example said "most likely" also, at the very least it'd be misleading. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the US said that, the investigations it is referring to are the independent investigations by Washington Post, NY Times, and Bellingcat. That is absolutely not misleading, and the objection is baseless. nableezy - 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Minor copy edit, ... that journalist Shireen Abu Akleh (protest against her killing pictured), killed despite wearing a blue "PRESS" vest, was killed by Israel Defense Forces soldiers according to multiple investigations by independent press agencies? nableezy - 17:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6 "Separate investigations by Associated Press, CNN, Washington Post, The New York Times, Bellingcat the United Nations and the US government all independently concluded that fire from Israeli forces was the likely cause of Akleh’s death." Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion but we don't need to name those outlets/agencies, for the sake of brevity. --Mhhossein talk 06:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking Alt6 due to opposition, I will refrain from further comment here. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ashuanipi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 12[edit]

Erik Johansson (artist)

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

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

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

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

Promoting with reviewers addition

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

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

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

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

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

Full BASIC

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

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

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

White-nosed saki

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

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

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Alright Vikster28, an update:

Improved:

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

Remainign Issues:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 14[edit]

Fantasy cartography

  • ... that only 34% of fantasy books have a fantasy map? Source: Stefan Ekman's book, Here Be Dragons: Exploring Fantasy Maps and Settings. pp. 22–23.

5x expanded by Twomatters (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg A really good effort with the expansion. But we need to cover a few points related to the article in general, and to the DYK requirements specifically. Please spend some time improving the references. This includes reducing primary sources and replacing with secondary sources (such as Wonderdraft[9] and Inkarnate.[10]). Make sure there are no unreferenced paragraphs (Fantasy cartography#Early history). If public domain content has been used then that could be mentioned using suitable templates (for example with reference to In 1516... This map inspired artistic cartographers...) The section on "Types" and "Cartographic software" could do with some more referencing. Please note that if you think you have adequately referenced something I've pointed out or overlooked please do comment below.
  • "Prevalence, features and characteristics" has some content in question answer format. At least the first question, on which the hook is based, "How common is it for fantasy novels to contain at least one map? Of the two-hundred surveyed books, sixty-seven (34%) contained at least one map" would be better in prose format. The tables have been copied as they are.
    • Hi User:FacetsOfNonStickPans, thanks for the feedback. I think I have covered off everything you raised. That, and my suggestion of an alternate hook, I hope you can reassess my nomination. Thanks! Twomatters (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is of visuals from a copyrighted book; irrespective of the image quality; is the image adequately licensed? Please confirm this. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe because the image is a new creative work, using Tolkien's maps in a collage-type way is it considered a new work. The photographer has released the license for the image he took. I think this means its all good! Twomatters (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a derived work. The copyrighted maps (will be in copyright for another 20-odd years) are the main feature of the image, so there is no de minimis exception and the photographer does not have the right to release the maps under a free license. Images like this can be used on Wikipedia (compare Tolkien's maps) but only with a detailed non-free use ("fair use") rationale, and never on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to explain that! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment about the hook: the article says "34%" without giving a judgement whether that is surprisingly few or surprisingly many. The hook says "only 34%". Personally I'm surprised they are that common. I don't think "only 34%" is appropriate without sourcing and context. —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah this is totally fair enough. I have since suggested an alternate hook below. Thanks User:Kusma Twomatters (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to continue to work on the elements you have brought up. Also... I have come up with a better DYK hook. Should I comment that here or create a new nomination? Twomatters (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make a new hook here, the nomination here both assesses the article and any potential hooks. To distinguish between different suggestions, we use ALT1, ALT2 etc. I'll leave a template for you below. —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 ... that fantasy maps were used in wargames by U.S. Army code-breakers during the Cold War (example pictured)? Source: https://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/ZendiaProblem-callimahos-1960
Part of Loreno, a declassified fantasy map used by U.S Army code-breakers in the Cold War
Part of Loreno, a declassified fantasy map used by U.S Army code-breakers in the Cold War

