Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from T:tdyk)
DYK queue status

There are currently 7 filled queues – all good, for now!

DYK is running 12-hour sets.

To discuss the content or layout of the Template:Did you know page itself, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.
"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting fact). 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
April 15 1 1
April 25 1
April 27 1
April 28 2 2
April 29 1
April 30 1
May 1 1
May 2 2
May 3 1
May 4 1
May 5 2 1
May 7 1
May 9 1
May 12 3 1
May 13 1
May 14 1 1
May 16 1
May 17 2 1
May 19 3 3
May 20 2
May 21 1
May 22 3
May 23 2 2
May 24 2 2
May 25 7 5
May 26 10 9
May 27 11 7
May 28 8 5
May 29 2 2
May 30 9 7
May 31 3 3
June 1 1 1
June 2 4 4
June 3 3 3
June 4 6 6
June 5 6 3
June 6 6 3
June 7 8 6
June 8 5 4
June 9 4 3
June 10 5 3
June 11 8 6
June 12 4 2
June 13 9 2
June 14 6 6
June 15 7 4
June 16 15 8
June 17 9 4
June 18 8 3
June 19 8 3
June 20 5 1
June 21 7 2
June 22 10 5
June 23 11 3
June 24 5
June 25
Total 247 137
Last updated 04:12, 25 June 2025 UTC
Current time is 04:42, 25 June 2025 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

[edit]
Shortcut

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the DYK guidelines.

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). Because of WP:DYKTIMEOUT, a nomination should be reviewed within two months since the reviewer/promoter may agree to reject and close an unpromoted hook after that time has passed.

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]
Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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: .
  2. Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
    • Any outstanding issue following 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.

Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)

  1. For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
    • 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.
    • Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
    • 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.
    • 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 [[TM:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
      To [[TM: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 [[TM:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
  • To [[TM: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 April 25

[edit]

Matthew Wild

(
)
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 293 past nominations.

Launchballer 17:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

What I said on ERRORS was that I was afraid something like this would happen. How is that interesting? I don't believe he would have been awarded "best staging of the year" for something that harmless. Matthew told a complex (fictive but based on real lives) story of a man fleeing the Nazis, becoming a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor of literature in California c. 1960, suffering a creative crisis and leaving everything, returning and then coming out causing a scandal at that time. This complex story-telling in analogy to the medieval character in a crisis and expelled by society (invented in the 19th century) won him the award, but is too complex for DYK rules. Therefore I intentionally did not nominate. Readers might rather be interested in Wild coming from from South Africa and the production at the Frankfurt Opera, again voted "best opera house". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a comment and not a review, but honestly I do think that the original (and now struck) hook was the most interesting option and perhaps the one most likely to get non-specialist readers. I'm fine with ALT1a, but in terms of attracting readership it is admittedly weaker. @Launchballer: Do you find ALT1a fine, or is a new direction needed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the original was far better, though can live with ALT1a.--Launchballer 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is two months old as of today. Given the backlog, recent discussions about hook interest, and how the only remaining hook is on the lower end of interestingness, I'm timing this out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 27

[edit]

Just Say Yes (Ted)

(
)
Scott Grimes
Scott Grimes
  • Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by Crystal Drawers (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

ALT1 implies there was something wrong with Ubach's first audition, which feels unduly negative.--Launchballer 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really? I never thought of ALT1 as negative, and there doesn't seem to be any context in the hook that suggests it is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Auditions are usually unsuccessful for a reason, though I'm probably not going to hold this up for that reason.--Launchballer 14:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, everyone. I'm sorry, I didn’t receive notifications about these replies for some reason and just randomly stumbled upon them. I don’t think her having to audition a few times insinuates her doing a poor job, but if needed I can rephrase it. Maybe to
  • ALT2: …that actress Alanna Ubach had to audition several times to ensure she was right for the part of Susan for the first episode of Ted?
This might still hold the same issue, so let me know if it’s still not sufficient :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alanna Ubach
Alanna Ubach
Also, there’d need to be a new main page image since the old one is of another actor, so I think the one seen here is good Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that if a picture does not appear in the article, it cannot be used as part of a hook. Neither the Grimes nor Ubach images are in the nominated article, so they are not currently eligible for this DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 29

[edit]

Italian brainrot

(
)
An example of these surrealist creatures
An example of these surrealist creatures
  • Reviewed:
Created by Thegoofhere (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Thegoofhere (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Not a review, but I'd like to point out some things for the benefit of the first-time nominator here. The article in question is linked in bold from the hook, which I've done. Thegoofhere, there is also a failed verification tag that will need addressing before the page is passed. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: No - ?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article was created on 26 April, and was nominated for DYK on 3 May, which is a few hours after seven days. It is long enough with 5853 characters (896 words) of readable prose size. No copyright violations, plagiarism or close paraphrasing have been found in the article. The issue with this nomination is the provided hook, which in my opinion is not particularly interesting or intriguing, and its cited source at no point mentions this trend is particularly popular in Europe, just popular in general. Since the picture used is AI generated, it holds no copyright. It also looks good and clear at a 100px. A QPQ is not required for this nomination. I suggest the editor provides a new hook(s), if you need help or want suggestion for hooks, you can contact me in my talk page. NeoGaze (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: Hello, are you planning to continue with this nomination? NeoGaze (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uh-huh --Thegoofhere (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegoofhere: You will need to propose a new hook if you want to continue pursuing this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ...that Tralalero Tralala is considered haram by Muslims? (https://screenshot-media.com/culture/internet-culture/italian-brainrot-dark-origin/)
ALT3 ...that Tung Tung Tung Sahur might become a flim? (https://www.kompas.com/hype/read/2025/05/12/104147466/viral-di-medsos-meme-tung-tung-tung-sahur-dikabarkan-akan-dibuatkan-film)
--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NeoGaze: @Narutolovehinata5:. --🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegoofhere: The content of ALT2 doesn't appear in the article, and its source doesn't specify Tralalero Tralala as being haram, but the whole Italian brainrot trend. It is also based on the opinion of a single tiktok user, which is no person of authority in the religion. ALT3 is problematic as well because its speculative. The film has not yet been completed, and so the proyect may come to nothing. I propose the following alts as alternatives, and if you approve them then we can proceed with these. NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 ...that several Italian Brainrot characters have been used to sell toys, NFTs and Meme coins? (Zhan, Jennifer (29 May 2025). "The Italian Brain Rot Ren-AI-ssance, Explained". Vulture. Retrieved 1 June 2025.) ("Meme coin trapralaleo tralala surges 17000%, experts caution investors on volatility". CHOSUNBIZ. 2025-04-29. Retrieved 2025-04-29.)
ALT5 ...that according to Polskie Radio, Italian Brainrot is popular among Generation Alpha "because it's stupid, funny and veeeery addictive"? ("Czym jest brainrot? Trippi Troppi i Ballerina Cappuccina - tego nie ogarniają nawet zetki". Polskie Radio. Polskieradio.pl. Archived from the original on 22 May 2025. Retrieved 3 June 2025.)
ALT6 ...that some Italian Brainrot characters have been accused of being Islamophobic? (Ferraris, Matilda (2025-04-26). "From Ballerina Cappuccina to Tralalero Tralalà, we unpack the darker undertones of Italian brainrot". SCREENSHOT Media. Retrieved 28 April 2025.)
@NeoGaze:. I approve. I suggest either ALT5 or ALT6--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then I'm going to cross out the previous alts and request a second opinion, to make sure everything is okay. NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 30

[edit]

Chocolate crinkle

(
)
Chocolate crinkles
Chocolate crinkles
  • Source: #1: "The first chocolate crinkle cookie recipe can be traced to a woman named Helen Fredell in St. Paul, Minnesota in the early 1950s. The recipe was originally published in a Betty Crocker cookbook, which explains that it was a cookie Mrs. Fredell served in her home, and guests couldn’t resist taking the recipe home and trying it for themselves." Betty Crocker; #2: "Credit for the original chocolate crinkle cookie recipe goes to Helen Fredell of St. Paul, Minnesota; it was published in a Betty Crocker cookbook in the early 1950s." Taste of Home
  • Reviewed:
Created by MaPhilIndo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

MaPhilIndo (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Buidhe: How do either of these options sound?
ALT1 ... that the chocolate crinkle (pictured) was the subject of a study by the Philippines' Department of Science and Technology?
ALT1a ... that Philippines' Department of Science and Technology made a study on the chocolate crinkle (pictured)?
ALT2 ... that although the chocolate crinkle (pictured) was invented in Minnesota, it is most popular in the Philippines?
ALT1/ALT1a is technically imprecise as it is not the DOST itself that made a study about it but rather one of the agencies under it: I will leave it to you if ALT1/ALT1a remain suitable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer ALT2. ALT2 is better than the other ALTs. MaPhilIndo (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination placed on hold pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate crinkle. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was closed as keep. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough at time of nomination, long enough (just), sourced enough to pass through AfD, neutral and plagiarism free. Hooks are discussed above with ALT2 favoured, so I struck the others. ALT2 would be cited by the Metroscene article which says "We think it’s safe to say that we’re pretty much the Crinkle Capital of the world", but it doesn't actually say more popular than Minnestoa. I think if more was changed to most in ALT2 that would work and fit with the sources content. No QPQ required as this is the author's first nomination. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed per above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaPhilIndo: Please address the above.--Launchballer 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore: Please respond to the recent changes of Narutolovehinata5. ALT2 was already changed from more to most. MaPhilIndo (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, I forgot the put the page on my watchlist, hang on while I remind myself Lajmmoore (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks MaPhilIndo good to go Lajmmoore (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have pulled this from the queue as the sourcing is very thin. Almost all the sources are little more than recipes, and the one source which has a little more information - and upon which the hook is based - does not look like a reliable source. Additionally, I have not been able to find any better sources. Quite frankly, I can't see this nom going anywhere. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging MaPhilIndo for their response. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 1

[edit]

Jim Lankas

(
)
  • ... that when tackling, "Jarring Jim" was "mean, very mean, very mean"?
5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 347 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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: @BeanieFan11: Article was recently 5x expanded. Sources verify hooks. No copyvio detected. Hooks are interesting and cited. QPQ done. I do think ALT1 is more interesting though. I would rewrite ALT1 as "that Jim Lankas began his wrestling career after someone at a fight did not show up, and Lankas decided to take the wrestler's place". It doesn't matter that it was in Wichita. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @WikiOriginal-9: OK, see ALT2 ... that Jim Lankas began his wrestling career after someone at a fight did not show up and Lankas decided to take the wrestler's place? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • iiiii'm not sure that ALTs 1 and 2 are a faithful interpretation of the source. The Witchita Beacon just says:

        Lankas has impressed Wichita fans this season by defeating all opponents including tough Jack Suzek. He made his introduction in the ring here when a wrestler failed to show last winter and he entered the ring as a sub. He showed his grid knowledge stood him in good stead as a wrestler.

        That doesn't necessarily sound like Lankas was in the audience and decided to hop in the ring on a whim – it sounds like he already wanted to be a wrestler and his debut match happened to be subbing for someone else, given that he then played the full season (presumably signups would have closed before the season started). I don't think ALT0 passes DYKINT, but I wouldn't stop someone else from promoting it, but striking ALTs 1 and 2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled per a WT:DYK discussion regarding the hook's interestingness. A new hook will be needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Please propose a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to come up with something by Sunday. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Just a reminder as Monday has already passed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not entirely sure that the wrestling hook should have been struck. Whether or not he decided to do it "on a whim" or if he had signed up to wrestle in case someone else did not show up, it still seems accurate to say he began when he took someone else's place. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on May 2

[edit]

James Bunbury White

(
)
Created by Aneirinn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Aneirinn (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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: The hook says, he was the founder of Whitesville, but the lead speaks of Whiteville. - A typo? Munfarid1 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook said Whitesville because Whiteville was originally established as Whitesville, however, the hook has now been changed to say Whiteville. Aneirinn (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up. Now the review is . Munfarid1 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aneirinn and Munfarid1: This comes nowhere close to meeting WP:DYKINT unless there's something I've missed; a new hook is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aneirinn and Munfarid1: Please address the above.--Launchballer 18:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0: ... that the memorial for James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death?
ALT1: ... that the memorial in honor of James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, and the first North Carolina Senator from Columbus County, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death?
Your new ALT0 seems better to me than ALT1, as it is shorter and more precise. But which source does this refer to? Munfarid1 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added now. Aneirinn (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100 men versus a gorilla

(
)
Created by Thegoofhere (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Thegoofhere (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • DYK is not for any random fact—it's to direct readers to relatively new articles on Wikipedia. Your hook needs to contain a link to an article that is new enough to be eligible for the "Did you know" section. See WP:DYKNEW for the eligibility requirements. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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: None required.

Overall: ALT2 is the only hook approved. ALT0 takes it a bit farther than the article (pretty much all statements on who wins in the article are attributed to some expert), and ALT1 doesn't really appear in the article (no info about public opinion overall). I'm not really sure where the concern for notability comes from: this is pretty far from WP:ROUTINE, and it's got plenty of secondary sources. Despite the orange tag at time of writing, all sources look fine. New reviewer. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: ALT2 won't fly either; you've got one opinion in wikivoice. New hook needed.--Launchballer 00:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If none of the hooks will fly, this shouldn't be on the Approved page. Marking that there's an issue, and moving the nomination back to the Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that the quotes would've made it clear enough that it wasn't in wikivoice, sorry about that. ALT3: ... that according to a Zoo Miami staff member, to defeat a gorilla, 100 men may "envelop the gorilla and create a human straightjacket"? Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 3

[edit]

Torta caprese

(
)
Torta caprese
Torta caprese
Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As flagged at WT:DYK, I am uncomfortable with the sourcing for this DYK hook. It's hardly a "hypothesis" but rather more like an "urban legend" that no one will seriously "test". When you go back to the sources, they discuss the claim very vaguely and unconvincingly. This is precisely the kind of claim that lands at WP:ERRORS. It's really confusing within the article itself as well – are we saying that the cake originated in Capri, but that it's possible the Italian-American mafia might have invented it in the United States? @Vacant0, BeanieFan11, History6042, and Chiswick Chap: Pinging. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle, BeanieFan11, and Vacant0: How does this ALT sound? ALT1 ... that the Torta caprese (pictured) has been referred to as "one of history's most fortunate mistakes"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 hook looks OK but the article is still not OK. It currently says, "It originates from the island of Capri, however its story is disputed." We are stating in wikivoice that the cake's origins in the island of Capri are a FACT (citing just one source, an Australian foodie channel). And then we're saying the origins are "disputed" and uses words like "hypothesis". It's clumsy and misleading, almost like we're saying this is a deep academic debate between historians when in fact it's just food journalists and recipe writers writing breezy magazine stories – which is fine but then let's revise to present it more like it is (urban myth? pop culture? meme? but not science and not serious history). And if the encyclopedic entry is stating as fact that the cake originated in Capri, are there other sources we could cite? Until it's fixed I frankly am not sure it's main page or even GA-worthy. Maybe that's harsh but that's what some critics will say at WP:ERRORS on the day...and it's a picture hook so it gets extra scrutiny. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Cielquiparle:. Could you take a look at the article again? I've rewrote that part and added attributions where applicable. For the origin, I've added sources from The New York Times and La Cucina Italiana. I've removed Cookist but kept Food52, considering that the article was written by a cookbook author. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Vacant0. The sourcing seems a bit better. Could you revise the lede and make sure it actually says what you mean it to say? "Conjecture" maybe? Surely not "hypothesis". What does it mean that its story is "disputed"? Are your sources saying "no, the claim that this originates in Capri is incorrect"? I'm not sure they are. Maybe they're saying "here are some other popular stories that people like to tell about its origins"; they simply exist as alternate word-of-mouth explanations...that I think you're suggesting are completely unreliable and untrue since you're certain the cake originated in Capri? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I phrased that incorrectly. No one is disputing that the cake originates from Capri. I've forgot to update the lede, should be good now though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Is this approved? If not, what else needs doing?--Launchballer 14:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is better than before. My big objection has been addressed. Might be good to have someone else look at it. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking ALT0 so there is no confusion. (Not an actual "hypothesis" the article is taking seriously.) But yes, needs a new reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know from my own editing that finding reliable sources for food history is a huge pain, and that most of the sources for this are in Italian, but I have to ask: who refers to it as "one of history's most fortunate mistakes"? This source says it was dubbed as such by tourists in the 1920s but I'm not sure it's reliable. Apocheir (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a popular saying that does not have a single person that it's best associated with? I'm not sure if attribution would be needed in such a case, but for common sayings in general I imagine that it could be an exception to the usual rules. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 4

[edit]

Deportation and detention of American citizens in the second Trump administration

