Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
October 22 1
November 2 1
November 3 1
November 5 1
November 15 1
November 18 2
November 19 1
November 20 2
November 22 2
November 24 1
November 25 2 1
November 26 2 2
November 27 4 4
November 28 3 3
November 29 3 3
November 30 11 9
December 2 3 2
December 3 3 3
December 4 5 5
December 5 5 5
December 6 7 7
December 7 4 4
December 8 9 9
December 9 7 7
December 10 9 8
December 11 13 13
December 12 5 5
December 13 5 4
December 14 12 12
December 15 4 4
December 16 14 14
December 17 7 7
December 18 9 7
December 19 9 7
December 20 5 5
December 21 8 8
December 22 8 8
December 23 8 7
December 24 8 6
December 25 11 8
December 26 10 8
December 27 12 8
December 28 4 3
December 29 7 6
December 30 8 3
December 31 9 6
January 1 8 6
January 2 7 3
January 3 6 3
Total 287 233
Last updated 21:04, 3 January 2018 UTC
Current time is 21:24, 3 January 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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 article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
I.
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.
II.
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.
III.

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.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

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

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

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

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

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 questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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 discussions[edit]


Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

  • 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 hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Caroline Brady (philologist)

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, and thoroughly footnoted. But although this isn't an explicit DYK criterion, the article is problematic, in that it presents lots of little boring details about the subject's life (like the street addresses where she lived and who owned those pieces of property or the subsequent history of a ship she took a trip on as a child) but nowhere does it clearly state what she is notable for in a way that would clearly indicate a pass of our academic notability standards. It states what her scholarship was on, but not why it is significant (if it is). It lists what look like all her publications, rather than making any attempt to select the significant ones. It says she published "more than a dozen book" but lists no books. Much of the sourcing is non-secondary and of dubious reliability and fails to cover the subject in the depth that would be required to establish general notability (e.g. seven separate sources from FamilySearch; local newspaper listings of community college courses; entries in association membership directories). The subject appears never to have progressed past assistant professor in academic rank, a red flag for a failed academic career. I worry that, if an article in this state is linked on the main page, it would very quickly get sent to AfD. The parts of the article that look like they might be usable to establish notability are the Talbot Fellowship and (if she published any) book publications that might have associated book reviews. I think the article could use significant trimming of the uninteresting parts so that readers could focus more clearly on the interesting parts.
As for the rest of the criteria: QPQ done. Earwig found a copied direct quote but no problematic copying. The main hook needs disambiguation on the Pennsylvania link. I prefer hooks ALT1 or ALT2, but they're inadequately sourced for DYK: ALT1 is given only the subject's own publications as sources, ALT2 has no sources at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • David Eppstein, thanks for your review. I've added some more information on her publications that should help make her notability more clear. Please let me know if you would like more, although I'm not sure what exactly that would be; a Google Scholar citation count would perhaps be on point, but if you think that the torpedoing of a boat is a "boring detail", then saying that "this article has been cited 36 times" is perhaps hopeless.
Your other main criticism seems to be that the article is filled with minutiae. To the extent that it is necessary to defend this (cf. "this isn't an explicit DYK criterion"), it's worth remembering that little is known about Brady's life. She produced relevant and notable scholarship in the 1940s and 1950s, yet no mention of her appears between 1955 and 1979, when she published the first of two widely-cited articles after a decades-long hiatus. In the absence of a more comprehensive source of information on her such as an obituary, the amalgamation of many small details—whether or not one might term some "boring"—is a way to sketch a picture of Brady's life. Knowing that she lived at 132 S. Laurel Avenue in Los Angeles, for example, is relevant when one considers that it was her parents' address: it implies that between her stints at a community college and at Harvard, she moved back in with her parents. Meanwhile, knowing that she once lived in Cambridge reinforces the scant information on her time at Harvard. It's not ideal, and it would be particularly nice to figure out what she was up to from 1955 to 1979, but at the end of the day the sources that we have are the sources that we have.
Re: sources, I've added one (Frank 1987) to back up ALT1. ALT2 is harder to source as it is backed up by 'negative information,' i.e., the complete absence of anything showing that she published between 1955 and 1979. If in your opinion that's not enough to back up ALT2, then let's just go with another. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The torpedoing of the boat is a particularly egregious example, but the same thing is true throughout the article. It's not so much that the torpedoing of a boat is a boring event – it isn't – but that the event has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. She rode on the boat once; as it involved an intercontinental move for Brady's family, that is significant enough to mention. But why would someone who comes to this article to find out about Brady's life be interested to find instead a description of what happened to a boat five years after Brady rode on it? That's not part of her life. A large fraction of the article appears to be filler of this type rather than actual informative content about Brady. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I've moved the torpedoing information to the notes section. Returning again to the DYK criteria, is there anything still holding back this nomination? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It still has all the appearance of an article about someone who is not notable. The lead makes no assertion of significance, and the sources that could be used to make a case for WP:GNG (the nontrivial reviews of her work) are buried under a mountain of redundant trivial sources that do not count towards notability (e.g. 21 different copies of the membership list of an association in which membership is not a significant honor). She may well actually be notable, but the article works very hard to make her appear not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm having significant problems with this article in terms of NOTE as well. According to the article, as it stands, this person did not win any notable awards for her work, was not elected to the chair of any notable organizations, and doesn't seem to be particularly widely quoted. There are some interesting quotes about her work, but I'm not clear if they are notable either. There are lots of academics who led interesting lives, what makes this one notable in Wiki terms? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, thanks for weighing in. I believe that Brady's notability is evidenced both by her Marion Talbot fellowship, and by the impact of her publications, a number of which—particularly her 1943 book, and her last two articles on Beowulf—are widely cited within her field. Minor figure that she was, having an article about her allows anyone wondering who she was to easily find out; that her page has been viewed 13 times per day on average suggests that I was not the only one with that question. At the same time, I don't think that a DYK nomination is the appropriate place to contest the notability of an article's subject. If you or David Eppstein believe that this is an AFD candidate, then being proactive by bringing it there would be more useful than simply weighing in here.
Also, to David Eppstein's earlier point about the membership lists that include Brady: these do not count towards Brady's notability, but they are not intended to, nor have they even been suggested to do that. They serve two purposes. First, they provide a 21 year chronology of Brady's academic appointments. Second, they demonstrate that Caroline Agnes Brady is the same person commonly (and probably incorrectly) referred to as "Caroline Agnes von Egmont Brady" (see, e.g., WorldCat). This was quite confusing when I was researching Brady—I thought at first that they were two separate people—but hopefully by providing hard evidence that the two names refer to one person, it will help others avoid similar confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The current state of the article is disappointing, but in my view the bar of notability is easily met. Her 1943 doctoral dissertation, Legends of Ermanaric, is help in 151 libraries according to Worldcat. The large time gap in her research output is puzzling but we may never know the reasons; this could be briefly summarized. A recent handbook on Beowulf (1998) gives half a page to her work on that topic, and (if anyone had the time) the article might be refocused on what she is still known for. A Google for 'Carolyn Brady Beowulf' brings up some relevant hits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No position on notability, but there's still too much trivia, and the directory listings are OR/SYNTH. EEng 04:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
EEng#s, to be clear, which DYK criteria in particular does the article not yet meet? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. 4, policy, which calls for verifiability. The article cites the MLA membership list maybe 20 times, listing it as a secondary source, which it's not. It also cites census date -- again, primary and WP:OR. May be other issues but I'm on mobile so I won't look further. I'm sure this can be salvaged but as it stands this article tries too hard. EEng 05:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
EEng#s, thanks for taking a look and for the comments. I've cleaned up the article some, with additional thanks to EdJohnston for the comments and the reference to A Beowulf Handbook (now incorporated).
Differentiating between primary and secondary sources can sometimes be tricky, but even if those MLA lists are primary sources, they should be fine. All they do is "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (link). As said above, they provide a 20-year roster of Brady's academic appointments (largely also backed up both other sources), and clarify that "Caroline Agnes Brady" is the same person occasionally referred to as "Caroline Agnes von Egmont Brady" (which even WorldCat refers to her as sometimes). You're right that the article is trying, but without leaving it as a stub that's hard to avoid: its subject published a number of notable works and then pretty much disappeared, leaving behind a handful of newspaper articles and syntheses of her work for someone to cobble together. The article's not going to ever make it anywhere close to GA unless a couple of long obituaries come falling out of the sky, but as it stands now, I think it's fine for DYK. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You see why I gave up on this? It's this approach, of trying to justify why the article is in the state it is, or making only cosmetic changes that address the specific instances commented on here but not the bigger problem they are instances of, rather than doing something more useful with the feedback. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • There's no "even if" – the MLA's membership lists are absolutely primary, and cannot be used the way you're using them, for example chaining them together to conclude that the subject worked as a TF from 19xx to 19yy or was an assistant professor from 19aa to 19bb. That's classic WP:SYNTH, and there's a reason we don't allow that. I, personally, have many times been listed by professional societies at old employers or former institutions simply because it didn't really matter or I just forgot. That's why we require that such stuff be filtered through reliable sources who are in a position to do research we can't.
  • And that goes double for everything the article currently lists under Primary sources -- census returns, Social Security death indices, and so on. This stuff is notoriously error-prone and and hard to interpret and there are essentially no circumstances under which a WP article can cite them (except to illustrate a conclusion reached in an appropriate source).
  • As a random additional example, the statement that Brady received her Ph.D in October 1935 is cited to two newspaper sources giving conflicting graduation dates, one in 1935 and one in 1936. Newspapers are typically reliable secondary sources, but mass listings of e.g. names of graduates are exactly the sort of thing they should not be relied upon for.