Twomatters (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the first hook could have been used, there are still issues with it which remain unaddressed. I am striking the first hook for clarity. Now that it is clear that the first image cannot be used with the DYK hook, the image has to be removed from the article as well for the same reason, that is it is derived work and not properly licensed.
ALT1 is cited in the article and is interesting. The image is free of any known copyright restrictions, appears in the article, is relevant to the hook, and is clear enough. The caption needs a little tweaking, why is there a question mark? Maybe the caption could also be shortened. For example, instead of The Central Part of The Province of Loreno, you could simply write "Part of Loreno". Also try to limit the duplicity in links as far as possible (for example 'Cold War' doesn't need to be linked in both hook and caption); however there are no hard and fast rules about this. Check out the DYK archives for lots of examples.
Tweaked! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the word "declassified" is used in the hook caption, the corresponding sentence in the article should also have a citation- These fantasy maps have now been declassified....
Done! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, please make sure that all paragraphs contain at least one citation to a reliable source. Note that under Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines D4 "Wikipedia... is not considered a reliable source." FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a whole bunch of citations. There's now very few section without citations. I will keep going if it's still insufficient. Twomatters (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is nearly in shape as per dyk rules. With regard to your comment above related to citations... I think I should mention the basis on which citations/references are being referred to here. There are five eligibility criteria under the DYK rules. The third criteria, "Within policy" mentions a couple of things such as "Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability" and "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources... or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text." Editors also take into consideration Wikipedia:Citation overkill as well.
Now coming back to this review, there is only one thing remaining which I had mentioned above "The tables have been copied as they are." That is to say this is a case of a copyright violation. Further the pages cited are 23, 25, 26 while you have only mentioned 22-23. Please address this. Since this aspect, how you present and paraphrase the content, is an editorial decision it is left to you. I am only making sure your editorial decisions follow DYK rules. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this FacetsOfNonStickPans. I have now fixed up the citations for the tables. Just so I'm crystal clear, are you saying that I need to remove or change the tables before the article and DYK nomination is approved? Happy to do this if that is what is required. Thanks again, Twomatters (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tables have been copied as they are from the book; this would be a case of copyvio and this copyvio needs to be addressed.
Let me ask Kusma to confirm. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the tables in the article appears to me to be copyright infringing (but there's no need to panic; I think we do not need to delete old revisions of the article, but we should not present it on the Main Page as it is). They are used as additional illustrative material and are not even subject to critical commentary. I would suggest to remove the tables and to summarise the main findings in two or three sentences of prose, which is better encyclopaedic style anyway. Given that we know little about the methodology how the books were selected, it is questionable to put so much weight on these findings anyway. Hope that helps. Ping FacetsOfNonStickPans, Twomatters. —Kusma (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Twomatters, gentle reminder. Thanks for the clarification Kusma. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - have just been real busy lately irl. Copyright violating tables have now been removed and relevant data is now in prose form with citations to the research. Pinging FacetsOfNonStickPans, Kusma Twomatters (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better to me (although it is still a bit overly detailed; I find it hard to care about the orientations found without some context why that is interesting. In a GA review I would make a fuss about it). Anyway, FacetsOfNonStickPans should probably make the final call to proceed with this nomination (or to call for another reviewer if they are unable to do so). —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg Hiding the first image for clarity. Adding "example pictured" as per hook format. ALT1 is good to go along with the accompanying image. The article is looking much better. Thanks everyone for the patience with this nom! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Twomatters: excellent work! Can the two paragraphs in Fantasy cartography#Perspectival be cited first? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 11:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Thanks! I've added citations for the paragraphs you've identified. Twomatters (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Several subsections need to be referenced. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also iffy on the quality of some of the sourcing – there appear to be quite a few blogs, fan repository sites, and a wiki. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 03:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @Theleekycauldron:. By my count, included in the references are:

- 12 academic journal articles - 10 books - 8 online magazine articles - 4 academic books - 3 blogs - 2 online reviews - 2 artist websites - 1 to oxford dictionary - 1 wiki

I'm unfamiliar with the acceptable ratio of academic to non-academic sources. Is there a wiki page on this? I appreciate you guys persisting with me and this article! Twomatters (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Twomatters: Coolio! Hmm, it's not so much about a ratio between academic and non-academic sources, as much as it is that we wanna make sure every source meets at least some standard of reliability. That doesn't mean "academic", but it probably means that you're going to want to cut out the wiki and the blogs. Whether the online reviews and the artist websites can stay depends on who's writing and what the editorial process is like. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Theleekycauldron: thanks for that. Makes sense. I'll add it to my list of to-dos.Twomatters (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 15[edit]

Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @Gerda Arendt:, a good hook could be made by saying that this song is part of Neues Geistliches Lied, to express the interests of young people better than traditional hymns. The introduction to this article states says that the hymn is NGL, but the main body does not say it clearly. I will be happy to finish this review for you tomorrow! Flibirigit (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article was created on May 15, and nominated on May 22, therefore new enough. Length is adequate. No plagiarism issues detected. QPQ has been done. The "Text and theme" section contains multiple quotes. As per WP:DYKCRIT, a citation needs to appear directly at the end of any sentence which includes a quote. The sentence which supports ALT0 needs a citation directly at the end. ALT0 is reasonably interesting. I am open to other hooks being proposed as per above. Flibirigit (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: Perhaps this can work? ALT1 ... that the hymn "Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt" is of a genre which aims to express the interests and ideas of young people better than traditional hymns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good hook about the genre, but not about this specific song. Sadly the title is too long for the translation "I praise my Lord who gets me out of the depths", in the sense of Psalm 130 (Out of the deep ...). I think "Glory to God on earth" - vs. the normal "Glory to God in the Highest" has some of the idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work more on a usage section, and hopefully find a better thing to say. Later today or tomorow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will look for the changes. Flibirigit (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:, please accept this courtesy reminder that no action has been made on this nomination during the week. Flibirigit (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry, terrible and happy events in real life. I looked further, and more sources stress the "on Earth" vs. "in the Highest" aspect. One newspaper describes it being sung on the Schlossplatz Stuttgart by the crowd gathered there of around 100.000, - that's probably more what you want. Should I add it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The additional source will only help the article. A song sung by 100,000 persons could be hooky. Do you have other changes, or is it okay to go ahead with ALT0? Flibirigit (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added it, and a hook could be:
ALT2: ... that around 250,000 people joined singing the refrain of the 1979 Christian song "Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt" at an evening event of the 2015 Kirchentag in Stuttgart?Source - I don't know how to say that usually only one of five in such a group actually sings ;) - Thank you for providing the cites to the quotes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT2, it's better than the original hook at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol question.svg ALT0 is now properly cited and mentioned inline, and verified by the source since I can read German. ALT0 is tentatively approved! ALT1 is struck as per the comments above by Gerda. I cannot think of a better way to word ALT1, so I will move on without it. As for ALT2, I am curious about the choice of "around 100,000". The source says, "Der Platz ist nun vollständig gefüllt, 250.000 Menschen sollen da sein." This seems to me to say estimated 250,000 people. Flibirigit (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, I wrote from (bad) memory, changed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT0 and ALT2 approved as per above review. Flibirigit (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and Flibirigit: Gerda brings up a reasonable problem with ALT2 – we can't verify how many people sang, only how large the crowd was and that many in the crowd sang. I prefer it over ALT0, so can either of you think of a snappy way to remove that mislead? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 11:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exact wording would work, but one idea could be to mention that 250,000 was the crowd, then mention that the crowd sung but without making the direct connection that 250,000 people sung? It's kind of hard to explain, but basically something like "there was a crowd of 250,000, and later that crowd sung (but it's unknown if all 250,000 sung)". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One would have to assume that this is dead on arrival, but I'll throw it out there anyway:
Gerda, which details would you like to see put back in this hook? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original is easier, and dislike the pipe, because those reading German will immediately see that it alludes to Psalm 130 - which might be another hook possibility, thinking of Yoninah.
ALT2b: ... that at an evening event of the 2015 Kirchentag, "Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt" was performed on three stages for a crowd of around 250,000, and many joined for the refrain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that sentiment. Most readers of the English Wikipedia, including those reading the main page, do not understand German. People seeing the long title would not even realize that it is referring to a Psalm at all unless they know the language, and I doubt most readers do. I still think ALT2a is a better option here: it flows better, it's straight to the point, and I think the 250,000-strong crowd is a strong hook fact in on if itself. As such, Symbol voting keep.svg I am approving ALT2a only; rest of the review per Flibirigit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with ALT2a, sorry, because "help" seems not a good word to say about people just singing along. I don't have a better word than "join". - I also disagree with your evaluation. The other day, we had a double nom with an author and his song Selig, wem Christus auf dem Weg begegnet. More people clicked the song than the author, although he came first. I think a longish German title may raise curiosity, while "a 1979 Christian song" will not, promised. What do you think, tlc? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing "helped sing" to simply "sung"? That way the context is "many in a crowd sang a song". It says that many sang the song, but it doesn't claim that all people in the song sang it (which was the concern raised about the earlier version). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about, as a possible compromise, we could go with something like:
ALT2c ... that many in the 250,000-strong crowd sang the refrain of the Christian hymn Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt during the 2015 Kirchentag?
I'm still not sold on the full German song being mentioned here but if a promoter promoted this I wouldn't object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg Why was ALT0 struck without comment or explanation? Flibirigit (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 17[edit]

