Template talk:Did you know

For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"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
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 10 1 1
November 11 1
November 12 1
November 24 1
November 29 1
November 30 1
December 10 1
December 12 6
December 13 1
December 15
December 16 1 1
December 18 1 1
December 19 5 1
December 20 1
December 21 4 3
December 22 4 1
December 23 1
December 24 3 2
December 25 1 1
December 26 3 1
December 27 1 1
December 28 2
December 29 2 1
December 30 3 1
December 31 7 4
January 1 3 2
January 2 11 8
January 3 5 3
January 4 15 11
January 5 7 3
January 6 4 2
January 7 9 5
January 8 6 3
January 9 7 4
January 10 11 6
January 11 11 8
January 12 13 11
January 13 10 6
January 14 12 9
January 15 11 7
January 16 9 6
January 17 13 8
January 18 12 1
January 19 10 3
January 20 2 2
Total 234 127
Last updated 21:26, 20 January 2021 UTC
Current time is 21:32, 20 January 2021 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominatorsEdit

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an articleEdit

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.

Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.

How to review a nominationEdit

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.

Frequently asked questionsEdit


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 (so that those hooks don't grow stale), 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 above).

Where is my hook?Edit

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.

Search archived DYK nomination discussionsEdit

Instructions for other editorsEdit

How to promote an accepted hookEdit

  • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
  • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
  • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
  • In the prep set...
    • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
    • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
  • Back on DYK nomination page...
    • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • change |passed= to |passed=yes
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

How to remove a rejected hookEdit

  • 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 queueEdit

  • 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 nameEdit

  • 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.


Older nominationsEdit

Articles created/expanded on November 10Edit

Articles created/expanded on November 11Edit

Alligator Rainwear

  • ... that an Alligator in PVC gave Mary Quant a wet look? Source: "Quant launched her 'Wet Collection' in April 1963 at the Hôtel de Crillon, Paris, featuring entirely PVC garments. ... The material was so innovative that it took another two years before a collaboration with British manufacturer Alligator Rainwear resulted in a commercially viable range of Mary Quant PVC raincoats." ([1])

Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 01:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC).

  •   Unless the intention was to make the hook vague on purpose (or invite readers to read the Alligator link), I don't think the hook works unless you know what PVC is or are familiar with Quant. Could something less vague be suggested here too? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes it is deliberately ambiguous and intended for the final slot as there are no suitable free images for a picture hook. I think ALT1 will make a good hook there. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, surely all hooks ought to aim to get the reader to click on a link. Quant, Dior and Chanel have been called the three most important fashion designers of the 20th century. PVC is a commonly used and well-known material, not just in fashion. Edwardx (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the hook could work as an AFD hook with the current wording, but otherwise it still seems too vague personally. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: Would you be okay with the nomination running as an April Fools Day hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination, and is free from close paraphrasing. Whispy provided a QPQ. The "Wet Look" wording is only mentioned (uncited) in the lede, and Mary Quant is not linked in the body but only in the lede. In fact, several statements in the lede are only mentioned there (without a reference) and are not found anywhere else in the article. In addition, the "Recent history" section appears incomplete, as it makes no mention about when the brand was acquired. Meanwhile, the relationship between Alligator Mill and Alligator Rainwear is not made clear in the relevant section. As mentioned earlier, I have some reservations about approving either hook except as part of the AFD set, though I'm willing to request a second opinion from another editor who may be more willing to accept it. As a possible alternative, a hook about how one of the company's owners was a victim of the Munich air disaster is a possible option, though due to it being a negative event, not going with it is acceptable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: As the nomination is almost a month old and article issues remain, the nomination may be failed unless there is a prompt response and the issues are addressed. Courtesy ping to co-nominators Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I see that Whispyhistory has been expanding the article further and has addressed several concerns that were raised above. Please let me know when you're done working on it so that the review may continue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks @Narutolovehinata5:...Not sure what else to do there. Maybe the others can think of a hook relating to Alligator's assistance being sought to fix/secure the PVC garment seams which led to Quant's PVC products being sold commercially. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory: For one thing, the exact relationship between Alligator Mill and Alligator Rainwear is never elaborated on in the article and isn't immediately obvious in any case. There's also no mention of when and why they were acquired by Baker Street Brands, although if no sources (online or offline) that can elaborate on this, then it's okay. As for the hooks, I'm willing to approve either provided that they run on April Fools, as otherwise the hooks just feel too vague or misleading to be in the quirky slot as is. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I will look at the sourcing but the whole point of the last slot is to be vague, misleading, and humorous. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:. Thank you for being patient. I have done what I can. Will leave rest to @Philafrenzy and Edwardx:...unless you think I need to do more. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just waiting for a confirmation that the expansion is finished and the review will continue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 12Edit

West Bank bantustans

Palestinian-controlled West Bank
  • ... that the areas of Palestinian partial autonomy in the West Bank (pictured) currently comprise an "archipelago" of 165 islands? Source: Nathan Thrall (16 May 2017). The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine. Henry Holt and Company. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-62779-710-8. 90 percent of the population of the West Bank was divided into 165 islands of ostensible PA control

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC).

  •   POV failure, duplicates existing articles. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the wrong forum. Your blanking is not consistent with WP:DELETE. You are welcome to open a deletion discussion, then we can get back to this afterwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The POV problems in the article are beyond repair, the article duplicates existing articles. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I see that you have never submitted or reviewed at DYK before. I suggest you review the policies and procedures here before commenting further.
Please explain your issues with the article at the talk page so we can proceed constructively. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The premise that there are Bantustans is inherently POV premise which couldn't be fixed also like it was pointed is WP:POVFORK of West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord --Shrike (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the wrong forum. You can call them what you want (islands? enclaves? patchwork? fragments?) but they are real. No respectable source denies that. The sources used in the article are of the highest quality. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment The article is one sided POV fest with chosen Pro-Palestinian POV authors to push a Bantustan concept in to I/P conflict. Its never could be a DYK material --Shrike (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shrike, sorry but you are wrong. Let’s discuss on the article talk page (your sources appear to have failed verification), and then come back here afterwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you actually read both sources before making your claim? --Shrike (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Given that the article is still there and discussions have been going forth on the article talk page, a new review is clearly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   The topic of the article is not that clearly defined. To my reading, the main thrust is a mixture between a potential future final state which consists of enclaves, and a coverage of the comparisons of such enclaves (past, present, and future) to the bantustans. Regarding neutrality, while the usage of "bantustan" and related words through quotes seems like a necessary part of covering the topic well, the widespread usage of such words outside of quotes is concerning, and does not reflect common usage. Specifically regarding DYK, the proposed hook is inadequate, as it does not cover either of the entwined topics I mentioned before. Looking at just the hook alone the expected bolded article would be West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. If the intended topic of the article is just those areas, then this article would be a POVFORK. If the intended topic is otherwise, and this can be clarified, the hook would need to relate to that topic. CMD (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Chipmunkdavis: thank you for these comments. The article has undergone significant improvements in the last two weeks, and an RM is still ongoing. This topic does seem to have struck a chord with a lot of editors; it was described in Haaretz a couple of years ago as "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." I have also made some tweaks to the hook above. I suspect there will be further discussion on the talk page, including another RM, so I think it is better to wait a little further until reviewing again. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Nothing has changed its same POV fest with cherry picked sources to present one sided POV.Its not DYK material --Shrike (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that this editor has behaved this way previously in DYK nominations about well-sourced topics covering elements of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. See Template:Did you know nominations/Old City of Hebron.
Raising concerns is good, and to be encouraged. But this editor raises non-specific concerns which cannot be addressed, and makes no effort to address the concerns themselves or engage in any real discussion. At Old City of Hebron they started with a few specific comments, which were all addressed, then pivoted to general comments which they refused to engage in discussion on.
I am not saying this article is perfect – as I have said above, there is work to do and discussions are ongoing. I am simply highlighting that there is a chance that this editor repeats the above claim going forward even when the article is ready and discussions have been resolved.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Its not only me.Other editors opined that the article is problematic exactly like in the example you brought --Shrike (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Raising concerns is good and helpful. Topics related to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are often politically sensitive, and our open-source encyclopedia is the best place on the internet for the topic precisely because we get input from editors of all persuasions.
If you don’t follow up your concerns with constructive discussion or editing, and endlessly repeat the non-specific claims, it is disruptive. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave this article on hold for now, but it cannot be considered for DYK while it remains unstable. I hope that the ongoing talk page discussions will provide more input regarding neutrality concerns. Perhaps the RM and similar discussions can also help hone in on a clear article topic. On DYK specific concerns, the current article posits the main topic as "proposed enclaves", and I would prefer a hook that reflects that topic (even though the current situation was undoubtedly proposed at some point). Hook assessment will also require a more stable article. CMD (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree w Chipmunkdavis. Also, the hook is confusing to me. What's the other 10 per cent? One island? 1000 islands? Not under PA control? Full PA control? It's just very confusing. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, yes – we have started to see some stability at the article, which is very encouraging. The editor above, Shrike, who has a track record of regular sniping at Israel-related DYKs but does not engage in constructive dialogue, has sadly continued this trend of non-engagement. His input would be appreciated. There remains an open RfC, which needs to be resolved before this DYK can proceed. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, The problem that the author has history of writing one sided WP:POV articles against the policy its not only my opinion but other editors think so also.Talk:West_Bank_bantustans#NPOV_concerns.Also there is an emerging consensus about name change against the author wishes. But let ask other editor that opined in this DYK if its became DYK material.@Buidhe:, @11Fox11: Could you please give your opinion about the article if it ready for DYK --Shrike (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not ready, very POV. It was almost deleted, but just barely closed no-consensus at AfD. I probably will start a merge discussion soon. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't seem to be very stable at the moment so I would suggest withholding a final review until that is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I have been checking in occasionally, but I am leaning towards expecting this article will inherently not be stable enough for DYK at the moment. CMD (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Given the stability and neutrality issues, as well as the disagreements between editors as to if the article is suitable for DYK or should even have an article at all, it appears that the article meeting DYK requirements is not feasible at this time. As such, this is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, any chance we could wait until the (possible) name change and then take a view? The article is actually very stable; despite all the friction over the name, there has not been a single edit war as far as I am aware. This is because the editors claiming POV have not brought any sources to support their claims. There doesn't seem to be any rush, and I don't think it is healthy to give in to this kind of transparent behavior which is, again, unsupported by sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At least three separate editors have mentioned that the article is lacking in either stability or neutrality, and I haven't seen any comments from you explaining how the article is in fact neutral and stable apart from you dismissing their comments instead of addressing their concerns, regardless of their validity. In addition, I took a look at the article's history and it is still being continuously edited by other editors. At the very least, given the status of the article is in flux, it does not appear ready for DYK at this time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, yes I agree it should wait until the RM is done and any subsequent proposals are fully discussed. But I would appreciate if it was not closed at this point; I don't think we should set a precedent game plan for the exclusion of "difficult" subjects from DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As to "explaining how the article is in fact neutral", it has been built from a bibliography of almost 100 sources, primarily widely respected scholars and commentators. The sources have a reasonable balance of Israeli and Palestinian authors (albeit more Israeli than Palestinian), as well as American and other international authors.
I note that two months ago an opposing editor described it as a "one-sided POV fest with chosen Pro-Palestinian POV authors"; unfortunately in two months that editor has failed to provide a single source from any other POV. The article has also been expanded significantly since the date of that comment. Should this editor, or others, make further claims going forward, I hope they will be asked to substantiate them with actual sources, which – should these sources exist – could then be addressed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That this is on a difficult or controversial subject is itself not the issue here, the problem right now is more of stability since it's still actively being worked on by multiple editors. In addition, multiple editors have also expressed concerns about the article's neutrality and have yet to raise their objections. Until these issues are resolved, the article may not be approved for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, understood. What should we do if editors continue to raise objections without providing a clear route to addressing them? I am keen to avoid creating an easy way for editors to block articles from DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree it would be nice to avoid that but the fact is it is easy for them to do it and so they will, I even saw one of these editors saying they should tag just to "keep the article off of the main page". Another just writes POV/UNDUE on everything regardless if that is true or not. This is to be expected in IP area, going by the sources is way down the list of priorities. So in practice, they can keep any DYK from progressing and I notice that's what has been happening. Just don't do DYK's for IP area, that's my advice.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good moment to step back and consider how we think about DYK articles which cover "difficult" subjects. See below two examples which I have been involved in over the last couple of years, with some of the same opposing editors here, and which both relate to some of the more "sensitive" areas of the way the West Bank is run:

The first of these went through, only after I conceded to temporarily remove any reference to words which did not reflect well on Israeli policy, despite them being well-sourced. The second I withdrew, because the opposing comments essentially said that unless the article was rewritten to duplicate Hebron#History then they would not consider it fulsome. In both cases, as here, the opposing editors did not make any effort to edit the article themselves, and in the subsequent years did not edit the articles either. I would appreciate thoughts on how we should approach such situations more broadly. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  •   The article has now been moved to Palestinian enclaves. Nevertheless, the article still appears to be in an unstable state and there are some statements with a "by whom" tag. Due to these, and the fact that the nomination has been ongoing since November without the issues being adequately addressed to allay editor concerns, I just cannot see the article staying in a stable state anytime soon. As such, I would recommend that the nomination be closed as unsuccessful. As mentioned earlier, I do not believe that being on a "difficult" subject is by itself a disqualifier from DYK and indeed we've already had multiple articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on DYK. However, stability and neutrality are two of the most important DYK criteria and an article that may never meet either or both just simply won't be passed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your comment that “being on a "difficult" subject is [not] by itself a disqualifier from DYK”. The DYK process has to balance the challenge that difficult subjects usually require more time to reach consensus, against the fact that old nominations cannot remain forever (there are still two nominations older than this one). If we get that balance wrong, we create a situation where difficult subjects are being excluded in practice, even if we aren’t intending to. My primary concern is not allowing an easy way for the system to be gamed by those who oppose a particular article for non-sourced-based / non-policy-based reasons. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Right now I just can't see this article ever being ready for DYK given the stability issues that are currently existing. In addition, I'm not really sure why there appears to be an apparent persistence of keeping this particular nomination open instead of accepting the prevailing sentiment that the nomination cannot proceed at this time. Not all articles are meant for DYK and sometimes nominations don't work out the way we wish for, there will always be other opportunities to nominate other articles in the future that may meet guidelines. This particular nomination may be closed, but it doesn't mean that the gaming concerns can't be addressed. If you do believe that there are gaming issues with DYK with regards to difficult subjects, you are always free to start a talk page discussion over at WT:DYK and discuss possible solutions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As the reviewer of this DYK, I found issues with this article outside of strict stability concerns. Instability may have played a part in their not being able to be addressed fully, but I do not believe that this constitutes the article being gamed out of DYK. If there is a larger pattern, this is not the place to discuss it. I agree this should be closed now, but note that a failed DYK should not be considered a diminishment of the effort put into this article. CMD (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 24Edit

Climate change in Kenya

Created/expanded by Gbadegesin Muhammed (talk) and Sadads (talk). Nominated by EMsmile (talk) at 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

  •   @EMsmile: This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts for ALT0 and ALT1 are cited inline, and the article is neutral. Unfortunately the article contains significant amounts of close paraphrasing. I rewrote one sentence that showed up with the Earwig tool, but then found other examples. The paragraph on tea for example includes "Sustainability of the industry is thus crucial to the country’s socio-economic well-being and development", which is lifted straight from the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Cwmhiraeth: thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of that - most of the work was done by Gbadegesin Muhammed but also some others during the Wiki4Climate edit-a-thon. I should have checked with the tool myself. We'll work on that issue. Is there a time frame by which we have to have improved it by? EMsmile (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I noticed the close paraphrasing myself when discussing the nomination of this article with EMsmile. I've done some copyediting without looking at the sources (apologies for not managing to do it before the review), for grammar and flow, and currently earwig isn't pulling up too much. CMD (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Bah I've found some egregious examples that earwig isn't picking up. This will require a thorough check. CMD (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Thank you both. There is no particular time frame for sorting it out, but ideally, each paragraph should be compared with its source. That's how I noticed the paragraph about tea. New editors don't always understand about copyright. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@EMsmile and Cwmhiraeth: Gone through the article. Wouldn't say no to some double-checking/spot-checking if possible, but I think I've at least got most of it. CMD (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis:, thanks so much. I know that @PlanetCare: is also tackling this article these days. We discussed (in the Wiki4Climate Slack channel) the idea of using more of the standard structure that was proposed by WikiProject Climate Change. So hopefully it will continue to improve over the course of the week. EMsmile (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 29Edit

Valentina (singer)

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC).

