Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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 note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
September 19 1
September 20 1 1
September 22 1
September 25 1
October 2 1
October 3 1
October 4 1 1
October 8 1
October 9 1
October 11 2
October 13 2
October 14 3
October 16 2 1
October 19 2
October 22 2 1
October 23 4
October 24 2
October 26 1
October 27 4 1
October 28 2
October 29 1
October 30 1 1
October 31 3 2
November 2 4
November 4 4
November 5 1 1
November 7 2 1
November 8 3
November 9 2
November 10 5 1
November 12 8 2
November 13 3 2
November 14 1
November 15 5 4
November 16 4 3
November 17 7 2
November 18 6 1
November 19 2 1
November 20 11 6
November 21 4 3
November 22 2 1
November 23 5 3
November 24 7 3
November 25 3 1
November 26 10 5
November 27 6 3
November 28 10 6
November 29 12 8
November 30 14 5
December 1 5 3
December 2 14 7
December 3 8 3
December 4
Total 208 83
Last updated 15:22, 4 December 2022 UTC
Current time is 15:22, 4 December 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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


Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 19[edit]

Rooppur pillow scandal

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

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

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

I'm reading the "Reaction" section again and the tone does seem off. It probably needs to be rewritten in some way because the tone seems accusatory. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Then you can close the nomination, no problem. Mehedi Abedin 08:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article copy-edited now. @RoySmith and Narutolovehinata5:, you may reconsider. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Now needs a second look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 22[edit]

Grant Hermanns

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

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

Articles created/expanded on September 25[edit]

Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges

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

Bond ... Theresa Bond.
Bond ... Theresa Bond.
  • Surely there's some way to work in the fact that James Bond's wife is buried there (see img). EEng 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @EEng: I just went with the hook suggested, but that might be a good AFD hook stand-alone :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ALT1: ... that Tracy Bond, wife of James Bond, is buried in the churchyard of the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges?
      I'm ashamed to say that I just noticed that (apparently) the headstone is a prop. Maybe the article should make that clear. (Or maybe not!) EEng 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I mean, you didn't actually think a fictional character was buried there... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It is indeed a prop. I was amazed to find that Commons had a image! But I think you might have hit on a better hook than any I suggested. KJP1 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I had figured some guy actually named James Bond had a deceased wife. Anyway, we've got a problem in that apparently this object isn't actually in the church (see the img descr pg); it probably needs to be removed from the article, and I'm afraid I've taken us down a dead-end path. (I thought of the idea of an April 1 hook, but I don't really see it working.) EEng 23:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We had "Did you know... that James Bond has died?" in 2016, so his wife six years later sounds about right. Edwardx (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg Interesting building with cultural relations, on excellent sources, no copyvio obvious. The hook would work if these facts were in the prose, with a reference, - not only in footnotes. However, I think if the elegy is what the place is known for, why not that? Perhaps the elegy and one film? The image is licensed and shows fine. - In the article - just some suggestions, not needed: The first line has the word church four times, - any way around it? Even later, every now and then it could just be "it" instead of "the church ... the church". - I could imagine to first have basic history (built when where by whom ...), then description, and only then the poem, in an extra section. Even if you don't want to go that far: consider to first link the elegy in the prose and then speak about it, with a connection to the author. - I am no friend of a quote box sandwiching the text, - perhaps just have the text as a poem quote? - I think the gallery is a bit "mixed", and the lovely painting gets lost in there. I'd normally propose a packed mode, but not for here a gate, there a painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: how about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ALT2: ... that the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges, is featured in a 1750 elegy and a James Bond film?
      That's a good idea, but no Bond film is mentioned as yet in the prose. Also: the elegy would need a link (for me, as famous enough to have an article), and perhaps also the film. I understand that the article isn't quite finished. KJP1 would be the one to ask first, anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Gerda Arendt: I've taken the relevant prose out of the footnotes. As for the links, I don't believe it's necessary for users to understand what's in the elegy, or what it is, before they click through to the bolded article. The bolded article provides more than enough context for the story – if users want to learn more about the elegy, they'll be able to find the link there as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you for the prose. I disagree, as you will have expected. The bold article is just some church, not interesting without contect. Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard is a wonderfully poetic wording, and for me so interesting that I'd click the church, but "a 1750 elegy" would leave me cold. What I think doesn't matter, though, - I'd like to hear from the authors how they feel about ALT2, and if the article is now as they want it. @EEng:? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I’ve having some trouble with the transclusion here. I earlier suggested, but it appears not to have been picked up: “DYK that the churchyard of St Giles, Stoke Poges inspired James Bond, Judy Garland and Thomas Gray. “Inspired” might not be quite the right word…? KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It's a bit catching by great names, perhaps. How would you feel about this?
      ALT3: ... that the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges inspired the Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard and James Bond? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Works for me. I’ve taken out a comma. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Doesn't that suggest that the entire James Bond franchise was inspired by this church, when it just made one appearance in a film? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      ALT4: ... that the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges inspired the Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard? - we could just drop the “and James Bond”? KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Symbol voting keep.svg ALT4 (only, but not striking others, - someone else could approve those) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have to apologize -- I'll have limited connectivity for the next two weeks while I'm traveling up the Amazon, so I haven't been able to complete the article changes I embarked on, particularly those related to Mr Bond. I suspect I can work him in appropriately, when I'm back. Then perhaps we could have a hook re Gray and Bond both taking time to reflect there, something like that. But it will have to depend on the precise wording of the Bond source material. EEng 22:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem with that for DYK is that we won’t meet the “New” criteria. But others will know better than I. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article needs to be new at the time of nomination. The various bits of content can be old as the hills. EEng 17:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg Adding a (?) tick ot keep the bots at bay -- we're still working on this article. EEng 00:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    EEng, it's been over a month, and no work has been done on the article since your post. I'd like to suggest that the hold expire on 3 December, two months after the work was to commence. Please let us know your plans. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Slavedriver. EEng 02:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Im absolutely, positively getting to the today. EEng 10:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 2[edit]