Gothic double

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

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

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


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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

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

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

Enkeli-Elisa

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 19[edit]

Climate change in Italy

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 21[edit]

Franco-Greek defence agreement

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Alt Hook

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

Symbol possible vote.svg Review @Dainomite:

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 22[edit]

Irving L. Branch

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 24[edit]

Clements twins

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC). Symbol confirmed.svg Length, references and history verified. Good to go. (Nevertheless, I am bit surprised that for an article with multiple sourced descriptions of how beautiful they are and how that's been a big selling point, there isn't a picture. I shouldn't have had to see it in the SCMP. There is ample fair-use justification here per FUC 8). Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg - @Pamzeis, Daniel Case, Bruxton, FishandChipper, and Animalparty: reopening this, per issues raised at Talk:Clements twins regarding (a) the tone of the article, and (b) the possible tabloid origin of some of the sourcing. The article has been orange-tagged as needing a rewrite. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Peck (RAF officer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on May 25[edit]

Dijon Talton

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

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

Which leaves us only an appropriate hook:

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

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

  • Yeah, I think I wrote final season or final episodes, and someone (maybe BlueMoonset?) added detail, didn't notice no extra source added, so it needs some clarification. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammi Brie, Kingsif, I did indeed add that it was two episodes. Aside from IMDb (which has reliability issues in certain areas), I can't find any reliable source that specifically mentions that he was in the final two episodes (or, rather, IMDb lists the two), but I have added the episodes themselves as sources since they're typically used in episode articles to substantiate the casts as the credits are displayed in the episodes themselves. (These link to the episode articles, which do list Talton as being in each episode.) I would be cautious about using the word "regular" in a hook about a show, since that typically equates to "main character", and Matt Rutherford was a recurring role rather than a starring/main one; he appeared in 18 of 22 first-season episodes, and then not again until the final two. Not sure of a good way to reword it to keep the first/final dichotomy, unless "only appeared regularly on" would be okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2a: ... years after he was a recurring character on Glee during its first season, Dijon Talton reprised his role as Matt Rutherford in the final two episodes?
  • Works for me. It probably means we need a new reviewer to approve ALT2a, though.
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT2a. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 27[edit]

Arming teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on June 1[edit]

PJ and Thomas

Moved to mainspace by Bi-on-ic (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 05:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough (from draftspace), long enough, and the hook is sourced. QPQ also checks out. Grk1011 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daniel Case and Grk1011: Symbol question.svg Self-reverting promotion; I don't think PopSugar is a reliable source, and it looks like a lot of the article is based on mid-range queer magazines and websites – are there more reliable publications available? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Theleekycauldron: I only nominated this article. You will have to ask the nominator, @Bi-on-ic:, about this since he put it together. (And I would add that not being familiar with a publication does not mean it doesn't meet our reliability standards ... there are plenty of local newspapers we don't have articles about that we have accepted as sources because they demonstrate editorial oversight; conversely, while no one would question the notability of TMZ or The Daily Mail we avoid using them as sources). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel Case: I'd argue that you, as the nominator, accept the primary responsibility for shepherding this to the finish line – the creator didn't ask for the extra work of making this meet DYK criteria. By all means, let's see what Bi-on-ic can tell us, but I'm not sure that a drive-by nomination is appropriate if it creates more work for the author. by mid-range, i meant mid-range in reliability, not notability ;) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Theleekycauldron: I moved the article to mainspace from AfC at his request. PopSugar seems to have been used as a source in a number of articles, which of course does not equal reliability. Perhaps this issue is better decided at RS/N than in a DYK nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I found two WP:RSN discussions: this one and this one, plus a passing mention here. It seems like it's basically a Bustle. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 20:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the former discussion, the one response was "limited reliability for non-BLP, entertainment-related subjects" since apparently it does have a gatekeeping process.

