Template talk:Did you know

"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
September 27 1 1
October 9 1
October 11 1
October 24 1
October 25 1
October 28 1
October 31 1
November 1 1
November 2 2 1
November 3 2 1
November 4 2
November 7 1 1
November 12 1
November 13 2 1
November 14 2
November 15 6 1
November 16 11 7
November 17 3 2
November 18 16 11
November 19 11 7
November 20 4 3
November 21 7 1
November 22 6 4
November 23 9 6
November 24 8 7
November 25 14 8
November 26 9 6
November 27 16 11
November 28 18 6
November 29 14 8
November 30 14 5
December 1 14 10
December 2 11 3
December 3 10 5
December 4 9 2
Total 230 118
Last updated 22:09, 4 December 2021 UTC
Current time is 22:30, 4 December 2021 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for project members[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 27[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

Pankratius Pfeiffer

Created by Ergo Sum (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New article that was created on 9 October 2021‎ is 3,212 characters and nominated on the same day. No copyvios detected and duplication detector of [1][2][3][4][5] reveal no close paraphrasing issues (AGF PDF docs which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 103 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 4 and 5 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Too many red flags here. If he really saved hundreds of Jews, you would expect plenty of confirmation of this in scholarly sources and him to be recognized by Yad Vashem. I can't count the number of times that I've seen mainstream newspapers print completely false stories about Jews being rescued during the holocaust, so better sources are definitely needed to confirm these extraordinary claims. Thanks Brigade Piron for letting me know about this. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have to admit I'm just a bit perplexed by the argument. Except in fairly uncommon cases of multiple RS that contradict each other, we don't generally recognize any "hierarchy" of reliable sources. Sources are either RS or they are not. So I'm not sure what kind of sources you have in mind as "better" sources. The ones currently cited in the article are all RS, so that should be the end of it. I might add that if you seek some manner of official imprimatur in the vein of Yad Vashem, the City of Rome named a street after him.
  • Your point about why there isn't more extensive coverage of this historical figure is well taken but can easily be attributed to the fact that all manner of historical figures are lost to history, especially those who are notable really for one major event in their life that did not come to light until years later, as is the case here. Indeed, one of the RS in this article describes Pfeiffer as being "lost to history." I'm adding the new review icon here so that we can get at least one more editor's evaluation of this. Ergo Sum 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There are very few people who actually saved hundreds of Jews during the Holocaust and plenty of hoaxes that were reported as truth by various news organizations—for example Necdet Kent. In other cases, actual rescue did occur but the numbers are greatly exaggerated and repeated uncritically by news organizations, such as Raoul Wallenberg. If the story is true you would expect to see it covered in many more credible sources. There are plenty of cases where a source is reliable for some info but not others. For example, someone's CV is often reliable for "they worked at X organization" but not "they are a world expert in Z". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I should say that I share Buidhe's concerns. I think saying that "all manner of historical figures are lost to history" rather side-steps the sheer volume of historical scholarship on all aspects of the Holocaust. On a more banal note, I think part of the problem is that the sources cited are, essentially, all journalistic sources published by explicitly Catholic or Salvatorian outlets. The specific sources cited for the "saved" claim are Romereports (I am not familiar with this outlet, but the typo in the video does not inspire confidence) and a self-published Salvatorian newsletter. Neither are scholarly sources and both are, again, explicitly confessional in nature. I think WP:BIASED may on point in a highly sensitive issue touching on the wider disputes about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. Do we know what the Samerski book says, for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe It is true that the sources cover Catholic issues, but only the Salvatorian one is actually published by a Catholic institution. I need not go into how varied Catholic newspapers are in their adherence/faithfulness to the Catholic hierarchy and beliefs (see e.g. National Catholic Reporter versus National Catholic Register).
  • But more direclty, there actually are many scholarly RS that discussion Pfeiffer and his works in Nazi-occupied Rome. You will find them on the other language versions of this article. The problem is that I do not read Italian or German well enough to use them in the article. Coverage is not the issue. It is English language coverage. Ergo Sum 13:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: perhaps add the word "reportedly" before "saved". I'm inclined to accept in good faith the sources used as reliable – none of them have not been deprecated nor deemed generally unreliable. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
DYK should not cover unconfirmed reports or rumors so I strongly disagree with that suggestion. As well as assuming sources are reliable if they've never been discussed at WP:RSN, which disregards important parts of WP:RS such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no issue with citing sources in Italian or German, but if it's not confirmed that they support the content then it's incorrect to assume that they do. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: I tend to think that statements are either supported by RS and written in wikivoice or they're not accepted at all. For that reason, I shy away from words like "reportedly." I reiterate though that I think it's quite clear there's nothing wrong with the sources currently used. They're all RS, so that should be the end of it. Hence, why I think your initial review was satisfactory. Ergo Sum 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: agreed. I'm still of the view that the hook satisfies criteria 3b. Criteria 4 states that "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". That is not the case here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
You're still ignoring the principle in RS that context matters, and some sources are reliable for some but not other info. The two of us who actually write on Holocaust related topics have expressed that the sources cited are not reliable for the exceptional claims being made. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am of the opinion that the sources used are reliable for the info in the hook. The fact that you and Brigade Piron write on Holocaust-related topics is irrelevant – it does not confer a veto over hooks pertaining to that subject. By that logic, I should be able to veto baseball or heraldry hooks ... —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Three of my DYKs promoted (including Coat of arms of the Falkland Islands from August this year) have included the word "reportedly" in the hook, as well as numerous hooks from other editors. Disagree all you want – this is accepted practice at DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I'm aware that you have experience writing about Holocaust-related articles and I put value in your assessment as a solid editor. However, I'm quite comfortable in my ability to vet RS, as well, and my confidence in these sources means I must disagree with your opinion here. Experienced editors do disagree at times, and it is my opinion that I think you have gotten this one wrong; doubtless, you think the same for me. I haven't seen any evidence that these are not RS. Therefore, I recommend if Bloom6132 is inclined to do so, to renew their approval of the hook. In the meantime, I'm going to request the input of additional experienced editors on the DYK talk page. Ergo Sum 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to ping @Bamse, Bermicourt, Jmabel, and Anyfile to see if we can find some reliable sources in other languages. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops, @AnyFile theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently traveling & very busy, so not much help here, I'm afraid. - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
That said, more or less this same case is made in The Pope's Jews: The Vatican's Secret Plan to Save Jews from the Nazis by Gordon Thomas (not currently cited in the article). - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear as to why the cited sources are unreliable: are we assuming that all information emanating from a Roman Catholic source is unreliable? If so what's the logic? In any case there are dozens of book sources in English, German, French and Italian that mention Pfeiffer, the problem is that few are accessible online. One is an entire biography of Pfeiffer "from baker to Vatican diplomat" which would be useful to track down: Willer, Philomena (2005). P. Pankratius Pfeiffer SDS: (1872-1945); vom Bäckergesellen zum Vatikandiplomat. Pub: Josef Fink. Others that mentions Pfeiffer and the Jews in Rome are:
  • Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
  • Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
  • Sinn (1976), Illegal.
Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
My issue is with the unreliability of journalistic works and popular history, which have in many cases published inaccurate information about rescues of Jews during the Holocaust. If better sources exist, they should be cited instead. An additional question is, do these sources actually support the claim of "hundreds" of Jews rescued by Pfeiffer personally? (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've now found sources that cover most of the article. Here are more:
Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
Sinn (1976), Illegal.
Prince Constantine of Bavaria (1952) Der Papst.
Layer (1985), Schwäbisches Ehrenbuch - Pfeiffer credited with "saving Rome and other Italian cities including Chieti, Ascoli and Ovieto from destruction and other calamities"
_ (1999). Publik-Forum - Pfeiffer the only German to have a street named after him in Rome and who fought to save Roman Jews.
_ (1960). Bayerische Frömmigkeit - Pfeiffer described as the "Saviour of Rome and other cities in Italy"
Robert Katz has written a number of books - Death in Rome (1967), Black Sabbath (1969), The Battle for Rome (2010) - which all mention Pfeiffer.
Bottum and Dalin (2004). The Pius War has this interesting piece: "7. Pancrazio [sic] Pfeiffer. According to Carroll-Abbing, one of the men used by Pius XII to protest the Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews and intervene for persecuted victims was Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer, superior general of the Salvatorian Fathers, who also served as Pius XII' personal liaison to the German military command in Rome. Because Pfeiffer died tragically in an automobile accident toward the end of the war and thus never took part in the postwar analysis of Pius XII's conduct, many historians have overlooked him. But those who knew him or have researched his life have chronicled his collaborative efforts with Pius XII to rescue Jews and others during the war. See the article "Pfeiffer's List" by Robert Graham, 30 Days, June 1994, pp. 42-46. Prince Constantine of Bavaria's book on Pius XII, The Pope (London: Allan Wingate, 1954) [listed above] contains an excellent section on Pfeiffer, whom he describes as an agent for the pope on behalf of the victims of persecution and the fugitives in hiding" (p. 213). At Pfeiffer's death in May 1945, Vatican Radio paid tribute: "He came into contact with the Commander of the German occupying forces [in Rome in 1943-44]. From that day onwards, he placed his religious and spiritual qualities at the service of many who had been arrested or already condemned to death. He helped countless people in this way, and saved their lives, among them many Jews and other Italian personages. He championed..."
In short there seems to be book evidence for virtually everything stated in the article apart from the specific details of the two incidents where 249 or 400 Jews were rescued. Based on my initial searches my expectation is that those incidents are likely to be recorded in the literature - we just need to be able to access more of the sources. Meanwhile there is no harm in pausing to use some of the above sources, plus those I've added to the Further reading section of the article in order to reinforce the existing references and then review where we are. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: thoughts? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 07:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the article currently meets DYK requirements. For example, Salvatorians USA Province is not independent of the article subject and therefore is not reliable for self-serving assertions such as "he saved many Jews in Rome from persecution and ultimately death" or "Every day, Pfeiffer visited the Regina Coeli prison and another prison on Via Tasso, where he would often return with freed prisoners who had been sentenced to death." (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: would you still object if the article instead relied on the sources found by Bermicourt? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Depends, the Samerski source looks reliable to me but the book published by "Österreichische Provinz der Salvatorianer" has the same issue of close connection to the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
All right. @Ergo Sum: I'm not going to promote the nomination without consensus to move forward, so if you want to try and rework the article's sourcing to approval, that can work. If you're not, this nomination should probably stop here. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 19:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: If the issue isn't addressed in a week, I think the best option is to reject this nomination. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have had to push this to the back burner. I will take a look at this tomorrow. Ergo Sum 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That is my fault. This slipped my mind completely this weekend. I will deal with this tonight. Ergo Sum 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added several inline citations to the article, which refer to sources that were (very helpfully) added by Bermicourt. These sources support several of the very specific claims in the article, as well as the general thrust of the article which is in dispute here, namely that Pfeiffer was a liaison and in that capacity saved many Jews and others from the Nazis. In light of these reliable sources supporting the general claims, I think any concern about the pre-existing ones describing some of his more specific actions is ameliorated. There is a trove of additional sources in the Further Reading section that additionally describe in much greater detail Pfeiffer's actions but they are either in a foreign language which I do not adequately read to make use of as citations or are offline. All being said, I think there is now ample sourcing to back up the article's claims. Ergo Sum 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ergo Sum—@Buidhe:, if this sourcing is up to your standards, we can move ahead. If not, we're probably going back to WT:DYK and asking for more eyes. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 05:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've flagged the specific content in the article that supports the hook as needing a better source. There are other active cleanup tags on the article as well. However, I think there's sufficient sourcing for a modified version of the hook without the words "hundreds of". (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
We could cite "countless" using the ref above instead of "hundreds of". Bermicourt (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
According to the source it's what Vatican Radio said about him after his death. DYK is not for eulogies imo. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not following—is the source unreliable because it's after his death? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it's because it's Catholic presumably... We could always add "according to Vatican Radio..." But better still, we just need to cite the exact text from one of the many non-Catholic book sources and the problem will be solved. Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
And yet another source: O'Reilly (2001) in Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation 1943-45 states that "the Vatican was able to assist many of Rome's Jews and others sought by the Germans through Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer's intervention with the Germans... His work was recounted by Robert Graham who has written extensively on the Vatican's role in World War II." Bermicourt (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
And another: Bartley (2016) in Catholics Confronting Hitler states that "Father Pancrace [sic] Pfeiffer, a German priest and the superior general of the Salvatorian Order, was the pope's liaison with the German military. Several hundred hostages, including some under sentence of death, owed their release to the efficacious intervention of Father Pfeiffer." I don't know why I'm doing this - you can look up the references yourselves instead of opining and speculating from the sidelines in the classic Wikipedia way. :) Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Since it seems you have access to several sources that I do not (probably just requires further digging), would you want to add them as inline citations with page numbers, especially to support the proposition regarding hundreds of people saved? Ergo Sum 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: I think we're taking that as a 'no'—what's your next step? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not for you to speak for other editors. I'm willing to add one inline citation from those above to support a revised hook, but not to do the nom's job for them. I have other articles to work on. BTW I don't have access to anything more than the internet. Y'all just need to look harder. Bermicourt (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Bermicourt, I don't mean to give answers on your behalf, but I didn't want the nom to rely on someone else to do the work, like you said, especially if that means stalling the nom for twelve days. also, I appreciate your use of y'all :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 08:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:) That and Po' boy is about the extent of my "southern" vocabulary lol. Bermicourt (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
po' boy twangin' the rhythm out, on his kalamazoo / and willy goes into a dance and doubles on kazoo... in all seriousness, though, back to the nomination—Ergo Sum, ball's in your court at the moment theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 18:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what it means to do "nom's job" for them. WP is a collaborative project, so when an editor has something to add to an article, I just encourage them to add it themselves. But that's besides the point. I've done my best to track down these sources and I found several of the major ones relied on by the WP Pfeiffer articles in other languages. At the moment, every proposition in the article is supported by inline citations to reliable sources. For those sources that some have questioned (even though I believe they are solid sources), I have provided citations to multiple sources. Therefore, I think this article is ready. Ergo Sum 04:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
All right, buidhe? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
oops, buidhe? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Dianxi Xiaoge

  • ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, is one of only three Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence?
    Source:
    1. 诸未静 (2019-12-23). 林涛 (ed.). "网红出海热 谁能成为下一个"李子柒"?" [Internet celebrities are become popular overseas. Who can become the next "Li Ziqi"?]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via Nanfang Daily.

      The article notes: "NoxInfluencer统计结果显示,真正在海外走红并成功变现的中国区网红只有排名前三位的“办公室小野”“李子柒”和“滇西小哥”。三者的视频均是“美食默片”,长度控制在5至10分钟,出镜者言语不多,借助简单英文字幕即可让全世界网友心领神会。"

      From Google Translate: "NoxInfluencer statistics show that the only Chinese Internet celebrities who have become popular overseas and been successfully realized are only the top three of Ms Yeah, Li Ziqi, and Dianxi Xiaoge. The three vloggers' channels all make "food silent films", the length is controlled at 5 to 10 minutes, and the person who appears on the screen doesn't speak much. With the help of simple English subtitles, netizens all over the world can understand."

    2. 严瑜 (2020-09-03). 胡文卉 (ed.). "访侨乡保山美食博主"滇西小哥":感受朴素的幸福" [Interviewing Baoshan food blogger Dianxi Xiaoge in a region well-known for Chinese expatriates: Feel the simple happiness]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The article notes: "“小哥”,说的便是“滇西小哥”。这位全网粉丝量超过1600万的美食博主,制作发布的云南美食视频,单期平均播放量达2000万次左右。这样一位美食博主,竟然生活在如此偏僻的山野之中? ... “滇西小哥”本名董梅华,是个“90后”。算起来,回乡已有4年。“小时候,走出去的愿望特别强烈。... 高考填志愿,一所云南的学校都没选, ... 在“滇西小哥”的记忆里,上小学之前,村里还没通自来水。每天清晨,妈妈都得起个大早,去山脚的那口泉眼挑几大桶水回来。"

      From Google Translate: ""Little Brother" refers to "Dianxi Xiaoge". This food blogger with more than 16 million fans on the entire network has produced and released Yunnan food videos with an average of about 20 million views in a single issue. Such a food blogger lives in such remote mountains? ... "Dianxi Xiaoge", whose real name is Dong Meihua, is a "post-90s". After calculating, it has been 4 years since she returned to her hometown. "When I was young, I had a strong desire to go out.... Filling up my wish for the college entrance examination, I didn't choose a school in Yunnan. ... In the memory of Dianxi Xiaoge, before she went to primary school, the village had no running water. Every morning, her mother had to get up early to pick up a few large buckets of water from the spring at the foot of the mountain."

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 07:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

  • The phrase "真正在海外走红并成功变现的中国区网红只有排名前三位的" means "the only Chinese Internet celebrities who have truly become prominent overseas and successfully cashed in are the top three [in the rankings...] 变现 means to monetize (literally: turn into cash), not "successfully realized". But the article doesn't say what it means to "truly become prominent", nor what it means to "successfully cash in", so the hook seems vague. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The Nanfang Daily is basing their assessment on analysis they conducted using data from NoxInfluencer.

    Here is an alternative hook:

    ALT1: ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, went viral in China and internationally after making hamburgers for her grandparents who had never eaten them before?

    Sources:

    1. Wei, Clarissa (2020-02-05). "Dianxi Xiaoge Exclusive Interview, China's Viral Cooking Sensation (At Home with DXXG – E1)". Goldthread. South China Morning Post Publishers. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via YouTube.

      At 3:33 in the video: "The video that helped her go viral, on both domestic and international platforms, was this one ... in which she makes a hamburger Chinese country-side style. 'Because my grandparents and family members have spent their whole lives in the countryside, I really wanted them to try hamburgers. Because in their eyes, hamburgers are Western food and a novelty. I kept wanting to take them out for hamburgers, but I moved back to Yunnan before I could. So I figured I'd make them myself.'"

    2. Wei, Clarissa (2020-03-12). "Dianxi Xiaoge's recipe for hamburgers with a Chinese twist". Goldthread. South China Morning Post Publishers. Archived from the original on 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes: "The reason she wanted to tackle the hamburger is sentimental. “My grandma and grandpa had never had a burger before,” she tells us, “and I wanted to make them one based on how I remembered eating it in the city.”"

    Cunard (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg This is not a review but a comment; ALT1 is just simply too long (it's 200 characters when including the question mark, 199 without). I'd be in favor instead of the hook being split into two separate proposals: one hook about the fact that she was an internet celebrity who grew up in a place without tap water, and a separate hook about her going viral for making hamburgers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, which can also address the issue of the borderline ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg As far as I can tell the article meets DYK requirements, and a QPQ has been done. Earwigs finds a close match with Coda Media, but that's only because it was the source for quotes in the article, and all of them are properly referenced. I find the first hook hard to believe given China's international standing, and in any case as brought up by Bowlhover may be inaccurate anyway. As for the second hook, as I mentioned before it's ineligible as it's exactly 200 characters long, and per WP:DYK hooks that are at or shorter than 200 characters may be rejected per reviewer's discretion. Both ALT0 and ALT1 have struck: I am repeating my earlier suggestion that ALT1 instead be split into two separate hooks. As this is a China-related article and there appear to be some political discussion in the article, I'd also like to ask for a second opinion from someone more knowledgeable about China-related articles if the article doesn't fall afoul of relevant guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook:

    The hook should be concise: no more than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ..., the space immediately following the ..., or any (pictured)). While 200 is a hard limit, hooks near or at this limit may still be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and administrators. This tool can be used for counting words.

    The guideline says that "200 is a hard limit", so it is not true that the 200-character ALT1 hook is "ineligible" or "simply too long". No reason has been given for rejecting a 200-character hook "at the discretion of reviewers".

    Here are two additional hooks based on the suggestion:

    ALT2: ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, is an Internet celebrity with roughly 16 million subscribers on all her platforms?

    ALT3: ... Dianxi Xiaoge went viral in China and internationally after making hamburgers for her grandparents who had never eaten them before?

    Cunard (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Well for one thing, the original was very difficult to read and seemed to combine too many facts into one hook. Usually DYK prefers simpler hooks whenever possible. In any case, I think ALT3 is the best hook here and the nomination is otherwise good to go, I'd just like to hear a second opinion from another editor on the article tone given that I'm a bit uncomfortable doing a solo review here given the "Commentary" section delves into some political matters. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, I have some concerns regarding the length of the article. Isn't it rather detailed for an internet celebrity's page? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That the article is "rather detailed for an internet celebrity's page" should not be a concern. The sources provided substantial analysis of her and her work, and this article reflects those sources. Other detailed articles for Internet celebrities include PewDiePie and MrBeast. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Gatoclass for his input, as he responded to a discussion I raised about this nomination over at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need Gatoclass to restate themself. Here's what they said at WT:DYK:

The article doesn't use the phrase "one of only three Chinese influencers to gain international influence", so I'm not sure where you got that, but it does say she is one of only three "Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence", and the problem with that claim is that it's sourced to an article that is two years old and therefore not up-to-date. With regard to the overall length, I would agree that it is overly detailed and could use a trim. I'm not sure this is relevant to DYK however, as "overly detailed" is not one of our criteria. What I would say is that the level of detail does raise the chances of close paraphrasing so the article would need to be carefully checked for that. Anybody else with an opinion on this article? Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As the nomination has been stuck for a while this probably needs a new pair of eyes, ideally someone who's an expert on China. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg For the most part this looks good to me (not an expert but I can read Chinese). Earwig picks up some attributed quotes and I spot-checked for close paraphrasing; no problem there. The length and level of detail seem fine to me for a DYK. ALT2 or ALT3 would work for the hook, though in ALT2 I would say "mountain village" instead of just "mountain".
I just have a minor concern about neutrality – in the "Style" section, there are some opinions/evaluations that I think should use in-text attribution. The first sentence of the subsection is attributed to Li Han in the source; we should probably follow suit, I think. And in the passage that begins "The high viewership of her videos is owing to...", we should clarify whose analysis this is (apparently also Li Han's?). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Albruna