SS Sir William Siemens

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 3[edit]

Stephen Gunzenhauser

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

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

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

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

It is frustrating that something like “that conductor Stephen Gunzenhauser eats only purple jelly beans on days he performs” would probably get featured, but stating that he is the 5th most recorded is not. I don’t see why the hook shouldn’t be featured, other than the fact that classical music hooks don’t always inspire major interest. Thriley (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly understand, Thriley – I'm really sorry about the fuss. For what it's worth, pop music hooks don't perform very well at DYK either – I imagine that the proposed Phil Spector hook would not succeed based on star power or storytelling quality. But the original hook currently has a sourcing problem, so even if we wanted to run Gerda's test (which I'm not closed to), the hook still needs to pass muster. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the future, I'd recommend going to WT:DYK if you disagree with the closure of your nomination – a direct reversion comes with the risk of causing a bit more tension than necessary. Plus, there's always the chance that more eyes on the nomination produce a viable hook or shift consensus your way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Sorry for getting a bit carried away. I think I lost focus of what actually is the issue. Bringing the jelly beans out was going too far! Thriley (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about: ALT2... that Stephen Gunzenhauser started a classical music festival after being inspired by the gaslights on the Main Street of Wellsboro, Pennsylvania? Thriley (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I have a cheekier suggestion :)
I prefer ALT2a. Both link to actual gas lamps (a statement which would have a certain meta-humour if they didn't), but I think it's okay to give a momentary impression. It's not a BLP violation, we're not saying he's a gaslighter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd actually prefer ALT2b as a compromise since ALT2a might be prone to misinterpretation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're telling me that we can't gaslight readers in a hook about gaslighting? Fiiiiine :P we can go with ALT2b if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 8[edit]

3Y0J Bouvet Island DXpedition

The coast of Bouvet Island
The coast of Bouvet Island

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

Osha (A Song of Ice and Fire)

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

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed; previous review has withdrawn without doing a review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. Editor has fewer than five nominations and is QPQ-exempt. @Lord of Fantasy: I'd like to suggest replacing refs [27] and [31] to unreliable sources, and I trimmed back one of the existing quotes a bit too. Your hook is very, very wordy. It sort of checks out, but not really. Let's try an ALT1 (and I can vouch it checks out to the original, which I've added alongside the Hindustan Times reprint): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that George R. R. Martin described the version of Osha in the Game of Thrones TV series as "younger, more attractive and more dynamic" than her book counterpart? [1]
  • @Sammi Brie: This does work a lot better than the original one I wrote, and it does get the point across. It's not as long (as you mentioned), which is great in a hook, of course. Although the DYK "fun fact" was really intended to be more about the author's preference over the counterpart, but, again, it does get the point across without being overly specific. I guess this works a bit better -- thanks! Lord of Fantasy (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It has been four weeks since the above; let's get this moving. Lord of Fantasy, are you planning to replace the unreliable sources? If not, this nomination seems unlikely to pass. Sammi Brie, is that what you meant in your original comment? Looking at the differences between the original hook and ALT1, is seems we'll need to get another reviewer in here after Lord of Fantasy replaces those sources, since you suggested ALT1. (I've struck the original hook, since It sort of checks out, but not really. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Last universal common ancestor