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This was submitted a little over a week (created on May 4 but submitted on May 12) but I wasn't sure was any flexibility on that. But it has expanded 5x since May 5 so maybe that is good enough to qualify.
Created by Remember (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Remember (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. @Remember: I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the submission date as the major problem. The article needs a lot of work to meet DYK and I wouldn't pass it in its current state. You could try to do a marathon cleanup session like you did before, but you would have to put a lot of time and energy into fixing this from where I stand. Perhaps you can start by replacing the massive number of quotes with simple paraphrasing. I would say that half of the quotes should not even be there because they should be easily paraphrased. Then you've got the problem of the small sections with one or two sentences. The sourcing is high quality, so that's good, but the content needs to be written for Wikipedia using house style. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Ok. I think I can do that. Is there a time frame that this needs to be accomplished by? Remember (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DYKTIMEOUT. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Ok. I think I have time. Remember (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: What about now? Remember (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: Using a hatnote, the lead section, or a series sidebar, try to figure out how to immediately tell the reader how this fits into the larger topic. You've currently got deportation of Americans from the United States but it should be linked at the top in the lead or as a hatnote or as a series template. In turn, it should be made clear right away that this is part of the larger topic, deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump, which depends on the interpretation of the laws discussed at deportation of Americans from the United States. You may also want to compare this to other kinds of deportations linked at activist deportations in the second Trump presidency and possibly list of immigration raids in the second Trump presidency. All I'm trying to say is place the entire subject you are writing about in the appropriate context for a reader who knows nothing about the subject. The background and the lead section might be a good place to briefly do this. Your background section uses voice that is less than ideal and represents a kind of breaking news rather than encyclopedic house style. Try to reframe this as if you are writing about it 20 years from now (even though it is happening now). Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Will do!
@Viriditas: Tried to fix the issue you raised. Remember (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: You're definitely on the road to improvement and you're headed in the right direction. However, please go back and read the article again. It needs more revisions. Focus on one section at a time. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Tried again. Remember (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: The article is looking much improved and presentable. I think you're at a new stage now, where you just need to pluck and prune and you should be done. So go back through now and delete anything that looks like it doesn't belong. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Will do! Remember (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Ok. I think it looks good now, but I can prune more if you think some sections are too big.Remember (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: You're missing a citation in the first paragraph of this section. I suspect it was previously sourced, in which case you need to re-add the citation that disappeared. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Done. Remember (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: Take a close look at the series of edits I just made and try to implement that style across the board. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Made further edits. Remember (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: Just removed move unsourced material.[1] Add it back with citations if you can. I don't want to fail this nom, but I might if this continues as it doesn't look like it is ready at this time. Please clean it up and make sure everything is cited. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Sorry. I hadn't added that material and thought it was cited. I'll look for anything that isn't cited. Remember (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: Please read through and review the entire article, not just the material you authored. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Done. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Remember (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Adding preliminary review to get the ball rolling. I know I won't be able to approve a hook because I've made far too many edits trying to clean this up, but I do at least want to try moving this forward. @Remember: as much as I want to see you succeed, this nomination was not ready at the time it was submitted. You've still got issues in the article. Right now, the Earwig report shows problems.[2] Try to get in a habit of running that at the beginning. That report shows a failure to paraphrase Insha Rahman, so rewrite that. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for submitting something that was not ready for DYK. Won't happen again. And thank you for all your help in making this a much better article. I really appreciate it! If it fails DYK, so be it. Just trying to do my best to make it a good article. Also, I fixed the Insha Rahman issue. Remember (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: I see the article is rapidly changing. Please run Earwig's Copyvio Detector linked above. You will see two minor issues. Verbatim passages like "The criminal complaint against Hermosillo" and "The arrest report states that Lopez-Gomez said he was in the country illegally" should probably be paraphrased instead of copied from the source in toto. I suspect that others won't see this at a problem, but an effort should be made to write the material in our own words. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Understood. Done. Remember (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: There's a new problem with the Elzon Lemus section that was just added. Too much quoting and the phrase "on his way to work" is taken directly from the source. Try paraphrasing as much of the quotes as you can and rewrite "on his way to work" in your own words. Fix that, and then we are looking at only one hook, which frankly isn't all that ideal. Also, try coming up with other hooks as there's no guarantee others are going to like it. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Done. And here is some alternative hooks:

Alt 2... in the last year the United States deported two kids that were American citizens one of which had stage 4 cancer? - source - [3]

Alt 3... that President Trump has been looking into whether he can legally incarcerate American citizens in other countries? - Source [4]

@Remember: Try to avoid time-sensitive wording like "in the last year" and "has been looking into whether he can". We want hooks that stand the test of time. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 5

[edit]

George Attla

(
)
5x expanded by Annwfwn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

Annwfwn (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment — Uninteresting as written when it's well known that his leg was fused as a result of the tuberculosis and he still went on win tons of competitions in spite of the disability. Also, using a paid obituary for the source when there's seemingly no end to actual reliable sources discussing his life? Similarly, using a non-free image scavenged off the web when there are numerous publications with expired copyrights containing photos of Attla? To the latter point, as we continue to claim to be a collaborative environment, all you had to do was ask. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a different source, there are plenty. Perhaps you can find an image? This is, as you pointed out, a collaborative project. I did not find numerous publications where the copyright had expired and so left the image placed by a previous editor. Annwfwn (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost a month since the last work on this nom and there has been no improvement to the image or to the hook. @Annwfwn: Please have both matters remedied in the next 48 hours or I think we should pass on this for DYK. Consider RadioKAOS's suggestion for an ALT hook. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to locate a free image, perhaps one exists but not one I can undoubtedly prove is no longer protected by copywrite. Per WP:DYKIMG, fair use images are not permitted on the main page, but I do not see anywhere that they cannot be used in the article itself - if this is the case, I can remove it. As far as the hook, I can rewrite the hook, but frankly I'm surprised that anyone outside of Alaska or the dog mushing world would be familiar with this. I'm also surprised to have a vote for decline as this DYK has never been formally reviewed. Annwfwn (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a disconnect on the two issues here. The first is that you're correct about fair use images being permitted in articles, but that fair use is only for when we don't have access to images that are outside of copyright. I'm not sure why RadioKAOS is certain there are images of the subject outside of copyright, but I'll let them explain if they'd like. The second issue is that the hook, as is, is uninteresting. A more interesting detail of this subject is that which RadioKAOS highlighted above regarding overcoming a significant childhood disease. If you require further explanation, please ping me! ~ Pbritti (talk)


Articles created/expanded on May 7

[edit]

Star Trek: Day of Blood

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Cambalachero (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 128 past nominations.

Cambalachero (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Cambalachero All sources that I can find verify the hook fact. The reading order section needs to be referenced. I am not approving ALT1 as not interesting. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article right now and nothing stands out as a hook that works for non-Trekkies. If no agreement on a new hook can be made, or no new hook can be proposed, we may have to fail this one unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so also. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Is the hook really all that interesting if you aren't a Trekkie? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Is Template:Did you know nominations/The Interstellar Song Contest any different? It is in prep 6. SL93 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a different case. For one, that hook makes sense even if someone isn't a fan of Star Trek. A character going that long between appearances is at least going to raise eyebrows among an average reader. ALT0 seems to be appealing more to Trekkies: I'm not sure if a non-Trekkie would be as interested in knowing about crossovers or things like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crossovers are a type of comic book publication, usually used by Marvel Comics and DC Comics. You can expect them to "raise an eyebrow" Spock-style when they notice that someone else is stealing their thunder. And, as said, first work of its kind. Cambalachero (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93:, remember to finish the review. As I pointed some time ago, the "Reading order" has been referenced. Please mark it as ready if ready, or point if there is something else that still needs to be done. Cambalachero (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready. I was waiting for the hook thing to be straightened out, which it didn't. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I still don't think it's all that interesting to anyone who isn't a fan of Star Trek. It's very interesting to Star Trek fans, definitely, but if you're not a fan of the series, then having a crossover event within that series does not seem like much of a big deal. If it was a crossover between, say, Star Wars or Star Trek, it would be a different story. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of Naturo's constant attempts to derail this nomination with non-actionable complaining. I would like someone else to provide a 4° opinion on this, or to endorse SL93's review. Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if a hook is at best marginally interesting, it is actionable by proposing a different hook (for what it's worth, I agree with SL93 that ALT1 is not interesting, so it doesn't count). If there really is nothing else in the article, I could maybe live with ALT0. I personally just don't think that the hook has much appeal outside of non-Star Trek fans, which isn't exactly the kind of broad audience that DYK is looking for in hooks. It would be like having a hook about having a Pokémon crossover between two different generations: if you're into Pokémon, you'll find it interesting, but less so if you aren't into Pokémon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the request for a new reviewer, pinging uninvolved editors Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith regarding the interestingness of ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator: pinging editors only counts as canvassing if they were pinged to lead a discussion towards a desired outcome. In this particular case, I pinged the three editors as they are active on WT:DYK and they are knowledgeable about hook interest. I do not know about their opinions at all regarding ALT0, and I do not know if they will approve or disapprove it. I pinged them for their expertise, and not because I think they have a specific viewpoint. Also, my message was neutrally worded rather than being an explicit request to reject or approve. Of course, these editors are free to not respond, and a different editor can make the final decision here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find ALT0 marginally interesting; our article describes Star Trek as "one of the most recognizable and highest-grossing media franchises of all time" and its article has averaged ~3500 views per day. However, given the above, I recommend posting at WT:DYK.--Launchballer 14:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a request for a second opinion at WT:DYK. If my earlier pings are considered canvassing then I apologize, as it was not my intention. I do suggest that Cambalachero assume good faith, as any impression of canvassing was entirely unintentional per my explanation above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. A user acting in good faith would have stepped aside and stayed silent when someone says that his opinions are not productive and asks for another user to take part in the discussion specifically because of it. A user acting in good faith would not ping specific editors of his own choosing who did not take part in the discussion or the writing of the article to replace him at the discussion (circumstances force me now to suspect that Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith may be friends of yours), specially when the neutral procedure (the third opinion icon) was already implemented and awaiting for results. A user acting in good faith would not remove a {{Canvass warning}} that was placed in reference to his own actions. I will politely ask you to get lost, and let me discuss with someone else other than you or your friends. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think there's any conspiracy or cabal at work. Narutolovehinata5 tends to be a nudge, but that kind of attitude is needed to move things along. I don't see anything wrong except for the use of "first", which we are trying to avoid. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I will not be commenting on this nomination further, but I am disappointed at the lack of good faith shown in the above comment. As I said in my explanation, I had pinged those editors specifically because I did not know what they would think about the hook and knew, from their scrutiny of hooks on DYK, that they would be objective and unbiased (being objective means they could approve the hook and disagree with my opinion). Characterizing them as my "friends", when I explained my intentions, is not assuming good faith. I also apologized for my actions and made a neutral message at WT:DYK not targeted at any specific editor. I am fine with not participating here further, I am just very disappointed at the attitude shown to me above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 9

[edit]

Pilot (Arrested Development)

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Crystal Drawers (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Crystal Drawers and Soman: per discussion at WT:DYK, I've pulled this one out of queue because of unresolved sourcing questions. I'll come back around in a bit to summarize where my thoughts are :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal Drawers: Thanks for waiting, and sorry for a long message in advance! So, you mentioned this draft of a possible addition to the Manual of Style – I would say that even if it were part of the MoS, it still wouldn't supersede the basic principles of what goes into an article. Neither does the fact that some or even many other articles aren't written to the same standards – lots of articles were written at a time when standards were lower or in a topic area where enforcement of policy is less rigorous, but that doesn't mean that policy shouldn't be enforced rigorously.

As to what discourages using DVD extras: I would argue that a core principle on Wikipedia is that our coverage of a topic is shaped by independent, professional sources. They're the people we trust to separate what's important and true from what isn't, and overusing self-published material gets in the way of that ideal. The guideline I'll cite here is WP:SELFSOURCE, which says that people can be reliable sources of information about themselves as long as the source does not involve claims about third parties; it also says that use of self-sourced material should be minimal; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. I do see some self-published sources being used for claims about third parties, and I wouldn't say that the use of non-independent sources in the article is minimal.

I do think that correcting the first one would go a long way towards addressing the second, so I hope I'm not pushing too much of a burden on you! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :) also, I kinda wanna get around to watching this show now. it's been on my list forever...theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: What makes citing DVD extras different to citing the episode itself, which is allowed per WP:PLOTSOURCE?--Launchballer 21:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I'd say that plot is different from real-world information. PLOTSOURCE is a specific carveout from our general policy of prioritizing secondary and independent sources, in recognition of the fact that the plot of a work is self-contained and easily accessible, so all we have to do is summarize the information the same way we would any other source. If we required a professional org to do that work first, we just wouldn't have plot sections in most book articles (even though I do like secondarily-sourced plot summaries where available). Still – we wouldn't, for example, cite a DVD extra for interpretation of the work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, @Crystal Drawers: please address the above.--Launchballer 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: @Launchballer:, I apologize for my lateness, I have a lot of testing this week so I have been studying instead of doing my usual Wikipedia editing. I will have it done by the end of the weekend Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, Crystal Drawers, best of luck on your tests!! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystal Drawers: Just following up on the above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I again apologize. My finals finish on Wednesday and I will be back to my usual Wikipedia workings by then, so expect this to be finished by the end of the week Crystal Drawers (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Irwin, William (November 8, 2011). Arrested Development and Philosophy: They've Made a Huge Mistake. Wiley. ISBN 9781118146262.

Articles created/expanded on May 12

[edit]

Big Stone County Museum

(
)
District No. 13 School
District No. 13 School
Created by Myotus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 56 past nominations.

paul2520 💬 00:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Interesting museum, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and illustrates the hook perfectly. In the article:
    1. link to the town in the first sentence
    2. for me, you could use ref 2 just once after "including", instead of having it in every line of the list.
    3. You may want to use mode=packed in the gallery to show the pics better.
    4. Next time please make section headers in sentence case - I did it for 2 here.
    Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and suggestions, I have made the changes. Myotus (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more hook question: isn't it "a historic"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the feedback & edits. Apologies for the accidental rollback—it was a slip.
Technically 'a historic' is fine, so either way. = paul2520 💬 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing looks very thin for this article, for example, none of the three sources in the "Engebrecht Peterson Log Cabin" mention the cabin by name, if at all (two of them are just photos of an unnamed cabin). Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleariid

(
)
Colonies of the multicellular nucleariid Fonticula alba
Colonies of the multicellular nucleariid Fonticula alba
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Snoteleks (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

— Snoteleks (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - If we are being precise, the source does not say nucleariids are the closest relative of fungi; it says they "form the earliest branch in the holomycotan clade (fungi and closest relatives)". The source cites research that notes they are close relatives, but the source does not say they are the closest relatives.
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Some alternative hooks would be good. It would be better if it said that nucleariid amoebae are among the closest relatives of fungi. Aneirinn (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn: Fair enough. I changed the reference, let me know if that works for you. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this new one, I believe this hook might be controversial as it seems some might consider the closest relative of fungi to be Rozellomyceta or Rozellomycota. Aneirinn (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mycologists agree that Rozellomycota are fungi, same with Aphelidiomycota (see for example this ref, which is the outline of fungal classification). While it is true that these "lower fungi" were often traditionally studied by protistologists as protists, modern protistologists agree that they belong to the Fungi (see doi:10.1111/jeu.12691 for the scientific consensus of protistologists). If you still don't change your mind, I'll re-write it. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the scientific consensus does seem to be that they are fungi. I still am unsure if nucleariid amoebae are the closest relatives of fungi. I have looked for it but have not been able to see where it says that in the source. Aneirinn (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aneirinn: The source has a cladogram depicting the relationship, and it shows nucleariids ("kingdom Nucleariae") as the sister group of the kingdom Fungi. This relationship is also explained in the taxonomic section, where the two kingdoms are grouped within superkingdom Holomycota. There are no other kingdoms included there. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snoteleks: Following up on the new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: My bad, I thought I had added it. It's changed now. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 13

[edit]

Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra

(
)
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 2144 past nominations.

Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I would personally trim the hook to just this:
ALT0a ... that in 2022, the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra performed a solidarity concert with Ukraine featuring music by Ukrainian and Georgian composers?
I think there is some potential in the original hook fact, it's just worded awkwardly and I don't think the founding date is important to the main hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a centenary is worth mentioning. I also would like to point at how immediately after the invasion that was - perhaps you have an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary hook fact is that they performed a solidarity concert following the invasion of Ukraine. Them being founded in 1925 is irrelevant to that. Again, WP:DYKTRIM applies: ...don't be afraid to trim hooks of extraneous information and clauses... In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has. If your desire is for the hook to run on the orchestra's centennial year, just it being approved and running is all that's needed. No need to mention the year since it's irrelevant to the hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0b ... that following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra performed a solidarity concert featuring music by Ukrainian and Georgian composers?
I think that our readers, who are expected not to know this orchestra even existed, get valuable extra information by telling them (in a short phrase) about the groups's long history, - a background giving the fact more depth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0c: ... that the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1925, gave a solidarity concert with Ukraine soon after the Russian invasion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I'm happy with ALT0c on an interestingness level. Do you plan on giving this a full review?--Launchballer 11:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I was not planning on giving this a full review. However, I don't think we should go with ALT0c as written because I still feel that the year is trimmable. I am open to a variant of ALT0c that omits the year, as I really don't think that the foundation year is an essential part of the main hook fact. So basically something like: ALT0d: ... that the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra gave a solidarity concert with Ukraine soon after the Russian invasion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the centenary adds interest, but don't feel strongly enough either way. I'll let a reviewer adjudicate.--Launchballer 12:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that it might be easy to miss the centenary point, so even if that was the reason for including the year, it might take a while for the reader to register if (if they register it at all). It's also probably less relevant to the hook fact because the concert was in 2022 and not in 2025, so the year really isn't really relevant at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you "miss" the centenary point, you can see that there is a long history (to be explored when you click), vs. just some short-time action. We have different readers, and some may be interested in history and perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long enough, new enough. QPQs are done and Earwig is clean. I'm fine with ALT0c from an interest standpoint (though it might flow better if 'the' was replaced with 'a' and the commas were removed), but it's cited to AllEvents.in, which sold tickets for the event, and I think this would deserve {{independent source inline}}.--Launchballer 01:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I translated that. There is no doubt that it happened. - They also played in another one on 11 April. - I can't easily find things in Georgian, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 16

[edit]

Snowpack types

(
)
Thin snowpack in Colorado
Thin snowpack in Colorado
Created by Buidhe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 260 past nominations.