5x expanded by Berig (talk). Self-nominated at 14:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): I started looking at this, but realised I am very much not familiar with this area and don't feel entirely confident undertaking a review. I do like the hooks and it's an intriguing subject for an article! I wanted to flag the following comments, in case they are helpful (please ignore if not!):
  • I don't quite follow this sentence in the lead: "Moreover, it is still pointed out that the emendation Albruna agrees with the names of other Germanic wise women."
  • Should "instriptions" (before the Drusus heading) be "inscriptions"?
  • Should the names of scholars be wikilinked, where there is a page for the author (e.g. Simek)?
  • What does mss mean, and could this be explained when it is first referenced?
  • The second paragraph of the Aurinia section has two sentences starting with "However" in a row, which is a bit awkward to read.
Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Chocmilk03, thank you! Very good feedback! I have changed the text per your suggestions, and I hope that you find the text in the lead improved.–Berig (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm also not conducting a review at this time, but I just wanted to comment on the QPQ requirement. @Berig:, are you aware of the QPQ requirement in WP:DYKCRIT (specifically, #5)? I see that as of two days ago, you just reached five DYK credits, so it appears that you are no longer exempt. Are you intending to conduct a DYK review soon? Feel free to reach out if you need help or advice. Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been vaguely aware of it, and a few days ago, I had a try at my first review: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Reiter.―Berig (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that a QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Seems to meet 5x requirements (from 396 words to 2394 words of readable text, 2453 characters up to 14,432 all during period of 7 days prior to nom), long enough, seems neutral and reasonably sourced. Earwig says 0.0, QPQ met. Of the four proposed hooks, I'm not seeing any problems with ALT1 but the other hooks, being somewhat nebulous seem to have somewhat nebulous sourcing. I can't help but think we have a punchier hook somewhere here. BusterD (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 25[edit]

Argentine seabass

Argentine seabass near the Ilhas Cagarras, Brazil.
Argentine seabass near the Ilhas Cagarras, Brazil.

Created by Ryan shell (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article needs some inline citations for some statements. Image would be hard to read at 100px, recommend cropping. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 23:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (updated 00:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC))

Comment I've tweaked the wording of some of the prose and added a number of new references. As far as the image goes, I am happy with the dyk entry with or without an image. cheers! Ryan shell (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ryan shell: Appreciate you improving the reference issues. I've cropped the image on the commons and updated here. Do you approve of the cropped image? ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 13:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks great! Thanks for that! Ryan shell (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ryan shell, it seems the hook relies on information from two different sources, but this DYK only cites the one. I am ready to approve if you can add that source here. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Done, Thanks for the reply Ryan shell (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Ryan shell I ran this by a few other veteran editors and was advised that we might need to try making the hook more clear and closer to the sources so the statement isn't more broad than the sources allow. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 01:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Good point! Sorry for the extended hiatus. I've added a smoother version of the hook, modified from the article itself. Hope that helps! Ryan shell (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 28[edit]

David Whiting

  • Reviewed: Ecem Güzel
  • Comment: long article, welcome to propose other hooks

Moved to mainspace by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 05:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Very interesting article and quite the star-studded life—and the worst case of oneitis I've ever heard. Poor Miles. Meets newness and length requirements easily, QPQ done. Earwig brings up the two most-cited sources as potential copyvios. To be expected, since they're cited almost 20 times each, and since the vast majority of the matches concern long quotes I'm willing to overlook it, but can we add more citations throughout the paragraphs? Particularly with "Conflict with Miles and Reynolds", there's four citations crammed at the end of the section. I think we should cite each after the corresponding sentences, especially where there's a direct quotation. Also for ALT0 we need a citation at the ends of the sentences for "Golden Boy" and "Whiz Kid". Otherwise nice read, and good use of sources. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5 and DigitalIceAge: working on it now Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've directly addressed the recommendations, and added archive urls. I have also checked the copyvio report and am certain there is nothing of concern when comparing the texts. @DigitalIceAge: Is there anything else? Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 31[edit]

Broken toe

Can you spot what bone that would be? :)
Can you spot what bone that would be? :)

Created by HLHJ (talk) and minor contributions by several members of Wikiproject Medicine (talk). Nominated by DrVogel (talk) at 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (no review): I understand the intention, but 88.5.3.2 is a legitimate IP address. Mindmatrix 17:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've replaced my "is" with a "may". Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I love this hook. This is far more interesting and "hooky" than I would have believed possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Haha thanks :) It was a moment of inspiration. I wanted to do my best to achieve recognition for HLHJ's excellent article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing...New, long enough, no copy vio issues. QPQ not required as <5 nominations. Will go through and finalise soon.Whispyhistory (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg... Hook in article and followed by citation to a reference containing hook fact. Image free and clear. I like the caption unless anyone knows of any reason it shouldn't be used. Are we allowed to put :) ? A suggestion: bullet point some of the sentences in the infobox, and add a citation after every sentence....but up to you. Its not completely in the order of medical articles: ie signs & symptoms followed by mechanism followed by diagnosis etc, but I see what you were doing and I see a lot of effort went here. Fulfils DYK. Well done. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC) :)
Symbol question.svg Apologies...I had another look. The article doesn't say " that 88.5.3.2 may not be an IP address,".... it needs another look @DrVogel:. It also needs to say that in the source. Oversight on my part. Please let me know what you wish to do. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory: But that would be impossible, the article can't possibly mention IP addresses, it's about broken toes. The hook is just a hook, and serves its purpose. The example in the hook is actually given in the article, and supported by the sources cited. Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@DrVogel:, reaching out for advice...@Philafrenzy: or others can we have advice here please... reminds me of the cobblers one. It's okay with me if allowed (dyk says hook needs to be in article and in the following ref). Whispyhistory (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that exact sequence of numbers in the source, although there are others that look a bit like an IP address. The trouble is, the nominator seems to be the source for it looking a bit like an IP address, which it does, but we can't use that unless the source makes a similar point, which it does not appear to do. Something like this might work (numbers might need to be changed as mentioned):
ALT1 ... that a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the image, it's a fun idea but I don't think we run images as quizzes and the image is simply a skeletal foot, and not closely enough related to the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly... will wait for nominator to respond...no hurry. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your input. I don't see how the hook you're suggesting is hooky. What exactly is wrong with the hook proposed? It's in the article and it's supported by the sources cited.
And the image is directly related to the hook. It engages the reader into a spotting game. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Like everyone else, I rather like the IP-address hook. If we wikilinked IP address, it would be supported in the linked articles, and fulfill the requirement that anyone following the links will be able to verify the hook. I don't think we need sourcing that says that a specific sequence of numbers is an IP address, as we have sources giving the general format of an IP address, and creating an example would be a trivial calculation ("Are all four of these numbers separated by periods in the range 0-255?"):
"IPv4 and IPv6 address formats". www.ibm.com. An IPv4 address has the following format: x . x . x . x where x is called an octet and must be a decimal value between 0 and 255. Octets are separated by periods. An IPv4 address must contain three periods and four octets. The following examples are valid IPv4 addresses:
1 . 2 . 3 . 4
01 . 102 . 103 . 104