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

Peter Strausfeld

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 13[edit]

Democracy in Iraq

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

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

2019 UK Seniors Championship

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 14[edit]

Lone Mountain Cemetery

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

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

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

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

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

Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario)

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

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

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

Rhacophorus kio

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

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

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

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

Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator hasn't edited since the 18th. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg Ruwaym, the nominator is not required to do a QPQ, and it looks like you've said everything else is okay. (It doesn't matter if the nominator is no longer active as long as there are no problems for them to deal with.) If this is okay, could you please complete your review and give a final tick?  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  01:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Original reviewer is unable to continue at this time (although it appears they were all done except for the tick). New reviewer needed to complete.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  08:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 16[edit]

Andachtsjodler

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

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

References

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 19[edit]

Will Arbery

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

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

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

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

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Medical–industrial complex

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

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 23[edit]

Janet Sorg Stoltzfus

Janet Sorg Stoltzfus
Janet Sorg Stoltzfus

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

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

Richard Gerald Jordan

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

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

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

Ravenshoe (novel)

Frontispiece to an 1894 edition of Ravenshoe depicting the Charge of the Light Brigade
Frontispiece to an 1894 edition of Ravenshoe depicting the Charge of the Light Brigade

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

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Should propose another.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Ficaia: Good article. Earwig though, detects the entire plot section to be a copyvio and I would like for you to explain that. However, I feel as if you should propose another hook. Your hook is good but I'm not sure if it would pass so another should be proposed just to be safe. Also the image needs caption text. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: The plot is taken from this public domain source. It's attributed in the article. I've added an alternate hook, but I think the first one is much better. Why do you think it might not pass? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Galina Pisarenko

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 26[edit]

Marriage License

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

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Articles created/expanded on October 27[edit]

Voices of Music

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

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

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

References

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

Thurgood Marshall

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

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

Nikke: Goddess of Victory

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 28[edit]

Amou Haji

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

  • Symbol question.svg I suppose work is still being done to the page and I'll come round and complete the review in the near future, but right now it seems in need of much cleanup (stilted grammar, choppy sentences, typos, downright strange expressions like "he was repeatedly immortalised smoking a cigarette five or six times" (???)). Reads like a bunch of random news clippings lumped together to pass off as an "encyclopedic entry". Let me know when it's actually ready for review. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the tardy follow-up, but I'm afraid that the same criticism of the article looking like a bunch of news items cobbled together still applies (some chunks copied verbatim according to Earwig). Too much extraneous info - see WP:NOTNEWS! The nominator's recent "gaming the system" fiasco elsewhere (which also revolved around issues of copyediting/redundant info) doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kingoflettuce, there was not bad faith here. Dr Salvus 08:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless, something needs to be done about how this article currently reads. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm currently ill. Don't know when I can fix. Dr Salvus 08:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see issues with the article. Maybe this article doesn't have enough info for the DYK. Dr Salvus 21:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 29[edit]

Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

Example warning label
Example warning label

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

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

Articles created/expanded on October 31[edit]

Agnes Weinrich

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

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

Articles created/expanded on November 2[edit]

Child poverty in the United States

  • ... that in the United States, one in five children live in poverty? Source: "Childhood poverty has been a persistent problem in the United States, with approximately 1 in 5 children living below the official federal poverty level (FPL)" ([4])
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: on page 1 of the source

Created by Mmemorablemoments (talk). Self-nominated at 04:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

theleekycauldron Ok, sounds good!