(t · c) buidhe 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Buidhe: Not a review, but the article only has three sources, all physical books, and they're all from the same publisher. Do you have any other sources to prove notability for this subject? As is, it looks like a prime target to be merged into Snowpack. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Departure– There are actually four sources cited, and I would disagree with any merger, because this would be UNDUE in the snowpack article because the types are mostly distinguished for the purpose of avalanche forecasting in North America. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: They're all published by Mountaineers Books, which is my point. Snowpack types, while well cited, is longer than Snowpack, and could very easily be merged there unless either one has enough specifically on them to prevent such (speaking from someone from Wikiproject Weather, where a lot of articles get merged like this). Just a heads-up that you may have an uphill battle before this ends up on the main page; I have nothing against this being promoted if there truly is a reason to keep the pages separate. Departure– (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it's more detailed than the general article is actually a strong indication that the material would be UNDUE if merged. You didn't bother to look for other sources which certainly exist, but simply assumed it's not notable. If you don't have anything against the promotion of the article why are you posting here? (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An actual review needed.--Launchballer 12:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: A newly created article that is long enough. It is neutral and the hook is interesting (although quite obvious on why it occurs). QPQs done. However, I'll voice what Departure said above: The article needs a WP:Notability tag, which would prevent it from the main page. As stated by WP:SIGCOV § Sources, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." You mentioned above that "other sources [...] certainly exist". If such sources exist, it is the job of the nominator (or anyone else) to add them before nominating an article for any process. Although (The) Mountaineers Books is a specialized source, it is still the only publisher used and it doesn't determine the topic's notability. Please, expand the article or add more sources that establish the topic is indeed notable. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe and Tbhotch: couple of issues. Firstly, I can't see the hook fact in the article, which seems to say that weak layers of snow cause avalanches, not "less snow", unless I misunderstand what "Faceted snow and depth hoar" mean (it would be good to have an explanation in any case). Secondly, as it stands the hook falls foul of MOS:EGG; I would not expect to end up at Snowpack types from a link of "less snow". I think some workshopping is needed, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:AirshipJungleman29 The article says that a thinner snowpack is associated with (in fact, one of the causal factors behind) weak layers that are a necessary ingredient for dangerous avalanche potential. The actual cause of avalanche deaths is not weak layers but the combination of potential, a trigger, and people being in the way-hence the wording in the hook. Would "thinner snowpack" alleviate your concerns about mos:egg? (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 17

[edit]

Cady Noland

(
)
  • ... that the artist Cady Noland was sued by two different collectors of her work after she "disavowed" artworks that she no longer considered genuine because they were damaged or altered?
  • Source: Julia Halperin (Oct 4, 2024), “Just How Much Control Can an Artist Have Over Their Work?”, T Mag (New York Times Style Magazine): “The Swiss art dealer Marc Jancou sued Noland and Sotheby’s after the artist disavowed a work that he wanted to sell at auction. […] Noland visited Sotheby’s to view it, along with two other works destined for the block that season, and found its corners so damaged that she considered the work totaled. Sotheby’s called off the sale. [...] But it was hardly the last time that Noland would defend her art’s honor. There was a series of lawsuits over ‘Log Cabin Facade’ (1990), a life-size wooden sculpture that the artist disavowed after its previous owner allowed it to be installed outdoors for over 10 years and then replaced the rotted wood with new logs. ‘This is not an artwork,’ she said in a handwritten fax addressed to its new owner, the Ohio-based collector Scott Mueller”
  • ALT 1 (added after discussion below): ... that the artist Cady Noland has "disavowed" several artworks that she no longer considered genuine because they were damaged or altered?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: First ever DYK nom, please advise if I mis-formatted anything. Thanks!
Improved to Good Article status by 19h00s (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

19h00s (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, makes sense on the negativity front. I'd disagree on the image front, as detailed in the article and discussions on the talk page (long story short: she doesn't allow images of herself to be created or circulate, this image where she hides her identity has been widely discussed and is discussed in the article). Don't necessarily disagree on the breaking up of the sections, but a biography article necessarily requires a more cogent narrative structure that is extremely difficult to achieve when you spread everything out into sections that break up the chronological flow. Happy to retract this nomination or you can just fail it. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination doesn't fail just because one hook doesn't work. You could probably get away with ALT0a: ... that Cady Noland "disavowed" some of her artworks?, though I'll let a reviewer adjudicate on that.--Launchballer 20:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something new about Wiki processes every day lol, just assumed this was DOA if the hook was out of bounds as written. Just added an alt version. Thanks for the tips. 19h00s (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive work on this article, 19h00s. You nominated the day it passed its GA review, so it counts as a new GA. Brevity is certainly not an issue. The sourcing seems impeccable and I see no obvious neutrality issues. I do agree with Launchballer that the sections desperately need subsections; section with up to 16 paragraphs, some of them very long, are difficult to navigate. This is not a DYK requirement by any means. I am not convinced that the non-free infobox photo is fair use because the subject is a living person. There are five more non-free images in the article. I am not sure whether this is a DYK concern, but it might be a GAN concern, on the basis of which this hook is nominated. I hope I can get some input from @DYK admins: . Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there's questions about the GA review, pinging Floating Orb who conducted the GA review. RoySmith (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks y'all for taking a look at this nom. First, on the image front - I welcome more thoughts on this picture, but I've been through several rounds of discussion on this and multiple admins have concluded the image is OK as used given the circumstances (she doesn't allow pictures, this image is widely discussed as an example of that, it's discussed in the article). But obviously defer to community consensus. On the GA process, I would love for a new, full GA review. I asked several times during the process for others to step in and take over from Floating Orb, but other editors were really intent on letting FO learn the GA process (at the expense of this review). If you look at the full edit history on the review it's really hard to follow. But experienced GAR editors seemed to think it was fine by the end.19h00s (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on May 20

[edit]

William Salter II, James White (North Carolina politician, died c. 1789)

( Comment or view )
Created by Aneirinn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Aneirinn (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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: I definitely prefer ALT3, as it makes readers want to find out, how she spied. The first two don't seem very interesting to me, as they mention rather mundane facts. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a strong opinion about White, but I just looked at Salter's article and unfortunately there isn't anything that stands out as hook that is specifically about him. The hookiest part was about his wife. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Jones (performer)

(
)
  • Source: *Badger, Reid (1995). A Life in Ragtime: A Biography of James Reese Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 307. ISBN 9780195345209. Henry 'Broadway' Jones was active in vaudeville and musical theater into the 1930s. In fact, Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein wrote "Ol' Man River" with Jones in mind.
  • Carter, Lawrence T. (1979). Eubie Blake: Keys of Memory. Balamp Publishing Co. p. 62. ISBN 9780913642108. Later Jerome Kern went down to Florida. He heard a lot of black singers, and he decided to write the musical Show Boat. And having heard Broadway [Jones] sing, he wrote the song " Old Man River " expressly for his voice.
Created by 4meter4 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 113 past nominations.

4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new and long enough (created May 20), NPOV, has an interesting hook. One QPQ is done, but one additional is needed due to backlog mode being active. Article is inline and reliably sourced to a book from Oxford University Press. No image. Earwig shows 3.8% (violation unlikely). Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford I added my second QPQ above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go! Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 and Chetsford: I have pulled this per WT:DYK. I note 4meter4's comment that "Ol' Man River" is often cited as the beginning of the modern musical and I suggest adding a source to that effect (for example, that "a song often cited as the beginning of the modern musical" was written..."); otherwise, this needs a new hook.--Launchballer 14:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer That is not what I said. Show Boat as a whole is cited as the beginning of the modern musical. "Ol' Man River" is the best known song from that show. There are many sources for that, but if you look at the Musical theatre article Show Boat is the only work to get its own subsection. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I suggest "that the best known song from a musical often cited...".--Launchballer 15:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook isn’t about Ol Man River but about Broadway Jones. The point was that this very famous song was written for his voice. It’s the most interesting thing about him in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won’t have internet access this week as I am traveling to a remote area with no cell phone reception or internet. It may be a while before I can think up something new. I will say I am a bit dismayed by the outcome here as I don’t think the song is obscure. There aren’t very many songs that have entire books written about them, and this is one of them.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I am a bit dismayed by the outcome here as I don’t think the song is obscure." I share your perplexity. Chetsford (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this misses the actually interesting part of the story. Lots of songs are written with particular performers in mind, but to have a song in a musical written especially for you yet turn down the part seems much more intriguing. I suggest something like "...despite the song Ol Man River from the musical Showboat having been written with him in mind, Broadway Jones did not join the cast?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While that seems like a fine hook, the source only says he didn't join the original cast. Unless I'm missing something, we would need a source that established he didn't join the touring cast or any revival casts as well. I suppose we could modify it by saying "join the original cast" but that gets a little clunky. Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer pulled this per a WT:DYK discussion. @Chetsford: How does this ALT hook sound?
ALT1 ... that singer Broadway Jones got his nickname from always wearing sharp looking suits?
Note that 4meter4 will be away for a week per their comment at the WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions) 00:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems less interesting than the original one. Ol Man River is probably the most iconic song in the Great American Songbook while Broadway Jones is (I think - at least to me) relatively unknown in 2025 unless one is immersed in the history of vaudeville. But I guess it's better than nothing. Chetsford (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that even makes sense. What's the connection?----User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on May 21

[edit]

Yao Yuanjun

(
)
  • ... that after Chinese Border Defense Police officer Yao Yuanjun was killed in action, his police dog continued to wait for him to return?
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Several comments:

1. Since the subject was in the Border Defense corps, which is part of the Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces, I'm kinda unsure what to refer to him as, since MPSASF personnel were active service members. 2. I currently also have an approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman), may I ask if this would interfere with anything 3. The 2 photos are non free fair use, so it cannot be put on the main page.

Created by Thehistorianisaac (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Thehistorianisaac, welcome to DYK. I have formatted the original hook and removed the repeated hooks. Regarding your questions:

1. "border police officer" may be sufficient for the hook in line with the lead of the article. 2. No, you have multiple DYK nominations running in parallel. 3. Non-free images cannot be used in DYK.

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The reference is in Chinese. From Google translate, it seems that news agencies are saying as per the viral video, the dog is waiting for his master even after 10 years; rather than an independently verified fact that the dog is waiting. The article and the hook needs to be reworded. If my understanding is incorrect, please clarify.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is currently at AfD. We will have to wait for the same to conclude, before approving the hook. Most of the references are Chinese news sites, private or state-owned (from Neutrality perspective). Redtigerxyz Talk 12:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't really a huge problem with sources, state owned media is usually considered reliable outside of controversial usages, and different language sources are also allowed; As for the hook, from my understanding, it's similar to the Hachiko story. Additionally, the AfD likely won't go very far anyways.Thehistorianisaac Talk 23:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac and Redtigerxyz: Article's been kept, what else needs doing?--Launchballer 14:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afd has concluded as Keep. A RM is underway, however does not impact this DYK IMO.
Assuming The Paper as reliable. "From Google translate, it seems that news agencies are saying as per the viral video, the dog is waiting for his master even after 10 years; rather than an independently verified fact that the dog is waiting. The article and the hook needs to be reworded. If my understanding is incorrect, please clarify." is unaddressed. The references are just saying that there is a viral video which claims that the dog is waiting for its master.
I am okay to pass "ALT1 ... as per a viral video, the police dog of Yao Yuanjun was waiting for its master, 10 years after he was killed in action?" or similar. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: Please address the above.--Launchballer 16:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: sorry for the late response. The Paper is generally considered reliable by other people from wikiproject China; Nothing against you personally, but I would prefer this DYK Nomination be reviewed by someone who understands chinese, as I have seen cases where google translate messes up. The sources are explaining the story based on the video. I think essentially speaking, the alternate hook you propose is mostly the same, but makes it a bit overly complicated. Thehistorianisaac

As requested by Nominator, requesting a Chinese speaker for a second pair of eyes.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on May 22

[edit]

Prince Mortimer

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by TriMuseumGeek (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TriMuseumGeek (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi TriMuseumGeek, thanks for you nomination. The article was moved to main space on 22 May so is new enough and is long enough. Unfortunately the sourcing is not up to DYK standards which require a source cited inline at the end of every paragraph as a minimum. I've added the article to the hook above. We need a citation in the article for him dying at 110 in prison (we would also have to say "approximately" to match the article). There are also some grammar issues with the article and it switches between past and present tense. Let me know if you can improve this to meet the criteria and I will take another look - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TriMuseumGeek: Please address the above; I will fail this if this is not addressed in a week.--Launchballer 12:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dumelow and Launchballer. I'm still getting the hang of this, and appreciate your comments. I tried to make the corrections and additions that you asked. If it is still not meeting the guidelines, I understand. Also, if I mess up this post, I apologize. Wikicode is not my strong suit. -- TriMuseumGeek (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

(
)
Eveline Saalberg, Femke Bol, Cathelijn Peeters, and Lieke Klaver
Eveline Saalberg, Femke Bol, Cathelijn Peeters, and Lieke Klaver
  • Source: "1 NED - NETHERLANDS 6 0.196 3:25.66 CR" (link)
Improved to Good Article status by Editør (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

Editør (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Is there a way to shorten the bold link? It seems to be a distraction. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I don't think so. I believe this is how titles of the form 'Championships – Event" are typically displayed when there is only one title in the hook, see for instance the DYK hook for Talk:2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 400 metres. – Editør (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if there's an alternate way to word the link. Right now it feels like a distraction to the reader. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I tried that once before, but then the longer bold link was used for the hook, so I've used the longer bold link in my DYK rnominations since then. - Editør (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure if that was the right decision, because personally I'd consider the longer bold link to fall under WP:DYKTRIM. Maybe other reviewers just didn't notice the issue but here it's rather obvious. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: In my experience, the most important part about the DYK nomination is that it is factually correct and the sentence works as a hook. Surely, I want to try and phrase it as well as possible, but when it can be completely rewritten in a later stage by a single author, I don't see the point in endless tweaking when all that work can be thrown out without notice. If you see a better way of working the long article title 2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay into the hook, let me know. Besides that, is there anything else holding up this nomination? – Editør (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something similar to how it was originally proposed in the nomination you linked? Just link to "women's 4 × 400 metres relay" and keep 2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships as a separate mention, perhaps also avoiding linking it as being redundant to the main bolded link. It's like how the linked nomination just said "women's 400 metres hurdle at the 2024 European Athletics Championships." As for your other question, I was not planning to review this nomination, the hook just stood out when I was looking at DYKN (and not in a good way). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misunderstood. Well, thank you for noting your concern and for your suggestion. – Editør (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A full review is still needed. – Editør (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 25

[edit]

Disclosure movement

(
)
Created by Chetsford (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 163 past nominations.

Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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: Rjjiii (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • New article. Long enough. 2 QPQs done. This is being actively developed, but all the changes look solid and productive. For example, early history with Keyhoe was added, Steven Greer seems to be better contextualized as a notable figure rather the movement's leader, and much recent political activity has been added. Rjjiii (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford, Rjjiii, SL93, and Gatoclass: I've pulled this off the Main Page per a discussion at ERRORS; the sourcing in the article for this hook is really weak, so the claim that it's DUE to feature this fringe viewpoint (even if non-indulgently) very shaky. Further discussion/source digging can continue here, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron - contrary to your assertion that Inside Sources is a "group blog" it's the landing page for the publisher of the New Hampshire Journal and Delaware Valley Journal, two of the regional politics outlets that proliferate in the NE US (e.g. PoliticsPA, FITSNews, etc.). The author, Michael Graham, is a contributor to CBS News [6], [7]. It's not the New York Times, but I don't think there's any serious case to be made the claim was fabricated. Insofar as DUE, I wasn't aware there was a DUE standard for DYK hooks. It seems we may have to rethink many of our hooks if that's now the case. Chetsford (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a DUE standard to include a claim in an article, and I can't find any evidence that Inside Sources or any of its subsidiaries has a serious editorial staff, an editorial policy, or a fact-checking policy. Could you point me in the right direction? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There's certainly a DUE standard to include a claim in an article" Your position is that one sentence in a 19 paragraph article is UNDUE? "I can't find any evidence that Inside Sources" Sounds like a discussion better had at WP:RSN. I'll start pulling stuff together and open it there. Chetsford (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP:ERRORS discussion, Gatoclass comments "an internet search does not reveal much support for the claim that this website's content syndicates to nearly 300 of the nation’s top newspapers, which certainly rings alarm bells." "Top newspapers" may be hyperbole but they syndicate to many regional newspapers including the Miami Herald. Podesta's conspiracy theory and appearance on Ancient Aliens are covered by other conservative outlets like the Examiner. If you look for coverage in news sources that are more clearly WP:RS, you'll find the the Washington Post and so on covering Podesta's views on aliens, UFOs, and disclosure leading up to the November 2016 election, but not after it. Most of our WP:RS are center to left, and after the election they covered the Clinton campaign in this lens of trying to figure out "why she lost", and so did not cover Podesta's appearance on the show or his allegation.
I may be misreading them, but Pokelego999 and maybe Bagumba seem to be saying that someone could read the hook as not about Ancient Aliens or Podesta, but as citing them for a claim on Hillary Clinton? I found it to be clearly about the show, especially in the article itself, but do not mind reviewing additional hooks if that is the issue. Rjjiii (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely meets WP:USEBYOTHERS, with its reporting sourced by Politico, [8] the Washington Post, [9] [10] the ABA Journal, [11] the Boston Globe, [12] KVUE-TV [13], Factcheck.org, [14] MSNBC, [15] the Huffington Post, [16] the New Hampshire Union Leader, [17] The Independent, [18] The Hill, [19] etc. I'm a bit out-of-pocket today so it will take me a few days to open an RSN RfC with links to publication ethics statements, author lists, etc. I'll try to get around to that later this week. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:USEBYOTHERS: If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. In other words, USEBYOTHERS is limited in how much DUE weight it can give a source that wouldn't otherwise even be considered reliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're conflating two different and unrelated things. My USEBYOTHERS comment is only related to the incontravertible fact Inside Source is RS. Like I said, I'll present a full RfC at RSN later this week as I don't have time to complete writing it up with links to author lists, editorial policies, etc. today. Your comment as per DUE is a separate matter and hinges, apparently, on the novel position that one sentence in a 19 paragraph article constitutes UNDUE weight. I respectfully disagree. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I inserted a sentence into Jimmy Kimmel's article that he went to some random diner fifteen years ago because a local newspaper mentioned in passing that he went there, yeah, I think that's UNDUE despite being one sentence in god knows how many paragraphs. Inserting random details into articles because they're fun trivia can absolutely be a violation of WP:BALASP and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, so no, i wouldn't say it's a novel position. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting hypothetical scenario, to be sure. And while it doesn't at all apply in this case — there's three sources in the article (two I added post-pull) and, as soon as I'm able, I'll drop a few more in there as there's plenty and plenty of references to support this as the most cursory search would reveal — it's a salient reminder in general. Had I anticipated an editor would find such an innocuous statement required a broadside of sources be fired into the article I would certainly have added them before now; this is an active article with several involved editors and not a single one had raised this very unique perspective in the active Talk discussion there, nor in the DYK review, nor during its promotion, nor really at any point prior to now. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My main comment was that I don't think there was a BLP issue, but the hook could be a concern if WP:DYKHOOK's Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided was broadly construed to include Clinton's losing the election. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a broad construction, indeed. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, I was less so worried about the source itself (Even if there seems to have been a discussion on it) and moreso the fact we were treating what is inherently a minority viewpoint from an unreliable source (Ancient Aliens) on the main page. Leeky's discussion on USEBYOTHERS above cements basically what I'm saying: putting a minority claim on the main page as if it were a major point is just giving more stock to something that inherently is something we shouldn't be putting stock in. A TV show referencing a theory isn't something crazy, but Ancient Aliens is something that peddles a lot of unreliable information and conspiracy theories on the daily; what about this theory in particular indicates it's true in any way compared to what they usually put out? The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation. It's not helped by the absolutely minimal coverage this theory received.
I will clarify though my beef is mostly with the hook itself, less so the base article. Including a brief mention in the article isn't going to harm anybody, especially in the context it's written in, but the way the hook is written puts a lot of UNDUE emphasis, as described above. This also wasn't me bringing up a BLP issue, but I can see how it can be construed that way; admittedly BLP stuff is out of my usual topic scope, so I can't speak much on that. Hopefully this clarifies my stance a bit, since I was pinged above about this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the way the hook is written puts a lot of UNDUE emphasis" While I appreciate your opinion, DUE/UNDUE isn't a criteria applied to DYK hooks. It defines the amount of weight given to a particular perspective in an article relative to its treatment in reliable sources. In this case, the amount of weight in question is one sentence in a 19-paragraph article so it can't really get more DUE than that. In the context of DYK, DUE only comes into play to the extent that an otherwise DUE fact may be inappropriate for DYK if it obliterates context to paint a BLP in a false light as per WP:DYKBLP, which this doesn't do.
Per WP:DYKINT, the purpose of a hook is to present a fact that is so "unusual" and "intriguing" that it inspires the reader to click on it: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more – we want people to see the new articles our volunteers have put time and effort into crafting, and a hook that excites the reader into wanting to know more goes a long way towards that goal.
"The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation." I believe we typically assume our readers have IQs higher than a houseplant, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Chetsford (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In my case, I was less so worried about the source itself (Even if there seems to have been a discussion on it) and moreso the fact we were treating what is inherently a minority viewpoint from an unreliable source (Ancient Aliens) on the main page" You're the first person to say that the source was unreliable. "The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation." Do you really think our readers are that stupid? I would feel insulted. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think our readers are that stupid? There's a growing set of disgruntled people in certain parts of the world that are putting more stock in conspiracy theories. It's perhaps easy to write them off as "stupid" when presumably editors here are more likely to have gone on to higher education compared to the general population.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate everyone's input and, while I disagree in the most intense terms with this pull, to mitigate the waste of any editor resources that will arise due to my inability to coherently argue against it -- the three editors advocating to pull apparently each doing so due to different reasons (BLP, DUE, and RS) while seemingly disagreeing with each other as to which actually applies -- I consent to abandon it. I reclaim both QPQs for future use. Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the three editors advocating to pull apparently each doing so due to different reasons (BLP, DUE, and RS) ...: I'm not sure if I'm considered one of those three. I was more musing after the pull if DYKHOOK's "negative aspects" caveat applied. With Clinton being a public figure politician, I'd say any negative aspect here is minor compared to others I've seen posted. Don't count me as a formal oppose. I can see how DYK doesn't have a clear process on handling verifiable hooks regarding (arguably) false claims, which makes this frustrating for you.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not frustrating. It's really more a question of my confusion under what maxim of ours this was removed. As our protocol for main page errors is that only "actual errors" should be actioned, and we have thus far been unable to describe any "actual error" (rather, merely, Pokelego999 opining on their well-meaning concern that the wording isn't clear enough for the dumb segment of our readership) I'm left befuddled by which authority an approved and promoted hook was removed. It seems my confusion may go unsatiated. Chetsford (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear -- as I think my last comment ended the discussion on an unnecessarily negative note -- I very much appreciate the work LC and others do in building preps and queues. I'm very aware this is a thankless job and is rendered even less appealing when noms (like myself) moan and whine ... while simultaneously not volunteering to help out in any way! With that said, I think it would be appropriate to close and archive this discussion. Chetsford (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: Just to make it clear: per WP:QPQ, even if you withdraw this nomination, the QPQs you provided are already used up and cannot be used in another nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay, 2024 World Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

( Comment or view )
Cathelijn Peeters, Lieke Klaver, Femke Bol, and Lisanne de Witte
Cathelijn Peeters, Lieke Klaver, Femke Bol, and Lisanne de Witte
  • Source: #1 "1 NED - NETHERLANDS 9 0.139 3:22.39 EL / 1913 KLAVER Lieke 50.57 (1) / 1915 PEETERS Cathelijn 50.96 (5) 1:41.53 (2) / 1908 DE WITTE Lisanne 50.41 (1) 2:31.94 (1) / 1906 BOL Femke 50.45 (6)" (link)
  • Source: #2 "1 NETHERLANDS NED 5 0.180 3:25.07 WL / 712 Lieke KLAVER 50.26 (1) / 713 Cathelijn PEETERS 51.99 (5) 1:42.25 (1) / 710 Lisanne DE WITTE 52.28 (3) 2:34.53 (1) / 709 Femke BOL 50.54 (3)" (link)
Improved to Good Article status by Editør (talk). Number of QPQs required: 4. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 20 past nominations.

Editør (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: These all look good to me. Great work.

Thank you for your review. – Editør (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 26

[edit]

Oh No It's Selwyn Froggitt

(
)
Alan Plater in 1972
Alan Plater in 1972
  • Source: Plater was best known for writing television dramas including Shoulder to Shoulder (1974) and The Stars Look Down (1975); Oh No It's Selwyn Froggitt was his only foray into sitcom writing. Plater's involvement has been characterised as indicative of a maverick and prolific approach to television writing.
  • ALT1: ... that Bill Maynard took inspiration from A Midsummer Night's Dream for his 1970s sitcom Oh No It's Selwyn Froggitt? Source: Additionally, Maynard took inspiration from Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, with Froggitt as Bottom and the committee at the working men's club as the mechanicals.[11][12]
  • ALT2: ... that a reviewer complained that Selwyn had two funny lines per programme? Clem Lewis of Birmingham Evening Mail felt Maynard "now hogs all the funny lines... all two of them per programme".[44]
  • ALT3: ... that Bill Maynard received letters thanking him for making Oh No It's Selwyn Froggitt "the cleanest show on television"? Source: The series employed little bawdy humour; Maynard said he received letters thanking him for "the cleanest show on television".[15]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The image should only apply to my first hook and not the alt one. Thank you.
Improved to Good Article status by Humbledaisy (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Humbledaisy (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Humbledaisy: Maybe it could be modified then? ... that a reviewer complained that Selwyn had two funny lines per programme? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry all, I'm not hugely familiar with how this works. That sounds fine but I also think the name Selwyn is less familiar to a UK audience than Oh No It's Selwyn Froggitt and less interesting as a title. Apologies if I'm overstepping the mark here though. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No no, it's your nomination. Suggest whatever. Whether it will be accepted by the reviewer and promoter is another matter. Bremps... 00:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that suggestion as an alt and also added an additional alt about it being "the cleanest show in television" which I think might work well.Humbledaisy (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 27

[edit]

Johann Sebastian Bach

(
)
  • ... that for the 250th anniversary of the death of Johann Sebastian Bach in 2000, three record companies issued recordings of his complete compositions?
Improved to Good Article status by ErnestKrause (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 113 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Storye book: Wow, Bach as a GA! New enough (promoted May 27), much more than long enough (50 KB), no copyvio (Earwig flags a copy of Wikipedia as well as an attributed quote). However, DYK has more specific sourcing requirements than GA, and there are a few statements in this article that are unsourced—in the second paragraph of "18th century" and the second paragraph of "20th century". The latter statement, in particular, requires some good sourcing as it's about popular culture depictions.
    As for the hooks, I don't think ALT0 is that interesting, but ALT1 is quite interesting. Hook cited and verified in source (which does appear to be reliable). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda Arndt has just edited those sections for 18th century and 20th century; they should be ok now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) *: Thank you for the review! - That a GA lacks references comes as a surprise. I added one for BWV 71 being his only cantata with an extant printing during his lifetime (which wasn't mentioned above but came without a ref), and thank goodness the same ref also served for all other prints during his lifetime being of keyboard music (18th century). I dropped the mysterious sentence following that fact. - I worked on the list of 20th-century adaptations a bit, dropping advertisement of labels and recordings. All these things have articles, so it shouldn't be too difficult to copy some references. I'll try but everybody could. - The arrangement of the refs remains a mystery to me, but that is no DYK requirement I guess.
    The hooks: I don't see anything interesting in that some person's grave remained unmarked for a long time, - what does it tell you about that person? We need to write for our famous broad readership, who may not know what JSB did, - why should they care to find out, just because his grave was unmarked?
    After edit conflict: no, not ok yet. We still need refs for the 20th century facts. Everybody welcome, and make your edits short to avoid conflicts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added the 20th century citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Gerda Arendt for adding citations. (When I saw that Bach was a GA, I expected you would've been the one who wrote it. :P) The article now has zero unsourced statements. For "20th century", I think a better source would be preferable to make statement about Fantasia—per MOS:POPCULT, we should use a source about Bach, rather than a source about Fantasia, to show that it is significant enough to be in this article. But that is beyond the DYK criteria, and the source does verify the statement, so we're good to go.
      I get the concerns about ALT1 not being interesting enough, but I personally think it is. Yes, the hook will partly be interesting to people who know who Bach is, but for those who don't, I think it's still interesting that a grave would be unmarked for that long. If anyone has any other suggestions, that'd also be great, but I'll approve ALT1 for now. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't add the Fantasia ref ;) - I didn't write the article, - it was mostly in place when I joined in 2009. The two key authors were later banned. - If we have that after-life hook (instead of presenting the subject active), can we at least run it on his day of death, 28 July? It would need an exception from the six-weeks max (not by much), or you could withdraw your approval for now and bring it back in a week ;) - Formally, I believe, the icon has to be at the beginning of the line (but I'm out of touch with DYK - when it was still a place to present things good to know I wrote most of the 144 hooks in the archives mentioning Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly decided to pull this as the hook implies the remains have been positively identified when there is evidently still doubt. I think a new hook will have to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Machines Lab

(
)
  • ... that artificial intelligence startup Thinking Machines Lab aims "to make AI systems more widely understood, customizable, and generally capable"?
  • Source: "Thinking Machines Lab aims to “make A.I. systems more widely understood, customizable and generally capable,” according to a blog post from the new company. It said it would freely share its technologies with outside researchers and companies, a practice known as “open source.”"
NY Times
Created by Thriley (talk), Cl3phact0 (talk), and MixedPrecision (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 176 past nominations.

Thriley (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • This nomination just gets in the deadline for 5x expansion in the last 10 days. Some sources could be considered as less reliable, but the claims are largely uncontroversial or are the company describing itself. This does give me pause though; there are four unattributed quotes in the article, e.g., they should be either rewritten in wiki-voice or attributed to the author stating these things. The language used is decidedly non-neutral in places ("ensuring strong founding influence on the strategic direction of the lab", "hired a team of about 30 leading researchers and engineers"). I also don't find the hook used here as interesting; it's basically a mission statement. Anyone can aim to do anything. What have they done that makes the company unique other than raise a lot of money and give some investors lots of voting power? -- Reconrabbit 18:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 ... that the government of Albania invested in artificial intelligence startup Thinking Machines Lab, which required an amendment to the country's 2025 budget? Thriley (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this hook is good! Using this source? -- Reconrabbit 01:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ALT1 is far more interesting than the initial proposal. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

(
)
Women's 4×400 m relay final
Women's 4×400 m relay final
  • Source: for 2021 "1 6 NED - NETHERLANDS 6 0.201 3:27.15 CR" (link)
  • Source for 2023 "1 NED - NETHERLANDS 6 0.196 3:25.66 CR" (link)
  • Source for 2025 "1 NED - Netherlands 5 0.171 3:24.34 CR,WL,NR" (link)
  • ALT1 ... that the cheers were "deafening" when the Dutch team won the women's 4 × 400 metres relay at the 2025 European Athletics Indoor Championships (finish pictured) before a home crowd? Source: "In de finale van de 4×400 meter voor vrouwen bleef het zondagavond lang spannend, toen Bol en de Britse slotloopster naast elkaar de laatste bocht indoken. Maar toen zette Bol, indoor de snelste vrouw op de 400 meter ooit, aan en werd het gat met elke pas groter. Op de streep was het verschil ruim een halve seconde – en het gejuich oorverdovend." [English translation: In the final of the women's 4 × 400 metres on Sunday evening, it remained exciting for a long time, when Bol went into the last bend next to the British anchor runner. But then Bol, the fastest woman in the 400 metres indoors ever, pushed on and the gap grew bigger with every stride. At the finish line, the difference was more than half a second – and the cheers deafening.] (link)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Wunsch, Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Kercher
Created by Editør (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 23 past nominations.