This hook is better than any alternative I can think of, and I don't see anything likely to be problematic about it (it's certainly verifiable). I think we might be in agreement on that? So if some rule technically prohibits it, we might have a good case for applying the WP:Ignore all the rules policy. Broken finger is also currently DYK-eligible and I think it uses the same numbering scheme.[1] HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edit: add fulltext url]
I don't necessarily agree with the reading of WP:DYKCRIT 3b (Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source [...]) that says that the IP thing needs to be in the article (compare e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Urine deflector, which similarly took some creative licence in how the proposed hooks were phrased beyond what was stated in either the article or the cited source), and I agree with HLHJ that WP:IAR would be applicable regardless. As for the hooks themselves, writing "a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2" is a much poorer way of writing the hook (less "hooky") than the converse, i.e. "88.5.3.2 may refer to a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone". TompaDompa (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
We can't use IP address because the nominator just thought it up "oh, that looks like an IP address". It's not in the source as the nominator admits and therefore is not verifiable. And so what if it does look like an IP address? What does that tell us about broken toes? I like clever or quirky hooks and have written many (if I may say so), but they have to be based on something in the sources otherwise it's things made up one day. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments. This is not the place to ignore all rules. The proposed hook is not supported by the source given in the article. I am inclined to approve ALT1 but it needs checking, unless another hook is proposed. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear, this has become contentious. I think the contended question is whether it's acceptable to have verified information not found in the nominated article, but only in another article, linked in the hook. Not as hooky, but for illustration:
I don't think we're debating whether the IP-address-hook statement is verifiable. The statement that "88.5.3.2" (and any number in that format) is a valid IPv4 address is supported by the IP address article and the IPv4 article, and this format is the subject of the Dot-decimal notation article. No-one had bothered to cite those statements in those articles, but since they've been challenged here, I've now cited them.Face-smile.svg So "88.5.3.2 is both an IP address[1] and a code for a broken toebone[2]" is certainly verifiable, and is now verified on Wikipedia. Any DYK reader should have no trouble verifying that the hook is accurate. Alternatives that do not mention IP addressees are not as hooky, but don't contain more information about broken toes:
Rules aside, is there any concrete harm to Wikipedia in the IP-address hook? HLHJ (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edited to replace the wrong url, copy-paste mistake]
Please don't strike the proposed hook as you have done. You certainly don't have consensus to do that. As several people have explained above, the hook is supported by the article and the source. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the reviewer needs consensus Dr Vogel. I agree and have re-struck it. Please work on something else. I am sure you can develop something good, or tweak the Alt1. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
How about ALT2 ... that 88.5.3.2 is one way of describing a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Thank you Philafrenzy ( a very experienced DYK contributor) for your efforts in helping new editors understand DYK. Your comment higher up about "88.5.3.2" and "ip address" not being in the source is true and I am grateful for your suggested alts. Essentially, the initial and subsequent hooks sound good, but none are in the article or the source. I don't wish for personal comments and don't mind if someone else wishes to take over here. With due respect @DrVogel: and @HLHJ:...You may wish to take this up at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I won't say I wish I hadn't written the article;Face-confused.svg I hope it's useful enough to make up for the social harm to the project here. I don't think the hostility was intended by anyone; I suspect that it's felt partly due to the ease of mininterpretation in a text-only medium and partly due to human cognitive biases.[2] I certainly did, and do, not intend it.
I spent a day's editing trying to resolve the conflict by finding references specifically saying that the two things were in notation X and adding that text to the article, but unfortunately non-inductive descriptions of the notations seem to have been considered so needless that an Internet RFC attempting to formalize them died of disinterest. I did find a source that explicitly defines the IPv4 format, and one that explicitly says that 88.1.2.2 is a specific fracture, and I've cited the latter in the article, but I don't think this helps. It is probably a bit unreasonable to expect a reviewer to do more than apply rules as best they can, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know might indeed be a better forum for a more detailed discussion. I don't really want to take part in one, though (nothing to do with this discussion, prior reasons). I posted because I felt responsible for the conflict and thought I might be able to help. My impression is that I made it worse; my apologies to everyone I've offended. HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is offended, but if I may say so I think you are still missing the point. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity. That's why the sources don't make the comparison and why the IP-based hooks are no good. Any of the other hooks might be fine (I haven't checked the numbers) just without the bit about IP addresses. The whole thing reminds me of unusually shaped vegetables where you may see a carrot shaped like a foot, people who see faces in clouds, and even apophenia. My personal observation that one thing looks a bit like another is not the basis for a hook unless reliable sources make the point too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Folks, we are wasting a wonderful hook. Really. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity and that is the whole point of making good hooks. They are supposed to be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content. And one of the best recipes to make a hook good is to make it sound counterintuitive With any other option but the original, we are bound to receive another hook frequented by maybe a few hundred visitors. I would propose something to the tune of in some contexts, 88.5.3.2 might not mean an IP address but a broken bone in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? so that no one claims here that we somehow delegitimise the IP address but at the same time so that we preserve the core of the hook. As for the claims that because the hook is not cited in the IP part, it can't be there - please don't be that pedantic. In our today's world of informatics we may assume that people who visit Wikipedia more or less imagine what IP addresses are, and may more or less imagine how they look like (in the worst case they will visit the article for details). The other part is cited. I see no problem with the original. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki I admit that I'm not very familiar with the topic, and the above discussion was confusing, but is the "this isn't an IP address" claim actually in the source? Because if it's not, then no matter how good the hook proposal is, it can't be used in a hook since hook facts need to be based on a reference. Also, I'm pretty sure that assumptions don't count as sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
What I was leading is that we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or that we have five fingers; or that there exist IP addresses for that matter. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that these IP number hooks aren't working out so far, I wonder if some other hooks unrelated to that could be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment only If we accept the first hook we will end up with thousands of hits, some quiet smiles and some who will continue to believe that DYK broke the rules. We're allowed to. This is not a massive occasion where we can save the whole project by breaking the rules. Its a trivial example of what some (not all) think may be a breach in the rules, with a small, but amusing, advantage. So I'm not asking the defenders of the rules to admit that this is not a breech ... I am suggesting that they might just concede that the harm done by allowing this hook might not offend anyone ... and it might please a few thousand. Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't need to break the rules. The observation that the notation looks a bit like an IP address is trivial and completely unrelated to broken toes. There are already perfectly good hooks above that work better. Nobody is saying don't use the numbers, just strike the bit about IP addresses. The originally proposed hook is not the work of comic genius and cleverness that some seem to think it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The main issue here is that it's one of the core rules of DYK that hook facts must be mentioned in the article, ideally explicitly or at least implied by supporting information. The thing is that at the moment, IP addresses are not mentioned anywhere in the article, so the hooks using the IP address angle would be ineligible according to that criterion anyway. Even April Fools hooks, which tend to be misleading, are still generally based on hook facts that are mentioned in the respective articles. So if we can't even grant IAR exemptions for that criterion for AFD hooks, the one day of the year where our hooks tend to follow the rules most loosely, I can't see why such a request should be granted here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @DrVogel: In the absence of consensus in favor of using the number angle, can hooks based on other facts be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to note that right now neither "88.5.3.2" nor "78.5.3.2" are mentioned in the respective articles (indeed, the only numeric codes mentioned in the articles are 88.1.2.2 and 78.1.1.1 respectively, so none of the currently proposed hooks are actually suitable given that the codes aren't mentioned at all in the articles (and they should be, per DYK rules). If revised hooks aren't proposed soon, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging previous nomination commenters @Whispyhistory, Philafrenzy, and HLHJ: for possible hook suggestions. The issue right now is even if we decided to IAR approve the IP addresses hook (which seems unlikely to happen given the articles make no mention of IP addresses at all), as mentioned above, the actual numeric codes used in the hook proposals aren't mentioned in the articles at all. Either the existing hooks need to be revised to use the mentioned codes, or hooks that use different angles (i.e. ones not about the codes) are proposed instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meinberg, EG; Agel, J; Roberts, CS; Karam, MD; Kellam, JF (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018" (PDF). Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 32 Suppl 1: S1–S170. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063. PMID 29256945.
  2. ^ Boothby, Erica J.; Cooney, Gus; Sandstrom, Gillian M.; Clark, Margaret S. (5 September 2018). "The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?" (PDF). Psychological Science. 29 (11): 1742–1756. doi:10.1177/0956797618783714. PMID 30183512. S2CID 52165115. Retrieved 8 June 2019.