This doesn't mean the article can't be saved. But it's gotta be cut back to what can be established by reliable sources. On a less important note, the use of short footnotes when only a single page or page range is cited in each source is completely unnecessary, makes getting to sources headache-inducing, and creates a gigantically puffed up "bibliography" – I mean... c'mon... 26 entries reading "List of Members of the Modern Language Association of America". Publications of the Modern Language Association. Modern Language Association. XXXXX (Supplement)"? – it's silly. EEng 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on November 5[edit]

Nicholas Exton

  • ... that in 1388 Nicholas Brembre was tried for treason and hanged, and his fate was sealed by his successor as London Mayor, Nicholas Exton, one of those who "knew him best"? Oliver, C., Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-century England (Woodbridge, 2010), 104.

Improved to Good Article status by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC).


Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article is easily long enough and was newly promoted to GA when nominated. It's in excellent shape generally and well-sourced (not a surprise, since it's just come through the GA process). A few requests for clarification: in the section "Merchant and alderman," one sentence asserts that "... he was also a Surveyor of Murage Mayor of the Westminster staple." I'm unable to parse that line, and it sounds like there's an "and" missing between Murage and Mayor, but I'm not clear enough on what any of those terms means to be sure; perhaps the nominator can clear up that sentence? Another sentence in the same section tells that Exton was "... imprisoned for a year ... and forced to leave the city, albeit temporarily. Only a month later, though, in September 1382, he was arguing the same points in parliament." If he was imprisoned for a year, then how was he in parliament a month later? AGF on the offline hook source, if these two spots can be cleared up, the article will be good to go. The review is now on hold until the article reaches a stable version. The article now appears to be stable and well-sourced, and unclear points have been improved. There are currently three "Citation needed" templates in the article (one of which I added for an unattributed quotation); all three claims need to be given citations or else removed, and then the article will be ready to go. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: I wish you had pinged me. This might have got resolved sooner than it has. Those points have now been clarified, with wikilinks and further info. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
My mistake! It didn't occur to me that you might have nominated the article but not bothered to watchlist the review. Since the article is now tagged with a "major edit" template, I'll review it afresh whenever the rewrite is completed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
After the FAC, you mean? Surely, by then, it will no longer be eligible, surely? @Bryanrutherford0: btw — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean; I don't know anything about any Featured Article nomination. The article we're presently discussing for Did You Know, Nicholas Exton, currently has the "In use" template at the top, and the language is broken and incomplete (e.g., the "London" section ends with "This made the"), presumably because you are in the midst of rewriting and expanding it. You have now substantially changed the article since I reviewed it the first time, making my previous review pointless. I cannot review the article until it reaches a stable version; please indicate here (or by pinging me, if you prefer) when you are done making large changes to the article, and I will be happy to review it again at that point.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Bryanrutherford0 & Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, looks like this article is now stable enough to be fully reviewed? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you for the heads-up, I'll review it again in the next couple of hours.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:: I have re-reviewed the article; if you can cite the three points carrying "Citation needed" templates, then it will be ready for approval.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Despite a notice to their talk page (quickly archived without the requested response to this nomination page), the "Citation needed" templates remain. I'll place one more notice on the nominator's talk page (under their new username), and hope that they respond here, as it would be a shame for this article not to appear as a DYK hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: the latest notice has produced results: the nominator wrote that I am going through each individual reference in turn, which as you can imagine may take some time, so we'll wait for the results from that process, since work is being done to address the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 22[edit]

Kirsty McGuinness

  • ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both the historically mostly Catholic Antrim GAA and the historically mostly Protestant Northern Ireland women's national football team? Source: BBC

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 13:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The C of E New, in time, long enough, sourced, neutral, QPQ done. Issues:
Where in the article does it say that Antrim GAA is mostly Catholic, or that the national team is mostly Protestant?