Editør (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Baynesville, Virginia

(
)
  • Reviewed:
5x expanded by Firsfron (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Firsfron of Ronchester 15:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Currently at AFD; most of the article concerns the post office rather than the settlement.
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - "one of the first" is not accurate to the source, which has dozens of entries before Johnson (1893).
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Will have to be on hold while the AFD is still active. The article does need major reworking to focus on the settlement, so I'm leaning a no on this one. SounderBruce 03:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'd say WH Johnson was one of the first in a list of firsts, but Your Mileage May Vary. What do you think of this alternate hook? ...that one of the first African-American postmasters in the US state of Virginia was for the Baynesville, Virginia post office?
Also, there are only three paragraphs about the post office, which is definitely not the majority of the article. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce and Firsfron: AfD was withdrawn. What else needs doing here?--Launchballer 12:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Launchballer. I've suggested an alternate hook, and as you say, the AFD was withdrawn. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I still don't think "one of the first" is an accurate claim based on the source given. The line about him being appointed instead of a former Confederate soldier would be a more compelling (and accurate) hook. SounderBruce 01:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally okay with an alternate hook of your choice. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For an ALT1: ... that the an African-American man was appointed postmaster of Baynesville, Virginia, in 1893 instead of a Confederate soldier? SounderBruce 18:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, although I would remove one of the two articles (the/an): ... that an African-American man was appointed postmaster of Baynesville, Virginia, in 1893 instead of a Confederate soldier? Thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 28

[edit]

Diagnostic overshadowing in autism

(
)
  • ... that that chronic pain or depression in autistic people is sometimes misread as “just part of autism,” delaying diagnosis and care?
  • Source: “Autistic individuals... experience elevated rates of chronic physical conditions, yet symptoms are often dismissed as part of autism rather than investigated as medical concerns.”
— Diagnostic overshadowing in autism article, citing:
Buie et al., 2010. Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report. PMID: 20048083
  • ALT1: ... that that older autistic adults may go untreated for conditions like sensory loss, pain, or memory decline because their symptoms are wrongly attributed to autism?
  • Source: “Older autistic adults... may be at heightened risk for misattributed cognitive decline (e.g., assuming communication challenges reflect autism when it may signal aging-related dementia or memory loss), untreated sensory loss... or inadequate pain management.”
— Diagnostic overshadowing in autism article, citing:
Hand et al., 2020. Prevalence of physical and mental health conditions in Medicare-enrolled, autistic older adults. PMID: 31773968
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination. This article highlights a significant and under-recognized health equity issue in autism: how co-occurring conditions like chronic pain or memory decline may be missed due to diagnostic overshadowing.
Created by PulsarPen (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

PulsarPen (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @PulsarPen: Thanks for writing an important article like this! Here's the DYK review:
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ALT0 isn't fully supported by the article - chronic pain and depression aren't specifically mentioned in the relevant sentence.
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Both hooks need formatting changes.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The hooks aren't formatted correctly - this guideline describes the standard style that hooks should be written in. As well as this, the first hook (ALT0) isn't supported by the article. Here's suggestions for improving your hooks, with correct formatting and the first hook's issue fixed:

To have the review passed, you'll also have to add citations to the end of a few paragraphs, as "all content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)." (from this guideline). Here's all the instances that need a citation:

  • Section "Physical health in autistics", paragraph starting "Such misattributions can result in..."
  • Section "Diagnostic overshadowing in reverse", paragraph starting "This form of overshadowing delays access to..."
  • The first paragraph of the "Systemic contributors" section
  • Section "Diagnostic overshadowing over the lifespan", paragraph starting "This form of lifespan overshadowing reflects..."

And one more minor thing: this doesn't affect whether or not the review passes, but usually when providing sources in DYK nominations, quotes are given from the citations themselves in order to make it easier for the reviewer to verify that the hooks are sourced.

Once the citation issues have been fixed, I'll be happy to pass this! I personally think that the first hook is a little more interesting than the second. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PulsarPen: Courtesy ping to let you know that this DYK will be rejected for inactivity soon if there's no reply. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Suntooooth and @IntentionallyDense, thank you both for your time and thoughtful feedback on this DYK. I’ve carefully addressed each point as follows: My intended edits are below. I’m struggling a bit about how to edit the DYK page…. Please bear with me as I try to figure this out (also appreciate any help on the adding my intended edits below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PulsarPen (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Synthesis Concern (IntentionallyDense) Reviewer comment: The article previously cited only epilepsy and GI disorders but made a broader claim about chronic conditions, which could be WP:SYNTH. My response:
I've rewritten the sentence to remove the unsourced generalization. The updated phrasing now ties each condition (e.g., chronic pain, GI symptoms, autoimmune conditions) to secondary sources that explicitly discuss them. I also added:

  • Mason et al. (2019): A systematic review that documents elevated chronic physical health conditions in autistic adults.
  • Croen et al. (2015): A population-level study supporting multisystem health disparities.

This ensures that the revised statement reflects the scope of the sources used and avoids synthesis.

2. Hook Citation Support (Suntooooth) Reviewer comment: ALT0 originally referenced chronic pain and depression, but those conditions weren’t clearly cited in the article sentence used. My response:
I revised the hook for clarity and ensured it matches the wording and sourcing in the article. The final hook is now: ALT0: ... that chronic conditions in autistic people are sometimes misread as "just part of autism", delaying diagnosis and care? This wording directly reflects the cited section of the article, which now ends with high-quality secondary citations (e.g., Mason et al. 2019, Buie et al. 2010).

3. Citation Placement at End of Paragraphs Reviewer comment: Several paragraphs did not end with citations as required. My response:
I’ve reviewed and updated all flagged paragraphs to ensure proper citation placement, specifically:

  • “Physical health in autistics” — now ends with Mason et al. (2019)
  • “Diagnostic overshadowing in reverse” — now ends with Moyse & Porter (2015), a secondary source
  • First paragraph of “Systemic contributors” — updated to cite Mason et al. (2019)
  • Paragraph in “Diagnostic overshadowing over the lifespan” — ends with Croen et al. (2015) and Mason et al. (2019)

4. Hook Formatting Reviewer comment: Hooks weren’t in standard format. My response:
Both hooks have now been updated to follow the DYK format:

  • ALT0: ... that chronic conditions in autistic people are sometimes misread as "just part of autism", delaying diagnosis and care?
  • ALT1: ... that older autistic adults may go untreated for conditions like sensory loss, pain, or memory decline because their symptoms are wrongly attributed to autism?

Each now appears as a complete question in DYK style and reflects a verified section in the article with inline secondary citations.

5. Quotes from Sources (Optional Suggestion) Reviewer suggestion: Consider quoting the sources in the DYK nomination to make reviewer verification easier. My response:
I’ve added direct quote snippets from Buie et al. (2010), Mason et al. (2019), and Croen et al. (2015) into the nomination template to make verification easier.

“Autistic individuals experience elevated rates of a wide range of chronic physical conditions…” Mason et al. (2019) “Chronic constipation, abdominal pain, and other GI symptoms… are often misinterpreted as behavioral issues in autism.” –Buie et al. (2010) “Autistic adults had significantly higher rates of chronic conditions including hypertension, diabetes, and dementia.” Croen et al. (2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PulsarPen (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but I'm going to have to ask for a second opinion from another reviewer. I'm not 100% sure that this should pass, and I'm on holiday right now so I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves - but I don't think it's a straightforward pass. (Also, you obviously didn't read the format guideline I linked in the review.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Do (Shakira song)

(
)
  • ... that Shakira's song "How Do You Do" was banned across the Middle East due to its lyrics addressing God in a way considered blasphemous?
  • Reviewed:
Created by 1arch (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

1arch (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough and long enough, but there's a bit of a sourcing/verification issue: the article from 2005 doesn't actually say the *song* was banned, or that there was a formal ban extending across the entire Middle East. What it describes is the *entire album* being withheld from Middle Eastern markets by its Muslim-owned distributor, who objected to the song's lyrics. Plus, our article on the album mentions that it *was* released in the Middle East (though with modified cover art), so the situation seems to be a bit more complex.
A more accurate hook could be:
But first, we'll need to make sure we understand what exactly was banned (the song as the DYK currently says, or the album, per the source), by whom, and how it eventually returned to the market. Mariamnei (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked into it and found another source from a book that clarifies that the album was released in some countries in the Middle East, but even then without the song. So, I was thinking this would do:
    • ALT1: ... that Shakira's Oral Fixation, Vol. 2 was only released in a few Middle Eastern countries, and even then, without the song "How Do You Do", which was deemed blasphemous? 1arch (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @1arch: Great! Could you please share the original quote from the book source so I can verify the content? Once you've added the quote here, and the source below the above alternative (as you did with the first option), we should be good to go. Mariamnei (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operators and Things

(
)
  • ... that the Nashville Banner said Operators and Things​​​ ​​​​​​​would both interest laymen and impress professionals due to its thorough examination of the unconscious self? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/nashville-banner/172319537/
    • ALT1: ... that a book described as "an absorbing account of life in the dream world of a schizophrenic" was written by an anonymous author? Source: "Operators and Things: The Inner Life of a Schizophrenic". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 207, no. 5. F. Leypoldt. February 3, 1975. p. 44.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Hillbilly Thomists
    • Comment: Tried my best to come up with some real interesting hooks for article 7 mil, would love other suggestions from the current text or if more is added in the future. ALT1 I was a bit unsure about the wording of anonymous vs pseudonymous, but per discussion at Talk:Operators and Things#Replace anonymous with pseudonymous? landed on this. ALT1 is also linked to an offline source, I've asked the author on their talkpage for a scan or equivalent of the source, given the shifting winds I see in regards to AGF sources.
Created by Therapyisgood (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

PixDeVl (T | C | G) 21:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @PixDeVl: You can just google the quote from Publishers Weekly and look on Google Books and find it that way. Also it's on the back of the 2011 version, I believe, or at the very least it's on the Amazon.com page for the 2011 publishing. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Therapyisgood: found and verified, thank you! Never thought to just search it funny enough, I queried the whole citation and even combed the Internet Archives a bit for the issue. Cheers! --PixDeVl (T | C | G)
  • How about something like ALT2 '...that the author of the 1958 autobiographical account (memoir?) Operators and Things, describing a schizophrenic author's experiences with "operators", has never been identified?' or even simply ALT3 '...that the anonymous 1958 autobiographical account Operators and Things describes a woman's onset and recovery from schizophrenia, aided by "operators"?'
I like this "has never been identified" version, that's a proper hook for a "did you know". Mateussf (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateussf: I like that former hook, I'd add that as an ALT2, but it may be a little bit long(WP:DYKTRIM). Not super sure on memoir vs account. --PixDeVl (T | C | G) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PixDeVl: the problem is she was identified, though, for the 1976 publication ("According to the 2011 version, the last time anyone had heard from O'Brien was in 1976, when she wrote an additional chapter for a new version of the book. Her author's blurb for the 1976 publication stated she was "fully recovered" and living outside of Los Angeles."). Therapyisgood (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ALT names, both ideas are within an acceptable wordcount. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about ALT4... that the identity of "Barbara O'Brien", the author of Operators and Things, a 1958 autobiographical account of schizophrenia, has not been publicly revealed?

Articles created/expanded on May 30

[edit]

Nancy Broadfield Parkinson, George Mearns Savery, Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones

( Comment or view )
Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones
Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones
  • Source: Hewlett, Dorothy (1981). Harrogate College 1893-1973. North Yorkshire, England: Harrogate College. ISBN 9780950742700.
Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk). Number of QPQs required: 6. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 114 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I understand what you're going for with the hook, but is this really interesting to a broad audience? If a reader is unfamiliar with any of the names provided, the hook doesn't really sound all that interesting, it just said that these names were all involved in a particular school. My suggestion would be to propose individual hooks about each person, rather than going with a multi-hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; the three articles are best understood if read together. Parkinson, an orphaned female, could never have achieved what she did in that era, without that school, and that school would never have existed as a pioneering, ground-breaking school without those two educational pioneers, Savery and Jones. There is no space in a DYK hook to explain that, and on WP we are not allowed to explain things. Our readers have to work it out. For that, they need to read all three articles. So - sorry, we need this to be a triple. I have added ALT2 and ALT3, which may answer your above concern somewhat. Storye book (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that helps much, even with the additional context. I'm very sorry, but I have struck the hooks for now. I'd like to see first some individual hook proposals first and see if it is at least feasible for them to stand alone. We can revisit the idea for a triple hook if none of them have feasible individual hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the three articles already stand alone as articles. But what they stand for, hookwise, as a set of three is more important. For a woman to attain that position, and achieve that national recognition, requires a level and quality of education which in those days in the UK was not easily available, even for men. I have unstruck ALTs 2 and 3, because I believe we need a second opinion on this. New reviewers: please check out the above discussion. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I am open to the possibility of a triple hook. I was not closing the door on it entirely. I just said that you needed to at least try to propose first individual hooks for the three. We could then discuss those individual hooks and see if any of them met the interest guidelines. If those hooks would not work out, then the triple hook idea could be revisited. As it stands, you did not even try to propose individual hooks: you were already closed to the idea.
Also, in response to your comment, "For a woman to attain that position, and achieve that national recognition, requires a level and quality of education which in those days in the UK was not easily available, even for men," that arguably counts as specialist information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading through the articles right now, if your point is to show that Parkinson was an exceptional woman who deserves recognition, then that is arguably even more of an argument in favor of an individual hook at least for her, because a triple hook would be like tying her to other notable people instead of allowing her to stand on her own. I have gone through all three articles and all three were accomplished people in their own right: I do not think a triple hook that is primarily about Parkinson would give justice to Savery or Jones. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really want, I can offer a compromise: given how Savery and Jones worked together and both of their articles devote large portions to their collaboration, I am open to a double hook with Savery and Jones, although I would also suggest at least trying to suggest individual hooks for either as possible options. However, I would still recommend that Parkinson have a separate individual hook. As it stands, her article does not even mention Savery, only Jones, and even then, only in passing, and I'm not really a fan of the idea of a hook about her being primarily about her links to others. The more about I think this, while I'm still open to the idea of a triple hook, the more I think it is not the best option and should be more-or-less a last resort. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a second opinion, and you have written above, twice, that you are open to a triple hook. That request of mine would include asking the new reviewer (or possibly reviewers, since it's 3 articles) to review the articles properly, and to consider ALT3, so I have unstruck it. Remember that you have only commented on the hook(s), and you have not actually reviewed the articles, so we still need a reviewer. Please don't edit-war over hook-striking. The above hooks do not break WP rules; they do not lie or mislead. Your striking is only about your own opinion.
As for specialist information - how many first-world countries can you think of, where in the World War II era, women could - as easily as men - hold top government civil service positions, and get national awards for it? I think that most citizens of first-world countries would not expect to see women in top government posts during World War II. Think of all the photos you have seen of groups of important top government people signing documents at that time. Do you remember seeing women frequently among all the male suits and uniforms? I am not saying that there were no women in those formal photographs. I am saying that women officials in those photographs were uncommon. So no, that is not specialist information. Storye book (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you are so close-minded to the idea of individual hooks about the three people, especially when I gave good reasons to move away from the triple hook. I mean, the current triple hook makes it seem like we're only really talking about Parkinson rather than also Savery and Jones: do you really want a hook that downplays Savery and Jones? In fact, the hook arguably downplays all three subjects: it reduces Parkinson to just someone who went to a school, and it reduces Savery and Jones to being a school founder. If we went with individual hooks, we could at least describe and promote their individual achievements. Yes, there's context behind Parkinson going to that school, but is that context going to be obvious in the hook? No, and that is the kind of hook that the guidelines explicitly discourage: hooks that are reliant on specialist information, or at least hooks that require explanations to be understandable.
As for the unstriking, you were the one who unstruck the hooks after I struck them, even though I gave my reasons as to why they were struck. If anything, you are acting in bad faith if you are accusing me of edit-warring, when this could have been avoided if you simply stated disagreement with the striking without actually unstriking the hooks yourself. You are free to disagree with a reviewer (not necessarily me), but accusing them of edit-warring, when arguably you should not have unstruck the hooks in the first place, is arguably showing bad faith. My suggestion remains to move away from that angle for now, and to revisit it if other options fall through. For what it is worth, I asked on Discord for opinions regarding ALT3 (in a neutral manner), and the responses said that ALT3 was not interesting to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of this moving forward, I will be reviewing the three articles:
  • Nancy Broadfield Parkinson: checkY the article was moved to mainspace on May 30, so it is new enough. It is long enough, adequately sourced. Two QPQs have been done and they were proper, so they are accepted. I did not detect any close paraphrasing.
  • Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones: checkY also moved to mainspace on May 30, and meets the length, sourcing, and paraphrasing requirements. Two QPQs have been provided for it.
  • George Mearns Savery: checkY moved to mainspace on the same date, I did not find close paraphrasing, DYK requirements are met, two QPQs done.
I have gone through all three articles, and I'm actually surprised that you did not even propose what is arguably the most interesting aspect about Parkinson. I'll be proposing it as the individual hook for her:
Nancy Broadfield Parkinson
That's actually a standout moment of her life, far more than just simply talking about her going to a school. I would highly suggest focusing on this aspect of her as it is a major accomplishment, and also an interesting aspect of her life that is not reliant on having a background in the history of British education. My only concern about this aspect is that I could not find any UNESCO sites that mention Parkinson, but maybe there are offline sources about it.
George Mearns Savery
As for Jones and Savery, I've proposed individual hooks for both of them, as well as a double hook:
Let me know what you think about these hooks so that we can ask for a new reviewer to review them (I cannot review these hooks myself). In the interest of compromise, I am even unstriking ALT3 to allow for that reviewer to also consider it in addition to the individual hooks and the double hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you for all your hard work on this one. OK, I'll accept Parkinson as a single, and Savery and Jones as a double nom. I have added the quotation from the source for your ALT-NBP Parkinson hook. The British Council, being a government department, is a sufficiently authoritative source for the hook, and is online and verifiable.
I accept your hooks, with the exception of the following: I have adjusted your ALT-G/E hook (i.e. replaced "founding" with "development"), because Jones was not around when the school was founded, but they collaborated in a very intense manner for a short while over the development of the school (then Savery became ill and died, so that Jones carried on the development, but nevertheless, the collaboration was important, and is mentioned in a number of sources in both articles.). In the same hook, I have replaced "women's" with "girls'", because in that era girls did not come of age (I be legally considered women) until they were 21 years old. The school taught girls aged roughly 5-18 years. Storye book (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox ID image from the Parkinson article could be used with her new hook if required. I have added it to her hook above.. I do believe, though, that the above Jones image should be used in the double nom, because it is so eye-catching and beautiful. (And anyway, there does appear to be a reluctance to use ID pics of old, bearded white men on DYK). Storye book (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I have no idea how to re-jig this nom into a single and double. BlueMoonset can you fix that? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I mean that I could not find a third-party source other than the British Council that confirmed the UNESCO fact, since ideally I would have wanted a third-party source for a rather exceptional claim, or even an actual UNESCO source. Since Parkinson was associated with the British Council, they are not exactly an independent source. Anyway, since you've agreed to the new hook proposals, I'm asking for a new reviewer to review all the options proposed so far (including ALT3 and my proposals). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that such a formal and established British government source as the British Council should need a confirmatory citation. Are you disrespecting the government of my country? However I have added to Parkinson's article a photo of Parkinson as a UNESCO delegate, and added a sentence about it with a newspaper citation. Storye book (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be offended. It's just that some editors at DYK tend to be skeptical of non-independent or primary sources, so it's mostly for their benefit. I am personally okay with the source as I'm not the kind of editor who's particular about them, but I know that some editors tend to challenge such sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire-eye