Articles created/expanded on November 1[edit]

Tina Stege

Tina Stege
Tina Stege

Created by Roundtheworld (talk) and FlyingFoxBoi (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 16:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough. Two correct writers are credited. The article is fully referenced. No copyvio detected. There is a bit of biased POV pushing in Wikipedia voice: "most vulnerable to climate change". This will be something our subject is saying no doubt. And this idea is also reflected in the hook with "endangered". The hook content is referenced and confirmed by the Guardian, apart from the "endangered" bit, which opinion is attributed to Tina Stege. So I suggest that "endangered" is taken out of the hook, or it is reworded so it is clear she is saying that. Hook alt1 is unsuitable as it does not link the article and I cannot tell what it is trying to say in relation to the subject. I can confirm image is CC-BY-3.0 as derived from the video with CC-BY-3.0 license. However I would suggest that a different image is selected from the video, perhaps near the end where the microphone is not obscuring her chin. QPQ is done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for the review Graeme - I have recut a new image. Surprised that "endangered" wasn't referenced. I'm not sure it is just her opinion -"Projected sea level rise would mean 40% of the buildings in the Marshall Islands’ capital of Majuro would be permanently flooded and entire islands would disappear, potentially costing the Pacific country its status as a nation, according to a devastating new report from the World Bank." is a quote from the reference I have added to balance the idea that "endangered" might by pov. Victuallers (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This new picture is better. Thanks for the screen grab. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: If you are busy then we can find another reviewer. Victuallers (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
What I am asking for is a slightly amended hook to be proposed. I would rather not give the cross as the rest of the article and nomination is good for DYK. If I stick in a hook then we do need yet another to check that out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Are you suggesting that we imply that "endangered" is her opinion despite the fact that she represents a nation and the "endangered" aspect is supported by the World Bank and the Guardian newspaper (and the 1bn people estimated to be part of the "High Ambition" group ) saying so? Is there any evidence that is just her opinion and not that of her country and the World Bank? Am I missing something? It you feel you need to give this "a cross" then can I suggest that we ask for a new reviewer?I have suggested an alt that does not use the endangered word. Victuallers (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Women in Red are doing a focus on "Women and Climate" for December - so good to have this for 1 Dec. Could we resolve this? Quite happy to find a new reviewer if you are busy. Victuallers (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
New Reviewer please Victuallers (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Good point. fixed Victuallers (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on November 2[edit]

Downtown Eatery (1993) v. Ontario

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Drive-by comment. Isn't the holding of Downtown Eatery that the plaintiff was employed by a consortium of corporate entities including the named defendant? See Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd v Ontario, 2001 CanLII 8538 (Ont CA) at para 40: "we conclude that Alouche's employer in June 1993 when he was wrongfully dismissed was all of Twin Peaks, The Landing Strip, Downtown Eatery and Best Beaver". And Mohamed F Khimji & Jon Viner, "Oppression — Reducing Canadian Corporate Law to a Muddy Default", 2016 47-1 Ottawa Law Review 123, 2016 CanLIIDocs 87 at page 173: "… in Downtown Eatery, the applicant, Alouche, successfully obtained judgment for wrongful dismissal against his employer corporation, Best Beaver" (emphasis added in both cases). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Yes, but note that this court case is the "leading case with respect to the issue of common employers", establishing a precedent in Canadian law. At the time the lawsuit was filed, this was not the case, and in fact the trial judge ruled against Alouche (see last paragraph of background section); it was only after the case was brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the "common employer doctrine" was established, and it became entrenched when leave to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed. Mindmatrix 15:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, so the idea behind the hook is that, since Downtown Eatery changed the law on common employers, before Downtown Eatery Best Beaver would not have been Alouche's employer? That makes more sense. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to inspect this again... Mindmatrix 15:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Alright, so to ensure everything is correct, the following timeline occurred:
  • Alouche was hired to be manager at For Your Eyes Only (owned by Grad and Grosman), and began work on 29 December 1992
  • Alouche was sent a Notice of Discipline in May 1993, and was fired on 15 June 1993
  • In October 1993, Alouche filed action for wrongful dismissal against Best Beaver Management Inc., as that was the source of his paycheques
  • Best Beaver ceased operations in mid-1996, and all assets distributed to other companies owned by Grad and Grosman
  • The trial resolved in favour of Alouche
  • Best Beaver did not pay out the judgement (all its assets had been redistributed)
  • Sherriffs were dispatched to For Your Eyes Only, where they seized $1,855
  • Downtown Eatery filed claim against Alouche, stating the cash belonged to it
  • Alouche defended, and counterclaimed against Grad, Grosman, and all companies they controlled on the grounds of common employer doctrine, the oppression remedy of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and fraudulent conveyance
  • the judge in the second trial (at Ontario Superior Court of Justice) ruled against Alouche
  • the case was brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, where the previous ruling was overturned in 2001
  • in January 2002, an application for leave to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed
  • So, the common employer doctrine was part of the second trial as a counterclaim to the suit filed by Downtown Eatery. I just wanted to ensure this satisfies your concerns. Mindmatrix 18:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this incredibly thorough response. My concern is maybe philosophical or definitional. If I say that company A employs person B, that has an ordinary meaning and a legal meaning. It is probably right that Best Beaver did not employ Alouche in the ordinary sense of "employ", because Best Beaver was a "paymaster" and not the name on the front of the building where he went to work. My reading of the case itself is that, before Downtown Eatery, it was at best indeterminate as a legal matter whether Best Beaver, alone or in combination with its affiliate companies, employed Alouche. After Downtown Eatery, it was established—as a matter of legal meaning, but not necessarily ordinary meaning—that Best Beaver was his employer, or part of his employer, or something like that. The reason I brought this up is that it's not clear how one could verify the claim that "Best Beaver was not Alouche's employer", because that claim might be true as a matter of ordinary meaning but the only authoritative legal ruling we have on this (namely, Downtown Eatery) holds that the claim is false. In any event, I'll leave this to the eventual reviewer to sort out. I find my brain twisting into knots. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Clarifying that the above is only a side discussion and that a review is still required. Mindmatrix 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 3[edit]

Emily Goss

  • ... that Emily Goss's role as Jennifer in the film The House on Pine Street earned her four Best Actress award nominations, of which she won three, in the American festival circuit? source, source, source.
    • ALT1: ... that the character Louise, played by Emily Goss in the film Snapshots, is based on a real woman named Louise, whom the writer-producer's mother was romantically involved with in the 1930s? Source: "The real Louise was a photographer. Our writer-producer Jan Miller Curran was with her mother when she was 94 and slowly passing and said, 'Louise is here.'... [Curran] said, 'Who is Louise?' And her mother said, 'The love of my life.' So then Jan learned the story of their secret relationship... in the 1930s." source

Created/expanded by Mungo Kitsch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Question?
  • Interesting: Red XN - see below
  • Other problems: Red XN - see below
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Hello, Mungo and welcome to DYK! Review as follows: The article is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a WP:IMDB source and I am unsure about the reliability of several other sources, including Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep. To add to that, the YouTube link does not appear to be uploaded by an official channel, making it unreliable. Additionally, per MOS:FILMCAST uncredited roles need a source. the copyvio checker showed up a 50%+ similarity with a source, which may suggest over quotation. On top of that, the subject has unclear notability. I'm unsure which roles are significant and The House on Pine Street appears to have a questionable notability. None of her awards seem significant and I'm not seeing any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ALT0 isn't very interesting given the festival is not significant enough to have an article. I think ALT1 is interesting but it seems to focus more on the character, not the actress which isn't exactly ideal... QPQ not needed. We'll need some work but we'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mungo Kitsch: Hello, will you still be able to address the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis, thank you for your very constructive and enthusiastic feedback, and @Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your reminder; apologies for my delayed response. One thing I did soon after Pamzeis's feedback was abridge the quote in my second DYK, in hopes of curbing my overquoting. And I will intend on getting back to the Emily Goss article fairly soon, and further expanding and fortifying it in the pursuit of it passing the DYK nomination. If you look at my editing history, I've had ten straight days where I did not edit, one big reason being that I have family-related matters that needed attending to, such as Thanksgiving and another more somber matter. Anyways, let me get back to the Emily Goss article again, probably sometime this week. I will try to do some further rephrasing of the DYKs already here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 4[edit]