Hook seems to conflict with this line in the article: "[McGuinness playing on these teams] differed from men's sport where there are sectarian divides between majority Protestant association football and majority Roman Catholic GAA." --Usernameunique (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's in the last sentence. The hook doesn't conflict with the article as its saying she plays for both women's teams while stating that this doesn't happen in the mens teams due to the divides in NI. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, how does "McGuinness would attend Linfield training wearing an Antrim shirt and vice versa" support the hook? Also, what I mean by the apparent contradiction is that the hook implies that the two teams are majority Catholic and majority Protestant, and that McGuinness is an exception to that trend. The sentence about men's soccer appears to say the same; that the teams are majority (but not exclusively) Catholic or Protestant, which also implies that there are some exceptions to the general trend. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. s such, I have amended the hook to state the historical divides between football and GAA that she has crossed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks The C of E. Just need something in the article also saying that women's soccer has historically had Catholic/Protestant divisions. I think you're trying to say that in this sentence: "This differed from men's sport where there are traditionally sectarian divides between the historically majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA." However, the way that sentence is structured it seems to say that only men's soccer has historically has such a divide, when I think you are trying to say that soccer generally has had the divide, and men's soccer currently still adheres to it. Rephrasing that sentence (e.g., "Traditionally there are sectarian divides between the majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA, which are still generally adhered to in men's sport.") should do the trick. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I have added a clarification. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks The C of E, all set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:DYK that led to hook being pulled
  • Hook - " ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both the historically mostly Catholic Antrim GAA and the historically mostly Protestant Northern Ireland women's national football team?"
  • Article - "This differed [sic] from men's sport where there are traditionally sectarian divides between the historically majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA, which is no longer commonplace in women's sport in Northern Ireland"
  • Source for the hook here even flatly contradicts the hook with the quote ""Sectarianism has never been a problem in women's football. All the clubs I have ever known have always had a great blend of Protestants and Catholics."
  • In other words, the article doesn't claim that the NI women's national team has been "historically Protestant" and the source doesn't back it up either. Also, the article says "Some of our girls come to our training with their Antrim gear on and go to Antrim training with their Linfield shirts on." which suggests that playing women's GAA and football isn't even unusual, which renders the hook immediately non-hooky. Pinging @The C of E, Yoninah, and Usernameunique:. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I realise that my opinion is pretty meaningless but... if there is doubt just pull it before it gets onto the mainpage and replace with another? Can always be fixed, clarified etc and added again, no? Better to be on the safe side in the end. Or are there some arcane rules i am missing that would not allow that to happen? 91.49.74.59 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you're right, I can (and will) do that, even if it's just swapping it with one from a later queue just to allow for more opinions and/or fixes. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've swapped it back to Prep 5 so it won't go live until tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the hook to Prep 3 so there's no risk of it being promoted to queue before this issue is dealt with. There's no reason to rush things. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I had mentioned that the sports are usually divided on religious lines, it is only recently through the women's game that that barrier has been broken down. This hook was designed to show that by featuring a person who has played both GAA and football at representative level, which in itself is an interesting fact. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, it might be interesting if it were clear to the average reader that these are actually two different sports with different rules. I didn't realize it myself until just now, by following a number of wikilinks, that Gaelic football is not merely some sort of Irish league that plays standard football/soccer, but a different game. There needs to be clarity regarding this, both in the article and in the hook. I'll let Black Kite comment on whether your response above answers their concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved out again while waiting for Black Kite to respond; now in Prep 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem remains though - the "fact" that the Northern Ireland women's football (as opposed to the men's game) formerly had a sectarian background is not sourced - indeed the source contains a quote that actually contradicts it. It does need to be sourced, the hook can't exist without it. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above, I've pulled the hook from prep, and will be reopening it on the nominations page shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook is contradicted by the source (see hatted discussion above, which is copied from the DYK talk page), so this nomination is being pulled from prep so a new hook can be proposed and vetted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 24[edit]