  • Symbol question.svg Ambitious work on a difficult but important topic by a new editor (welcome!). New enough (submitted within 5 days of creation), super long (4011 words), well sourced, Earwig says no copyvio. QPQ is not required for a first nomination. Issue with hook has been addressed. Before I check this off for approval, I would like to ask Mmemorablemoments to please review the final section on "Future steps" and see if you can revise the copy a bit to make it sound more neutral and more encyclopedic. Given the topic, it's hard not to be prescriptive, but in places, this very long paragraph sounds a bit like soapboxing, which we're trying to avoid. (See WP:SOAPBOX.) (A few minor changes may go a long way to fix this.) Other comments (not necessarily DYK blockers): 1) Measurement section is too long and too detailed; the reader could easily forget what the article is about and it reads like a college paper rather than an encyclopedia article. 2) Overall, the article could use some TLC in terms of copyediting and proofing: Is the writing as clear as it could be? (I noticed that you share one of my bad habits which is to use the word "also" a lot. There is a section of the article where "also" appears in nearly every sentence (!).) Anyway, I understand that this article is part of your coursework, but hopefully your instructor also understands that what makes a good paper for an academic course is not the same as what makes an acceptable Wikipedia article. The article is more than long enough for DYK, so don't be afraid to simplify and shorten, if it gets your points across more clearly. Shorter paragraphs may help also. <-- See what I did there? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator has not responded in two weeks and has not been active on Wikipedia since 9 November. Per review above, article as it stands does not meet DYK standards. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tree of life (biology)

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg First thing first: Earwig is giving me an... interesting copyvio score. Rightfully so - we have a very large Darwin quote that takes up 60% of my screen. Since Origin is in the public domain, the article should indicate that it incorporates much of its text from public domain sources. Template:Source-attribution helps with this. With regards to neutrality, I am not seeing any WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE red flags, which is good for something closely related to a controversial topic like evolution. Would like to stress, however, that I don't have any expertise on biology, so anyone who does is welcome to provide their second opinion on the article here.

Furthermore, the hook seems run-of-the-mill - I would suggest making the hook about Darwin's seminal work as his name is more well-known to a general audience. Something like ... that Charles Darwin conceptualized his theory of evolution using a "tree of life" model? would be good. Another optional suggestion would be to incorporate an image there and bam, more readers hooked. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 13:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Your Power: Got rid of the blockquote. Is that good enough? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion of the material is not appropriate. Use the Source attribution template as advised above if it's thought really necessary - I can't see why it should be, as all Darwin text is PD as he died in 1882, so his writings have all been PD since 1 January 1953. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: WP:FREECOPY, a subsection of WP:PLAGIARISM, urges to use attribution templates when copying material from free sources (PD, CC licences compatible with enwiki, etc). I do agree that removing that long quotation was not the best, however. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 04:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to add it if it's troubling you. I was not consulted about starting this process and have no interest in its outcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Thonen

  • ... that Edward Thonen, one of the miners killed in the Eureka Rebellion, had gained notoriety in England as a jewellery thief prior to his emigration to Australia? Source: Bamberger, Daniel; Young, Anne (November 2022). "Edward Thonen (1827-1854)". Ballarat Link. Ballarat & District Genealogical Society (214), pages 10–11. Quote: "New research has revealed a previously unknown episode in the life of one of the diggers killed in the Eureka Rebellion. Edward Thonen, one of the leaders of the rebels, was killed when soldiers stormed the Stockade. Before coming to Australia, Thonen spent some time in England, where he gained notoriety as a diamond thief."
    • ALT1: ... that a long forgotten folk song about Edward Thonen, one of the miners killed in the Eureka Rebellion, was rediscovered by Kay Dreyfus in the 1980s, and inspired a symphony by her husband George? Source: Dreyfus, George (1995). "Nette Deutsche, liebe Australier, doch trotzdem könnt Ihr zusammen leben: Diverse Auseinandersetzungen mit nationaler Identität". Zeitschrift für Australienstudien / Australian Studies Journal. 9: 39. https://thestacks.libaac.de/bitstream/handle/11858/2070/NAAS_09-1995_02_Dreyfus.pdf (The main fact is found on page 3 of the PDF.)
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Disclaimer, I am one of the authors (Daniel Bamberger) of the source cited above. While the connection to Dreyfus's 1984 symphony has been known for decades, the story about the diamond robbery is a recent discovery.

Created by Renerpho (talk). Self-nominated at 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment by nominator I have added a sentence to more adequately reflect the contribution by the community of researchers on WikiTree, which preceded the publication in BDGS. I have also done some additional copy-editing, but I am done with that now. Renerpho (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 4[edit]

Dietrich v The Queen

  • ... that in Dietrich v The Queen, the High Court of Australia found a judge can indefinitely adjourn a trial if a lack of legal representation would result in an unfair trial for the accused? Source: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BalJlNTLawSoc/1993/36.pdf
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I've listed myself as the author. However I did not create this article. Stephen Bain did so in 2005. However no significant edits have been made by anyone else over the last year except for by my GA review and Findbruce who tidied some refs and did copyedit. The entire article was fundamentally re-written from the ground up by me, which is why I stated I was the author. But for full disclosure, I provided this further information.