Kushner family

  • Comment: It's been a little while since my last nomination, I owe a review

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 04:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Muboshgu: Date, size, refs, neutrality, hook, all good. I do wonder if we could add something to the hook about the family's modern prominence, since the WWII history is pretty much a trivia footnote related to their modern-era importance? Anyway, all GTG, just waiting for QPQ review. Ping me when it is done for the final tick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, Template:Did you know nominations/Art Sqool is my QPQ. I thought about avoiding the whole orange elephant in the room on this one. Maybe it's my own bias as a descendant of Holocaust survivors that drew me to a hook on the partisans. But I can propose a hook that includes it... – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, Thanks. Just a final nitpick for ALT1: can we avoid the WP:EASTEREGG problem and spell out Donald Trump in it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, yeah why not. Not sure why I did that. Anyone else can wordsmith the blurb as needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Jared Kushner
Jared Kushner
Sorry, but ALT1 is non-neutral in my view, as it implies by way of comparison that Jared Kusher is an enabler of antisemitism. Gatoclass (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You could possibly go with something like:

  • ALT2 ... that some members of the Kushner family objected after Jared (pictured) invoked their grandparents' resistance in Nazi-occupied Poland to support his denial of Donald Trump's alleged antisemitism? Gatoclass (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Gatoclass, I was afraid I might've tacked too far in that direction with ALT1. ALT2 works for me. I guess my only question is if [[Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)|the Nazis]] is an EGG and if it shouldn't be [[Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)|Nazi-occupation of Poland]]. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a bit EGG-ish Muboshgu, but it's the only way I could get the hook under 200 characters. Gatoclass (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the dreaded character count. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Tweaked to avoid the EGG - it's still under 200 chars. Gatoclass (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT2 needs review. Gatoclass (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Maw Htun Aung

Created by Htanaungg (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

I don't see what's so surprising about this. The article doesn't suggest in any way that there would have been any expectation of him running on the NLD line, or that he had previously been involved in the NLD. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
How about the following one, Daniel Case? Htanaungg (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 12[edit]

Maximilian Dood

  • Comment: This is the first time I’ve ever made a DYK here, so here goes. I personally find this fact interesting because it highlights how the advent of YouTube, and internet fame in general, has allowed people to use their voice to reach people in positions of high influence, bringing hidden ideas to light and advocating for change. While this specific example falls under a video game/pop-culture category, and may not fit Wikipedia’s desire for academic material, I feel that this is interesting enough to share, as it’s one the gaming community can relate to, like with other social media trends such as #FreeSmash and "Rerelease Mother 3." As for the article itself, all of the citations should be reliable enough; they’re all from third-party/secondary source outlets and there isn’t any BLP violation to be found here. One concern I have is criteria #3 - “Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient.” While the hook is sourced in the article, the refs are at the end of the section rather than per each sentence. I can fix that however. Anyway, I hope this fact does get accepted! If not, I understand, thanks for reviewing this anyway.

Created/expanded by PantheonRadiance (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Hook is currently at 204 characters, so a minor reduction is required (maximum hook length is 200 characters)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough. Earwig looks good and sourcing is good as well, and the hook is certainly interesting (and cited in the article), but is slightly too long. No QPQ is required as nominator does not yet have a DYK credit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging nominator PantheonRadiance as this has gone about a week and a half without a response. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 13[edit]

Loess Plateau

Loess landscape near Hunyuan, Datong, Shanxi Province, China
Loess landscape near Hunyuan, Datong, Shanxi Province, China
  • ... that the loess in the Loess Plateau can come from over 1,250 km (780 mi) away? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1: ... that the loess in the Loess Plateau can travel over 1,250 km (780 mi)? as above

5x expanded by Christycheungkayan (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

  • This is just a comment but it may be a good idea to at least link to loess or somehow explain it since it's a technical term that most people probably don't know the meaning of. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Graeme Bartlett: Symbol possible vote.svg Hi there! Since we've gone from 4,706 characters of prose pre-expansion (in the week before nomination) to 18,572 presently, this article has only undergone a 3.95x expansion—to get to 5x expansion would require a total of 23,530 prose bytes, or 4,958 additional characters. Could this be done? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The previous prose size was 3900 characters dated 2 August 2021. The date the page was moved would count as the expansion date, as history was merged from the sandbox on 13 Nov 2021, making the dates in the history a bit confusing. So that would mean the page should get to 19500 characters. It was that big when I nominated it. But since then some of the text was turned into a table. So I suppose I can de-table some text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see, my mistake—interesting, I didn't see the histmerge. Yeah, you're much closer in that case—almost there! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 14[edit]

Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing

Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, very newsworthy event and hence well-sourced, no copyvios (Earwig reports a false positive on the Johnson quotation), QPQ done. However, without a source saying the taxi driver is comfortable to talk about his ear, I'm concerned the hook may not fit the spirit of "Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook." Could we go with something else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He's a scouser. He'll fucking love it, they'll be feting him in the pubs and clubs of New Brighton as we speak. The point here is to get this lesser-known heroic guy the DYK, not focus on the scuzzball that started it, you know. I mean, something like Did you know that a bomb has just gone off outside a Liverpool hospital is so anodyne it defeats the object of DYK. People want to hear about this guy, not the perp or the police. By the way, as the philosopher Milton Jones once asked on a connected subject, "If an Earl gets an OBE, does he become an Earlobe?"  :) ——Serial 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How about ALT2 : ... that the taxi driver injured in the Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing was commended by the Mayor of Liverpool and the Prime Minister for his bravery? ("Prime Minister Boris Johnson has praised Mr Perry's actions. .... The city's mayor Joanne Anderson said the taxi driver's "heroic efforts" averted what could have been an "awful disaster" on Remembrance Sunday." [7]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He doesn't need Johnson's validation? And I refuse to be a party to getting that wanker on the front page more than he already has to be. What about him (the taxi driver) locking the bloke in the car before scaparing? (PS, I respect your views: all of them.) ——Serial 20:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that should work, if you can think of something hooky enough. (As for Johnson, if you can find enough good sources to write 1,500 prose-bytes about Ben Comeau we can do something with this on the main page). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • From a BLP perspective, I'd like to see us steer well clear of the Mayor's remarks (allegations?). They may be right, or wrong, and any heroic actions may be justified and deliberate or not, but these remarks are based on unconfirmed information and definitely serious enough for us to not flaunt them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think 'ear sewn back on' is well enough supported by the sources to lead with it, it's basically attributed to 'a man' on Facebook, in fact I'm not sure it should be in the article. Nor do I think even if it is verified, that this is anything like the most important part of the event. JeffUK (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Terrorist incident declared after bomb detonated outside Liverpool hospital". Independent. 15 November 2021.
  2. ^ "Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion: Man killed named as Emad Al Swealmeen". BBC News. 15 November 2021.
  3. ^ Mendick, Robert; Evans, Martin; Davies, Gareth (15 November 2021). "Liverpool bomber was of Middle Eastern background and not known to MI5 - latest updates". The Telegraph. (subscription required)
  4. ^ "Liverpool hospital taxi explosion: what we know so far". The Guardian. 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
  5. ^ "Threat level raised after Liverpool taxi bomb - follow updates live". Independent. 15 November 2021.
  6. ^ Dearden, Lizzie (15 November 2021). "Liverpool explosion: Police declare terrorist incident and say passenger 'built bomb detonated in taxi'". The Independent.