(
)
White-backed fire-eye antbird
White-backed fire-eye antbird
  • ... that the fire-eye antbirds' (pictured) calls instead of songs are used to tell the species apart?
  • Source: In a 2017 study, researchers found that "when [they] examined Pyriglena

vocalizations in this context, the outcomes revealed substantial diversity in their calls, rather than their songs [thus it] underscores the need to consider all vocalizations in taxonomic studies."

https://doi.org/10.11646%2Fzootaxa.4291.2.3
    • Reviewed:
5x expanded by Tkronos1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Tkronos1 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Jaireeodell: Hooks must not contain parentheses outside of (pictured) per WP:DYK200.--Launchballer 16:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Thanks! I didn't know that. Would this work? ALT1 ... that the fire-eye antbirds' (pictured) use calls, not songs, to identify different antbird species? Jaireeodell (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, though I recommend ALT1a: ... that fire-eye antbirds (pictured) use calls to identify different antbird species rather than songs?. It's the same as ALT0 with no new information, so you could approve it yourself.--Launchballer 13:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and Jaireeodell: Are we certain that the source says it is the birds who use these calls? To me it sounds like it says that it is the researchers who do. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they aren't calling to blend in with other species, are they? Even so, to your point, would this work: ALT2: ... that fire-eye antbirds (pictured) may be identified from different antbird species by their calls rather than their songs?. Jaireeodell (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 5

[edit]

June 2025 Gaza Freedom Flotilla

(
)
Created by DERPALERT (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 301 past nominations.

Launchballer 01:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Launchballer. Here's one more:

  • ALT1: ... that in June 2025 Israeli forces intercepted European humanitarians in international waters and forcibly took them to Israel?

Surtsicna (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for nitpicking, 'International waters' (although informally used a lot in this context) is not strictly applicable- closest more accurate term without getting too verbose would be 'non-territorial waters'.Yadsalohcin (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Bangfan

(
)
  • ... that Shi Bangfan was the first Chinese pilot to shoot down a Japanese plane?
Created by Toadboy123 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 55 past nominations.

Toadboy123 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Shagidi

(
)
  • ... that "Shagidi" was inspired by the Filipino children's game Shagidi Shapopo?
Created by Royiswariii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

ROY is WAR Talk! 16:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

How does this is not passed in WP:DYKINT? First of all, it is a traditional Filipino dance relay. Is this WP:IDONTLIKEIT? ROY is WAR Talk! 10:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. Basically, that means the hook has to be interesting or at least eye-catching even to someone who is not necessarily familiar with the names or information mentioned in the hook. For one, the hook doesn't even make it clear that the subject is a song. The idea you should have when writing a hook is this: if a reader is not a fan of BINI and/or is not from the Philippines, could they understand the hook and appreciate it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking Launchballer if they could propose additional hook suggestions. In the meantime, I wonder if a revised version of ALT0 would solve the interest concerns:
ALT0a ... that the name of the Filipino girl group Bini's song "Shagidi" was inspired by a children's game?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think about it, I think ALT1 could work as a hook if it is rephrased as well, perhaps something like:
ALT1a ... that the cover artwork for the Filipino girl group Bini's song "Shagidi" was created by one of its members?
The main concern I had was the lack of context for international readers who may not know who Bini is, so solving that should address the interest concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 6

[edit]

Eocarcharia

(
)
  • ... that despite its name being in reference to the dinosaur family Carcharodontosauridae, Eocarcharia may actually be a member of the family Spinosauridae?
  • Reviewed:
5x expanded by Augustios Paleo (talk) and SlvrHwk (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

AFH (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article well sourced, neutral in presentation, hook cited and confirmed to the source, citations are needed, per DYK rules, at the end of each fact bearing sentence used in the hook @Augustios Paleo and SlvrHwk:.--Kevmin § 15:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augustios Paleo, SlvrHwk, and Kevmin: The proposed hook does not strike me as interesting to a broad audience. I am certain that something more interesting can be produced from such a long article, and perhaps even this fact can be presented better. I think a chimeric origin hook would be excellent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augustios Paleo and SlvrHwk: its been over a week since I pointed out the reference problem with the article and nook, and now there is concern regarding the hook interestingness (which i think may be justified on being written to techinically), however there has been no participation here or indication of fixing the issues. I will fail this nomination at the end of the week if there is no changes.--Kevmin § 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I am unfamiliar with this process and somewhat surprised the article is being nominated for DYK in the first place, so my apologies that the issues haven't been taken care of earlier. I agree that the proposed hook is not particularly impactful (for a general audience), at least in the way it is currently presented. The following might be more suitable, based on the same source included above:
I created an image for the page (reviewed and approved here, per WP:PALEO mandates) that helps to illustrate this point and could potentially be included in the DYK, formatted below:
Reconstructed skulls of the Eocarcharia chimaera
Reconstructed skulls of the Eocarcharia chimaera
I have also updated the article to include a citation for this hook in the lead. Thank you for your comments, your input is appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song)

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Locust member (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 299 past nominations.

Launchballer 00:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I did mention at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Quit Dreaming and Get on the Beam that 5000+ views a day says a broad audience knows who she is and that therefore almost any hook would pass the 'intriguing' part of WP:DYKINT. I'm not going to refuse to suggest a "normal" hook at this point, but given that pop music hooks do poorly at WP:DYKSTATS (I was shocked by how badly Push 2 Start did), I strongly recommend that we go with an April Fool's hook for this (albeit maybe not this one).--Launchballer 01:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, two other editors objected to the hook (not just me), so it seems that there is loose consensus at least to move away from this angle or even from an April Fools' angle entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good hook that creates plenty of intrigue and should get plenty of hits, indeed, it would probably do better if it wasn't used on April Fool's Day (when a bunch of questionable hooks tend to degrade overall impact) but just used as a standard quirky. Not every hook needs to spell out every aspect of the topic - probably half the hooks posted omit detail to create more interest. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with Naruto, this is not "interesting". The only thought that I am left with after reading it is "where's the rest of the sentence?" And just because a broad audience knows who someone is does not mean that "almost any hook" would be intriguing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter hooks tend to be more effective, and omitting the quote marks would only be allowed on April Fool's Day.
ALT1: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer has been described as "a breath of fresh air"?
ALT2: ... that a Michelle Pfeiffer performance typically lasts about 4 minutes and 31 seconds?
ALT3: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer has been described as "stylish"?
ALT4: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer has been described as possessing "a cresting emotionality grand enough to fill the tallest IMAX screen"?
ALT5: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer was inspired by Michelle Pfeiffer?--Launchballer 16:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5 seems interesting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with ALT5. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1910 Italy v France football match

(
)
Italy team before the match
Italy team before the match
Created by Wikipediæ philosophia (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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:

Wikipediæ philosophia, there is uncited material in the article I have tagged which needs citing. The article also needs a copyedit for prose. These are issues I would expect the reviewer to pick up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 7

[edit]

Kamla Jaan

(
)
  • Sources:
  1. Ambreesh Mishra (July 23, 2007). "First Eunuch Mayor of India – Kamala Jaan". India Today. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
  2. Haviland, Charles (2002-08-29). "India's first eunuch mayor unseated". BBC. Retrieved 2025-03-14.
  • Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by Toadspike (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Luke1437 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I strongly recommend shortening this to:
  • ALT3: ... that Kamla Jaan became India's first eunuch mayor in 2000?
"Eunuch" can be swapped for "third gender" or "trans"; sources generally say they are interchangeable. We cannot say that she was elected in 2000. The sources are ambiguous, but from what I can tell she was probably elected in 1999 and took office in January 2000. Finally, I oppose ALT1 for being boring and I have made some grammatical fixed to ALT2, though the "quota" part still doesn't read smoothly. Toadspike [Talk] 18:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this "first" hook has strong sourcing to back it up, but if a non-"first" hook is needed, I suggest a condensed version of ALT1:
  • ALT4: ... that Kamla Jaan, a hijra and mayor of Katni, was removed from office because the electoral rolls listed her as male?
Source: [20]. ALT1's wording makes it hard to understand and thus not as interesting. Toadspike [Talk] 19:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke1437: The article is new and long enough, but close paraphrasing is a big problem. The BBC article seems to have been practically copied. Other than that, the article has an immense potential to produce a good hook. I would suggest a hook that mentions how she was an illiterate eunuch angle whose candidacy looked like a prank until she actually won. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Al Deen Muktamanch

(
)
Muktamanch from Right entrance
Muktamanch from Right entrance
5x expanded by FaysaLBinDaruL (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

ALT 3: ... that rain unexpectedly began to fall moments after the monsoon song began at same place, twice?

~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook may need to be revised as it is hard to understand. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 8

[edit]

Bob Wicks

(
)
5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 373 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Reading this for the first time, the hook seems to be really interesting, but it seems not to have been followed upon on the article. It says "Starting in fourth grade and continuing through college, he was often teammates with quarterback John Strycula". The article could've specified Strycula went to Royal Oak and Utah State, as well. His association with Wicks was never mentioned again in the article aside from that. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 9

[edit]

European Australian Movement

(
)
Moved to mainspace by TarnishedPath (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

TarnishedPathtalk 09:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - n
  • Other problems: No - A mere mission statement is not interesting. Even so, this claim seems rather ordinary for a Neo-Nazi organization. I believe more content should be added to this article so that more interesting information can be found.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I would recommend you first build up information about the organization's history, its beliefs, and its activities before adding claims to the infobox. Also, the image of the flag is most likely copyrighted in Australia, so it should be hosted locally on enwiki. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Howardcorn33 I've removed the flag and the predecessors stuff from the infobox. Does that resolve most of the points above aside from the subjective opinion that the hook is not interesting?TarnishedPathtalk 14:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: "Anti-LGBT," "Antisemitism," "Ecofascism" should be discussed in the article body itself. The year of formation is also uncited. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33 fixed. Per the interesting part, I'd think that it is only uninteresting if you know who they are, which can be said of almost every hook. If there anything else which is uncited? TarnishedPathtalk 16:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Infobox and citations are OK. I suppose I can only speak for myself when saying if something is interesting, but the provided hook only describes a stated aim of a Western far-right organization which may well apply to dozens of far-right organizations around the world. I don't see anything exceptional about it. (Just to be clear, this is my 3rd time reviewing a DYK, so I'm not the most experienced to talk about this. If you disagree, then I would be OK with a second opinion.) ―Howard • 🌽33 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33, no worries, I'll take you up on your suggestion and request a second opinion. TarnishedPathtalk 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPathtalk 04:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPathtalk 07:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 10

[edit]

Sraboner Meghgulo Joro Holo Akashe

(
)
Created by FaysaLBinDaruL (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Baena (surname)

(
)
  • ... that, outside of Spain, the Spanish surname Baena is often associated with people of Sephardi Jewish descent?
Converted from a redirect by Kingsif (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 138 past nominations.

Kingsif (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 11

[edit]

Undefeated (band)

(
)
Lis Dunckel of Undefeated
Lis Dunckel of Undefeated
  • ... that when Lis Dunckel (pictured) replaced the previous bassist for Undefeated, she didn't know how to play bass?
Created by 3family6 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 109 past nominations.

3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: No - All images used in the article have lacked permission for more than a week. They should be removed unless permission is received.
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Interesting hook. Well-cited article, although I would personally mark out the primary sources using {{Primary sources references section}}. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diagon Alley

(
)
Converted from a redirect by Mikeycdiamond (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sangalang, Jennifer. "Lumos! Universal lights up Diagon Alley". Florida Today. Archived from the original on December 5, 2022. Retrieved 2025-06-10.
  2. ^ Sekula, Sarah (2014-06-20). "Sneak peek: Harry Potter's Diagon Alley". CNN. Retrieved 2025-06-10.
  3. ^ Pocock, Emma. "J.K. Rowling Debunks 'Harry Potter' Inspiration Claims". Forbes. Retrieved 2025-06-07.

Articles created/expanded on June 12

[edit]

Italian reserve football teams

(
)
  • Source: Article Source 1, Source 7 and Source 9
Created by Wikipediæ philosophia (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Murder of Luigia Borrelli

(
)
Created by Moondragon21 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

Moondragon21 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Dull hook. A lot of murder investigations have been reopened after long periods of time (see Murder of Sherri Rasmussen, for instance). Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Just provide a source when you make it ALT1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Done. Moondragon21 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant here in the nomination, actually, but I checked it in the article and it's fine. I'd put it in the lede where you first mention it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Now it's in the lede. Is everything alright now? Moondragon21 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the article lede, right after that term in Italian is mentioned. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I think it is already. Moondragon21 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. First sentence: "The murder of Luigia Borrelli, known in Italy as delitto del trapano" Right after that is where it should go. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I am confused. What should the sentence be word-for-word? Moondragon21 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: thanks. How is the DYK looking now? Moondragon21 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better in this department, but given the degree to which I have been involved already I think it better if someone else does the full review Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the advice on the hook. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moondragon21 your provided QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/1910 Italy v France football match is a tick-box review which did not pick up on easily-identifiable issues, and is therefore not a "full review" per WP:QPQ. I request that you review another nomination, and do so properly this time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 13

[edit]

Freddie Parker, Don King (defensive back)

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 375 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Bésame (Alejandro Sanz and Shakira song)

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by 1arch (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

1arch (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is new, long enough and well-referenced. I see no close paraphrasing issues, but neither do I see any mention of the musical influences of Alejandro Sanz and Shakira in the article. In any case, I think a hook mentioning the kiss might be more interesting. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Lap

(
)
Created by CanonNi (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

'​'​'[​[User:CanonNi]​]'​'​' (💬 • ✍️) 11:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is fine, the QPQ is present, but the hook facts are missing from the article, CanonNi. They need to be in there to count as hook facts. Ping me when this has been addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout looking

(
)
Created by Soulbust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 45 past nominations.