  Interesting song and singer, and I'm looking at both. Good foreign sources accepted AGF. Please mark the language of each source not English. No copyvio obvious. I am not happy with the hooks' wording. How about something like
ALT3: ... that Valentina won the Junior Eurovision Song Contest singing "J'imagine", as the first victory of France in the contest? - Also waiting for qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot about the QPQ. Could you please wait till Tuesday or Wednesday? I'm also going to expand the first article a bit. (Look at the French one I wrote. It's better.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Moscow Connection, thanks for the QPQ. However, as you have nominated two articles, you must supply two QPQ reviews, not just one. Please do another one as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • With my donation, you don't need to do one if you don't feel like that. That would be QPQ #2. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You're so kind, but I think you can find a better use for your QPQ than that. :-)
      Sorry, I was busy with something else lately. And yes, you are right, I didn't really feel like doing anything right now... But it was my responsibility, so I did another review. And now I will make myself expand the articles. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok. That's fine too. SL93 (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I will expand the articles today. --04:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 30Edit


  • Comment: Note: I am one day over in submitting this, because it was previously up for consideration at WP:ITNC (discussion), and only fell off the page there at midnight this morning. So any leeway you could give it would be appreciated.
  • Reviewed: The Adults Are Talking

Converted from a redirect by Ktin (talk), Jheald (talk), and My very best wishes (talk). Nominated by Jheald (talk) at 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   The article is new enough and long enough. The rationale for the two nonfree images is perfectly argued. I had some doubt for the first image, but searching in google-images didn't show the same image anywhere else. The article is neutral and well sourced. The "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" don't show any copyvio (it just marked the quoted part). You have done a great job, congratulations. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: in spirit of MOS:PEACOCK, I suggest the following blurb: ... that AlphaFold 2 won the 14th biannual CASP competition achieving 92% accuracy, essentially solving the decades-old protein folding problem. --bender235 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bender235: While claims such as "In a serious sense the single protein single domain [prediction] problem is largely solved" have been widely made (that quote is from conference chair John Moult's closing presentation to the conference), were very widely featured as a top line in media coverage, and have also been supported in thoughtful commentary by eg Mohammed AlQuraishi [2], they have also met with opposition; and so we are not currently running them on the article. (Though this could be changed). See article talk page for extended discussions. That is why I submitted the DYK text as above.
Note also that while AF2 has made a very significant advance in the protein structure prediction problem, this is a different question to the question of how protein folding develops in nature, so caution should be taken not to confuse the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talkcontribs) 09:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Returning to WP:DYKN until review is settled. I personally find the ALT0 wordy and difficult to understand. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Folks @Jheald, My very best wishes, Alexcalamaro, and Bender235:, this one has been open for sometime now, let's go ahead and drive this one to closure. I think the below text is the best that someone on homepage would be able to follow; anything more and we run the risk that folks find it too wordy or too complex. Let's move ahead, if you are good. Also @Yoninah: I do not want to presuppose your background but can you read the below two hooks as a layperson and let me know if you a) find it interesting b) generally get the gist of this one? If you are not a layperson for this topic, I am happy to go chase down some laypersons for this topic. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
ALT 3.0.... that DeepMind's protein-folding AI AlphaFold 2 has solved a 50-year-old grand challenge of biology? (source: MIT Technology Review).
ALT 4.0 .... that DeepMind's AI AlphaFold 2 can predict the shape of proteins to within a width of an atom? (source: MIT Technology Review).
  • @Ktin: I am a layperson, and I really like ALT 3.0. ALT 4.0 is also more understandable than ALT0. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Yoninah:. Wonderful. @Alexcalamaro and Bender235: -- if one of you have a moment, please can you review the above two hooks per the standard WP:DYK hook review guidelines? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Yoninah, ALT 4 blurb is very catchy. Probably the best choice. --bender235 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ktin: I prefer ALT 3.0, I think fits better with the achievement and is more attractive for "the layperson" ;-) . Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Wonderful. Thanks both of you @Alexcalamaro and Bender235:. Please can one of you review the hooks per our guidelines and approve both the hooks, we can choose one from the two post that or empower the posting Admin to make a choice. But, first step, lets approve the hooks. Cheers. Thanks again folks. Ktin (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Both hooks ALT  3.0 and ALT 4.0 meet our guidelines Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Passing the baton over to you Yoninah to take it from here. I am good with either of the hooks (ALT3 or ALT4). I know you had prefered ALT3 and Bender235 had prefered ALT4. Alexcalamaro -- do you want to cast the tie-breaker vote? ;) Ktin (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I vote for ALT 3.0 option (after all, we are talking about folding proteins). Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks much Alexcalamaro. Passing the baton to Yoninah. Over to you now for next steps :) Thanks everyone. I want to specially thank @Jheald and My very best wishes: who have done and continue to do lots of good work on the article. Genuinely thank you folks. Ktin (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  I think all these versions of hooks, including ALT3 and ALT4 misinform a reader. No, the "50-year-old grand challenge of biology" has not been solved. There will be many future CASP meetings to assess further progress in this direction. Just saying that it "predicts the shape of proteins to within a width of an atom" is also wrong. No, it does not. AlphaFold-2 makes sufficiently precise predictions only for 2/3 of proteins, according to CASP assessors. But even in these good cases it does NOT predict protein structure with such precision for all atoms, as a reader would assume. Actually, such claim is simply ridiculous because there is protein dynamics and there is no such thing as width of an atom. There are only atomic radii, but but this is not a single number; they are very different for different types of atoms. Also, this is not "shape", but a three-dimensional structure. The referencing is to a misleading opinion piece. Author does make a claim that AlphaFold can predict the shape of proteins to within the width of an atom, but he apparently does not have a slightest idea what he is talking about. Let's not multiply the misinformation in Wikipedia. Please see the hook I suggested above (it can be shortened if needed). My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  • All, very good points My very best wishes, but, this gets very close to WP:OR unless substantiated with a clear note from WP:RS. For now, the statements are sourced perfectly from WP:RS, and I think they meet the layperson's needs on the homepage. My suggestion is let's move forward with ALT3 as discussed above. Ktin (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are indeed WP:News sources about it (some of which claim nonsense like predicting "the shape of proteins to within the width of an atom"). However, this is an extraordinary and exceptional claim about solving a fundamental scientific problem, and not everyone agree (some similar WP:News type sources claim the opposite). I think we do need some WP:MEDRS quality sources here, such as serious independent scientific reviews. There is none. The method (AlfaFold-2) has not been published. The official assessment on CASP has not been published in any peer reviewed journal.
For example, as this article tells, "DeepMind’s press release trumpeted “a solution to a 50-year-old grand challenge in biology” based on its breakthrough performance on a biennial competition dubbed the Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP). But the company drew criticism from academics because it made its claim without publishing its results in a peer-reviewed paper. ... “Frankly the hype serves no one,” and so on. I just do not think we should multiply this "hype" in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: in a literal sense the protein folding problem is not "solved," since we can obviously always move the goalposts regarding the necessary precision (≥90% accuracy? ≥99%? ≥99.99%?). The jump in precision at this year's CASP certainly deserves to be called a "breakthrough." I agree that the catchy "width of an atom" is not a precisely determined length (just as the even more popular "width of a human hair" is not); the press release said less than two angstrom, which we could use, too. --bender235 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, one can say a "breakthrough" (I agree), but one can not say that "the problem was solved" for a number of reasons, such as (a) the protein set on CASP is absolutely not a representative set of proteins (it included only one membrane protein and the group was ranked #43 for this target, it did not include any "intertwined" protein structures or any linear peptides or any proteins with unique sequence in genomes, and so on.), (b) the method has not been even published and is not publicly available for independent evaluation, (c) AF2 has failed for a single multi-domain protein in CASP14 data set, while such proteins represent a majority in Eukaryotes, (c) the method was not tested for protein complexes. This is not at all about the percentage. We simply do not know that percentage. We do not even know the percentage on CASP until the assessment has been officially published. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would oppose to most of these hooks. OK, let's keep it simple. We do have page AlphaFold. I think this is fair page. However, any hook above (except my suggestion) simply contradicts this page. Does it follow from our AlphaFold page that it "has solved a 50-year-old grand challenge of biology"? No, it does not. Does it follow that AF2 "can predict the shape of proteins to within a width of an atom?" No, it does not. Not at all. Take the lead of this page and summarize it in the hook please. That is what I was trying to do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Now, let's consider first hook at the top that the results of DeepMind's AlphaFold 2 program in the CASP 14 protein structure prediction competition have been called "astounding" and transformational?. Well, this is actually much better than last versions. Yes, this is advertisement (just as others), but at least this is not an explicit misinformation. Some people did say that, and most important, yes, the results were very good. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of serving our homepage readers, I will still recommend that we go with either of ALT3 or ALT4. Sufficient backing form WP:RS to move ahead. Ktin (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe we could change the "problematic" word solve by crack (also used in the MIT review), so we keep the catchy hook for the "layperson", without multiplying the "hype". What do you think of this one? :
ALT 3.1 ... that DeepMind's protein-folding AI AlphaFold 2 has cracked a 50-year-old grand challenge of biology? (source: MIT Technology Review).

Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexcalamaro: I am good with this hook (i.e. ALT 3.1). Ktin (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   OK, we need an uninvolved reviewer to review ALT3.1. Striking unused hooks Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
OK. I am an uninvolved reviewer because I was not on CASPs for a long time and I do not have connections to CASP organizers or any participants. I only helped with editing page about AF2 in WP. Here is my independent assessment. Yes, there was a great progress with protein structure prediction on CASP14. True. However, "protein folding problem" was NOT solved by AF2 (yet). This is hype. Here is why:
  1. There was only one transmembrane protein in CASP14 dataset, and AF2 team was ranked #43 for this target; the prediction for this target by AF2 or other groups is far cry from solving the structure. Transmembrane proteins constitute at least 25-30% of proteins in human genome [3] (more by other estimates)
  2. The performance by AF2 was not great for multidomain proteins, as could be expected because AF2 was not tested for predicting protein complexes. The subunits in complexes are similar to domains. Up to 80% of all eukaryotic proteins are multidomain proteins [4].
Was it solved by AF2 at least for single domains of water-soluble proteins? There is no proof of that because
  1. Many proteins are represented by just a single or by a few related sequences in sequence databases, when one can not make large sequence alignment. However, AF2 method is actually based on using large high quality sequence alignments. We do not know if AF2 was tested for such cases and how did it perform.
  2. As follows from presentations on CAS14 (for example, [5]) AF2 did NOT achieve the accuracy of experimental methods. Moreover, looking at the distance cutoff-sequence coverage graphs here for specific CASP14 targets (T1024, T1027, T1028, T1029, T1030, T1032, T1040, T1047, T1052, T1061, T1070, T1091, T1092, T1099 T1100), one can see they are not even very close. For example, T1024 has only 50% of residues covered by best models for distance cutoff of 2A. Yes, they correctly predicted protein "fold", even family where it belongs (which is great!), but this is far cry from "solving protein folding" problem.
  3. AF2 is not publicly available for an independent evaluation
  4. AF2 and assessment of AF2 were not published not only in WP:MEDRS sources, but in any peer reviewed sources.
  5. GDT measure used by CASP assessors is a poor (insensitive) measure of performance for high-precision modeling. Having GDT of 90 or 60 (e.g. [6]) does not mean that 90% or 60% of the structure was predicted with the same accuracy as provided by X-ray crystallography, for example.
My conclusion Hook ALT 3.1 is misinformation. Do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Following the comments above by My very best wishes and aiming to reach a wide consensus, I propose the following alternative hook :
ALT 3.2 ... that DeepMind's protein-folding AI AlphaFold 2 has made great progress towards a decades-old grand challenge of biology? (source: MIT Technology Review Nature)).

Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's OK, with one correction: if you need a ref, it should be this [7]. That MIT writer makes too many incorrect claims, such as AF2 used 170,000 PDB structures for training (they used less), etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have changed the source of ALT3.1 to Nature, and added the hook text to the "Responses" section of the article (to meet Hooks criteria). We need more reviewers to validate the proposal. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Yoninah and Ktin: I think we have a consensus here with ALT3.2. I am not very familiar with these matters. What is the next step in the DYK process? Thank you. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Missed this one. @Yoninah: as an uninvolved editor, please can you help review this one? I know this has been waiting for a long time, but, worth wrapping this one imo. Appreciate your helping hand in the review. Ktin (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   OK, ALT3.2 looks good but there is a bit of run-on blue linking in the beginning of the hook. What words don't need to be linked? I also would like to know why the two images from a CASP presentation are licensed as fair use. It seems to me that OTRS permission should be obtained from the author. Alternately, can't someone draw up a similar graph that would be freely licensed? Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 10Edit

Israel–Morocco normalization agreement

Created by Thepharoah17 (talk) and Feminist (talk). Nominated by Feminist (talk) at 18:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

  • The article does not support the hook statement that the recognition is "contrary to" the UN position. And ALT2 is not appropriately even-handed - the article reflects both support and the opposite by various parties. Neither of those are appropriate. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8813:945C:33AD:2B50 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The article reports that the UN says its position is "unchanged", with a message "to avoid any action that could further aggravate a tense situation", implying disapproval of the new US position. ALT2 is notable because Inhofe is generally known as close to Trump and his administration. A DYK hook does not have to be reflective of all of the article's viewpoints as a whole, as long as the hook, viewed in isolation, meets neutrality requirements. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 04:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As to the first hook - I looked at it again, and at the effort in the above statement to demonstrate that the hook reflects accurately what the article says, and still believe it does not.
As to ALT1 (I apologize-that is what I was referring to, not ALT2), it is not at all a neutral reflection of what the article states - though it would be fine if it were to say it were condemned by some parties and lauded by some parties. We should not be using DYK to give a mistaken impression of what the article says-that's contrary to our goals, and simply inappropriate.
I don't have a problem with the language of ALT2, which I see as the only acceptable hook-sorry for the confusion.
Another ALT that would be acceptable in my view is simply ALT 2A " ... that as part of the Israel–Morocco normalization agreement, the US agreed to recognize Morocco's claim to Western Sahara."
2604:2000:E010:1100:7462:CB4D:B27A:20DE (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the normalization agreement has received both statements of support and opposition, but I don't think any country has specifically said anything positive about the US's recognition of Morocco's claim over Western Sahara? For what it's worth, I consider Al Jazeera to be a biased source on any issue relating to Israel, though this particular article is reliable for what it is used to support. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 12:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  I find the recognition of the Western Sahara claim to be hooky enough, perhaps adding a subsequent clause to the hooks dilutes the impact of this change. The hooks could use a link to Political status of Western Sahara. That said, the article is not in great shape. It's a poorly organised stub, and needs to be reworked and could use a bit more expansion. The source used for the Western Sahara recognition doesn't mention the topic. CMD (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed ALT3 above. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I have expanded the article a bit to provide some context and more details. Other editors are of course welcome to aid in its expansion. Regarding ALT3, I have slight concerns that non-Americans may not be sufficiently aware of what "bipartisan" means in the context of American politics. feminist (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Feminist, we could link Bipartisanship? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The new structure is an improvement, but the article is still mixing up the Reuters sources, and thus mixing up definite results of the agreement such as the recognition and potentially unrelated effects such as the drone sails. I'm also surprised it doesn't mention the commitment for a US embassy in the Western Sahara, which is a concrete statement of recognition. For the hook, I continue to suggest leaving reactions and other opinions to the article rather than the hook. CMD (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree w CMD's observation that "I find the recognition of the Western Sahara claim to be hooky enough, perhaps adding a subsequent clause to the hooks dilutes the impact of this change."2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Average readers will not understand the huge significance of this, with the Trump administration having unilaterally broken ranks with a half-century-old global consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The only reason this is making the news at all is because of Trump's giveaway recognition, approved of by no-one so far. The UN will discuss it on Monday, why not wait for input from that.https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2020/12/western-sahara-consultations-7.phpSelfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

So after the meeting (closed door) only new thing is South African ambassador comments to the press after:- "decisions contrary to multilateral collective decisions must be discouraged and unequivocally disregarded. We believe that any recognition of Western Sahara as part of Morocco is tantamount to recognizing illegality as such recognition is incompatible with international law," he said.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-usa-morocco-un/u-n-security-council-talks-western-sahara-after-trump-policy-switch-idUSKBN28W01B Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-morocco-to-israel-normalization-pact-not-part-of-trump-brokered-abraham-accords-1.9392662 and now there is this.!.Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Proposed ALT4 above. I think it most neutral --Shrike (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
IMHO ALT4 is best, in part because it is most neutral, but also because it is most hooky. 2603:7000:2143:8500:949A:D11A:56E8:1AB8 (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is the least notable part of the topic. Per our article Israel–Morocco relations, this event has changed little about the relations between Morocco and Israel. But the proposed change of status of Western Sahara is potentially seismic for global international relations. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
First, I wouldn't point to a wp article as a source. Second, this article suggests that the Trump position may be of no consequence, if it is at odds with the UN position--which may perhaps be something less than "potentially seismic" impact. Third, as has been pointed out, Biden can in a month switch the US position on the Western Sahara .. which isn't really on the tip of everyone's tongue ... sort of what our former Libertarian candidate might call the "Aleppo" of the moment. I think its pretty clear that the Israel-Morocco actual agreement is of greater moment. But others can judge. 2603:7000:2143:8500:875:774:88D6:7C29 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I can't agree that the normalization, which Morocco itself denies is a normalization, is of any great consequence, nothing has really changed that much except that most commentators agree that Morocco got a sweetie from Trump that it should not have got. Morocco has gone out of its way to say that the deal is a package so what happens to the "normalization" if the package gets changed? The only notable aspect of this "deal" other than the sweetie is that it is subject to a full court press from the Trump admin looking for a cheap policy win, claiming it is a part of the Abraham Accords (it isn't) that it's a peace agreement (it isn't), that embassies will be exchanged (they won't), Kushner visit and so on. And while the impact at the UN may not be "seismic" this is not the first time that the US (via Trump) has in effect contradicted its own signature at the UN and that will have consequences.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like subjective OR (its a "sweetie," "Trump admin looking for a cheap policy win," "ot isn't" part of the Abraham Accords, "Kushner visit," "Trump .. has contradicted .. own signature," "will have consequences"). This editor's subjective view isn't the sort of thing we should base these decisions on. This is an article about the Agreement. The hook should relate to the Agreement. And the hook asserting "bipartisan domestic and international opposition" ignores the domestic (two of the three senators speaking-and not sure what "bipartisan" has to do with this anyway) and international (many countries) support - also seems as subjective as the prior editor's comments.2603:7000:2143:8500:481B:DDBA:F6D9:9AB9 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
OR is allowed on talk pages and not allowed in the article, as you have been doing. You may not like my wording but it reflects the sources I have provided. ALT 3 remains the best hook. And your unsigned ALT 5 is "about the agreement", how, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Good Hook I support either 4 or 5 --Shrike (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This hook is incorrect, as "The decision to add Jewish history and culture to lessons was discreetly launched before the diplomatic deal was announced."[10] I like the idea - it is certainly notable (and hard to believe) that the country of origin of the second-largest Jewish ethnic group in Israel had not previously taught any Jewish history - but it seems strange to have a hook about a topic that is not directly linked to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion above.[11] Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 12Edit