Machine learning in earth sciences

  • ... that machine learning can recognize rocks automatically? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1: ... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Moved to mainspace by TseKiChun (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 15[edit]

Mama Lu's Dumpling House

  • ... that the two Mama Lu's Dumpling Houses on the same street in the same city are not affiliated with each other? Sources: "the Mama Lu's at 501 W. Garvey Ave. in Monterey Park, has no connection to the Lus or the charges against them" (Shatkin 2021). "There are Mama Lu's Dumpling House locations at 501 W Garvey Ave, Ste 101, Monterey Park...and at 153 E Garvey Ave, Monterey Park" (Loc 2017)
  • Comment: Due to offline circumstances, I anticipate being more responsive around mid-December. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

5x expanded by Rotideypoc41352 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

West Nile campaign (October 1980)

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 11:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

Bacterial motility

rotating whip-like flagellum
rotating whip-like flagellum

Improved to Good Article status by Epipelagic (talk). Self-nominated at 02:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Nominated within 1 week of promotion to GA. Since the GA review assessed the content, I've just done a quick check and I don't see any additional concerns. Some text is copied from the Frontiers article but it is CC licensed and clearly marked as copied within the article. I like ALT0, as I think it's interesting to the layman to see just how many modes of movement bacteria can have. No issues with hook citation.
    The image is appropriately licensed but I note that there is a template saying its accuracy is disputed. Looks like that was placed in 2015 and the talk page discussion sort of petered out without resolution. Can you speak to the accuracy? If so, you may want to remove that template. I am also concerned that the text on it doesn't show up well at 100px. Is there a textless version that could be substituted?
    Waiting on QPQ as well. QPQ done. ♠PMC(talk) 12:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Premeditated Chaos: Image replaced and QPQ completed. Do you want me to remove the text from the image? — Epipelagic (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. Yes, I still think a version without text is best - of course I'd defer to a DYK-regular if they feel differently, but displaying well at small size is a criteria, and the text just isn't readable at that size. ♠PMC(talk) 12:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Bridle Trails State Park

The entrance of the state park
The entrance of the state park

5x expanded by Mccunicano (talk). Self-nominated at 00:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Newness requirement satisfied by 5x expansion on 11/15 from < 600 to > 3000 characters. Articles also long enough and compliant with core policies on citations and neutrality. The hook is in-line sourced. Photo has appropriate license. QPQ is done. There are, however, two problems:
(1) There is some significant overlap with this source. To start, the following sentence is taken from the source without use of quotation marks and with no effort to paraphrase rather than use the precise words: "Local advocacy led to the establishment of Bridle Trails as a state park in 1932." Further, this sentence also strikes me as too closely drawn from the same source: "Initial park development dates to 1933 when Civil Works Administration employees and federal relief workers were employed in state parks as part of the New Deal program. Further work included burning logging debris, clearing brush and building trails and fences." Work needs to be done to put the material into your own words.
(2) The hook strikes me as boring in that it states an obvious point. Horses having the right of way on this trail is not unique or special. On trails that are shared by humans and horses, it is the general rule that horses have the right of way. See here ("In general, horses always have the right of way, followed by hikers, then by bikers."). See also here ("For safety reasons, if you come across a horse and rider on any trail they always have right of way. Hikers and bike riders all yield to horses.") To include this on the main page, we really need something that is hooky or interesting about this trail. Cbl62 (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The nominator hasn't edited since the day of the nomination; what should be done here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cbl62: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the issues have not been fixed, and this should not be advanced as is. Not sure how long we wait for the nominator. Cbl62 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We could give this another week. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

  • I agree that the thing about the misquotation is the hookiest fact in the article, but it's clumsily phrased here. For one, the quote is not actually "could have been made by aliens" so, considering this is all about misquotation, we should either use the actual quote or clarify that it is a misquotation. Then "as though it was a real announcement" implies that it was actually, I don't know, a fake announcement? A parody? Also, essay collections don't speak: the chapter in question was written by William Edmonson. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It's a lot of context to try squeeze into 200 characters, so, and I can't believe I'm suggesting this, why not go with a simple April Fools-style hook:
Readers can then have their expectations shattered when they click through. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a tricky hook to try write. I don't mind that suggestion -- I'm happy to field more comments about it, because it's definitely a strong one, but it does lean heavy on the contradiction even for April Fool standards. Thank you! Vaticidalprophet 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 16[edit]

Suburbia (board game)

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 14:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

West African mythology

5x expanded by Emmanuel okon269 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Gray, Louis H. (Louis Herbert); Moore, George Foot; MacCulloch, J. A. (John Arnott) (1916). The Mythology of all races ... Duke University Libraries. Boston, Marshall Jones Company.
  2. ^ Allardice, Pamela (1991). Myths, Gods & Fantasy. ABC-CLIO. p. 227. ISBN 978-0874366600.

Pero Pirker, 1964 Zagreb flood

  • Reviewed: Younousse Sèye & Chestnut-capped piha
  • Comment: I created the Pero Pirker article in my userspace in March[9] and merged it into the mainspace version earlier this week. Please also credit Tomobe03 for helping out with the Pero Pirker article.

5x expanded by Daß Wölf (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

2017 United States Electoral College vote count

Created by Capisred (talk). Self-nominated at 17:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg – Well, the article is new enough (created on November 16, 2021) and is 5,869 characters long. There is over-linking in the hook. Copyvio seems fine (ignoring the 90% violation, which is a website which copies Wikipedia) QPQ not required. But, the 'Background' section is entirely copied from 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. (1) It is done without attribution, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (2) Per WP:DYKCRIT 1b, copied content does not count while calculating characters. So, the actual character count is 2,438 characters (verified by manually copy-pasting). The entire 'Background' section is uncited, and most of the 'Joint Session of Congress' section is also uncited. There are few prose issues, which would not be difficult to fix, but the sourcing issues is a major issues, certainly enough to prevent this from being approved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Capisred, Kavyansh.Singh, while material copied from a public domain source can simply be excluded from the prose character count, material copied from other Wikipedia articles falls under a different and more restrictive rule (WP:DYKSG#A5): If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. In this case, the Background section, which was copied from an existing article within Wikipedia more than seven days after the section was originally written, had 3,422 prose characters, so while that copied text can be counted, the article as a whole would need to be expanded to 17,100 prose characters, which is prohibitive, even excluding the templated sourcing issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 17[edit]

The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg A worthwhile and well structured article that I'm surprised had not been created before. The article is new enough, long enough and well sourced. Turning to the hooks, the first is fine and fully sourced in the text; ALT2 is also good and cited in the text and AGF; however ALT1, whilst good, is not actually mentioned in the text and I'm sure it has to be to qualify. It's a bit deductive and I'm also not sure that 1929 was still the age of trench warfare. As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty sure we're meant to include the sourcing within the nom itself, but am happy to be corrected on that. So subject to that being clarified, I'm happy to support the main hook and ALT2. Bermicourt (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it was founded in 1920 but I think we can drop Alt1 anyway. Thanks for confirming that the other two are cited in the text. I have removed The to make Alt2 flow better. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 18[edit]

Isle of Skye: From Chieftain to King

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 15:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is more of a comment but a review, but the hook as currently written seems to be rather niche. Can other hooks be proposed here? I think a hook that also mentions the other awards could be promising, or maybe a hook about the connection to the island could work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of London (1915)

  • ... that rejection of the 1915 Treaty of London promises by the Triple Entente after the World War I created the sense of mutilated victory in Italy? Source: "Patiotic sentiment was transformed into nationalistic grievance at a victory in the war now being 'mutilated' by Italy's Allies and by the government's inability to protect Italy's national interests." Morgan, Philip (2007) Italian Fascism, 1915–1945 [10], p. 45

Improved to Good Article status by Tomobe03 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Note: reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Volcanic and igneous plumbing systems for QPQ
  • Its a good article for DYK and you probably invested quite some time in the article but could you maybe find an additional hook? As to me it could use some more flow. Maybe start with ...that the rejection of the promises in the Treaty of London... ? Or ...that the inability to secure the promises of the Treaty of London by Italy caused ...? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

How about

1501 Broadway

The Paramount Building at 1501 Broadway
The Paramount Building at 1501 Broadway