      Now, the question is: do we consider the hook fact BLP or not? I'm (understandably at this point) going to take the latter position since the hook fact isn't that they're gay; that's well-established by the article and they have said so more than once. I consider the hook fact "entertainment-related" since it's that they're the first gay couple to host a show on this particular network. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      This discussion is now moot. I found an article in Country Living, a Hearst magazine whose reliability as a source is beyond doubt, saying the same thing, so we'll use it instead. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. PopSugar is not the only reference source for the first gay couple hosting statement. It is mentioned in multiple sources cited throughout the article.

In fact, this was the main part of the program's advertising, the fact that it was the network's first-ever show with gay hosts. It was heavily promoted by HGTV for that very reason. Also, one of the reasons behind the Out magazine interview, which is not only a credible source but also has the highest circulation of any LGBTQ publication in the US.

And the claim that all citations are 'queer magazines & websites' is not true. For instance, the UNHCR article about their activism or Cleveland Daily Banner about their property development projects. Bionic (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Bionic! Daniel Case did already resource the hook, so that's fine; and I know that not all of the citations are queer magazines and websites (although the Chattanooga Times Free Press is certainly queer in the other sense), but it's enough sources in that reliable-ish area that it starts to feel shaky. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 05:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron I disagree. I don't see how queer websites can't be used to cite queer-related topics. It seems no different than citing a book to a book magazine or a film to a film journal. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are more, shall we say, tvtropes.com than they are The A.V. Club. Yes, they both attempt the same topic, but not every queer website is The Advocate. mensvows.com, for example, is essentially a multi-person blog, and I see little evidence of strong editorial oversight. Thegailygrind.com likewise seems quite clickbaity. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem like the best idea to hold the nomination up without a wider discussion about the sources. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron I will try replacing the sources that you find to be problematic within the next couple days, but I'm not sure what all of them are. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I can't then. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Just ticking this for the benefit of prep builders. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias response teams

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

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

Thank you for the comments. I will make some changes. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While there are more changes to be made, and new hooks to be found... my intention for the section listing incidents reported to various campus response teams was to provide some examples of incidents that have actually been reported. For now, I have removed all the names of the colleges and universities, and have merged the remaining text into another section. If this particular content still doesn't seem to suit the article, it can be removed. The article will still carry the formal explanations of bias incidents. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BuySomeApples, I don't have an interesting hook for this. This is my last attempt at a hook... :D
FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 3[edit]

W. P. Mahoney

Mahoney in 1924
Mahoney in 1924

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

References

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

Generation Drag

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

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

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

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

I like it, though "teens" isn't wholly accurate, as two out of the five performers are 12 and not yet teens. If the word "teens" is changed to "children", I think it looks good. Proposing the word change below. --Kbabej (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that model Tyra Banks produces Generation Drag, a TV series which follows five children preparing for a drag show? --Kbabej (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I had checked the first two sources in the article, both of which referred to them as five teens. But since some were preteens, I've struck ALT2.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  23:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support ALT3. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mandarax and Kbabej: Sorry — I thought someone would reply to this. Does ALT3 look acceptable to promote? Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the only difference from the hook I suggested is the replacement of "teens" with "children". This source (unlike the two I had looked at) identifies some of the participants as 12-year-olds, so ALT3 looks fine to me.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  22:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good to me! --Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Liu Zhaohua

Created by Imcdc (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Even though the person is deceased and thus BLP doesn't apply, I'm really not sure if the hook proposed is a good idea. "Notorious" isn't mentioned in the article (only in one of the sources) and is subjective anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • ALT1: ... that Liu Zhaohua was a Chinese drug lord who produced and trafficked over 18 tonnes of methamphetamine?
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Hi, I have created a more neutral sounding hook as an alternative -Imcdc (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinata5:. I think you misunderstand. notorious means "famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed." So when the authorities have you tried, convicted and executed then I think nearly everyone would say that you are a) well known and b) did a bad deed and this is in no way subjective... and Wikipedia would not care if you were living ... this is a notorious person. It doesn't matter if the word is actally used. Editors are required to paraphrase. Victuallers (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanne Witt

  • ... that in June 2009, a teenage girl and her adult boyfriend stabbed her mother to death when she objected to their relationship? Source: "Witt was murdered because she had objected to their relationship as Tylar was only 14, while Colver was 19."
    • ALT1: ... that a 14-year-old girl tried to pass off her 19-year-old boyfriend as gay ... and they killed her mother when she found out the truth? Source: "Tylar assured her mother that Colver was gay and their relationship was more like that of a brother and sister."
    • Comment: My first article!