Kirka Sharif

Created/expanded by Zakaria1978 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   Hi Zakaria1978, welcome to DYK. This article is currently not eligible for DYK. It is a little under the minimum length of 1,500 characters of text and there are no citations for the "Mosque" section (the DYK rules are listed here for reference. If you can remedy this then I will happily take another look for you - Dumelow (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Nominator is no longer editing. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Dumelow and Yoninah, I am so sorry for the late response. I work in the medical field and I have been super busy at work because of the global pandamic. Had to be on call and do overtime the last few weeks. I added more references and content to the article. Please reconsider my DYK, I sincerely apologise for this. Again, my work became very stressful. As you know, the Global South on Wikipedia is not well covered per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics, and this religious site is very important to WP:Islam and WP:South Asia/WP:Central Asia. Please reconsider and kindly let me know what I need to do. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Zakaria1978, apologies for delay in replying, I have been away over Christmas. Happy to look again at this. One query though, is this the same as the Shrine of the Cloak (Kherqa Sharīfa) which we already have an article for? - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
One is the actual building and the other is about the sacred object. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Zakaria1978: The way that Shrine of the Cloak is written currently seems to refer to the building. For example it is listed on the "Mosques in Afghanistan" template and is in the "Mosques in Afghanistan" and "Buildings and structures in Kandahar Province" categories. If Shrine of the Cloak is about the cloak alone it should be at Cloak of Muhammad or possibly Kherqa - Dumelow (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just like Kanishka casket which was found in the Kanishka stupa (now located in Peshawar Museum), the sacred cloak which was worn by prophet Muhammad (PBUH) during the famous Isra and Mi'raj can be moved to another location or museum - like the Kanishka casket has been taken from the famous stupa to Peshawar museum. The Kirka Sharif on the other hand is the structure with its own history and importance surviving centuries and empires, from the Durranis to the British. Yes, the other article's true name is Cloak of Muhammad. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Zakaria1978: OK, I've moved the old shrine article to Cloak of Muhammad and linked it back to this one. I've also move content relevant to the shrine to this article from the other. I've probably become too involved to carry out an objective DYK review so I'll relist this for a second opinion - Dumelow (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   New enough, long enough. Passes earwig. No QPQ needed. Approving Alt 2. --evrik (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this. I edited and reorganized the article, and removed most cites from the lead. However, the fact about the shrine becoming notable in literature is not cited anywhere in the article. Also, as we are talking about a shrine, there is no description of the architectural design or its date of construction; a section called History or Description should be added right after the lead. Does anyone visit the shrine? This should be part of this new section too. Yoninah (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah, I will look over your recommendation soon. I am very busy at work, I am in the medical profession. So, very busy right now. But, will have something within the next few days. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah! The description is noted on the "Friday Mosque" section. Stats on how many people visit Kirka Sharif are unavailable due to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), where it is located. If you could consider my DYK in view of this, that would be awesome! Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Zakaria1978: There seem to be two different structures here, a shrine and a mosque. The description of the mosque is under Friday Mosque. Where is the description of the shrine? Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The only RS that talks about a description of Kirka Sharif mentions that "walls are decorated with carvings of trees and other foliage, each design different from the next." This is already in the article. That's probably the best I can do. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Jaffna Stallions in 2020

Created by Empire AS (talk). Self-nominated at 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC).

  • @Empire AS: I am not going to spend my time editing this as I did Galle Gladiators in 2020, but please look at my edits on that article to clarify the numbers you're using in the Season Summary here. Please link cricket terminology on the first mention, and avoid slang language, as in the very first sentence of the Season Summary. Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, it looks like another editor has been editing this. I did additional copyediting and I think the text looks good now. I would like to look at the other cricket articles that you've nominated and then make my suggestion for a multi-hook here. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Full review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Awaiting changes to the charts per discussion at Talk:Galle Gladiators in 2020#Article issues. Then this will be incorporated into the multi-article hook suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah, the hook looks fine and alright to me. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 07:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that, as the currently-proposed hook has five bolded links (meaning you will hit 5 DYK credits with this one hook), the next time you nominate an article for DYK, you will be required to perform a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: four of the articles were nominated by one editor, one by another. They're still working out the charts on all 5 articles, but when that's finished, I'll incorporate all the articles onto this template and do a full and detailed review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Dambulla Viiking in 2020

Created by DT Truth (talk). Nominated by Empire AS (talk) at 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   I edited the article and added a number of tags where information is not clear. I removed the Game 4 write-up, which seems to be about two different teams other than the Viiking. It's not clear which team the players belong to in Game 5. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I've corrected it. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 13:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Empire AS: thank you. But what about Game 4? And that word "However" in Game 5 is throwing me off; could you identify which teams the players in the previous sentence play for? Yoninah (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Currently at AFD; on hold until discussion there concludes one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Colombo Kings in 2020

Created by Fade258 (talk). Nominated by Empire AS (talk) at 08:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. However, several references are bare URLs, per Rule D3. I gave the article a copyedit and added tags where I did not understand what it was talking about: balls, runs, wickets? I also added a question in a hidden note. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits.
  • I will address the hook when all the articles are ready for a multi-article hook suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Currently at AFD; on hold until discussion there concludes one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Galle Gladiators in 2020

Created by Tahaaleem (talk) Self-nominated at 20:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   The article has numerous cleanup tags on it. I have also struck ALT0 because we do not print unlinked names on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, thank you for reviewing, however I will ameliorate the article as soon as possible. Thank you. Tahaaleem Talk 20:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I've added the 2nd hook. What do you think about it? Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 09:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, the tags have been removed. So please can you view it again. Thank you. Tahaaleem Talk 09:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   OK. I read through the article and frankly, I understood nothing. I left tags at every place where you're talking about a number and not defining what that number means—balls? wickets? runs? Or what? It would help when you're writing these articles to link unfamiliar terms on their first mention, such as "batting", "bowling", "run rate", and "target". I also deleted the Squad and Administration sections, which belong in the 2020 season template at the bottom.
  • Regarding the hooks, ALT1 is practically a news report, not a hook. Shorter is always better. In ALT2, "LPL" is going to have to be spelled out, which is going to send the character count over the 200-character limit. As someone who knows nothing about cricket, this hook also doesn't make sense to me so I wouldn't want to click on it. In ALT3, same problem: if you don't know what a fifer is, the hook holds no interest. Try to write something that will appeal to an international, non-cricket audience. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, thank you for reviewing it again, however, I will clarify all the salient parts as soon as possible. Thank you. Tahaaleem Talk 21:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   The article reads very well now. It is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Putting on temporary hold pending suggestion of a multi-article hook with other LPL cricket nominations. Yoninah (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Article now has a merge tag. Yoninah (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Kandy Tuskers in 2020

Created by Fade258 (talk). Nominated by CreativeNorth (talk) at 12:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   The source reflects the hook, and the article appears appropriate, but the hook doesn't make sense to an average reader. Suggest something like: that the Sri Lankan Lanka Premier League cricket team the Kandy Tuskers is owned by Bollywood actor Sohail Khan? Sadads (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sadads: I've took your advice with ALT2, does it look any better. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   That looks right, lets go with ALT2, Sadads (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Sorry, but none of the hooks are accurate because they make you think you're clicking on Kandy Tuskers, not an article about their 2020 season. Please write a different hook that clues the reader to the topic. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Sorry if I'm being annoying. But I've tried to make ALT3 less wordy and also added an ALT4. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @CreativeNorth: as I said above, these new hooks also make it seem like you're clicking on the team article, not the article about the 2020 season. I took a look at the article and gave it a complete copyedit. Please check to see that I understood what you were talking about (I know nothing about cricket) and then I will suggest an alt. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Thanks for the copyedit, in your opinion what would you suggest for a hook then. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I've created 3 new ALTs (6, 7 and 8). What have you to say about them? Moreover, the most runs wasn't made by Dambulla's cricketer but by Galle' batsman. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 10:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Empire AS: Thanks for this, I've edited the hooks a bit to make them more hooky. @Yoninah: What do you think?
  • @CreativeNorth:@Empire AS: the new hooks are better. But what is a total? What is a target? You're writing for an international audience who may not know what you're referring to.
  • Regarding my request for sourcing on the Squads and Administrative charts, you'll see I removed them from the article because you have the squad members at least in the template below. Perhaps add the administrative members there and you won't need sourcing. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I went over the article again in advance of suggesting a multi-article hook and it looks all right. The number of charts in this and the other articles, though, seems to violate WP:CITEKILL. Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for going over this again. As for the article violating WP:CITEKILL, does this need to be fixed? If so then how can this be fixed. Thanks for the feedback. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: See discussion at Talk:Galle Gladiators in 2020#Article issues. Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Currently at AFD; on hold until discussion there concludes one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 13Edit

Troy, Montana

5x expanded by Originalmess (talk). Self-nominated at 04:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   This article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. (I didn't know there were flying squirrels in North America.) A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this, but there are a number of paragraphs without any cites, per Rule D2. I also think that shortening the hook would make it punchier:
  • ALT1: ... that Troy, Montana, has flying squirrels?
  • However, I don't see this mentioned in footnote 17. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Whoops, you're absolutely right. I must've forgotten to copy and paste a source after the squirrels, and I'll source the rest of the paragraphs within a few days and ping you. Thanks! originalmessbusta rhyme 00:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Some paragraphs under Geography and 2010 Census still lack cites. Yoninah (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   The nominator has not posted on Wikipedia since January 1. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 15Edit

Articles created/expanded on December 19Edit

Leslie Landau

  • Reviewed: Moral blindness
  • Comment: The article is new and was hung up being relisted at AfD for a while. It was expanded significantly during that time.

Created by Adin-Atherton (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 10:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   The lead needs to be expanded to show more of how the subject is notable. In the Early life section, "and Rose Bertha Friedlander" needs to be referenced. The last two sentences in the article need to be referenced. Otherwise - The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the references that I cannot access. A QPQ has been completed. The hook is directly cited. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


  • ... that the artificial intelligence program GPT-2 can summarize, respond to, generate, and even translate human-level writing, despite being trained to do nothing more than predict the next word in a sequence? Source: OpenAI paper, ref in article
    • ALT1: ... that ...

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC).

Going to be a harsh review because I think it's important we get this topic right.

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing:  N - Under "Architecture", the last paragraph is lacking citations, as is the last sentence of the first paragraph.
  • Neutral:  N - I have some concerns. Claims that GPT-2 "often" passes the Turing test (implied with an Easter egg link) is not implausible, but it's such a high-impact claim that I think it needs secondary sources to show that this is accepted within the field. Throughout the article I do have concerns that the prose is parrotting primary claims a little bit without the appropriate prose attribution of viewpoint, or sounding a bit too much like a pitch to investors ("While its objective is simple", "GPT-2 became capable of performing well"). A copyediting run with this in mind should solve it—most claims could be toned down or attributed, the alternative being more academic secondary sources.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:  Y
  • Other problems:  N - "Scale-up" and "tokenization" are dab links. When it comes to the lead image, can you explain to me why it's freely licensed? Screenshots are not in general, of course, and while lots of OpenAI content might be open-source, all I see on this specific website is a "© 2020 InferKit".
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Hook is interesting and its claims are uncontroversial enough for the primary source to be fine. It would be good if the article could mention the stages of source code release—am I right that all the code is now released? Or just some? But of course, the researchers initially had concerns. Possibly the topic is not quite D7 "complete" without some description of the source code releases. — Bilorv (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the brutality. Truth be told, I was planning to write an article at least twice this size (if not more); the technical background took me longer than I anticipated, and I ended up getting buttonholed by IRL goings-on halfway through. There is definitely a lot of stuff that ought to be in there, and isn't; I was contemplating just doing it when I got back home, but I was running out of time to submit a DYK! OpenAI's claims are, indeed, wild and outrageous, but there are a lot of secondary sources to back them up (and, for a while at least, it was possible to go try it out yourself on a few websites and get your mind blown in real time). I don't know when I will have time to go through and put those sources in, but I can try to carve out some time in the next couple days. As for the image, well, TalkToTransformer is currently part of some gee-whiz startup, but prior to that I believe it had different licensing information (will try to find it for you). Would be an interesting quandary to figure out whether GPT-2 holds copyright to its own works, huh? Anyway, I have to do some stuff tonight but I will try to get started on all this crap tomorrow. And thanks for the review! jp×g 00:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries, often getting a foothold can be the hardest part and I'll give you a few days, know it's a busy time of year for many. — Bilorv (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@JPxG: at the one week mark, I see you've not really been active since but since the problems could take a while to fix, I think I'll have to fail this in a few days unless you can find a time in your schedule to commit to resolving the above. Either way I hope the comments are useful for the article's future progress. — Bilorv (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Have got some free time today, will finish it off. jp×g 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: I'll give you 24 hours but after that I think I'll have to fail this, sorry. — Bilorv (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, adding the relevant sections now. jp×g 23:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this. It's been an additional 24 hours and improvements have been made, but I believe there are still neutrality issues that are a barrier to showing this on the main page. I hope the feedback is useful and would look forward to future development of the topic. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I've added some more citations to the claims you mentioned above (like its output being plausibly interpreted as human, which most of the sources support, and which I've clarified in the lede suffers on longer passages); I'm not sure what action can be taken to give it more neutrality. In your initial review you mentioned phrases like "its objective is simple" sounding like an investor pitch. The reason for this specific phrasing is because, well, its objective was simple: unlike previous ML models measured on the same benchmarks (which often involved extensive task-specific fine-tuning), GPT-2 was not reinforced on its performance on any task other than text prediction. That is to say, during its training, it was not assessed on any metrics for machine translation or summarization; similarly, "perform well" is based on things like its performance on the WMT-14 French-English test set on which it achieved 11.5 BLEU (comparable or superior to other unsupervised translation models, but unlike them, it contained only 10MB of untranslated French in its training corpus). jp×g 02:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
We've still got the Easter egg link asserting that the model "sometimes" passes the Turing test, which would need explanation in prose in the body with attribution of this view. I didn't hear back on that licensing point. At the time I wrote the above, there were still uncited parts and none of this WMT-14 evidence in prose (which is absolutely a great improvement). I'm not happy to extend this review indefinitely, after setting a hard time limit that was not met after quite some leeway. I will reluctantly call for a new review if you insist on this. — Bilorv (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, back again today. I've never had a DYK fail before so I am going to do my best on this one. jp×g 00:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Made in Canada

  • ... that the certification mark Product of Canada may be used for a good if at least 98% of all direct costs to create it are incurred in Canada? Source: "The Competition Bureau requires that at least 98 per cent of a good’s total direct costs of production or manufacturing are incurred in Canada before that good can be legally advertised as a "Product of Canada."" (Made in Canada or Product of Canada? There's a difference)

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 22:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment: please note that there was a previous DYK about Made in Canada, but it was about the television series (Made in Canada (TV series), not the product labelling certification mark. See also Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Previous DYK article to be moved Mindmatrix 22:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is a request to move this article to a different name. Results of the DYK review should be suspended until that discussion resolves. Mindmatrix 22:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: I did some expansion of the article, so it might be a good idea to hold a full review for a bit. I think the only major missing content is how "Made in Canada" is received internationally. Everything else seems sourced and just needs a bit of layout and tidying. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that journalist Frédéric Choinière lived for a year on Made in Canada goods? Source: The Globe and Mail: "French-Canadian journalist and TV host Frédéric Choinière ... decided to embark on a challenge of living for one year exclusively on Canadian goods ... As his made-in-Canada experiment winds down, Choinière says what he's learned over the year is that incorporating Canadian-made goods into his lifestyle was easier than he thought it would be"
  • ALT3 ... that journalist Frédéric Choinière lived for a year using only goods Made in Canada? Source: The Globe and Mail: "French-Canadian journalist and TV host Frédéric Choinière ... decided to embark on a challenge of living for one year exclusively on Canadian goods ... As his made-in-Canada experiment winds down, Choinière says what he's learned over the year is that incorporating Canadian-made goods into his lifestyle was easier than he thought it would be" - same as ALT2 but grammatical. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: the requested move discussion has been closed. Mindmatrix 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This is only a comment but I'm not sure if ALT2 or ALT3 can be passed; from what I remember there's an (unofficial) guideline on DYK that mentioning people who don't have articles in hooks is to be avoided unless necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Allochronic speciation

  • ... that the timing of reproduction (such as breeding season in animals or the timing of flowering in plants) can cause the formation of a new species in a process known as allochronic speciation? Coyne & Orr (2004)
    • ALT1: ... that allochronic speciation has occurred in periodical cicada populations that only emerge every 221 years? Source: Taylor & Friesen (2017)
    • ALT2: ... that the timing of flowering or breeding seasons in organisms can cause the formation of new species in a process known as allochronic speciation? Coyne & Orr (2004)

Created by Andrew Z. Colvin (talk). Self-nominated at 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall:   I think the one about cicadas and 221-year cycles is much more interesting, but either could be fine. jp×g 05:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! Looks good to me. jp×g 18:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK#Allochronic speciation. The ALT1 is incorrectly phrased and the ALT0 reads like a textbook entry. Please suggest a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
We didn't have a page on allochronic speciation?
CMD (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The April one would be pretty funny.
Hmm so I just wanted to say that while all the new hooks sound good, I would personally vote for the April Fool's version. That one is so witty! --LordPeterII (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I’d have to agree. All the DYKs I submit are speciation-based, so why not have one happen for a unique day? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 10:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 20Edit