Improved to Good Article status by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 06:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Kind of you to update. Appreciate it. I actually did not realise it had featured on OTD. I must concede it does seem unfair an article gets to be on the main page twice in quick succession and its probable my nomination will fail due to this. A shame given I worked very hard for an entire year to get it to GA status, but if that's how the cookie crumbles so be it. Thanks for the help. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles Redd

A close-up portrait photograph of Charles Redd
A close-up portrait photograph of Charles Redd
  • ... that Charles Redd (pictured), a rancher and member of the Utah State Legislature, moved to legalize horse racing and betting in 1925, only to make it illegal again two years later? Source: Arrington, Leonard J. (1995). Utah's audacious stockman, Charlie Redd. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. ISBN 0-87421-177-8. OCLC 31515461. pp 128-133

Created by Cjstirlbyu (talk). Self-nominated at 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ALT0 hook needs to be cited following the sentence, not just at the end of the paragraph. AGF on the offline source.
  • Interesting: Green tickY

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The ALT0 hook is interesting and cited, but the article clearly needs a lot of work. SounderBruce 06:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SounderBruce: -- Thanks for the review; I've made some changes to the article to further improve it! I have added more information and corrected the copyright notice on the image page on Wikimedia Commons, and I've added citations immediately following the ALT0 hook, and have further clarified some of the information in that paragraph. I have also added additional citations to the rest of the article and changed some of the language to reflect a more neutral viewpoint. Since this article is within my first five DYK nominations, QPQ is not required. Let me know if any other changes need to be made! Cjstirlbyu (talk)
Well done on the improvements, but three's still some work to be done. The lack of outside perspectives is still an issue and would be bolstered by using coverage from out of the region (where the story of a quick repeal would have garnered some attention), while also looking at more critical commentary of his activities, both contemporary and modern. I don't think the picture fits very well, given it shows Redd long after the time of the bill's passing and repeal. SounderBruce 07:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SounderBruce: -- I've added a few more sources from outside of Utah on Redd and the bill's passing and repeal, as well as some more broad commentary on the rest of his life. There isn't a lot of modern commentary on his time in the legislature, given that he was only a member of the Utah House for a few years. I feel that the photo is appropriate for the article, however it's fine if we don't use it for the DYK. Let me know if I can change anything else!
Still has an outstanding tag for lack of viewpoints that I feel is a valid criticism. SounderBruce 08:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi SounderBruce, could you elaborate? The person who originally put the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag on put in the edit summary "sourcing continues to be overwhelmingly reliant on BYU-affiliated publications." The Arrington source that has many citations is published by Utah State University, which is not affiliated with BYU. The Alexander essay collection was published by the BYU university press, and constitutes 7 citations. What viewpoints do you feel are lacking? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement

Created by XTheBedrockX (talk). Nominated by Bookku (talk) at 06:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I do appreciate and agree with User:Boud's suggestion. Bookku (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is currently on Wikipedia's main page as a bolded link in the ITN section. Normally I'd quickfail this now, but as the circumstances of that requirement are under discussion at the moment, I'm marking the article with a violet tick in the meantime pending the results of that discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Although the discussion is ongoing, I don't think there will be consensus for bolded links on ITN running on DYK without some time having passed (at least a few months). As such I don't think this article can run on DYK at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 7[edit]