Soulbust (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Soulbust: The article is new enough, long enough, cited, and has no other issues, athlough some of the prose is uncomfortable and a bit unclear. I think the hook can also be reworded for the sake of clerity for those without a baseball background, such as:
    • ALT1a...that the National Baseball Hall of Fame does not know who first used the notation '"ꓘ" to represent a strikeout looking? GGOTCC 20:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GGOTCC: Hi, thanks for the review! Which parts of the article's prose do you think is uncomfortable or unclear? I would want to take a look and adjust those bits if possible. Soulbust (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Soulbust: While I won't hold it against you or the DYK nomination, I was a bit confused about the line As the pitcher strikes out the batter looking in the lead section. Does this mean the pitcher and batter were looking at eachother? Would that not apply to every strikeout? My other point is that this article should be understandable to a general audience, ie. those who do not know other baseball terms. Some context in the second paragraph under "History and analysis" may help this by mentioning that a strike requires the batter to think they can strike the ball, yet fail too. This context would make a strikeout looking sound more impressive for the pitcher. GGOTCC 01:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, will try and tweak those areas in a bit. The one you put in red I feel was the way it makes most sense to get a pitcher out via strikeout looking (i.e. the batter was struck out looking by the pitcher) but I think I can find a new/better way to word it. Soulbust (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doll Hut

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by Sewageboy (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Sewageboy (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Worrall Reed Carter

(
)
Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 446 past nominations.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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: Article looks good. Nice work. Though, to match the quote from the source, @Hawkeye7: shouldn't it be ... that Worrall Reed Carter wrote about "Beans, Bullets and Black Oil"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC) I have removed the quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Currier

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 445 past nominations.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I think both of you might be overestimating how familiar the general public is about it, especially international readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to push back on this a bit. If you completed the entirety of your education before the 1980s and don't keep up with popular culture and don't read widely, then yes, you are correct, you probably won't know what Bletchley Park is or why it is important in fields ranging from mathematics to computing to history. So I will agree with you if we are restricting our readership to that set of people. The problem is, that's not who uses Wikipedia. Surveys show that most users of Wikipedia are between the ages of 18 and 34. Why does this matter? Because the existence of Bletchley Park was first revealed in the mid-1970s (1974?). Most people didn't hear of it until the 1990s after it opened to the public. There was a slow trickle of info in the 1980s. I think I first recall hearing about it in the late 1980s or early 1990s. With the rise of information technology by the 2000s, I would guess that it became more widely known in the tech industry, given the role of Alan Turing and the use of now-famous computers like Colossus and the codebreaking machine known as the Bombe. Around 60% of Wikipedia readers have had some form of higher education, and because most of these users are in the younger demographic, we can safely assume that the general public that uses Wikipedia is familiar with Bletchley Park because they were exposed to it after it became widely known. Nerdgasm aside, Prescott Currier worked on the goddamn Voynich manuscript. ALT0 should be passed, and frankly, that hook is awesome. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet in my 30s and I've never heard of Bletchley Park before, and I'm someone who already knows more about tech history than the average person. I think it might just be your personal bias showing, but you may be overestimating how much the average person is familiar with it. I imagine it might also be a regional thing: perhaps readers in North America or Europe may be more familiar with it than someone in Asia. But if that's the case, then pushing for it given the circumstances may be a case of systemic bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see systemic bias here nor can I imagine how that term applies. I see human achievements in formerly secret, highly classified, specialized or niche domains that are now well known to people who are familiar with math, computing, and history, ideas that have reached mainstream status over time. I am more curious as to why these ideas would not be well known in your region. Viriditas (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if your suggestion is basically "Wikipedia's audience is mostly male, of a certain age, and from the Anglosphere, and so hooks should appeal to them," then that is systemic bias. As for your second question, most of the world does not really deal with computer history in class, and the average person might not even know historical computer figures apart from Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and maybe Steve Wozniak. At least where I'm from, I don't even think the Enigma machine was ever mentioned in our history classes and I only knew about it due to watching documentaries or reading about it at the library, although it could just be a sign of how weak our educational system is over here. My point is simply that you may be overestimating how much the average person knows about Bletchley Park, especially outside the Anglosphere (or maybe even within it). At best, additional context should be added to the hook, and ideally a different direction should be used entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0a: "... that Prescott Currier was one of the first group of four Americans to visit Bletchley Park, the secret British code-breaking center in World War II?" Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Bletchely Park would would be familiar to those who have seen the movie or the other movie or the TV show, so the hook should do fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 15

[edit]

3.5% rule

(
)
  • Source: Statement from Hands Off protests organizers: "April 5 was our fourth national day of action, and it won't be our last. We are committed to building our peaceful People's Movement and achieving 3.5% participation. History shows that when just 3.5% of the population engages in sustained peaceful resistance – transformative change is inevitable." source: UPI
Converted from a redirect by Tryptofish (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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: Expanded from redirect five days before nom and sized at 5307 B. Everything else is good. Since post-1992 US politics is a contentious topic (and I usually try not to touch them with a ten-foot pole), need a second opinion on the Trump hook per Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines#Special_considerations; otherwise another hook not related to post-1992 US politics (or any contentious topics) is fine, Tryptofish for ideas. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I don't think the American politics subject matter is a problem in this case, because the hook does not take, and does not imply, a position about Trump or those politics. I don't think that it's anti-Trump, simply because it's about anti-Trump protests. There are verifiably protests about Trump, and sourcing shows that the page subject plays a role in those protests. Since the 3.5% rule is defined as being about changes in government, there's going to be a political element to pretty much any possible hook. I welcome a second opinion, and I can think of alternative hooks if that opinion is against any mention of Trump or Trump protests:
  • ALT1: ... that the 3.5% rule describes the percentage of a population that participates in a successful change of government?
That's certainly not "contentious", but I also believe that it's not nearly as "hooky". It's wordier, and it's bland, and that's what happens if one tries to take the politics out of any possible hook for this page. My reading of the "special considerations" guideline is that hooks that fall under CTOPs need to strictly satisfy the same policies about NPOV, sourcing, and the like, that content about such topics would – not that hooks cannot mention them at all. So I would still argue that the original hook is the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: Well, my interpretation is that a contentious hook (which an anti-Trump hook inherently is) would need a second opinion, and also that if the article wasn't US politics-related a non-US politics-related hook would be preferred instead (also helps that one of the proposed hooks uses global politics instead of US politics). And yeah, I agree that it's bland, compared to my proposed hooks:
If the promoter wants to use ALT0, that's fine. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this thoughtful reply. I think you have some good ideas there, and I'm happy to look for a mutually agreeable solution. (One option I've thought about is to base the hook on one or more of the successful campaigns cited by Chenoweth, which would get us out of the US, but pretty much all of those are in other CTOP areas, alas.) Anyway, building on your idea for ALT2B, I can suggest:
I think that addresses what you are concerned about. My reasoning is that Chenoweth has stated that not all movements that reach 3.5% are successful, and that the success rate may be changing, so I'm looking for a way to avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that something is or isn't "usually enough", when "usually" is left undefined. Just saying that it "can" happen is interesting and "hooky", and there's no issue with verifiability. I left out "peacefully" in the interests of concision, but I wouldn't object to "peacefully change" instead. So for me, either ALT0 or ALT4 would be fine. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: Apologies for the double ping since I rescinded a previous approval. I considered ALT4 and actually approved it, but then rescinded the approval after realizing it wasn't really matching the spirit of the article topic by not connecting a country and its population to their government. So how about these two, which address my issue with ALT4?
ALT4B: ... that 3.5% of a country's population can change its government? Historical studies suggest that it takes 3.5% of a population engaged in sustained nonviolent resistance to topple brutal dictatorships.
ALT5: ... that 3.5% of a country's population can bring government change? Same as ALT4B
ミラP@Miraclepine 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rini Widyantini

(
)
  • ... that Indonesia's current state apparatus minister, Rini Widyantini, once took care of one of her predecessors' child? Source: "In September 1970, our first child was born, and we named him Rezal Ashari... When the two of us returned to campus, we left Rezal in the charge of the Nadisah family, who very kindly agreed to babysit him. Pak Nadisah’s youngest daughter, Rini Widyantini, was the most involved in taking care of Rezal." Kusumaatmadja, Sarwono (2020). Steering a middle course: from activist to Secretary General of Golkar. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Singapore: ISEAS. pp. 100. ISBN 978-981-4881-65-4.
5x expanded by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 83 past nominations.

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Horvat Midras

(
)
Stepped pyramid at Horvat Midras, Israel
Stepped pyramid at Horvat Midras, Israel
  • Source: Gardner, Gregg E.; Peleg-Barkat, Orit (2024). "Conspicuous Construction: New Light on Funerary Monuments in Rural Early Roman Judea from Horvat Midras". Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research. 391 (1). doi:10.1086/728460. p. 17. "The recent excavations at Horvat Midras have shed light on the pyramidal funerary monument, including its construction methods and connection to the burial cave to its north... The burial complex and nefesh are an impressive example of a monumental family display tomb from the end of the Second Temple era. Its location in a rural site in the Judean Foothills indicates that grand burial complexes existed not only in Jerusalem and other large cities, but also in these extra-urban regions."
  • ALT1: ... that a stepped pyramid at Horvat Midras, Israel, has been identified as the remnant of a monumental family tomb from Second Temple Judea? Source: Gardner, Gregg E.; Peleg-Barkat, Orit (2024). "Conspicuous Construction: New Light on Funerary Monuments in Rural Early Roman Judea from Horvat Midras". Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research. 391 (1). doi:10.1086/728460. p. 17. "The recent excavations at Horvat Midras have shed light on the pyramidal funerary monument, including its construction methods and connection to the burial cave to its north... The burial complex and nefesh are an impressive example of a monumental family display tomb from the end of the Second Temple era. Its location in a rural site in the Judean Foothills indicates that grand burial complexes existed not only in Jerusalem and other large cities, but also in these extra-urban regions."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Among the People
Created by Mariamnei (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Mariamnei (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 16

[edit]

Gyula Kakas

(
)
  • ... that Gyula Kakas, who was a "small, girlish-faced boy", competed at two Olympics in gymnastics, set the Hungarian pole vault record and played for a national champion football team?
5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 377 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Adolph Bieberstein

(
)
  • Reviewed: to do
  • Comment: To do QPQ within a day or two.
5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 376 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Kateryna (opera)

(
)
Rodin in 2021
Rodin in 2021
Created by Максим Огородник (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 2147 past nominations.

Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Lucie Lagerbielke

(
)
Lucie Lagerbielke
Lucie Lagerbielke
  • Source: [21] "One of Lucie Lagerbielke’s most noted books, Själens liv: en bok tillägnad de ensamma, from 1911, received a blistering review from Poul Bjerre, initiating a public spat between the two in the press".
  • ALT1: ... that Lucie Lagerbielke's grave depicts her sitting naked looking at the sky? Source: [22] "The funeral monument at her grave comprises a representation of her, seated and naked, with her gaze turned heavenward."
  • Reviewed:
Created by Spiderpig662 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Spiderpig662 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Eva Leigh (artist)

(
)
  • Source: Young, Dr Fiona (2024). Finding Eva Leigh: rediscovering a Harrogate artist. York and Harrogate: North Yorkshire Council and Mercer Art Gallery. The full quotation is in the article, with inline citation.
  • Reviewed: Skraban–Deardorff syndrome
  • Comment: The expansion is already new enough and long enough, and mostly complete, but I'm still improving it (nominating now, to avoid deadline issues). I'll post here, when it's ready for review. Thank you for your patience. Update: the article is now ready for review.
5x expanded by Storye book (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 115 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

2025 Chennai Super Kings season

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Vestrian24Bio (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Vestrian24Bio 16:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is a comment and not a review: I have mixed feelings about this hook. On the one hand, the hook is borderline specialist since it requires knowledge that the Super Kings are usually good. On the other hand, the IPL is a huge deal in India, a country of over 1 billion people. This is a weird case in that I'm not actually sure if the hook as currently written is interesting to a broad audience, as whether or not it does depends on how you define "broad". On the one hand, cricket is really only popular in a relatively small number of countries, so outside of those countries the hook may not be as interesting. On the other hand, three of the countries where cricket is big (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) are very populous, so in theory the number of people this hook attracts is very large. It's a question of how wide the hook's interest is versus how deep. I don't swing either way (although I'd be leaning more towards it being interesting), so it would be good to ask for a second opinion here, ideally from a non-cricket fan. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some extra hooks, which are hopefully more interesting (link placement may need some adjusting):
The last one requires a source from the team's main article as well. It cites [23], which should do. Toadspike [Talk] 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think ALT3 would be the best option here, although of course the article would need adjustment. @Vestrian24Bio: Thoughts on the above proposals? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Toadspike: I support ALT3 as well and also made the necessary changes to the article now. Vestrian24Bio 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 New York corrections officers' strike

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Apocheir (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Apocheir (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

An actual review needed.--Launchballer 18:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 17

[edit]

Mohamed Lazhari

(
)
5x expanded by Arconning (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 34 past nominations.

Arconning (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Orthetrum japonicum

(
)
Male Orthetrum japonicum dragonfly
Male Orthetrum japonicum dragonfly
Created by Cremastra (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

Cremastra (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, well-referenced, and QPQ done. While the original hook is interesting, it is not strictly speaking true (nor confirmed in the cited source): O. japonicum was endemic to Japan before 2012 too, we just did not know it. ALT1 is better, but I see an opportunity for a great multi-hook featuring O. japonicum, O. internum, O. albistylum (if slightly expanded) and O. poecilops (if slightly expanded), something about how O. japonicum and O. internum cannot be the same species unless O. albistylum and O. poecilops are also in that species. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Erick (2025)

(
)
Hurricane Erick on June 19
Hurricane Erick on June 19
  • ... that Hurricane Erick (pictured) was the earliest major hurricane to hit Mexico since records began?
  • Reviewed:
Created by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

HurricaneEdgar 13:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ben Franklin (song)

(
)
Created by Leafy46 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Leafy46 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Canons Regular of St. John Cantius

(
)
Converted from a redirect by Darth Stabro (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 43 past nominations.

~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Current nominations

[edit]

Articles created/expanded on June 18

[edit]

Robert Baker Park

(
)
  • ... that Robert Baker Park in Baltimore was named after Robert Lewis Baker, whose personal Federal Hill townhouse garden was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his 1979 death?
  • Source: "Actually, Mr. Tag ls responsible for three major displays. In addition to the

one mentioned, his company, Manor landscaping, is planning a comparative study of two small city gardens, one formal, the other informal. For his third undertaking. he is helping the Horticulture Society of Maryland with their project, which is a reproduction

of the late Dr, Robert L. Baker’s townhouse garden." Baltimore Sun, March 8, 1980
    • Reviewed:
Created by 842U (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

842U (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Arthur Newnham

(
)

CricketArchive is an alternative, but is paywalled Cricket: as above, or his Wisden obituary also verifies – https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/229835.html Moscow: Victoria Cross Online – https://victoriacrossonline.co.uk/lanceray-arthur-newnham-gc-mc-direct-recipient/

Transcriptions of Indian newspapers also suggest this, but don't flat out say it
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Think this is OK. If the sourcing for serving as a military attache is not OK, we have two Indian newspapers which say he was with the Bombay Staff Corps in Moscow when he was married so an alternative ending along the lines of ...and was married in Moscow might be possible
5x expanded by Blue Square Thing (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ophicleide

(
)
Ophicleide in C by Gautrot with nine keys, mid-19th century
Ophicleide in C by Gautrot with nine keys, mid-19th century
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I'm not sure if the bit in parentheses may or may not be needed; almost nobody will know what an ophicleide is, but then that's what DYK is about, I guess?
Improved to Good Article status by Jonathanischoice (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Jon (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

ALT1: ... that the ophicleide (pictured) was used in early British brass bands in the 19th century before being replaced by the euphonium? Source: Yeo, Douglas (2021). "ophicleide". An Illustrated Dictionary for the Modern Trombone, Tuba, and Euphonium Player. Dictionaries for the Modern Musician. Peterson, Lennie (illustrator). Lanham: The Globe Pequot Publishing Group. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-538-15966-8. LCCN 2021020757. OCLC 1249799159. OL 34132790M. Wikidata Q111040546.

François-Edmond Fortier

(
)
Woman from the Fula ethnic group
Woman from the Fula ethnic group
  • ... that François-Edmond Fortier published over 3,300 postcards of French West Africa (example pictured) between 1901 and 1920? Source: Ref 3: Geary, Christraud M. (2018). "Between 1901 and 1912 he issued more 3.300 original postcards, which he reproduced in different editions until 1920..
    • ALT1: ... that in the early 1900s François-Edmond Fortier published many postcards with eroticized depictions of African women? Source: Ref Ref 3: Geary, Christraud M. (2018). "Included among his cards are many exotic or erotic pictures of "colonized" women..."
    • ALT2: ... that Pablo Picasso owned 40 photographs by François-Edmond Fortier that may have influenced his painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon? Source: Hirsch, Robert (8 February 2024). Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography. Taylor & Francis. p. 255. ISBN 978-1-000-90432-1.
    • ALT3: ... that a photograph by François-Edmond Fortier (pictured) has become an iconic image of African resistance against colonial rule? Source: Bertho, Elara (1 June 2018). "Photographies de Samori Touré : de la carte postale coloniale aux pochettes de vinyles". Cahiers d'études africaines (in French) (230): 301–322. doi:10.4000/etudesafricaines.22087. ISSN 0008-0055. Translation: Photographs of Samori Touré: From the Colonial Postcard to Record Covers. Circulations of an Iconic Picture
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert
    • Comment: Article 5x expanded. The picture of the Fula woman is only meant for ALT0. In case we use ALT3, another image is appropriate: File:Samory-Dioula Soudanais (AOF).jpg
Created by Munfarid1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 35 past nominations.