2021 Moroccan general election

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   @JPxG: New enough and long enough expansion. QPQ present. No textual issues. However, given that I approved a similar hook for 2021 Chadian presidential election, can we find another? (Potentially in characterizations of the reversal of democratic reforms due to COVID) Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding an ALT1. jp×g 19:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @JPxG: Looks good, though I'd suggest one very minor wording tweak (to remove redundant 2021 if you're okay with it and link to the Morocco-specific pandemic article: Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
ALT1a:... that, despite rumors of potential delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 Moroccan general election has been confirmed to be taking place in September?
That looks great to me. jp×g 00:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: On second thought, since the hook for 2021 Chadian presidential election has been changed, would it be possible to use the main hook for this one? I am still fine with ALT1a if not. jp×g 06:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: That'd also be permissible too. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 08:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 21Edit

Duo Yun Xuan

Duo Yun Xuan located in Nanjing East Road in Shanghai

Created by Jujiang (talk). Self-nominated at 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   This article was created on November 10. To qualify as a new article per DYK rules, it should have been nominated within 7 days of creation. As it is the nomination was made over 6 weeks later, so we can't accept it at this time. If the article is brought to GA status, it could be nominated again—within 7 days of receiving the GA. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   You are right; I misread the history. Here is a full review:
  • New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. As all sources are foreign-language, unable to check for close paraphrasing. However, I am unsure of the grammar in several places. I added the first sentence calling it an art institution, but maybe a better description would be an art auction house? This would replace auction company elsewhere in the article. Footnote 1 is a dead link. Under "Contribution and influence", what does established on the basis of mean? Was it modeled after Duo Yun Xuan? Please add an inline cite to each of these sentences:
  • In 1993, Duo Yun Xuan held its first art auction, which was also the first art auction in Mainland China.
  • In 2006, Duo Yun Xuan was recognized as the first batch of "Chinese Time-honored" enterprises by the Ministry of Commerce.
  • In 2006, the woodblock watermarking technique inherited by Duo Yun Xuan was listed as Shanghai Intangible Cultural Heritage.
  • What is a national demonstration base? Should this be in quotes?
  • The hook is okay; foreign-language hook ref AGF and cited inline. It does seem a little wordy; why do we have to know it was "identified"? Why can't we just say:
  • ALT1a ... that Duo Yun Xuan is the first art company including auction functions established on the Chinese mainland? Source: The Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China
  • The image is freely licensed. It is pretty, but it doesn't do anything for the hook; it looks like the heart of the entertainment district or something.
  • No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  Done Thank you @Mandarax and Yoninah:The question has been changed to ALT1a. Duo Yun Xuan is really located in the famous entertainment center of Nanjing East Road in Shanghai. I made some improvements to the article. Thanks. Best. --Jujiang (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. But I have no idea what an art institution with auction function is. The article is still calling it the first batch; how is an auction house a batch? Perhaps you can find translation help at WikiProject China or WP:GOCE. BTW we refer to the alts as "hooks", not "questions". Yoninah (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jujiang: Sorry, but you're calling it an art company (whatever that is) in one place and an art institution with auction function in other places. It would be helpful to know what the Ministry of Commerce is calling it on its website. It seems like you are not completely familiar with English grammar, so it would be a good idea to get copyediting help at WP:GOCE. Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah:  Done Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jujiang: I don't think you understand what I'm asking for. Please show this to a native English speaker. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Could you please make some minor changes to the article if there is no big problem and no trouble? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I could, but I need a translation of the Chinese sources. I will try to look at this again when I have more time. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Is there a problem with DYK? Could you please make minor change for it? After all, this is not the selection of GA. This China's first auction company deserves to be known to more people. Thanks. --Jujiang (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I'll try to get to it today. Yoninah (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   I see I have no patience for reading Chinese sources in Google Translate and trying to figure out what you're trying to say here. If you cannot find a Chinese-speaking editor to help you improve this article for a main-page appearance on the English Wikipedia, we'll have to close it as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Translation_request_for_DYK. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"1992年,朵云轩注册成立中国大陆第一家艺术品拍卖公司,1993年,朵云轩敲响中国大陆艺术品拍卖第一槌" Roughly: "In 1992, Duo Yun Xuan registered and established the first art auction company in mainland China. In 1993, Duo Yun Xuan sounded the gavel of mainland China's first art auction." For the DYK hook, maybe "... that Duo Yun Xuan held the first art auction on the Chinese mainland?"
I will try to copyedit the article later today. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. @Yoninah: Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 22Edit

The Social Network

Improved to Good Article status by Horacio Vara (talk). Self-nominated at 00:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Excellent article, no need for QPQ (only three previous DYKs), Earwig is ok (the top hit is a wiki mirror, the others pick up quotes only). Sensible fair use for lead picture. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I eliminated the unnecessary redundancy in the remaining hook: "received eight Academy Award nominations at the 83rd Academy Awards". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Why were all the hooks struck? What's left is the most unhooky of them all. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: it was hooky to me, because I remember thinking the film was mediocre when I watched it, so receiving 8 nominations was a real surprise. ALT1 and ALT2 are just more detail, ALT3 is less notable I think, and ALT4 sounds like an advert. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Onceinawhile: if you gave it some context and said it was mediocre, or that its nominations were a surprise, then it might work. But an awards tally could be said about so many other films. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: fair enough. Rotten tomatoes rates it very highly, so I am clearly in the minority. @Horacio Vara: how about an ALT based on the Lefsetz quote along the lines of "...The Social Network fueled the perception that techies are rock stars”. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Myth of the Zodiac Killer

Police sketch of a person purported to be the Zodiac Killer
  • Reviewed: Forthcoming

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 06:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   Article is new enough (created 12/22), long enough, and cited appropriately. Earwig detected no concerns. The hook is short enough, interesting, and accurately sourced. Photo license states it is PD. QPQ remains to be done. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Cbl62, the hook wording is too repetitive, and we try not to print names with no Wikipedia article on the main page. I suggest something like:
  • ALT1: ... that the author of a 2014 non-fiction book contends that the Zodiac Killer (police sketch shown) never really existed? Yoninah (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  alt1 looks good. Its succinct, hooky, short enough, and sourced. Looks like the QPQ is still needed. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Alice in Borderland (TV series)

Created by Horacio Vara (talk). Self-nominated at 00:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   ALT3 is the most interesting. ALT1 isn’t as unusual as it seems. But where are the sources for the hooks here? The article itself does not appear to have sourcing issues and obviously surpasses the character count requirement. Nothing looks to be a copyright violation or out of neutrality.
As this is your third DYK nomination, you don’t need to do quid pro quo. Trillfendi (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: Added sources. Horacio Varawanna talk? 02:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   A new reviewer is needed because the original one appears to have abandoned the review. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've left them a talk page message as they still appear to be editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought I already responded to this several days ago but I guess it got lost in session data limbo. The   is ready as far as I’m concerned. Trillfendi (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote ALT3, but the article is not calling the studio a green screen set—it is a studio in which they used green-screen sets. Also, the Premise section is lifted entirely from the Netflix website and needs to be rewritten in your own words. Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Restoring thread. Please do not write over hooks as it makes it impossible to follow the conversation. Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   I'm not sure what to do now. the reviewer said he preferred ALT3, but the nominator has changed it to something else. Trillfendi, are any of these hooks interesting/verified, or should we ask for something else? Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The premise section is still a copyright violation as well. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed the blatant copyright violation. I'm not sure why it was still there. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Since it was changed, ALT1 would be suitable as the source is sufficient and it is similar to what ALT3 was anyway. Good? Trillfendi (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 23Edit

Pueblo pottery

Mimbres fish pot, c. 1000–1150 AD
  • ... that Pueblo pottery (example pictured) has been created by Pueblo people and their antecedents in the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico for almost two thousand years? Source: several
  • Reviewed: to come
  • Comment: User's second article for DYK - the first is on the Main page right now - I'm just the nominator. The source is a book.

Created by Netherzone (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. The hook is directly cited and the image is free use. The information about the list of pueblos, underneath the Current Era section, needs to be referenced. A QPQ is needed. Gerda Arendt SL93 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review. I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Cécile Nobrega. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is interesting enough. I would like to see the banner at Pueblo_pottery#Contemporary_period removed during the time that it is featured on the main page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover, thank you for your suggestion, the banner has been removed, and am now satisfied with the section. Thank you Gerda Arendt for the nomination. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 24Edit

Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan

  • ... that Ahmad Kasravi in his book Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan, proved that the Azeri language has Iranian roots? Source: KASRAVI, AḤMAD i. LIFE AND WORK He shows that the word āẕari found in most books of medieval history, especially those from the first centuries of Islam, is the name of the old language of Azerbaijan that was related to the Iranian languages and was a descendant of the language of the Medes with no relationship to Turkish

5x expanded by Amir Ghandi (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

  • The article was created on Dec 24th not January 1st, but it was nominated here within ~7-8 days. Probably ok (ping User:BlueMoonset)? QPQ not found but not required. Size, refs, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, GTG, but I am not happy with the hook that states the book has "proven" something, that's a rather strong claim and I am not convinced the article is comprehensive enough to warrant such a claim (are there no dissenting views?). I, therefore, propose ALT1 below which is more neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   I want to approve ALT1, but I have two issues with the article. There is a long quote in the article and I can't tell if it's one quote or if it is combined with another quote. It looks like just one quote at first, but within that quote at the end is "It is for these reasons that European scientists have considered my writings as why and why and all have accepted them." So if it's one quote, why would there be quotation marks within the quoted content? I can't access that source. Another issue is that the 14th reference seems to be an unreliable source. Otherwise - the hook is directly cited, the article is long enough, the article is new enough, and a QPQ is not needed. SL93 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 26Edit

Epsom College in Malaysia

Fernandes in 2011

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   The overall article is new enough and long enough. Regarding neutrality, the first paragraph of Origins feels unencyclopaedic in tone. The Scholarships sentence on a pupil being offered scholarships also feels out of place. On citations, I am wary of expatgo.com, and would prefer to hook from another source. On hooks, ALT0 is currently lacking, but I can see it working with a bit of expansion. ALT1 is hooky if you know who the two individuals are, but would not be otherwise. The sources seem to abbreviate it to ECiM not ECM. CMD (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis: “Regarding neutrality, the first paragraph of Origins feels unencyclopaedic in tone.” It has two sentences. The first of those is strictly factual and seems to me to give the critical fact in the section. The second is about the motivation of Fernandes, based on the source. If there is anything there you find not neutrally written, do please say exactly what it is, and I’ll see how I can improve it. “The Scholarships sentence on a pupil being offered scholarships also feels out of place.” It is an achievement of the school as well as the pupil. Where would you prefer to put that? “On citations, I am wary of expatgo.com...” Expatgo is a publisher in Kuala Lumpur which has been publishing Expat magazine there since 1996, now employing about twenty journalists and editors. Do please say what your objection to it is. “On hooks, ALT0 is currently lacking, but I can see it working with a bit of expansion.” What is it lacking, please, and what would you want to add to it? “ALT1 is hooky if you know who the two individuals are, but would not be otherwise.” Most DYK hooks are about people and topics the world has never heard of, and there is no DYK rule that hooks can only mention famous people. But have you really not heard of Boris Johnson? “The sources seem to abbreviate it to ECiM not ECM”. The school, yes, but not the ECM Libra Foundation, which is not the same thing, see ecmlibrafoundation.com. Moonraker (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Strictly factual text can be unencyclopaedic in tone, and what is not neutral is the tone of those sentences. They're very promotional, perhaps magazine-like. The scholarships information is also promotionally written, is it needed on the page? Have the expatgo journalists done journalism elsewhere? What is the reputation of the magazine, and/or its credentials? Both hooks are short and rely on name recognition. The source used says "ECiM Libra Foundation co-founder Dato’ Lim Kian Onn...". CMD (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis You say Strictly factual text can be unencyclopaedic in tone, and what is not neutral is the tone of those sentences. They're very promotional, perhaps magazine-like. You are entitled to your personal opinion, but in this context please say which element(s) you object to and what conflicts you see with a policy on tone and/or neutrality. The scholarships information is also promotionally written... Again, this is your personal opinion. I have not the slightest interest in promoting anything, the text is simply reflecting the contents of the best source available. ...is it needed on the page? Yes, some information on scholarships is clearly needed for a fee-paying school which can accept non-fee-paying students. Leaving that out would seriously affect the neutrality of the page. Have the expatgo journalists done journalism elsewhere? I have not the slightest idea. What is the reputation of the magazine, and/or its credentials? I can find nothing which casts any doubt on its good reputation. If you want to discredit it, that is surely up to you. Both hooks are short... They are a good length. There is a DYK limit on the length of hooks, but not on shortness. ...and rely on name recognition. I do not agree at all, and even if they did there would be no rule against that. The source used says "ECiM Libra Foundation co-founder Dato’ Lim Kian Onn...". So it does. Clearly both are used, life is like that, not neat and tidy. I have edited “ECM” to “ECiM”. Moonraker (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As a sample element, "the brainchild of Tony Fernandes" is a positive spin lifted directly from the source used. The next sentence is similar, and I can't see what information it really adds to the first sentence. On scholarships, it is a common practice for fee-taking international schools in Southeast Asia to provide scholarships to local students, and so one instance feels unremarkable. CMD (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis As a sample element, "the brainchild of Tony Fernandes" is a positive spin lifted directly from the source used. You can’t have it both ways, either it is “lifted directly” or else it is “positive spin”. It is indeed lifted directly and is offered as the main hook, which you haven’t objected to, except to claim without any policy support that it isn’t long enough. The next sentence is similar, and I can't see what information it really adds to the first sentence. Not the least bit similar, but to humour you I have taken it out. On scholarships, it is a common practice for fee-taking international schools in Southeast Asia to provide scholarships to local students... It is indeed, but not universal, and the information is needed. ... and so one instance feels unremarkable. There is no policy which insists on everything in an article being remarkable. It has not struck you that 100 per cent scholarships are very unusual, but no matter. I have to say, I am not finding you constructive. If you are feeling so negative, why don’t you start an AfD to try to get the page deleted? Moonraker (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand that both ways comparison, if you're suggesting magazines cannot spin things positively I will have to disagree. The relevant hook policy is 2.1, interesting to a broad audience. A hook lifted directly from a source also seems an issue for Article 3.3 though, on close paraphrasing. As for deletion, I don't see where the notability of the page has been called into question. Is there an issue there? CMD (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vadakkekara Grama Panchayat

Created by Path slopu (talk). Self-nominated at 12:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment: you need to significantly shorten the hook, as it is 268 characters; hooks should generally be less than 200 characters. Mindmatrix 18:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mindmatrix: Hi greetings, thank you for the advice. I added two alternatives of smaller size. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 07:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a foreigner I am a bit confused as Gram panchayat seems to be people governing the place but this article seems to be mostly about the place not the people running it Chidgk1 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 28Edit

Looking for Magical Doremi

  • ... that the film poster for Looking for Magical Doremi appeared in an episode of Healin' Good Pretty Cure to promote the film? Source: Oricon (link): "第16話に登場したポスターには、おジャ魔女メンバーのどれみ、はづき、あいこ、おんぷ、ももこと、『魔女見習いをさがして』のソラ、ミレ、レイカの計8人が描かれていた。[The poster in episode 16 contains the 8 characters that consist of Ojamajo members Doremi, Hazuki, Aiko, Onpu, and Momoko, as well as Sora, Mire, and Reika from Looking for Magical Doremi]."
    • ALT1:... that the film Looking for Magical Doremi depicts real-life locations of where Ojamajo Doremi is based? Source: Anime News Network (link): "They go on trips together across Japan, doubling down on some serious anime tourism by visiting a ton of different places seen in the various seasons of Magical DoReMi."
    • ALT2:... the dandelions seen in Looking for Magical Doremi was a reference to the production staff's previous work, Yume no Crayon Oukoku? Source: Natalie (link): "観客からのQ&Aコーナーでは、「どれみ」と「魔女見習い」に共通する「タンポポの綿毛」というモチーフについて質問が。すると佐藤監督は「これは『夢のクレヨン王国』までさかのぼる話なんですが、『クレヨン王国』は綿毛がふわっと飛んでいく場面で終わるんです。[In the Q & A corner from the audience, there was a question about the "dandelion fluff" commonly seen in [Ojamajo] Doremi and Looking for Magical Doremi, to which director [Junichi] Sato said, "This goes all the way back to Yume no Crayon Oukoku, where Yume no Crayon Oukoku ended with a scene were a fluff flutters and flies [to the sky]."]."
  • I have decided not to review this nomination formally, but I have a couple of comments. 1. Can a flesh-and-blood actor "star" in an anime? 2. I think ALT1 is the most interesting, but it doesn't look grammatically correct to me ("Locations where the anime is based on"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 29Edit

See You in the Cosmos

Created/expanded by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment: QPQ has exemption of less than 5 credits. GeraldWL 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

QPQ: None required.

Overall:   ALT1 preferred. Main hook has some problems with political correctness, probably? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael, thanks for the review! GeraldWL 10:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: There's a purpose. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Returned from prep. An entire section about characterization is unsourced. It is also unclear what the word puzzled means in the lead. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I think that the novel itself is a primary source for the characters of the novel. As for the lead, I've tweaked it. GeraldWL 10:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Then you have too much unsourced text here, between the plot and the characterization. Yoninah (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I suppose you mean WP:UNDUE. I've removed repetitive points in Characters and removed vague details in Plot, see if it's now good. GeraldWL 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I nearly died when it's re-discussed; happy to restore it back in minutes. GeraldWL 11:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Returned from prep. I asked another editor for help with the hook and he pointed out that the article does not describe the book as a children's book, but as young adult fiction. Considering the grammatical problems in the hook, please suggest a different hook angle. I also notice that one paragraph under Background is not cited, per Rule D2. If the cite is from the book, please provide the page number. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, ah, I see! I've changed the infobox genre to children's, the category of YA is merely because some source opined it as such. Feel free to reinstate your version of the ALT1 if that's grammatically correct, as I said in my talk page. I've also cited the page in Background. GeraldWL 12:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If an ALT is needed, I could propose ALT2: ... that See You in the Cosmos, published as a children's book, has adult themes throughout? GeraldWL 12:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that novel See You in the Cosmos, which contains adult content, was published as for children? GeraldWL 16:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, can you review the above? GeraldWL 07:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll be back; please be patient. Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Got it. GeraldWL 11:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   OK, I went through the whole article and edited it as I went along. I think you can do a lot better with the hook than the angle you keep pushing. Please choose another interesting fact from the write-up and suggest an alt hook that readers will be inspired to click on to read more. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, can you review this and see if any of the hooks are interesting? GeraldWL 08:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 30Edit

Erin O'Toole

Erin O'Toole
  • Reviewed: 4th nomination
  • Comment: No preference between the first two hooks

Improved to Good Article status by Username6892 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC).