GLaDOS

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Suggestion. Did you know... that the design for GLaDOS is based on the Birth of Venus painting upside down? * PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment and Suggestion: You stole my thunder, I was thinking of a good one! The grammar does seem off. For Alt0 ... that Erik Wolpaw was inspired to create GLaDOS after using a text to speech function? Lankyant (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The review (which I'm starting now) is a lie! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Article is long enough and new enough (nominated 2 days after passing GA).
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @PerryPerryD and Lankyant: I know this just passed GA, but I have major reservations about the quality of the sourcing. I've spot-checked a few places. Most of the first paragraph of Description is sourced to Game Informer. Assuming for the moment that this is actually a WP:RS (which I'm not totally convinced of), here's a list of statements I can't verify (i.e. pretty much every sentence in that paragraph):
    • "GLaDOS serves solely as the narrator, guiding players through the test chambers."
    • "Her voice is robotic, but distinctly female."
    • "GLaDOS's announcements get increasingly personal and farcical."
    • "She has several system personality cores installed"
    • "partly to prevent her from killing anyone"
    • "she's actually a complex artificial intelligence system composed of robotic parts hanging from a larger device"
    • "GLaDOS's voice becomes less robotic and more sensual."
  • Moving down to Development history, first paragraph sourced to Gamasutra, which sure looks like a blog to me. It's apparently an interview with Erik Wolpaw. Statements that he said in the first person ("When I was working on Psychonauts"), are in the article in wikipedia voice ("Erik Wolpaw was writing the script for the video game Psychonauts").
  • Moving down to Voice design, again we have a first-person statement in an interview ("And of course I was trying to sound like a computer") being stated in wikipedia voice ("voice actress Ellen McLain attempted to sound like a computer")
  • I'm going to stop here. I honestly don't see how this passed a GA review. Unverifiable facts, unreliable sources, over-reliance on primary sources and interviews. I'll let somebody else take another look, but from where I sit, I don't see how it can pass DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RoySmith I don't see how either. I saw an unreliable blog and a forum post within seconds of looking through the references. According to this and reading the Wikipedia article, Gamesutra seems reliable enough. Too bad that isn't the only issue. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RoySmith: Heya, I am not new to making mistakes, I reviewed this article with direct accordance to the GA Guidelines. As for game informer, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Game_Informer GameInformer is a reliable source. I also want to mention Plot Sourcing where a games plot can act as its own citation in certain situations. I am fully willing to let someone re-asses this article. This is my direct stance on this issue. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you look at the reliability of all the sources? Like the two sources I mentioned above, this blog, this review by username The hole shebang, and a personal YouTube video. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the blog, A direct interview with the VA about wanting to sound robotic is not un-reliable. As for the youtube video, I assumed it was fine due to its context of it being about user reception of the character, and the video being used as an example of it. The blog i'll admit was my mistake. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will step out of this to not hijack RoySmith's review. I only posted here because I'm thinking about submitting the article to be de-listed from GA. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm butting in a little here after seeing Perry mention this on the Discord. I agree that the GA review was quite scant compared to what I would expect from such a lengthy article (and I said as much on the Discord). At the very least it should probably be gone over again. However, I do think some of the concerns noted here are not really fair. Gamasutra and Game Informer are both reliable per WP:VG/RS, and I know I've used both in my gaming FAs. The Computer & Video Games review is actually bylined at the bottom to Andy Robinson, an editor at C&VG, and now an editor at Video Games Chronicle. Both sites are considered reliable per VGRS, so I don't see any issue with that review. Finally, it may be true that the article over-relies on primary sources or interviews (I haven't checked that for myself), but I don't see any reason to question basic statements people have made about their own work, such as the Ellen McLain one. Of course she's reliable about how she tried to make her performance sound. Again - I agree with the underwhelming quality of the GA, but some of the things being pointed out here aren't actually problems. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Premeditated Chaos I know I said I would leave, but I am curious about the Allen McLain interview. I was under the impression that an interview on an unreliable website can't be used. How would a reader know that such an interview has nothing that was made-up? I highly doubt that I could interview someone, post it on my blog, and then use it as a reference. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The interview I see as a source for the "sounds like a computer" bit is on IGN, here; IGN is a major gaming site and I have no question that it is reliable. What unreliable website are you talking about? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was confused then. I meant this which I didn't read all the way through. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how do we deal with my original point, that none of the statements I pointed out in the Description paragraph are mentioned in the source they're cited to? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roy, I never claimed the article does not lack problems; I explicitly said that I think the review was not up to snuff. However, several things pointed out above were not, in my view, actually problematic and I believe it's reasonable of me to point that out. SL93, for what it's worth, I'm not sure that site is actually on-its-face unreliable - looks like their other interviews have been referenced in IGN and Kotaku, which lends it a little credence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally get that not everything mentioned here is an actual problem. It's a matter of once you find problems, you go looking for more. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 8[edit]

Happenings Ten Years Time Ago

Improved to Good Article status by Ojorojo (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

We can do better than yet another hook built around some critic saying something outrageous about the work given how well researched the article is. How about:
ALT1:... that Jimi Hendrix told Jeff Beck he "swiped" the latter's feedback sounds in The Yardbirds' "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago" for later work of his own?Martin Power, Hot Hired Guitar: The Life of Jeff Beck, 2014. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boudica