Created by Just Another Cringy Username (talk). Self-nominated at 04:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 4[edit]

Missa brevis in C (Brixi)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg The article was nominated on time and a QPQ has been done. The article is also long enough and new enough and is free from close paraphrasing. As all the sources are in German I am assuming good faith here. The hook fact is interesting as it's unusual for an 18th-century composition to be officially published so late. However, I do have some concerns. Firstly, there is no mention of the composition being written in the 18th century in the article. While the article states that Brixi was choir director in the 1700s (or the 18th century), it doesn't explicitly state that the piece was composed at that time. Secondly, the article states that the piece was first published in 2004; however, it also states that the piece was already being widely distributed even before then. Those apparent contradictions will need to be rectified before the nomination can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, we don't know when he composed the work. I am sure that he composed it between birth and death, and both fall into the 18th century. The early copies were manuscripts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be synthesis and thus would be unsuitable for hook support purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we call another reviewer. How is it synthesis that he can't compose besides his lifetime? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be synthesis to say that he composed the work for the Prague Cathedral in the 18th century. Given that it's a hook fact, it needs an explicit mention in the article and a reference to back it up. Saying that he could only compose when he was alive would not count as a proper reference. Theoretically (although unlikely), he could have composed the work when he wasn't affiliated with the Cathedral; this is why an explicit mention in the article (along with a relevant reference) is needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we have to make the hook more complicated, for example
ALT1: ... that František Xaver Brixi, responsible for church music at the Prague Cathedral, composed the Missa brevis in C with trumpets and strings in the 18th century, but it was first printed in 2004?
No other position is mentioned in his career, but as you like it. The cathedral is only mentioned to give the mostly unknown composer a position, - it makes a difference whether he worked at a notable large place or some village church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is getting warmer, but it's still not totally accurate. Firstly, the article still says "published" rather than "printed". Secondly, the article doesn't explicitly mention that it was written in the 18th century, it is only implied by Brixi only living within the 18th century. Finally, I'm still not sure if "printed" is the right word here when referring to the 2004 release. It is mentioned in the article that, despite only being officially published in 2004, the piece had already circulated widely before then. There's no mention of how exactly this happened (it may or may not have been handwritten or printed), but in any case "printed" doesn't seem to be the proper term. Maybe "officially published" or "officially released" may be the more accurate term here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no rule that a wording (printed vs. published) has to be the same in article and hook, but here you go.
ALT1a: ... that František Xaver Brixi, responsible for church music at the Prague Cathedral in the 18th century, composed the Missa brevis in C with trumpets and strings, but it was first published in 2004? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1a: ... that František Xaver Brixi, responsible for church music at the Prague Cathedral from 1759 to 1771, composed the Missa brevis in C with trumpets and strings, but it was first published in 2004? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd rewrite it as something like "... that Prague Cathedral choir director František Xaver Brixi composed the Missa brevis in C for trumpet and strings in the 18th century, though it was not officially released until 2004?". It flows better in my opinion. As for the "rule", it's not actually a hard rule, but in practice reviewers want the hook to either match or at least be close enough to the article content. There have been cases in the past where hooks had to be pulled due to inconsistencies. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was also kapellmeister (which at the time meant leader of the chapel music, conducting and managing), not only choir director (I added that, sorry.) I am no friend of four words before the real thing comes, but that may be due to my little English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt: I take it there's no way you'd accept a hook that didn't detail the composer's role at the cathedral at all? It seems a little too difficult to nail down for a 200-character hook that's not about the composer. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 02:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mass in C major is about the most common thing to write, a short mass in the most common key, Mozart alone wrote a couple. If this was a composer people knew - if this was by Mozart - I'd do without, and the work compares as the article says. But Brixi who for his period was influential - at a major cathedral where he arrived young - is not known. That a piece is published late is nothing specific to this composition, - from the 1970, historically informed practice brought to light thousands of such works. I'd rather drop that part but can imagine the response ;) - If so little is known (such as the exact decade at least), why not educate a bit? It's a lovely work, come listen on Sunday, and there will be a concerto for two trumpets by Vivaldi, also a well-known composer of the period. Sadly, to put the loveliness in 200 chars is more difficult than the late discovery, or the position of the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]