  • Is he really "pro-abortion"? Or just against laws that excessively restrict abortion? (t · c) buidhe 07:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, I think he's the latter so I added "pro-choice" as an ALT 2A. Username6892 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Acer cascadense

  • ... that the extinct maple Acer cascadense was described from a helicopter found in the 1950s? Source: "Collections were made by Eleanor Gordon Thompson in the 1950s (donated to University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley – specimens with catalog numbers prefixed by UCMP)." (Manchester et al 2018)
    • ALT1:... that the extinct maple Acer cascadense is named for its type locality in the Oregon Cascades? Source: "Type locality is in the northern part of the Cascade Range of Oregon" (Wolfe & Tanai 1987 pg.102)

Moved to mainspace by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 19:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   Article meets DYK requirements, no close paraphrasing was found, a QPQ has been done. ALT1 is cited inline and uses an offline source so AGF, but it feels rather routine so it doesn't really seem very interesting; as such, I would suggest not going with it (I have nonetheless made some typographical errors). If we have to use a hook, it would be ALT0. However, there are currently a number of issues with it. Firstly, the source doesn't seem to mention that the fruit was found in the 1950s, the closest wording I could find was the aforementioned donation. Secondly, I understand that "helicopter" is an alternative name for the samara (I will leave it to another editor to decide on the appropriateness on using "helicopter" since it could be hooky and fitting for the quirky slot but nevertheless misleading since readers would likely think of the aircraft and not the fruit). However, the source only uses "samara" and does not use "helicopter" (or indeed any of the other nicknames). Once these have been clarified we should be good to go with some variant of ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Helicopter is a common alternative to the technical term samara, most people will not know what a samara is, and is makes a very bland hook at that point. The secondary source (Manchester) addresses the UCMP collections Moose mountain flora, which were collected by Thompson in the 1950 and then donated to the UCMP.
What makes alt1 banal to the lay public?--Kevmin § 01:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I know admittedly little about botany, but I'm pretty sure that a species being named after where it was found (or its discoverer) is so commonplace it's not even quirky. If there was a story behind said naming (like for example, if the type was named after a place or person because of a particular interesting reason), then that would have been an interesting fact. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
You are missing that many lay people like finding out where and what things are named for. I have not seen any issues with similar hooks that I've proposed before. I feel it will be interesting to a broad audience. You have to remember you do not have an unbiased view of hooks, since you work with them daily rather then the one time the vast majority of the millions of viewers who look at the mainpage daily. --Kevmin § 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Lay person and biologist chiming in: Alt1 is a neat fact, but not really 'hooky': it doesn't seem likely to draw readers if posted on the main page, which is the primary purpose of the hook. An etymology-based hook would be more suited to a more unusual namesake, like Gagadon or Aptostichus stephencolberti. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Really not a fan of ALT2 but perhaps another editor may think otherwise. @Animalparty:? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 31Edit

Agitu Ideo Gudeta

  • ... that Ethiopian–Italian refugee environmentalist Agitu Ideo Gudeta was nicknamed "the Queen of Happy Goats"? Source: "She became a national symbol for environmentalism and integration after Radical Party politician Emma Bonino singled her out as an example of successful integration and courageous female entrepreneurship." (The Telegraph); "La 'regina delle capre felici' è stata uccisa [The 'queen of happy goats' was killed]" ([42])

Created by TJMSmith (talk). Nominated by Yoninah (talk) at 22:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Article was new enough and long enough. Both hooks are interesting and cited inline: the Telegraph source was paywalled, but I managed to get around it with the stop loading trick, but it only mentions her goat farm but not her nickname. However, the Italian source mentions it; AGF on the translation, although Google Translate seems to check out. No real preference for which hook is to be used. A QPQ has been performed. Although the article has appeared on ITN, it was on Recent Deaths and so it is still eligible for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  per DYK talk, this article has become unstable —valereee (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosemary Margaret Smith

Created by Thriley (talk) and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  Y
  • Interesting:  N - The hook is rather unremarkable: nearly every taxonomist who describes a genus uses physical characteristics (at least before the genetic revolution), and the number of species within is irrelevant. Terms like "successfully " and "entire genus" read as promotional.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   New enough and long enough at just over 2,000 prose characters. A more interesting hook is needed. However my overall impression from this article is that it relies too heavily on primary sources and brief mentions, which, along with the tone, gives the subtle appearance of overselling notability and misrepresenting the significance of what may be rather routine accomplishments, i.e. telling a collective story that has not yet been told outside of Wikipedia (a form of novel synthesis that runs afoul of WP:PSTS). The statement "first person to describe the Malay Rose", albeit sourced, is at odds with the fact the species now known as Etlingera maingayi was described by Baker in 1892 and simply placed into Etlingera by Smith. What is missing are secondary sources that discuss Smith in better depth, to more firmly establish notability and assess how much due weight to give any accomplishments. This article lists things Smith did, which is not necessarily what she is known for; an obituary or other biographical source would be useful for the latter. Her IPNI listing mentions a 2005 article in Guild News, Edinburgh, which might provide better context and balance. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: "However my overall impression from this article is that it relies too heavily on primary sources and brief mentions"
I don't understand this statement at all. There is only a single primary source from Smith in the article and then a few database record sources. But all the rest of the references are secondary sources discussing Smith's research. And several go into extreme depth or are almost entirely about Smith's research and classification efforts. Including [43], [44], [45], and [46]. Her efforts have informed the entire field of research into the ginger family. SilverserenC 00:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I should have said primary literature (i.e. scientific papers) and brief mentions, being that most of the discussions and references of Smith in primary literature seem to be routine science, and there is little way from the current sources to assess the significance of previous work (to address the "so what?"). Taxonomists cite the relevant work of any previous researcher, from Charles Darwin to lowly grad students with 1 paper to their name. From Julius et al. 2008 we learn Smith divided Plagiostachys into two informal groups' from Nagamasu & Sakai (1996), that she divided Amomum into 5 groups. From Poulsen & Searle 2005: Smith reviewed 4 species of Scaphochlamys from Borneo. Syazana et al. 2017 briefly mention Smith's work on Zingiberaceae of Mulu National Park. Yes, and? Was she a genius? a quack? Are her classifications still relevant? Smith's previous work is verifiable, but from the primary literature references it's tough to glean meaningful context. Aside from delving into intricacies of Smith's classifications (which is of interest chiefly only to ginger taxonomists) Kress et al. 2005 seems to give the most 'in depth' summary of Smith's work with Alpinia, namely that her "elegant and intricate classification of Alpinia was an attempt to provide a modern interpretation of the complex array of species placed in this genus. Her two subgenera, 11 sections, and 12 subsections encompassed the 221 species known at that time." That's a sliver of historic context, but more is needed. Kress et al. also note that their results are incongruent with Smith's classification, but meticulous dissection of scientific papers like this is beyond the scope and purview of Wikipedia, which is why sources that explicitly state (rather than infer) the significance of Smith's work are needed. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be checklists of accomplishments (verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion), but discussions of the significance of achievements with appropriate weight. A reliable source that clearly states "Smith made important contributions to X, especially Y and Z..." would vastly clarify what is worth including in her encyclopedia article, and why. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I very much don't agree with you on that, but i'll keep looking. It's strange though. I would have originally said that her work was extensive, but in such a specific area and time period where it was unlikely to get actual news coverage. But it feels like it's more than that. Her scientific partner for many publications, Brian Laurence Burtt, had a lengthy obituary published in the Edinburgh journal for where they both worked when he died in 2009. They even have an extensive article congratulating him on his 90th birthday in an earlier edition. But there's nothing for Rosemary. No obituary or anything, despite said journal publishing a ton of papers written by her. It honestly just feels like...a brick wall of really blatant sexism. SilverserenC 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I found that there was also a genus named after her. At least her fellow scientists in the field cared about her contributions.
"This new genus is named for Ms. Rosemary M. Smith formerly of the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh in recognition of her great contributions to our knowledge of the taxonomy of the Zingiberaceae"
- Smithatris, a New Genus of Zingiberaceae from Southeast Asia SilverserenC 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Touchdown, U.S.A.

Mr. Touchdown pictured in 1951

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC).

  •   New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. However, none of the Newspapers.com articles are clipped; if you could clip those, I could check them too. QPQ done.
  • I find the hook repetitively worded and therefore not so interesting. Can you suggest another hook angle? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah - sorry sorry sorry for this great delay in response. I've locked myself out of my newspapers.com account and am trying to recover the password but I may need to file a request at the library. In the interim, I've given an updated hook, above. Chetsford (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 1Edit

Kurt Wolff (aviator)

  • ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns? Source: Franks & Giblin, Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces, p. 142. "...Kurt Wolff became an avid collector of souvenirs from the aircraft he had shot down. His room on the airfield was soon 'decorated' with numbers, guns, and parts looted from the machines of his vanquished foes."

Improved to Good Article status by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Is making the hook more detailed adding clarity, or is it subtracting "hookiness"? I think the latter. As it is, the hook is literally true while being a bit mysterious.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Hi, I came by to promote this, but I agree with The Rambling Man that a little more description needs to be added here. People are so on edge from Capitol Hill rioters and other gun-toting anarchists that putting this on the main page, sounding like some college kid decorating his room, is asking for trouble. Here are alt ideas:
  • ALT1: ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room at La Brayelle Airfield with machine guns?
  • Or:
  • ALT2: ... that fighter ace Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns? Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The watering down of the original hook into ALT1 and ALT2 does nothing to change the hook's supposedly controversial hook, but does lessen reader appeal. And to think that an obscure historical listing in WP would spark some sort of civic unrest in the first place is ridiculous.
  • Needless to say, I disapprove of ALT1 and ALT2.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I might add that ALT1 is factually incorrect.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • One more try, then it's your turn.
  • ALT3: ... that Kurt Wolff kept shot-down airplane parts and machine guns as souvenirs? Yoninah (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Somehow, fiddling with the meaning of my suggested hook will keep armed yobbos from running amok in the streets? Please, have some respect for reason. If my mention of firearms in the DYK is somehow so upsetting it must be censored, you should censor all mention of firearms in DYK to be consistent. After you justify censorship to the WP community. But rather than submit to censorship of my ALT1, I would rather have the nomination killed.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not add just a little extra to the original hook:
  • ALT4: ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns from the planes he shot down?
That's still an interesting hook, while giving some context. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you did not bother to read the above, or you would realize ALT4 is just as poorly conceived as the other alternatives suggested above. I am really baffled by the insistence that watering down interest in the DYK hook to make it less interesting will prevent the Proud Boys and Antifa from rioting. Is there an explanation for that? A news article, blog, tweet, whatever? From anyone?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

My contribution. --evrik (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ALT5 is probably the definitive hook on the subject matter. The other offered hooks would need some work. People who love guns tend to use their walls to display whatever they use as trophies, animals, human heads, or objects, or the weapons themselves. Not necessarily notable to state the obvious. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, 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."
    • Look familiar? It should. It's WP policy for writing hooks.
    • Now read my original hook. It does not misstate the article content. It is definitely catchy and mysterious.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Now read the following suggestions by other editors. Notice that as they get longer, they lose their punch and catchiness and become less likely to attract readers to click the link and read the article. They devolve in quality to ALT5.
    • ALT5 is flatter than last week's beer. It is a flat out bore.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
      • And yet, it is still not as boring as "someone decorated his room with something". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I request that this discussion not yet be closed because there is a Rfc pending. Thank you.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I would request that I am not dragged into this please. I made my feelings clear in my initial review and don't need or want the drama at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Am I the only one noticing that ALT5 consists of facts cherry-picked from various locations within the article, with no supporting cites there or here?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Noticing what? The hook is a restatement of the second sentence of the page, which takes its facts (cited) from the article. I'm tapping out on this one. Good luck. --evrik (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
              • It's so strange that every hook suggestion from a good faith editor is receiving backlash. It's just simple fixes like adding "fighter ace" before his name or restating the article's content. If there are "no supporting cites there or here", that would only be on the nominator. I also do see David Eppstein's point about the hook being boring. Even a common non-notable person could have stuff on their walls of any room based on their interests and a notable person is no different. A difference would be ALT4 because not many people would place guns on their wall that were from planes that they actually shot down. Georgejdorner should probably just accept that they are in the minority about what hook is interesting and move on. SL93 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
                • Okay, I concede. A careful review of the DYK policies has shown me that only nominators are required to supply cites and supporting evidence for cites. Reviewers are under no such restriction to prove truth. This clears the way for ALT5, even though it is not followed by a cite because it is from the lead. In fact, it clears you reviewers to run any hook you want. It has also made me realize that defense of a hook in DYK is pretty much wasted effort, because reviewers can still run whatever they can dream up.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • Georgejdorner "Reviewers are under no such restriction to prove truth." is wrong. If the lead in the article is not referenced there or in the body of the article, it's on you for even trying to nominate it. Though I do see that the information in ALT5 is also in the body of the article with citations so you seem confused. SL93 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
                    • SL93 I'm surprised you do not know the requirement that the sentence that originates a hook must be followed by a citation. By your scheme, two-thirds of ALT5 should be proven by two cites buried in the body of the text to account for victories, with the four-barreled name unaccounted for.
                    • If you can show me where you have ever supplied cites and supporting evidence for a hook as a reviewer, I will withdraw my above statement and apologize for it.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
                      • You don't seem to realize how easy of a fix that is before the article hits the main page. I don't need to prove myself to you nor do I value an apology from you. SL93 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced comments moved from article's talk pageEdit

A suggested historical hook for a DYK on Kurt Wolff (aviator) is under discussion because reviewers believe that mention of a 1917 event in certain words will spark rioting in the streets.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • What are you asking people to comment on? --evrik (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That is an extremely biased, misleading, and missing-the-bigger-picture summary of the archived discussion at WT:DYK, which also included significant discussion on how boring and non-hooky the suggested hook is. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The original hook is just not that interesting (X put machine guns on his walls). It might be more interesting with some context, but the nominator isn't interested in that, or indeed in anything that isn't the original hook. So much so that they trashed the latest proposal even though it echoed one of their own sentences in the article's lede. I believe one person thought this might not be the best time for such a hook, but the reason the rest of us have chimed in is that the hook doesn't meet the basic "interesting" criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Georgejdorner, Evrik, David Eppstein, and BlueMoonset: The DYK hook should be discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Kurt Wolff (aviator), not here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "People are so on edge from Capitol Hill rioters and other gun-toting anarchists that putting this on the main page, sounding like some college kid decorating his room, is asking for trouble."
    • This quote is what sparked my Rfc. Pardon me for bothering the WP community with such petty concerns as censorship. It is much easier to critique me for insisting that reviewers conform to the same standards as nominators.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The issue for the majority of naysayers is that your hook is incredibly boring. SL93 (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 2Edit

Bully Hill Vineyards 150

Created by ZappaOMatic (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 01:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   The article and hook are fine, but the nomination unfortunately came too late. The article was created on 2 January and the nomination on 14 January, which is beyond the allowed period of seven days. I'm sorry, but despite the good work it's not eligible for DYK. Ffranc (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ffranc: Please see supplimentary rule D9? The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll leave the decision to the person who closes the nomination then. I've looked at the article and everything in it looks good. The hook is short, interesting, supported by the article, cited etc. The only problem is that the nomination should have come a week earlier. If that's OK, then it should be promoted. Otherwise it should be rejected. Ffranc (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Coming here merely to comment and not to approve/reject the nomination, but in practice D9 is almost never invoked these days anymore, except for hours-to-one day misses or nominations by new editors (and even then it's usually cited to IAR and not D9). As long as the article has no other issues there is nevertheless still a chance that the nomination will be allowed (more likely under IAR as opposed to D9 specifically), but given that editors on WT:DYK tend to act as if DYK is perpetually backlogged I'm not really sure what to do here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Leon Rains

  • ... that Leon Rains, a bass singer who studied in New York City and Paris, took part in the world premiere of Salome and an early recording of Tannhäuser? Source: several
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by LouisAlain (talk), Grimes2 (talk), and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

  • If it's alright with you, may I suggest a possible alternate hook?
ALT1... that later in his life, operatic bass singer Leon Rains also worked as an art furniture carpenter?
ALT1a... that later in his life, operatic bass singer Leon Rains also worked as a carpenter?
Looking at the article, I noticed that hook fact and thought it was interesting and unusual that a singer, let alone an opera one, also worked as a carpenter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I hear you, but while the world premiere of Salome (opera) gives him a place in time, internationality, and importance (even if that was a minor role), the hobby during retirement says nothing about why he is notable, and what kind of music he made. An "operatic bass singer" could be someone singing in a small home town theatre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hooks do not always need to be about a person's claim to fame or their most notable achievement, they could also be about something interesting or unusual about their lives. For example, Winston Churchill is best known for being a British prime minister, but when he was featured on DYK, the hook instead highlighted his interest in bricklaying, which is something that most people do not know about him (including myself before seeing the nomination). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I hear you, and of course you are free to say whatever you like about someone like Churchill, or Beethoven, who are known already. I'd appreciate if you did "your" hooks as you like them, and I do mine as I like them, and our reader get a mix. I don't like focus on my subjects' retirement occuations, but on what fascinates me about them. - Today, I need to nominate 2 bios (last day and overdue one day), should look for refs for yesterday's, am overdue in qpqs (estimated 10), really want to work on a FAC-to-be: this perennial discussion about different taste - a very personal matter - is just a distraction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/1955 British Kangchenjunga expedition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
DYK is about writing hooks that appeal to readers, not necessarily the author(s) or nominator(s), so writing a hook solely because it "fascinates me" with little-to-no regard as to if it will also fascinate others is in my opinion not exactly the right philosophy when writing hooks, as it essentially defeats the purpose of DYK (to make a hook interesting to as many people as possible and encourage more readers). But in any case as I already suggested hooks here another editor will be the one to make the final decision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
We are in a loop, I think, and I just noted something about too much discussion vs. content on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


  • Reviewed: This is my third nomination, so a QPQ is not required.
  • Comment: The source is behind a paywall, so either the reviewer has to either be subscribed to the Billboard website or read it through an archive url through the Wayback Machine.

Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 (talk) and Dhtwiki (talk). Nominated by Lazman321 (talk) at 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   GA received one day before nomination. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits.
  • The hook though, doesn't make sense ("ninth longest time"?) and is possibly the least interesting aspect of the article. Please suggest something a little more descriptive of the subject that would make readers want to click on the hook and read more. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT2:... that Enigma has been accused of putting satanic content in MCMXC a.D. "The most unexpected result of the campaign was questions over possible satanist content in the music. The album deals explicitly with the themes of good being balanced by evil, but, for most in the press, there was no thought of satanic implications until Charisma issued a press release denying it." Source: [49]
  • @Lazman321: yes, it is better, thanks. But the sources are crediting the accusation to Michael Cretu. Would you like to write:
  • ALT2a: ... that Michael Cretu of Enigma has been accused of putting satanic content into the band's debut album MCMXC a.D.? Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Yes, you can use that one. Lazman321 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Thank you. Since I added a few facts to ALT2a, we need someone else to complete this review. Pinging Kingsif for assistance here. Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 3Edit

Bob Wells (vandweller)

  • ... that Bob Wells has been called the "high priest" of vandwelling? Source: "Mr. Wells is, in many ways, the self-styled “high priest” of living in a van." medium.com [50]
    • ALT1:... that when Bob Wells first started living in a van, he regularly cried himself to sleep? Source: "At first, he couldn’t believe that he had fallen so low, and 'crying [him]self to sleep was a routine event.'" New York Post [51]
    • ALT2:... that Bob Wells created a Burning Man for retirees? Source: "Often called a Burning Man for retirees, the RTR is starting to skew younger, at least by anecdotal measures." The New York Times [52]

Created by StonyBrook (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

Mat and Savanna Shaw

  • ... that Mat and Savanna Shaw's cover of "The Prayer" went viral at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, after which they released their debut album that was ranked 54th on the Billboard 200?
    1. Johnson, Lottie Elizabeth (2020-05-15). "The story behind Utah's viral daddy-daughter singing duo". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2021-01-03. Retrieved 2021-01-03.

      The article notes: "So they forged ahead and recorded and posted their own rendition of “The Prayer.” Within a few days, after later posting the video to Facebook, Mat Shaw sent a screenshot to his daughter. He had circled the number of views: 2,700. ... The numbers kept rising. And rising. And rising. The video has surpassed 6 million views."

    2. Zellner, Xander (2020-11-05). "The father-daughter duo's 'Picture This' opens atop Classical Albums". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2021-01-03. Retrieved 2021-01-03.

      The article notes: "Utah-based father-and-daughter duo Mat & Savanna Shaw make their Billboard chart debut, arriving at No. 1 on the Emerging Artists chart (dated Nov. 7), thanks to the pair's debut studio album Picture This. The LP launches at No. 1 on the Classical Albums chart and No. 54 on the all-genre Billboard 200 with 12,000 equivalent album units, according to Nielsen Music/MRC Data. It includes the act's version of Andrea Bocelli and Celine Dion's "The Prayer," which has drawn over 7.8 million YouTube views since it posted in March."

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 11:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 4Edit

James Snyder (art historian)

  • ... that despite James Snyder having taught at a women's college for over 20 years, his Northern Renaissance Art of 1985 was criticized for using gender stereotypes? Source:Wolfthal, Diane. Woman's Art Journal 15, no. 1 (1994): 49-50. Accessed January 4, 2021. doi:10.2307/1358499, JSTOR "...Snyder resorts to gender sterotypes ..." p. 50

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Created by Elliot321 (talk), Masem (talk), and Wasted Time R (talk). Nominated by Wasted Time R (talk) at 23:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Winston Churchill as painter

painting the Sorgue while wearing a Stetson in 1948

5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk) and No Great Shaker (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

I am interested and willing to review when I have time. Two things: we need to show somehow that the article is not about Churchill but "as a painter", and the piped link doesn't. The caption needs the work italic, and is it worth knowing what he wears? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 5Edit

UNOH 188, Sunoco 159

Xfinity Series cars race on the Daytona road course

Created by ZappaOMatic (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Edited as I had missed the first time around that all three of the Daytona road-course events had new articles. Submitted per supplemental rule D9. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Siegfried Borris

Created by LouisAlain (talk), Grimes2 (talk), and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 15:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Gerda, too much is being packed into the hook to qualify it as remotely hooky. Can you give it a trim please? Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry to jump in again, but how about keeping just the main points, like this:
    --LordPeterII (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    ... only that the main point about this person is the music for young people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Radio Quarantine

Created by Tayi Arajakate (talk). Self-nominated at 12:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC).

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

Improved to Good Article status by GamerPro64 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC).


  1. ^ Scott, Jay (August 18, 1983). "PBS, Canadian firm co-produce film". The Globe and Mail. p. 19 – via ProQuest.

Articles created/expanded on January 6Edit

Richard Sharp (BBC chairman)

  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Hi Edwardx, review follows: article created 6 January and exceeds minimum length; sourcing is generally good but there is one citation needed and a bare URL to sort out; the lead will need to be expanded to resolve the orange tag; Earwig shows some similarity in wording from the sources that you may want to review but I think this is acceptable as it is mostly limited to names of institutions and so forth; a QPQ is needed. The fact that Victoria is his twin is not in the source used to support the sentence in the article (only states that they are siblings). The hook currently focuses on his sister, I think it would be good to provide one or two alternatives that are focussed on Richard - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 7Edit

Bang Rak Subdistrict

Assumption Cathedral, Bangkok
  • ... that Bangkok's Bang Rak neighbourhood is home to Buddhist temples, mosques, a Chinese shrine, and the city's Catholic cathedral (pictured)? Source: "Bang Rak has been home to multicultural groups of people. They are those who have different beliefs, ranging from Buddhism to Taoism, Christianity and Islam..."[55] (each also mentioned separately in sources)
Nai Lert's emporium
    • ALT1:... that the enterprising businessman Nai Lert's seven-storey emporium in Bang Rak (pictured) used to be the tallest building in Bangkok? Source: "Later, in 1927, the road saw the construction of the capital’s first high-rise building – a seven-storey building built by Nai Lert..."[56], and other Thai sources listed in the article

Created by Paul_012 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

Janie Taylor

  • ... that ballerina Janie Taylor danced her first lead role with the New York City Ballet when she was eighteen? Source: "Only 18 then, she also brought a distinctive perfume and abandon to the doomed young heroine of 'La Valse.'" ([57])
    • ALT1:... that ballerina Janie Taylor had also designed costumes for ballets? Source: "When a colleague approached New York City Ballet's Janie Taylor asking her to design costumes for a ballet he was choreographing, the principal dancer needed little convincing." ([58])

Converted from a redirect by Corachow (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Usmani family of Deoband

  • Comment: Since this is my first try for DYK, please allow me to improve things in between. I would really appreciate your advises. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Created by TheAafi (talk). Self-nominated at 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC).


  1. ^ Iqbal Hasan Khān, Shaykh al-Hind Mawlāna Mahmūd Hasan: Hayāt awr Ilmi Kārnāme, Aligarh Muslim University, p. 116
  2. ^ Muhammad Tayyib, Qari. Bukhari, Akbar Shah (ed.). 50 Misaali Shaksiyaat [50 Exemplar personalities] (in Urdu) (July 1999 ed.). pp. 58–59.
  3. ^ Muhammad Miyan Deobandi, Ulama-e-Haqq Aur Unke Mujahidana Karname, 1, pp. 22–23
  4. ^ Iqbal Hasan Khān, Shaykh al-Hind Mawlāna Mahmūd Hasan: Hayāt awr Ilmi Kārnāme, Aligarh Muslim University, p. 116
  5. ^ Muhammad Tayyib, Qari. Bukhari, Akbar Shah (ed.). 50 Misaali Shaksiyaat [50 Exemplar personalities] (in Urdu) (July 1999 ed.). pp. 58–59.
  6. ^ Muhammad Miyan Deobandi, Ulama-e-Haqq Aur Unke Mujahidana Karname, 1, pp. 22–23
  7. ^ Mehdi, Jameel (ed.). "Atiqur Rahman Usmani (1901-1984)". Mufakkir-e-Millat Number, Burhan (November 1987 ed.). Delhi: Nadwatul Musannifeen. pp. 506–507.
  8. ^ https://dailytimes.com.pk/324380/asia-bibi-pakistanis-need-to-bridge-the-mister-mulla-divide/

Kagganapalli Radha Devi

Kagganapalli Radha Devi and her award

Created by Mujinga and Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 8Edit

Historic Cherokee settlements

  • ... that in the beginning of the 18th century, an estimated 2,100 Cherokee people inhabited more than sixteen Cherokee settlements in the southeastern United States? Edgar, Walter (1998). South Carolina: A History. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.
  • Reviewed: I have banked five QPQ, please use this as 1/5 for now.

Created by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

  • .

Dax Reynosa, The Battle for L.A.: Footsoldiers, Vol. 1

Created by 3family6 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC).

Biserka Cvejić

Biserka Cvejić in 1966
  • Reviewed: to come
  • Comment: For counting look at this. She first appeared in Vienna in 1959 in the very same role, as a guest, becoming a member in 1960. Elegant ways to say that welcome. From Belgrade to New York in one year!

5x expanded by LouisAlain (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk), Grimes2 (talk), and Espresso Addict (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 07:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 9Edit


Source:Taube's original 1951 paper has this in the abstract

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 15:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC).
QPQ: Nuclear Gandhi

  •   Article is new, long enough and interestng. It cites sources with inline citations. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports no significant text similarities on online sources. I AGF for offline sources. The hook is well-formatted and interesting. I assume that IBM 9900 is not a machine, but a type of punch card. Its length is within limit. The hook's fact needs to be cited inline, right after the sentence. It seems that no QPQ is required as having less than five DYK credits. Aprovaş will follow after the a.m. issue is addressed. CeeGee 17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@CeeGee: This is a composite hook formed from the content of the chapter with ref #4. QPQ is required and provided. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Would you please name the DYK-nom you reviewed for QPQ? I wanted to be sure that IBM 9900, which is compared with punch card, is not a machine. CeeGee 07:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@CeeGee: The QPQ was there, just not printing out for some reason. The IBM 9900 is a machine. I don't understand the issue with the punch card? The hook states the 9900 is a type of automation using punch cards. I do not see a grammar issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   I am not satisfied with your respond. Sorry! Maybe a wiser reviewer can help. CeeGee 18:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


5x expanded by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 04:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Hi, Sammi Brie, review follows: 5x expanded, long enough, referenced, reasonably well written, neutral, referenced, free from copyvio, QPQ has been done. Hook could be better phrased to line up with the source, I think— I'm not convinced that House's quote can support that the pastor asked multiple employees, and does "give it to the Lord" necessarily equate "donate"? Curious to hear your thoughts. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it means donate. Could change to format to the singular. "asked an employee each week if he wanted his check..."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That sounds really awkward to my ear... I did a little digging to see if there was more to work with and I'm afraid I'm not finding that much else to base a hook off of. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bill hopper (furniture)

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

  I just read through this and several issues seemed apparent:

  1. It's not clearly explained how this basket or box has the shelves to which the hook refers. I still don't understand the construction.
  2. At least one picture is sorely needed. As pictures taken by the US government are commonly PD, this shouldn't difficult to arrange.
  3. It doesn't appear that a hopper is used in the Senate as Bill (United States Congress) says "In the Senate, the bill is placed on the desk of the presiding officer."
  4. What happens in other legislatures such as the individual states and in other countries? A start might be made on addressing this with a See also section with links such as reading_(legislature)#First_reading
So, please flesh the article out to address these points and I'll then take another look. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Having browsed some pictures, the construction is clearer but there were clearly different pieces of furniture at different times and places. The shelving system pictured here is quite different from the hopper currently used here. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 10Edit

Everard F. Aguilar

  • ... that stamp dealer Everard F. Aguilar proposed that the Jamaican Post Office issue stamps to mark the death of James Bond creator Ian Fleming but the idea was not accepted?
  • Reviewed: To be done
  • Comment: Still working on it. Part of the career section was copied from Philip Saunders but there is sufficient new material for a new DYK

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  Y
  • Interesting:  Y
  • Other problems:  N - ?

QPQ:  N - ?
Overall:   ALT0 is fine, and has an online citation ("Between the devil and the deep blue sea") in the text. However there are minor issues. 1. Regarding the language and citation of ALT1: its language is unclear to me. I had to read the article and the citation ("Between the Devil") to work out that it meant that Aguilar had contributed one of the chapters in the book which was written by Fleming. On re-reading ALT1, yes the hook does say that, but it's not clear at first glance. It just needs to be clearer and simpler. 2. Also, ALT1 is not written out in the same way in the text with its citation next to it, so if ALT1 is to have a chance, you must do that. 3. The phrase, "third and youngest son" rings the plagiarism bell (re The Daily Gleaner: "Mr Everard Aguilar dies") - OK no-one would sue WP for that, but to get it through DYK you need to rephrase it. 4. QPQ pending. Apart from those minor issues, which are easily remedied, this is a nice article, and I thank you for this. I like the way that you make his difficult personality clear, while keeping the article neutral - I think all the best biogs are like that. Keep up the good work! Storye book (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I am looking into the Fleming connection and will expand on it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Patricia Kenworthy Nuckols, Chickie Geraci Poisson, Betty Shellenberger, Alice Putnam Willetts, Joan Moser, F. Elizabeth Richey, Adele Boyd, Ruth Heller Aucott, Phyllis Stadler Lyon

Phyllis Stadler from 1952 Linden Hall yearbook

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC).

Manek Premchand

  • ... that Manek Premchand estimated that 4,334 Hindi films made between 1930 and 1970 depicted around 36,000 songs? Premchand estimates that there were about 36,000 songs in approximately 4334 Hindi films made between the years 1930 and 1970...[61]
    • ALT1:... that Manek Premchand revealed who blew the whistle in Kati Patang? who might have played the whistle in Ye shaam mastani from Kati Patang (1970). I refer to a book called Hitting The Right Notes (author Manek Premchand)...[62]

Created by Whispyhistory (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

Mary Aldis (science writer)

Newspaper cartoon of Aldis published in 1897
  • ... that in 1887 “noted controversialist” Mary Aldis (depicted) tried to get Auckland City Council to stop a woman being fired from a cannon? Source: "Mrs Mary Steadman Aldis, wife of Professor Aldis, has appealed to the City Council to stop the performances of Delo, the woman fired from a cannon at the City Hall."Otago Daily Times 22 Jan 1887, via PapersPast "Information was received by the mail of the death of Mrs Mary Steadman Aldis, wife of Professor Aldis, late of Auckland. She was a noted controversialist, and an opponent of the CD. Act" Christchurch Star, 12 August 1897
  • Reviewed: Kyra Nichols
  • Comment: Article moved from user space 10 January (NZ time).

Created by DrThneed (talk). Self-nominated at 03:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

(not a review) Welcome to DYK, DrThneed. I bolded and linked the subject for you, now at Mary Aldis (science writer). It also needs the hooks connected by some (pictured) to the image. Mandarax, move-miracle please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyclone Meena

  • ... that Severe Tropical Cyclone Meena was the first of four severe tropical cyclones to impact the Cook Islands during February 2005? 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)
  • Comment: The article is still being developed but the hook can be cited back to the seasonal summuary.Jason Rees (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Jason Rees (talk). Self-nominated at 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 11Edit

Lobpreiset all zu dieser Zeit

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Kathryn Garcia

Created by 2603:7000:2143:8500:9D0F:6A81:4224:6C2A (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 02:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 12Edit

Bambang Suryadi

  • ... that Bambang Suryadi, a politician from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, was buried with the flag of the party above him? Source: "Pemakaman Bambang Suryadi: Istri Histeris "Itu Bukan Bapak kan, Bapak Masih Dirawat kan..."". Haluan Lampung (in Indonesian). 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-12. (source #8)

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC).

Gabriel Sterling

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment. It's interesting. My only question is whether we should identify Sterling as an election official and Republican politician. I think so. 2603:7000:2143:8500:41B1:E48F:A84A:FEDC (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Current nominationsEdit

Articles created/expanded on January 13Edit

Eugene Goodman (police officer)

  • ... that Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman has been credited with having "saved American Democracy" on January 6, 2021? Source: here: "It is not hyperbole, exaggeration or an opening pitch of a TV movie ... to say that Eugene Goodman saved American Democracy on Jan. 6, 2021."
    • ALT1:... that Eugene Goodman has been called as an American hero for having "single-handedly prevented untold bloodshed" by diverting a "mayhem-minded" mob away from an unguarded door to the Senate? Source: here: "Eugene Goodman is an American hero. At a pivotal moment on January 6, the veteran United States Capitol Police officer single-handedly prevented untold bloodshed. Staring down an angry, advancing mob, he retreated up a marble staircase, calmly wielding his baton to delay his pursuers while calling out their position to his fellow officers. At the top of the steps, still alone and standing just a few yards from the chamber where senators and Vice President Mike Pence had been certifying the Electoral College’s vote, Goodman strategically lured dozens of the mayhem-minded away from an unguarded door to the Senate floor."