  • ... that Boudica's actual name is unknown? Source: Davies, John (2008). The Land of Boudica: Prehistoric and Roman Norfolk. Oxford: Oxbow Books. p. 141. ISBN 978-19052-2-333-6
    • ALT1: ... that Boudica appeared as 'Voada' in Hector Boece's The History and Chronicles of Scotland (1526)—her first appearance in a British publication? Source: Williams, Carolyn D. (2009). Boudica and Her Stories: Narrative Transformations of a Warrior Queen. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press. pp. 41, 50. ISBN 978-08741-3-079-9.
    • ALT2: ... that despite outnumbering a Roman army by an estimated 23 times, Boudica's army was defeated in the battle that led to her death? Potter, T. W. (2004). "Boudicca (d. AD 60/61)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/2732.
    • ALT3: ... that the Roman historians Tacitus and Cassius Dio both give an account of battle-speeches given by Boudica, though it is thought that her words were never recorded during her life? Source: Hingley, Richard; Unwin, Christina (2006) [2005]. Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen. London: Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-4060-0. OCLC 741691125.
    • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Amitchell125 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Amitchell125: Great article. However, I feel as if the hooks could be better. I dislike alt1 as I don't find it interesting while alt0 is good. Yet I feel as if you brainstorm more hooks out of this article. Could you create some more hooks? Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amitchell125: What I mean is that you could probably come up with more hooks about Boudica. Maybe make a hook about how she led a major rebellion against the romans. Or mention about how she became a major figure during the english renaissance. All these hooks are possible and I'd like to see that. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about ALT4: ... that despite outnumbering the Roman army an estimated 23 times, Boudica's army was defeated in the battle that led to her death?     or something like that? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg I think these are good now so I'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @Amitchell125: I like ALT0 as a quirky hook, but I'm not sure it's correct. The source is off-line, so I did a little searching and found https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies/queen-boudica-life-legend which doesn't say her name is unknown, just that the correct spelling of her name is unclear. But, transliterating names, especially historical names, is always problematical. Unless there's some clear source to support it, I think saying "their actual name is unknown" is stretching things, even for a quirky hook. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where modern historians discuss her name, I have found more than one author who says that Boudica was an honorific title, and we do not know not the personal name she used. (See for instance, Boudica's Odyssey in Early Modern England p. 12 and Boudica Britannia p132. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The Frénée-Hutchins book does indeed seem clear, but the article in its current form doesn't say anything about it (possibly) being an honorific title. Could you add something to the article (I guess in the Name section) which discusses that and cites Frénée-Hutchins? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social determinants of mental health

Created by Psg2022 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg A QPQ is not needed. There is content that needs to be referenced. There are three empty sections which need to be filled. Especially with the bolded wikilinks and statements such as "on the other hand" as well as "also notable to consider", the article sounds like a mixture between a textbook and an essay. The article needs copyediting by someone who is well-versed in the topic. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. I have edited the first few paragraphs of this article quite heavily (to remove extraneous information and make it more encyclopedic) and spot-checked the citations, and it's not looking promising – e.g., there was at least one instance of failed verification (claims inappropriately attributed to WHO Report which are probably OR), which I've gone ahead and fixed. In order for this nomination to pass, someone probably needs to check each and every citation within the article. Unless there is a response soon from the creator, I think this DYK nomination is headed for a fail. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since the 11th and article issues remain largely unaddressed, as noted above by Cielquiparle. As such there appears to be no path forward for this nomination anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 9[edit]

Geology of the Ellsworth Mountains

Geological Map of the Ellsworth Mountains
Geological Map of the Ellsworth Mountains
  • ... that the geology of the Ellsworth Mountains was explored by geologists using motor toboggans in 1961? Source: Webers, G.F.; Craddock, C.; Splettstoesser, J.F. (1992). Geological history of the Ellsworth Mountains, West Antarctica in Geology and paleontology of the Ellsworth Mountains, West Antarctica

Moved to mainspace by Mikocheung (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 08:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett and Mikocheung: The sentences
  • "The Beardmore folding event, in which folded metasedimentary rocks are unconformably overlain by the Early to Middle Cambrian rocks, occurs in the middle Transantarctic Mountains and the Pensacola Mountains."
  • "as a result of the Beardmore orogeny during the Late Neoproterozoic to Early Cambrian were folded by the earlier one, which took place during the end-Neoproterozoic."
  • and the sentence "Conglomerates, quartzites, and argillites make up the majority of this sequence of coarse-grained siliciclastic rocks."
Still need citations before we're done with this problem. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheesh!