Munfarid1 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Fine expansion of an interesting bio, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Of the hooks, I like ALT2 best, - would there be an associated image example? Same as ALT0 perhaps? That image is licensed and a good illustration. I like ALT3 also, but it seems a bit off his normal images. The example image is also licensed and a good illustration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

(
)
  • ... that the character of Death had already been cast for the Marvel Cinematic Universe when a culture website suggested she would never make an appearance?
    • ALT1: ... that Death in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created Infinity Stones and flowers?
    • ALT2: ... that Death was described as a witch on a motorcycle?
    • ALT3: ... that Death can speak Spanish?
    • ALT4: ... that Aubrey Plaza spent months learning to play the drums before playing Death?
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani
    • Comment: Two hooks about the creation of the character - can probably come up with more 'serious' ones - and some more quirky hooks. Use whatever's needed in a set, and feel free to suggest more. (QPQ may appear used: there were three articles reviewed at that nom and this should be 3/3.) If we're still doing special occasion hooks, the show's one year anniversary would be September 18 - or, if using alt4, Plaza's birthday is June 26, though I appreciate that's only a week away.
Converted from a redirect by Kingsif (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 139 past nominations.

Kingsif (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 19

[edit]

Viet Flakes

(
)
  • Source: Women's Experimental Cinema: Critical Frameworks: "During the performance, the audience, unaware of their contribution, controlled the electronics, the slide projectors, and film projectors so that they could speed up or slow down the images depending on how they were responding to the graphic horror."
Created by Hinnk (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

hinnk (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ivan I of Moscow

(
)
  • ... that Ivan I of Moscow earned the nickname "Kalita", which literally means "money bag"?
Improved to Good Article status by Mellk (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Mellk (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

George Garcia

(
)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Wicks
  • Comment: Will complete QPQ within the weekend. What's novel here is while election commission officials vote all the time in general elections, and while there are several special/by-elections, it's not often that a special/by-election happens on the district where an electoral commission is a voter on.
5x expanded by Howard the Duck (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 27 past nominations.

Howard the Duck (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Four-Phase Systems AL1

(
)
  • ... that the AL1 ended Texas Instruments' claims that they had invented the first microprocessor? Source: the lawsuit computer report
    • ALT1: ... that when Lee Boysel wanted to prove his AL1 microprocessor pre-dated Intel and TI to be the first microprocessor, he built a computer using one packed into Nintendo Entertainment System cartridges? Source: Laws, in turn based on the presentation, NES from the court document
    • Reviewed: Redhill MRT station
    • Comment: I'm not entirely happy with either hook, so if anyone has suggestions... I do think the NES carts would definitely be hooky though!
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 205 past nominations.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Per rule 5 of the DYK rules, could you link or quote the exact document you are citing? If this is a primary source, that may also be an issue. GGOTCC 19:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are found in Hertz, CHM, " Defending his work in court, Boysel showed that the AL1 could operate as a standalone microprocessor, effectively establishing it as "prior art," predating the TMX 1795" The carts are only mentioned in Boysel by name, but can be seen in Hertz. No idea why I typed Laws, that's the other CHM document. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AHOF

(
)
  • ... that the K-pop group AHOF was formed through Universe League with seven members from the winning team and one top-voted contestant from each of the two losing teams?
  • Source: ファイナルマッチ前には、1位チームに属する7人、2位チームのファン投票1位のメンバー、3位チームのファン投票1位のメンバーの9人でのデビューとなることが明かされた。Rough translation: Before the final match, it was revealed that the debut lineup would consist of nine members: 7 from the first-place team, the top-ranked member in fan voting from the second-place team, and the top-ranked member from the third-place team. Oricon News
  • ALT1: ... that AHOF, a K-pop group formed through Universe League, includes the top-voted contestants from two losing teams alongside the seven-member winning team? Source: Oricon News
  • Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by Eugh jei (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

— Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hello! I'll be more than happy to review this. Article was nominated within 7 days of moving to mainspace. It is more than 1,500 words in prose and sourced. Nominator has less than 5 nominations, so a QPQ is not needed at this time. I do have concerns about the line about the Dazed photoshoot, as the inclusion of their interview seems promotional since the quoted text is more aspirational than about their activities. Furthermore, while I can understand the hook, it's worded a little bit confusingly and might only appeal to niche audiences. Can you suggest another hook? lullabying (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying: Thank you for the review! Would this work: ALT2 "... that AHOF, a K-pop group formed on the reality show Universe League, includes two members who were not on the winning team but were added by fan votes?" I know I'm just rephrasing the hooks I suggested above. I wanted to showcase the fact that two members, despite being in the losing teams, were added in. I'm not sure if you are looking for a totally different hook. Regarding the Dazed Korea line, I had that line as a placeholder to hopefully expand it later when I get a copy of the magazine. For now, I will remove it, and once I get to read the magazine article and found notable info, I'd put it back in. — Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 10:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think the reworded hook is fine. The Dazed line is still on the article. lullabying (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one more thing I need to add: I'm not sure if this article satisfies WP:Notability (music) because this band is so new. Yes, there's independent coverage, but a lot of it has to do with Universe League rather than the group themselves. lullabying (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. And funny thing about that, I hoped to move the article from the draftspace to the mainspace after the group's debut and after substantial group activities. But then it got moved by someone and so this request got expedited as well. (I know it said above that I was the one who moved it. I was just not aware how the DYK Wizard worked. I thought that that field was for the users requesting, but I digress.) There had been a recent performance, and details about their upcoming EP had come out. I could add this to the article to hopefully satisfy WP:NMG. — Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 22:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really am hoping for this article to pass DYK, but at the moment, it's kind of hard to say whether it satisfies notability. From what I can see, the EP hasn't released yet and charting information is unavailable. lullabying (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 20

[edit]

Girl Ray

(
)
  • ... that British indie rock band Girl Ray named themselves after the surrealist visual artist Man Ray?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: First expanded article from a stub on 20 June. That version might be slightly under the fivefold threshold, but current version should be long enough (24 June). Don't know if the fivefold expansion needs to be in one fell swoop, or if it's ok if done in the seven day timeframe. Apologies if this isn't formatted correctly, this is my first DYK submission so still learning!
5x expanded by Abirose (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Abirose (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

WTVP

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 778 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Potomac-class frigate

(
)
USS Sabine, which took nearly 40 years to finish
USS Sabine, which took nearly 40 years to finish
  • ... that the Potomac-class frigates (example pictured) were intentionally built slowly for the sake of quality, only for the last ships to be outdated by the time they were finished decades later?
  • Source: "The Navy built these ships slowly and carefully, completing the frigates when they were needed for active service...Designed as a class, the ships varied significantly between the first launched craft and the last - reflecting 30 years of progress in naval architecture...The final ships completed, the Santee and Sabine, were obsolete when launched...

Sabine: Laid down: 1823....Commissioned: 8 June 1861"

Quotes from pages 13 and 40 of American Heavy Frigates 1794-1826 by by Mark Lardas and Tony Bryan
Created by GGOTCC (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

GGOTCC 02:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hungary v El Salvador (1982 FIFA World Cup)

(
)
László Kiss in 2011
László Kiss in 2011
Improved to Good Article status by PizzaKing13 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 05:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article easily long enough and was promoted to GA on 19 June (congrats!). Article sourcing looks good, hook facts are all interesting, cited and present, though ALT2 does make it sound like this match was the only World Cup match with a 9-goal margin of victory, rather than one of three as the note indicates. I also am not a huge fan of "blowout" being present in the hooks, as I don't see that word used in the article (unless I'm just missing it) and it seems inappropriate in wiki-voice. Earwig gives a pretty big number but all flagged text are direct quotes. QPQ is completed. Should be good for a tick here once hook problems have been resolved.

Articles created/expanded on June 21

[edit]

Kathleen O'Melia

(
)
Created by Voorts (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The Big Con (2023 book)

(
)
Created by Femke (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Federal Hall

(
)
The present Federal Hall
The present Federal Hall
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 731 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Court

(
)
  • Source: "Effective leadership of the Court was, at least at times, passing from Strong's hands" (Snell and Vaughan, 1985, p 62). "Henry Strong seemed to dominate the court, and under his leadership, or lack thereof, the court spiralled downward in the estimation of both the bar and the public." (Ian Bushnell, 1992, p 168)
"The attempts to force retirement, the repeated absences of several justices, and the problems caused by Chief Justice Strong's personality naturally resulted in instability on the Court." (Snell and Vaughan, 1985, p 58).
    • ALT1: ... that the Strong Court was created by the appointment of Samuel Henry Strong to the role of Chief Justice of Canada, despite Strong's many attempts to resign from the Court? Source: "Several times between 1884 and 1888 Strong actually tendered his resignation. He had stayed on at the prime minister's request, but in 1888 Sir John A. Macdonald finally gave way, writing to the minister of justice: 'I have written Strong. You would grant his pension. He may as well go.' Strong did not go, however." (Snell and Vaughan, 1985, p 45)
    • ALT2: ... that despite its name, the Strong Court did not have the respect of the Canadian legal community or public? Source: "Equally unfortunate was the entrenchment of the public's generally negative perception of the institution. A Toronto law journal commented in 1896 that 'this Court has long lacked the confidence of the Bar, both in the English-speaking provinces and in Quebec, and the present state of affairs will minimize what confidence still exists." AND "The Court's reputation remained poor; the editor of the Canada Law Journal wrote privately that the Supreme Court 'is held in Contempt by the profession.'"(Snell and Vaughan, 1985, p 58, 79)
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I think the name of the court can be used to make a good pun, but I am having difficulty thinking of one
Created by Caddyshack01 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Caddyshack01 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

SWAT (Regina)

(
)
  • Source: According to research conducted by Sam Alvaro for a Carleton University thesis, less than 2% of Canadian police department adopt the SWAT name. The majority of police tactical units in other departments use names such as Emergency Response Team, Emergency Response Unit, Emergency Task Force, Emergency Services Unit and Groupe d'intervention (English: Intervention Group). Linked paper.
Created by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on June 22

[edit]

Letard II

(
)
  • ... that Archbishop Letard II of Nazareth was one of only a few fellow bishops about whom William of Tyre had something nice to say?
  • Source: "William had positive things to say about very few of the bishops whose periods of office overlapped with his own. Archbishop Letard of Nazareth (1158-90), who by the 1180s was the longest serving bishop in the patriarchate of Jerusalem, was 'a very pleasant man, affable and kindly.'" (Edbury 94)
  • ALT1: ... that Archbishop Letard II of Nazareth complained to the pope that Muslims carrying off peasants was causing him financial difficulties? Source:
    "the archbishop and his canons claimed that the damage caused to the defence system of the kingdom had enabled Muslim troops to raid Christian territory, and that ... many of the peasants had been carried off as prisoners by the raiders, and consequently the church of Nazareth had suffered such a huge loss of revenue that the canons were experiencing difficulty in carrying out their liturgical duties. This complaint was addressed to Alexander III..." (Hamilton & Jotischky 2020, p. 118.)
  • ALT2: ... that Pope Urban III appointed a Letard to act as a judge delegate? Source: (Hamilton & Jotischky 2020, p. 119.)
  • Reviewed: Kamla Jaan
  • Comment: ALT2 is only there because I could not resist.
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 224 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

James Tengatenga

(
)
5x expanded by Dclemens1971 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Danan: The Jungle Fighter

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by CooperCool23 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

COOPER COOL 23 user page 22:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway Patrol

(
)
  • ... that the Saskatchewan Highway Patrol was in a controversy in 2020 where firearms were purchased, but were deemed questionable during an audit in 2019?
Converted from a redirect by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yang Xianjin

(
)
  • ... that in August 2021, Yang re-entered the education sector as Party Secretary of Tianjin University, where he supervises all Party-related matters of the institution?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my fist nomination-forgive me if I made a mistake?
Created by PawPatroler (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

PawPatroler (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - n
  • Other problems: No - The hook is not properly formatted; Yang's full name or suitable replacement text should be used and in bold, and it should be wikilinked in Yang Xianjin's article.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The hook is uninteresting. It provides no context for who Yang is or why anyone would care that he re-entered the education sector. It reads like a line on a resume, not a hook that grabs readers' interest. Please look for a different hook option in the article or in sources that could be added to the article, and ping me when updated so I can review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 23

[edit]

Westhope

(
)
Westhope
Westhope
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 732 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Phemeranthus sediformis

(
)
Okanogan fameflower in bloom
Okanogan fameflower in bloom
  • ... that the Okanogan fameflower Phemeranthus sediformis (pictured) was independently named for its appearance, origin, and collector in under 2 years?
  • Source: Poellnitz (Apr 1933) "Plant resembling a Sedum"., English (Oct 1934) named for Okanogan County and the Syilx peoples; Eastwood (Dec 1934) for K. C. Way who introduced the plant to the rock and Alpine garden trades
  • ALT1: ... that the Okanogan fameflower Phemeranthus sediformis (pictured) likely spent the last ice age in a glacial refugium? Source: Goward, T.; Knight, H. (1994) page 7 "It is interesting that the modern range of the Fameflower was entirely ice-covered at the height of the Fraser glaciation (see, for example, Prest 1969). This suggests that it must have passed much of the last Ice Age in refugia entirely south of its present range, and that it has subsequently disappeared from those areas.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leucocrinum
Moved to mainspace by Kevmin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 371 past nominations.

Kevmin § 18:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game)

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Andrzejbanas (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Roy Soemirat

(
)
Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 84 past nominations.

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Town Mill, Mansfield

(
)
Town Mill
Town Mill
  • ... that the 18th-century Town Mill (pictured) in Mansfield housed a 2,000-plant illegal cannabis farm?
  • ALT1: ... that the Town Mill (pictured) in Mansfield, England, produced flour, textiles and cannabis? Source: offline source, but is supported by the West Bridgford Wire also: "s water-powered milling gear produced flour for the town’s bakers. It was later used for textile production and then became a public house."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kathryn Maple
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 920 past nominations.

Dumelow (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Cova de les Dones

(
)
Created by Graearms (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 22 past nominations.

Graearms (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

S-1 (supercomputer)

(
)
  • ... that the S-1 supercomputer was designed to have 16 processors, each with the power of a Cray-1? Source: statement made in both Stump and abstract of Widdoes
    • ALT1: ... that the S-1 project was designed with the ultimate goal of building an entire supercomputer on a single silicon wafer? Source: MacKenzie 1998, p. 120.
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 206 past nominations.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Arielle Prepetit

(
)
Created by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 24

[edit]

Alca Electronics

(
)
  • ... that although their major investor was one of the founders of Sega, Alca Electronics was liquidated after being sued by Sega for unlicensed copying of their game Frogger? Source: Meadeas, 166
    • ALT1: ... that Alca Electronics was the first European company to make a commercial video game, unlicensed copies of Pong they called Ping Pong because "pong" means a bad smell? Source: Meadeas, 124
    • Reviewed:
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 207 past nominations.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Robert I (archbishop of Nazareth)

(
)
  • ... that Archbishop Robert I of Nazareth started a lengthy dispute with an abbey which saw his chaplain's clerk hit the abbey's priest in the middle of Mass?
  • Source: "Matters came to a head one day when a priest of Josaphat was saying Mass and was attacked by a clerk in the household of the bishop’s chaplain, who attempted to knock him down and had to be forcibly restrained by the congregation." (Hamilton 1980, p. 100.)
  • ALT1: ... that a Christian army was allegedly saved from a fire when Archbishop Robert I of Nazareth raised the True Cross against the flames? Source:
    "In William of Tyre’s narrative, the army is only saved by miracles: first, when Robert, archbishop of Nazareth, raises the True Cross towards the flames, causing the wind to change direction..." (Barber 2012, p. 184)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Orthetrum japonicum
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 226 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Letard I

(
)
  • ... that Archbishop Letard I died while trying to get his king married?
  • Source: "Although Archbishop Lethard died during the mission, the embassy was successful in obtaining a bride for Baldwin" (Barber p. 212)
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 225 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Swissair flight accident near Shannon

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by Squawk7700 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Squawk7700 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Reira Ushio

(
)
  • ... that the limited edition of Reira Ushio's debut EP "No one" includes a booklet featuring short stories written by her? Source: [31] ("初回生産限定盤に付属する小説風ブックレットには、新進気鋭のクリエイターたちが、収録されたそれぞれの楽曲からインスピレーションを受け制作したイメージビジュアルと共に、本人が各曲の歌詞や世界観をもとに書き下ろしたストーリーが収められている。")
    • ALT1: ... that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Reira Ushio could not publish a novel she wrote for school, so she released it digitally with a song? Source: [32] ("「コロナが感染拡大し始めた時はまだ大学に通っていたのですが、大学のゼミで出た課題が小説の執筆だったんです。そしてコロナ禍なので本を出版する工程がなくなり、ネットで配信しようってことになりました。そこで、ネットなら音楽を一緒にのせても良いかも……という話になり、既存の曲を使用すると色々と準備が大変そうだったので、じゃあ作っちゃおうと思い、自分の執筆した小説に沿って曲を書き下ろしたんです。")
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House
    • Comment: ALT1 was a suggestion from Epicgenius on Discord.
Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 112 past nominations.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on June 25

[edit]

Special occasion holding area

[edit]
See also: WP:SOHA

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creations from the start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1297267069"