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

Trachelobdella lubrica

  • ... that black swan leech attaches itself to the skin or eyes of a fish, before working its way to the gill chamber? Source: "A l'arrivée sur l'hôte, la sangsue se fixe où elle peut sur la peau ou sur les yeux, puis gagne ensuite les branchies."

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Sidney Hill

Sidney Hill riding his horse

Improved to Good Article status by Amkgp (talk) and Gricharduk (talk). Nominated by Amkgp (talk) at 17:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

No, as per WP:DYKHOOK its acceptable.— Amkgp 💬 05:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I skimmed that link, but am not sure what is being relied on by amkgp. But do think even if it is as the editor says acceptable, it will bring the readers eye away from the thrust of the hook, so is better as fedc says not linked. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Unlinked the term "England" — Amkgp 💬 13:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Corn Belt Weekend, Pinty's Dirt Truck Race

Grandstands at Knoxville Raceway
  • Reviewed: Sigmund Strochlitz; Jincheon Gilsangsa

Created by The Bushranger (talk) and ZappaOMatic (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 01:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but while this is hovering around the 200 character mark after removing the second bolded article (and depending on whether you count (pictured)), I found it very hard to follow. It feels like two hooks combined into one (DYK: that it's the first race in 120 years and DYK: that there are two dirt-track races on the schedule). IMO they should be better combined or split into two DYK noms. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 14Edit

Willem Krull (Dutch Navy officer)

  • ... that in 1781 Dutch Rear-Admiral Willem Krull with a single war ship chose to fight a British fleet where he lost his life?  Source: Botta, 1834, p. 332;  Hannay, 1903, p. 153

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

Turkey and the Holocaust

  • ... that Turkey has used Holocaust commemoration to deny both the Armenian Genocide and antisemitism in Turkey? Source: Quotes from Turkish officials: "In our history, there does not exist any genocide." "Turkish society has always been away from anti-Semitic feelings [sic], has never shown any feelings of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Our people has [sic] always embraced their Jewish brothers." https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fsocf.12521
    Analysis by Baer: Beginning in 2014, Turkish Jewish community leaders have been joined in their annual Holocaust commemoration by high-ranking Turkish officials who have used the occasion each year to promote the image of Turks as rescuers of Jews, from 1492 through to World War II. Playing the part of Jewish savior against the tide of genocide, the Turkish government can vaunt its pride and claim never to have engaged in such historical crimes, thereby denying, sometimes obliquely, sometimes explicitly, the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians. — Baer 2020 p. 207
    "A second theme, unique to the Turkish case, is the determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust." https://pen.org/professional-ethics-and-the-denial-of-armenian-genocide/

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

  • buidhe This does not look like a neutral hook. Many hooks can be made on this article that are both interesting and neutral.VR talk 03:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement for hooks to follow NPOV. See WP:DYKRULES. It is factual and sourced to RS which is what matters. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you go to WP:DYKRULES and look under "Content", it says The hook should be neutral.VR talk 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How is it non-neutral? It is just a fact. One that doesn't reflect well on Turkey, but many hooks don't reflect well on their subjects and have always been allowed on DYK. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that's a tricky one. I understand the NPOV concern and believe Vice regent is right about pointing to the DYK rules; but on the other hand after reading the article I believe the statement in the hook is correct, Turkey seems to do that (at least according to the sources in the article). So I would personally have difficulties wording the hook another way to present Turkey in a better light. @Vice regent could you maybe think of an example alternate hook that would satisfy NPOV for you? (Caveat: I am really not an expert on the subject, just a random Wikipedian chiming in.) --LordPeterII (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My previous hooks have often portrayed various institutions, people, or countries in a negative light. Just a few examples,
    • "that memorial director Jens-Christian Wagner blames Alternative for Germany for the increase in heckling at former Nazi concentration camps in recent years?"[64]
    • "that in September 2019, far-right politician Milan Mazurek became the first Slovak parliamentarian to lose his seat due to a crime after comparing Romani children to "animals in the zoo"?"[65]
    • "that after the Greek Civil War, 20,000 leftists were exiled to Gyaros (pictured), dubbed "Dachau of the Mediterranean"?"[66]
    • "... that the European Commission of Human Rights found in 1969 that the Greek junta systematically tortured dissidents, leading to Greece's exit from the Council of Europe?"[67]
    • " ... that the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law was intended to punish Holocaust survivors rather than Holocaust perpetrators?"[68]
    • "that death squad commander Otto Ohlendorf claimed that the extermination of 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children was a justified act of self-defense?"[69]
  • Generally, the only negative hooks that were rejected were for BLP reasons. I don't really see NPOV as something that occurs in isolation for one fact or sentence, rather for an article as a whole, but I proposed hook ALT0 as I found it the most interesting element of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

buidhe and LordPeterII How about something that actually discusses Turkey's WWII policies and considers both sides of the story:

  • Alt1: ...that during World War II Turkey helped thousands of European Jews escape the Holocaust even as it enacted a law that discriminated against Turkish Jews?
    • This is interesting because it shows the contradicting nature of Turkish policies. It also shows the good and the bad that Turkey did to Jews during WWII.
    • Source: "In November 1942, the [Turkish] government introduced a Property Tax (Varlιk Vergisi) ...[which effectively discriminated against Jews]. Meanwhile, and quite paradoxically, Turkish intervention saved many thousands of eastern European Jews from the Holocaust, by aiding their clandestine immigration into Palestine. There thus seems to have been a complete disconnect between internal and external policies. William Hale (professor), Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774, page 67VR talk 17:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Not suitable, as I explained on talk, "saved" is not a WP:IMPARTIAL way to characterize giving a limited number of transit visas. Nor is it particularly interesting or unusual because that also Spain's policy at the same time was not dissimilar, although in the spanish case the laws discriminating against non-Catholics were passed before wwii. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have trouble understanding buidhe's comments. 1. The word "saved" only applies to the indicated "saved" people. So the fact that it is a "limited number" is not an issue - the number is indicated. There is no statement that all were saved. 2. The fact that Spain - not a Muslim country - had a similar approach does not as buidhe suggests make it not "particularly interesting or unusual". 2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you read other books that focus on this topic, such as Tuvia Friling's Arrows in the Dark, you would find that all of these transits were organized and paid for not by Turkey but by Jewish organizations, who faced many restrictions in their work. Furthermore, if you are going to contrast the transit visa issue with another Turkish policy, surely it would be denaturalization. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, now Vice regent your suggestion is problematic in the exact opposite direction: If buidhe's original hook shows Turkey in a negative light, yours show it in a very positive. I mean, if they enacted laws to discriminate against Jews, but then saved lots anyway, surely the law was more of a farce? (At least it sounds like that imo.)
More importantly, ALT1 does contradict the article, as both the lede and the history section quite explicitly state that Turkey did not actively seek to rescue/save Jews, and rather let them pass through at best. There are notable examples, sure, but your hook would suggest it was a general and official rescue scheme. Especially this part of the lede, "Turkey and parts of the Turkish Jewish community have promoted exaggerated claims of rescuing Jews", is such a sentence as it directly contradicts the message of ALT1.
I understand that this is a delicate topic, and I admit that I do not have nearly enough knowledge about it (or time to acquire it) to weigh in on the neutrality discussion about the article itself. My argumentation thus will revolve solely around the eligibility of hooks for the current article.
Going back to the original hook ALT0, I must say that I am convinced by buidhe's point that they had previously gotten hooks approved that are quite critical - not unlike ALT0. Now I have previously made the mistake of invoking WP:OSE, but I do not believe this is the case here: If the DYK rules allowed several hooks to be approved that were critical extremely of Greece and Israel, why would a hook critical of Turkey be disallowed?
So in conclusion, while I value the discussion and still agree that we must be careful not to break NPOV, I do not think that this is actually the case with ALT0. Instead, ALT1 is unsuitable because it contradicts the article (in its current form). Maybe you two will want to discuss the neutrality of the article itself first (and I see at least one uninvolved editor has weighed in there), and then this DYK discussion can resume once we know what the hook should be compared against. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Çatalağzı power station

  • ... that Çatalağzı power station received 5 million lira capacity payments for 2020? 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)
  • Reviewed: To do
  • Comment: By the time I have done a review the value of X should have been published

Created by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

QPQ:  N - Not done
Overall:   I changed the "X Million" to "5 Million", as Roman numerals in the Main Page may look weird to others without context. GeraldWL 07:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis Thanks very much for approving this. Just to clarify the 5 million lira is only for November 2020. As the figures are released 3 or 4 weeks after the end of the month I expect the December figure to be published soon. Then I should be able to insert the total for 2020. Meanwhile I am doing my QPQ review which I hope to complete in the next few days. However it is possible I may have miscounted and still have one free before I need a QPQ - if so please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
So I have miscounted things. Considering you have 5 DYK credits, you need to review a nomination. I see that you're still reviewing a nomination, is that true? If you've approved that nomination, I'll go ahead and approve this nomination too. GeraldWL 08:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah is there a tool or easy method you used to count 5? If so it would be useful for me to check for the review I am now doing. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Chidgk1, use this tool. Insert your user name there (exclude the "User:"). GeraldWL 08:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   This hook barely scrapes by our minimum character count requirement with 1513 characters. Is there anything more you could add? BTW, what is a 5 million lira capacity payment? Capacity is usually measured in volume, not in monetary terms. Yoninah (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh and it's not sourced. GeraldWL 15:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Good question - in my opinion the use of "capacity payment" by the government here is an example of greenwash designed to confuse the public. In theory a "capacity payment" is a payment to make sure power generation capacity (such as a power plant you can turn up or down regardless of wind and sunshine) remains available in case of need. But here it is just a euphemism for a subsidy, as there are so many idle or underused gas and coal plants that even if you scrapped all the coal plants there would still be no risk of blackouts (I can cite that to a reliable source if necessary).
I was thinking of giving a total amount of money for the year(which is why I have not cited it yet), so is it possible you could put this on hold until next month as I now think the December payment will not be published until then? If not I will add up Jan to Nov (with cites) and revise the hook to say "over ........ million dollars subsidy in 2020". And if the hook should be longer I can add stuff about it being closed due to a smoking chimney and then reopened. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion is to just cite the currently-known one and not wait until a report's published. If it eventually doesn't, you'll be disappointed. Play safe, I guess is the right word. GeraldWL 15:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, why is lira cited in the hook? That is more or less a disambiguation article, since "lira" is the name of several denominations. I suspect that it is Turkish lira, you could use a piped link to link there. And anyway, do you think wikilinking the currency is neccessary? The lira doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article (I mean you wouldn't link dollar any time a US payment is mentioned). Imo it makes sense to wikilink it in the article for clarity (and then to the specific Turkish lira), but not in the hook. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  •   OK, I did some editing on the article and see that you have more interesting facts to build a hook from than the one you proposed, which frankly doesn't make sense. Here are some alts for your consideration:
  • ALT1: ... that according to Greenpeace, air pollution such as that produced by the coal-fired Çatalağzı power station increases the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey?
  • ALT2: ... that after Turkey's Environment Ministry granted a one-year temporary licence to reopen the coal-fired Çatalağzı power station, the Right to Clean Air Platform complained it was still emitting thick smoke? Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 15Edit

Lisa Nishimura

Created by Mx. Granger (talk). Self-nominated at 19:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Zéna M'Déré

  • ... that Zéna M'Déré led a protest movement in Mayotte in which women tickled their political opponents until they left the island? Source: "In 1966, she became the leader of Mayotte's women's revolt, an insurrectionary movement in favor of the island's break with the Comorian authorities, which would allow Mayotte to remain part of the French Republic. These activists, sometimes referred to as the Chatouilleuses, notably employed tickle torture to compel Comorian officials to comply with their demands. The mobs of tickling women would attack pro-independence leaders, such as Saïd Mohamed Cheikh, while they were out walking and even physically force them onto planes that would take them off the island." [72]

Created by Bookworm-ce (talk). Self-nominated at 23:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   There are a few issues with the article:
  • [73] is a dead link (malango-actualite.fr doesn't seem to exist as a website, and the archive link isn't for a web archive tool)
  • The third paragraph (starting "Back at home") has no inline citations for it. Possibly the text is supported by the citations at the end of the fourth paragraph, but this isn't at all clear. So please can you add inline citations for that paragraph
  • I have added a few other citation needed tags where the information isn't in the sources, or there are no inline sources. For example, the final source doesn't mention 10€ note at all, only mentions the school, so a source is needed for the 10€ note statement
  • Overall, this does look like an interesting article, and an interesting hook. Once these issues are resolved, I can conduct a full re-review. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful comments, Joseph! I've gone through and clarified the inline citations. I also added a couple other sources to replace the dead link. A few details that the French Wiki article had sourced to that dead link were difficult to confirm elsewhere, so I just cut those bits for now. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do! Bookworm-ce (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others

  • Reviewed: QPQ exempt
  • Comment: I'm looking into 5x expanding leapfrog appeal and possibly running a double hook, so would like to delay promotion for a bit; still need to do some more research into the topic this week to decide if I can expand it.

Created by ProcrastinatingReader (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Date and length fine. However @ProcrastinatingReader:, why is a leapfrog appeal rare? It doesn't say why in the article. QPQ not needed as this is his second nomination, no close paraphrasing. I'd be happy to hold off promotion to make this a double hook if you'd like, when would you be able to get it done by? Ping me when its sorted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Certain criteria need to be met to do a leapfrog appeal, the consent of both parties, and it needs to meet a bar of being a case of 'public importance'. [76] The lower courts were also bound by, I think, the previous decision in the Orient Express case, which I imagine is how this case met the criteria (combined with time sensitivity, probably) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Re expansion: going to look this week to do some research on the matter. If I can expand it should be done sometime this week. Will ping once ready. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, the hook is inaccurate as written, insurance companies are not "liable for the losses made by businesses" due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, where a business had a business interruption policy in force, the ruling means that the insurance companies can not deny liability and refuse payouts on the grounds that the COVID-19 lockdowns were not covered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    How about “are liable” -> “can be liable”? That seems accurate / true? I don’t want to word it too technically, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That sounds better. Let's make it ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sucker Punch Productions

5x expanded by OceanHok (talk). Self-nominated at 14:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

  • 5x expansion is met. Hook is interesting and can be verified in the referenced website. I noticed a few grammatical and wording issues in the article that need to be addressed; otherwise, this looks good.

Articles created/expanded on January 16Edit

Andrew Harrison (journalist)

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 01:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  • I agree with 2603, and I've changed it in the hook. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Dele Fadele

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 01:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  • Reviewed:
  • Beginning Review
  • Article is new enough and long enough.
  • Hook is correctly formatted.
  • Should "extensive" pieces be "long" or "detailed"?
  • This sentence seems confused: "He was gregarious in life; according to Andrew Collins, in the 1990s Fadele arrived at the NME office each morning from a squat, but was always "absolutely impassioned"."
  • New Order need disambiguating.
  • Could you add anything about his early life? The article seems to start when he is already in his 30s.
  • Well referenced and neutral. Long book may as well be put with the other sources as it is only used once (needs a page number).
  • Hook fact needs a ref immediately after (I added CN in the place)
  • Is it true that Morrissey's career "never really recovered"? Not according to our article on him.
  • Awaiting QPQ.

Will finish later. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Joel Farabee

  • Comment: His birthday is February 25, so if this could go out on that day I would appreciate it. Otherwise, it's fine.

Improved to Good Article status by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC).