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 08:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg per DYK procedure, an article at AfD is placed on hold until the AfD is resolved. Should the article survive, it will again become eligible for review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article was kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Gave it a heavy copy edit. The "Use in television" (renamed from "Pop culture") section needs attention, as one of those sources there is a YouTube link, and another does not explicitly say that the song appears in the commercial. Generally if a secondary source can not be used to establish a use of the song in a particular commercial/clip/episode/etc. it's not worth mentioning. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:DigitalIceAge Are you talking about this source where Sheesh! is not mentioned in the prose, but that has the commercial with the audio of the song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @DigitalIceAge:, is the phrase "viral platform on the platform" correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @DigitalIceAge:, doesn't the middle source in the Pizza Hut paragraph properly cite the song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @TonyTheTiger: Symbol confirmed.svg viral platform on the platform Whoops, fixed. Fair enough; I have adjusted the section to my liking. I felt it was worded a bit oddly and getting too overly detailed, so I pared it down e.g. to only include months instead of exact dates and general platforms for airings of ads instead of listing every site that they appear on. Article should now be good to go. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Comment: I removed most of the advertising section; ispot.tv, thedrum.com, and Looper aren't reliable enough sources for me to feel comfortable calling an advertisement's usage of a song encyclopedic information. This shouldn't affect the status of this nomination, unless the prose is restored. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Symbol question.svg The article was promoted, after which the removed content was restored – while the discussion is ongoing, I've temporarily pulled the hook from prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article seems to have returned to stability. Over 44 hours without issues from user:theleekycauldron-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just to clarify, I still have objections that haven't been addressed; I just haven't continued to respond, as other things have been taking up my time recently. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 10[edit]

Henry Lewis (playwright), Riddiculous

Created by Launchballer (talk) and Max263 (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 18:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Both articles are DYK eligible and I didn't detect any close paraphrasing. The hook facts are cited inline in both articles and are verified in the source. QPQ check says you have five DYK credits: can you confirm if these were your own nominations, or were they just credits? If you have five DYK nominations, you need to review another DYK nomination to provide a QPQ (in this case, as you've nominated two articles, you need to give two QPQs). I also have reservations about the hook: it doesn't seem to be intriguing to readers who are unfamiliar with The Play That Goes Wrong (like I am). Can other hooks be proposed here that may have broader appeal? If a double hook is not feasible, I could suggest proposing two separate hooks: one for Lewis and one for Riddiculous. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry, I can't get behind the notion that Riddiculous is DYK-eligible – all of the prose is sourced to the first episode of the show. Another source is an ITV press release, and the final source doesn't look like reputable journalism either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yogananda Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mattapalli

Created by Veera Narayana (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Since the nominator hasn't edited since the day of the nomination, I'm adding an alternative wording below that simplifies the original:
ALT0a ... that the Mattapalli Narasimha Temple provides food and accommodation to more than a hundred thousand pilgrims daily?
Note that 1 lakh is equivalent to a hundred thousand, I used "hundred thousand" instead since I'm not sure if saying "lakh (100,000)" is allowed for DYK hooks.
Symbol delete vote.svg However, there's now an issue here. The nominator hasn't provided a QPQ within seven days of the nomination (this would be their eighth nomination, so a QPQ is required). As such, the nom has been marked for closure pending a QPQ; the nomination can resume if one is accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The QPQ requirement for this nomination is now five days overdue. As per RfC on excessively late supply of QPQ credits, it should be been completed within one week of nomination. The nomination should not be marked for closure until one week after the nominator was notified. One week from November 17 will be November 24. Flibirigit (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg It's now the 24th and the nominator has not responded. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Symbol possible vote.svg The request for the overdue QPQ was not made clear on this page until 23 November; the 17 November post to the nominator's talk page was generic, and did not mention the QPQ. One week after 23 November is 30 November, so another day is warranted. I've just repinged the nominator on their talk page to warn them of the impending deadline. They haven't edited since the day this nomination was made; I hope they see this or their talk-page ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Joofjoof has generously donated a QPQ so this is now ready for a full review. Given that the nominator remains inactive, someone will need to adopt this nomination should any article issues be found. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piano Quintet (Schnittke)

Alfred Schnittke in 1994
Alfred Schnittke in 1994

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]