  • article promoted to good article on Jan. 16 - check.
  • Way long enough at 9000 characters - check.
  • Citations exist, are plentiful, and pass spot-check. Hook is directly cited. Check.
  • No disputes, BLP-compliant. Check.
  • No close paraphrasing, via the Earwig tool. I made one wee change. Check.
  • Neutral. Check.
  • Hook looks properly formatted and appropriate length to me. The main hook was hook-y enough to catch my attention. (Really, they let people born in the 2000s into pro sports now? They didn't in my day! Get off my lawn!) I strongly prefer the main hook to alt-2, which is just a more-specific version of the main hook. That said, others may prefer the second hook, which is also cited and clearly written. I'd go with the first 'cause it's more general-interest, but YMMV.
  • I don't see a QPQ review. I might be missing something - I'll ask the nominator on their talk page. Once that's done, this is good to go!Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 17Edit

Nilüfer Verdi

  • ... that Nilüfer Verdi is considered as the first female jazz pianist of Turkey? Source: "Türkiye’nin ilk kadın caz piyanisti olarak anılan Nilüfer Verdi ..." (in Turkish) [78]

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Much of this article checks out, but there are a multitude of grammar and (minor) spelling errors that make it look like a mechanical translation. Also "considered...the first female jazz pianist" is likely an artifact of the same, as either she is the first or she isn't - it's an objective matter, not subjective. This needs a copyedit pass before it can be considered for the front page. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your efforts. Requested copyediting. by the Guild CeeGee 05:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Northern water dragon

5x expanded by DiverDave (talk). Self-nominated at 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  • starting review--Kevmin § 23:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article is neutral, and sourced, with the hook sourced and paywalled hook taken AGF. To small things, the "Ecology and behavior" section is empty and should be added to or removed for now, and the last line of the second paragraph in the "Distribution and habitat" is not sourced. Is it ref 5? If so moving the citation to the end will do fine, if not then we should get a source on it @DiverDave:.--Kevmin § 01:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Zeyan Shafiq

Created by Hums4r (talk). Nominated by TheAafi (talk) at 14:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

  • TheAafi, indeed it is true, it was back when the social media's got banned here, the only way to access them was VPN, but i remember kashbook was the only one which worked without a VPN, that was the reason why it got viral, i don't understand about DYK thing, but responding to your question yes it worked without a VPN. Hums4r.(Talk to me here) 14:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    •   The page creator has admitted to a COI, and I would question the subject's notability. It appears he's only been doing this for a few years, hardly any time for notability to develop. Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I have to agree. The gist is KashBook is a Facebook clone that was used by around ten thousand users in 2017 in order to circumvent a social media ban. Perryprog (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Yoninah, while I agree that this article has COI issues around but its tone and notability is clear-cut, and I don't think KashBook is just one thing that adds to his notability, there's significant coverage in multiple sources (due to KashBook and Stalwart Esports) and I'm sure that the subject may add more to his notability in future. Just 18 yo rn! ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
          • The notability is not clear cut. And the sourcing still isn't great. Most of the sources are repeating each other which is indicative of a PR campaign. CUPIDICAE💕 15:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I trust you Praxidicae. Please can you just post a detailed analysis of the available sources on article's talk page? Perhaps, I'd withdraw my nomination then but... ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
              • TheAafi, as far as i have read about DYK, i don't think this is eligible to meet the requirments, since it's is a very old news, the page is i guess more old then 7 days, and i don't know if it is listed as good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talkcontribs)
                • Hums4r Since, you don't know a thing, you should stop commenting on it; the fact doesn't need to be quite new to merit DYK, and please sign your messages every time. The article was moved to mainspace just four days ago. Good Article status is something that is very hard. But DYK doesn't demand an article to be GA or FA. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

YaYa Gosselin

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 14:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Why does this meet WP:GNG? The article also needs to be sourced better; I have tagged her birthdate and Filmography. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I believe Gosselin meets WP:NACTOR as she has had major roles in FBI: Most Wanted and We Can Be Heroes (film). I'm currently working on sources and removed claims that can not be reliably sourced. However, there's this sentence: Gooselin stated the physicality, harness and stunt work was "so much fun to learn" but said she "[couldn't] even count how many times [the film crew] told [her] not to point [her] toes when [she] kicked."[citation needed] which is only cited using the interview. Pamzeis (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but Nerds and Beyond does not sound like a reliable source. You may have to rewrite the article and suggest another hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Croton alabamensis var. texensis

Texabama Croton
  • ... that Texabama Croton (pictured) was nearly simultaneously discovered at Fort Hood and Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in 1989? Source: "In 1989, it was almost simultaneously discovered at Fort Hood and on the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge"[79]
    • ALT1:... that Croton alabamensis var. texensis (pictured) is separated from the nominate variety of C. alabamensis by more than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi)? Source: "In a surprising discovery in 1989, C. alabamensis was found in central Texas, more than 1000 km from the Alabama populations" [80]

Created by TDogg310 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 18Edit

Area 51

Improved to Good Article status by REDMAN 2019 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

Snowflake ID

  • ... that Twitter and Discord use snowflakes as unique identifiers for their messages and users? Source: API Reference, Discord Developer Portal
    • ALT1:... that Twitter's switch to snowflakes in 2010 required app developers to update their code? Source: Twitter's Snowflake Project To Update Tweet IDs Really Is More Like A Blizzard Now
  • Reviewed: Yaoi
  • Comment: Can provide more hooks if necessary.

Created by Elliot321 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

Maude Ballou

  • ... that Martin Luther King Jr.'s secretary Maude Ballou edited early versions of his iconic I Have a Dream speech? "“Though I was much more than that,” says Ballou, her elegant tapered fingers resting on her freckled cheek. “I booked flights, research, writing. I did it all.” This included editing versions of the “I Have a Dream” speech that King delivered at Southern churches long before the 1963 March on Washington." [81]
    • ALT1:... that Maude Ballou, Martin Luther King Jr.'s secretary, was described by a historian as "the number one person he’s relying on to get the work done”? "Historian David Garrow, author of the monumental King chronicle “Bearing the Cross,” says that “Maude was dealing with both King’s travel schedule and this huge amount of incoming mail” in the years after he landed on the cover of Time magazine and was perpetually overextended. “You look through the papers of the Montgomery period, and up to 85 percent of the signatures are in Maude’s hand. There’s no question that she’s running his life, that she’s the number one person he’s relying on to get the work done.”" [82]

Created by Philepitta (talk). Self-nominated at 21:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Tomoki Suzuki (athlete)

  • ... that Tomoki Suzuki won the 2020 Tokyo Marathon by over eight minutes? Source: [83] "Finishing with a time of 1:21:52, he finished 8 minutes and 8 seconds ahead of the second finisher."

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   Article was created in the past seven days and has >1500b readable prose. Not sure about the hook. While it's fine, it doesn't really cover the interesting aspect of this person (imo), which is that they're a wheelchair racer. It just implies that they're a normal athlete. I would be willing to pass this as-is but I strongly suggest a more interesting hook. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Ashburton Picken

Conflagration of Houses of Parliament, 1834

Created by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  •   The article is new, long enough and was nominated in time; it appears neutral. Earwig found no issues and spotchecks found no paraphrasing issues (but there is little in the way of freely available online sources with any extended material; see below). QPQ done. Image is attractive at size and appropriately licensed.
  • The hook is concise and mildly interesting, though I wonder how common it was at that date? I'm not seeing any explicitly cited source for this. The London Picture Archive states it was executed in 1834 but says nothing about the publication date. The British Museum source linked by the image in Commons covers that, but needs to be added explicitly. More problematic is the birth date. I can't check the birth year source to calculate the age, but it appears to be based on the 1881 census? Not sure how reliable that would be (presumably it just means the census person asked him or someone else in the household how old he was) and how much dependence on primary documents is allowable without becoming original research.
  • More generally, a lot of the problem here is that this article appears to be the first time that anyone has attempted a coherent biography of the subject? I don't know how far it is possible to go without hitting the No original research rule; the creator is a probably lot more conversant than I am in this area.
  • Much of the material in the lead isn't developed in the body and sourced.
  • The figure legends under Some lithographs and commentaries, and elsewhere, need sources for everything except the work's title. A lot of this, in the absence of any sourcing, looks like original research/personal opinion.
  • How reliable is Geographicus (which is cited four times, including for the fact he never married)? It looks like an online shop.
  • The refs seem to be include a great deal of repetition of identical sources or the same newspaper article accessed in different ways; these need amalgamating.
  • Not necessarily essential for DYK but... I also found the article rather oddly organised, with snippets of information about his career in the figure legends and then in the Reviews section right at the end. It would read much better if there was a proper works section in which each of the important works was discussed and sourced in the text, even if the over-abundance of images meant that they had to be placed in one or more galleries. The material on his personal circumstances and later life/death doesn't fit well in Background. You don't need to give detailed dates and places of birth/death for his relatives; it interrupts the flow, feels bloated, and the long list of sources for material unrelated to the subject starts to look like ref bombing. You use "Day and Haghe" a lot, as if they were a company but with separate links, which I found rather odd. Either give the names as full names at least once in lead and body, or link to the article on their company. Hope this helps in developing the article on this interesting figure. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have started to adapt the article to your opinion. Please note that the broadband is very slow in my village, especially as my house is at the end of the line, and during lockdown, everyone is using their broadband. Also my pc is overloaded with images due to this type of work, so the overload slows it down. So please understand that every task takes me a long time, and I cannot always get back to you with completed tasks quickly. Also please note the time difference. I have been working since 7am, and it is now around 9.30 pm, and it is difficult to work such long hours and keep to one's best standard, while dealing with such a long question. I am concerned as to whether you are attempting a GA review, rather than a DYK review.
Date of publication 1834: I have provided citations for that, in the text, in the way that you suggested.
Birth year of Thomas A. Picken: I have made it clear at all times that the birth date is approximate (e.g. "around" and "circa"). This is because there are no official birth registration records in UK before 1837. We have to calculate it from Census and GRO bmd indexes, plus GRO certificates if we can afford to pay for them (ten cost over £100). If all the censuses plus the death certificate say the same thing, then it is reasonable to conclude the approximate year of birth. In Picken's case all the census information and the GRO death index information concur in a birth year of 1818-1819, so we can reasonably say it is around 1818. If your theory about the enumerator's questioning of unreliable witnesses had been correct, we would have seen an inconsistent record of age at the time of census, especially as Picken was residing at different addresses with different people each year. As it is, the consistency is impressive and I think we have to respect that.
Primary sources: I have already explained that the aforementioned census and GRO indexes can be considered reliable for an approximate year of birth in a case like this. You ask why I have used these citations so much for so many reasons. If you would kindly read my long explanation for this on the talk page, you would understand why. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to clarify certain matters, and you need to understand this. (Note: I am not going to copy that whole piece from the talk page here: please kindly read it?) Doing a lot of work is not a crime. Trying hard to explain things is not a crime. All new WP articles are in development, and where there are primary sources, they are there waiting to be replaced in due course by secondary sources which have not been written yet, or found yet. Removing those sources will make everything very difficult for everybody. All the citations are verifiable by somebody, especially UK residents who have a library ticket from a major library or institution.
Original research is not about original research being a crime per se. It's about protecting WP from people who may misinterpret it, or misuse it by combining primary sources which they do not understand into a new but unjustified construct. I have used this material merely for its content, e.g. the age of Picken at each census, and have been clear about how I am using it. There is no suspect activity here. We should use WP rules as intended, i.e. to improve WP, not as a way of denigrating editors and creators of articles.
The content of the leader: I have taken your advice, and repeated the content of the leader in the Career section, with citations. If you want more citations I would be happy to add them.
The Some lithographs and commentaries section: A commentary on WP, as I understand it, does not need citations, and can contain what may look like opinion, so long as it is titled as a commentary. I have made a number of commentaries, titled as such, in articles and this is the first time I have seen a complaint. If you really can't handle it, I would be happy to remove all uncited material from the caption sections under the images. However the commentaries that I have added are not controversial. They are merely there to assist the reader to appreciate the detail and content. Normally, people don't bother to notice anything about art until you tell them, in my own experience - sadly.
Background section: The reason why I had to write that long explanation on the talk page (which you have now read?) was that I expected that sort of reaction about length and number of citations, so I explained exactly why the background section is like it is. If you are trying to establish whether you are writing about one person, or two people conflated, then you certainly do need to cover all bases regarding the family background, dates and so on. You have to check out all secondary sources (with primary sources if there is nothing else), then you have to look again and find more. There is no way around it. I feel that I cannot rest in this matter until we have all the identifiers in the Autnority control corrected. This will take some time. If you don't like it, then I will have to withdraw this nomination from DYK. I would rather do the job properly than have one more DYK credit.
Day and Haghe: They did in fact function as a single company when the two men were working together in the early days. When Haghe left, William Day carried on with his son (Charles, I think?), as Day & Son. The early lithographs say, in small letters in the border beneath the pictures, that the printer/publisher is Day and Haghe, as if it were a single company, so I have followed suit. There is no single link on WP for that, so I have not pretended that there were.
Well, I hope that I have begun to answer your questions, and to adjust the article to your opinion. I am primarily interested in improving the article to the benefit of WP, and I'm sure you are, too, otherwise you wouldn't have spent so much time and effort on the above review. I am now thinking about removing the article from DYK. Forgive me but this reply is probably full of typos because I can no longer see properly due to long hours. I must stop now. Storye book (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC) It took me nearly an hour to write this. Please have patience. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1st Cavalry Brigade (France)

5x expanded by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park

Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk) and Bookworm-ce (talk). Nominated by Chipmunkdavis (talk) at 11:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

  Interesting nature park, on good-looking sources, French and subscription sources accepted AGF. I am not happy with the hook because it reads as if the article in question was "marine nature park", not this particular one. Please reword, perhaps including a little help as to where the place is. Suggestions for the article:
  1. How about having Geography first, because it really makes a difference to know where this is.
  2. Be more precise in the opening which reads as if fishing and tourism were illegal ;)
  3. Don't link twice to the other park, not even if blue.
  4. Try to have refs for one fact in ascending numerical order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: as a passing Wikignome, I've tweaked the linkage in hook a little to make the ambiguity hopefully less. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for including the article in the piped link, but I'd still think linking the full name unpiped would make sense, if only to catch attraction ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda and Bushranger. My use of the pipe was to avoid "Glorioso Islands" repeating, and I will think about a new hook to handle that as well while dealing with the other points brought up. CMD (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mahadevi Varma

Improved to Good Article status by Amkgp (talk). Self-nominated at 07:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Un Jardin sur le Nil

A bottle of Un Jardin sur le Nil
  • ... that the perfume Un Jardin sur le Nil (pictured) was inspired by green mangoes? Source: "In 2005, a stroll through a garden island on the Nile provoked him to create the Hermès scent Un Jardin Sur le Nil. “The idea came to me in an alley of mango trees,” he recalls. The branches drooped with heavy, aromatic green fruit." (NYT)
    • ALT1:... that perfume Un Jardin sur le Nil (pictured) was Jean-Claude Ellena's first creation as Hermès’s first in-house perfumer? Source: "Ellena ... had recently been named Hermès’s first in-house perfumer." (The New Yorker story on the creation of the scent)
    • ALT2:... that perfume Un Jardin sur le Nil's green-tinted bottle (pictured) was inspired by green mangoes? Source: "In 2005, a stroll through a garden island on the Nile provoked him to create the Hermès scent Un Jardin Sur le Nil. “The idea came to me in an alley of mango trees,” he recalls. The branches drooped with heavy, aromatic green fruit." (NYT) and “To distinguish Nil, the bottle would be tinted green—a nod to the Aswan mangoes.” The New Yorker)

Moved to mainspace by Innisfree987 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

The Magic of Chocolate

  • ... that The Magic of Chocolate's volumes are ordered alphabetically rather than numerically? Source: Natalie (link): "「ショコラの魔法」の単行本には毎巻、巻数ではなく「almond kiss」「bitter sweet」といったアルファベット順の副題が冠される。[Each volume of The Magic of Chocolate is given an alphabetical subtitle such as Almond Kiss and Bitter Sweet instead of being numbered.]"

5x expanded by 片割れ靴下 (talk) and Lullabying (talk). Nominated by Lullabying (talk) at 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Atsugiri Jason

  • ... that comedian Atsugiri Jason also works full-time as an executive at an IT company in Japan? Source: The Japan Times (link): "In fact, I still work full time at a Japanese IT company, managing the operations of its U.S. office from Japan."
    • ALT1:... that comedian Atsugiri Jason is the first non-Japanese finalist on the R-1 Grand Prix in 2014? Source: Oricon (link): "今年の『R-1ぐらんぷり2015』(フジテレビ系)で大会史上初の外国人決勝進出者として話題を集め、各メディアに引っ張りだことなっているお笑い芸人・厚切りジェイソンが、14日より公開されたアルバイト情報サイト『マイナビバイト』のWEB動画で得意の日本の“あるある”ツッコミネタを披露している。[Atsugiri Jason, a comedian who has been attracting attention as the first non-Japanese finalist in the history of the tournament at this year's R-1 Grand Prix 2015 (Fuji TV) and is curently sought after by various media, will be showcasing his relatable jokes in Japan in an online video on the part-time job recruitment website My Navi Beit.]."
    • ALT2:... that comedian Atsugiri Jason is famous in Japan for his tendency to scream, "Why Japanese people?!" about the Japanese writing system? Source: Oricon (link): "日本人にとって当たり前となっている日本の習慣や言葉に独自の目線でツッコミを入れる『Why Japanese people!?』ネタでブレイクした厚切りジェイソン。 [Atsugiri Jason made his big break in Japan with his "Why Japanese people?!" narrative, giving a unique perspective on Japanese customs and words that are ordinary to the Japanese.]"

Created by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 19Edit

Zach Iscol

  • Comment: let me know if I got this right!

Created/expanded by CathyF.13 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

Ally 400

Created by ZappaOMatic (talk), Klarson42 (talk), and The Bushranger (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 01:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

Bangladesh women's national cricket team record by opponent

2018 Asia Cup winning Bangladeshi women's side at a reception.

Created by Pratyya Ghosh (talk). Self-nominated at 20:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 15:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Sjarifuddin Baharsjah

  • ... that according to his sister, Sjarifuddin Baharsjah was forced to learn female dances during his childhood because his mother said that "he was really pretty"? Source: Source #2 in article
    • ALT1:... that after he resigned from the office of Minister of Agriculture, Sjarifuddin Baharsjah was immediately succeeded by his wife? Source: Source #4 in article

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 15:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

State House (Zimbabwe), Statue of Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe House, Harare, Blue Roof, State House (Bulawayo)

Government House, Bulawayo

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

  • This would take some time to review (2-3 days). Apologies for the long wait.
  • Day 1:
  • Formalities:
State House (Zimbabwe):
 Y Prose size (text only): 3678 characters (590 words) "readable prose size"
 Y Article created by The C of E on January 19, 2021
Statue of Robert Mugabe
 Y Prose size (text only): 1543 characters (268 words) "readable prose size" — a bit short from threshold
 Y Article created by The C of E on January 19, 2021
Zimbabwe House, Harare:
 Y Prose size (text only): 2212 characters (351 words) "readable prose size"
 Y Article created by The C of E on January 19, 2021
Blue Roof:
 Y Prose size (text only): 2161 characters (361 words) "readable prose size"
 Y Article created by The C of E on January 19, 2021
State House (Bulawayo):
 Y Prose size (text only): 1954 characters (316 words) "readable prose size"
 Y Article created by The C of E on January 19, 2021
Signature for day 1: Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Shane Stewart, Kings Royal

Kings Royal pre-race in 1987

Converted from a redirect by The Bushranger (talk). Self-nominated at 02:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 20Edit

Special occasion holding areaEdit

The holding area has moved to its new location at the bottom of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [88]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [89].
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Return to "Did you know" page.