Amusement

  • ... that laughter, a signal of amusement, helps us cope with stress because it relaxes the muscles in our bodies?

5x expanded by Galenmcneil (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Not new but expanded on November 21-24.
  • Long enough.
  • Is neutral.
  • Some in-line citations are needed.
  • No close paraphrasing found.
  • The hook is short enough.
  • I don't see a citation for the hook.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This is a challenging topic and I reckon the current draft falls too far short. The OED defines its current meaning as "The pleasurable occupation of the attention, or diversion of the mind (from serious duties, etc.)" and explains that this has evolved from being an "Idle time-wasting diversion" to "Anything which lightly and pleasantly diverts the attention, or beguiles the time; a pastime, play, game, means of recreation". It is therefore a very broad category covering not just humour but many kinds of pastime and play. The article entertainment does this much better and we should be considering merger with that page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really see that - this covers the emotion, not activities which promote it. Entertainment is already 129k raw bytes. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur, plus this is not FAC, it's DYK so if the article meets the requirements of the DYK criteria, which actually allows for an article to be "far short" of what is possible, then there's not one single scrap of grounds for complaint in that regard either. Plus the stomping into another reviewer's review is bad form too. So a hat-trick of failure. So please, Zigzig20s, continue with your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll third. Mr Davidson's objection is completely ill taken, given that the relevant policy isn't WP:¡¡¡EVERYONE!!! but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are additional senses of the word and they should be available in a hatnote or at Amusement (disambiguation) but that's no reason to try to blow up the article's WP:SCOPE to fit every recorded or potential form of time-passing. "Amusement" as the state or agent of "being amused" is perfectly straightforward.

    That said, we still need some more citations, including for the hook, apparently. — LlywelynII 13:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 30[edit]

Ilona Durigo

Ilona Durigo
Ilona Durigo
  • Reviewed: Regina Barzilay
  • Comment: I filled a red link, and then found the one thing to say about her is this legendary recording. Please hold until after 6 January, if not for Good Friday ;)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 10:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, German inline hook citation accepted AGF, no copyvios, QPQ done. Image checks out. Gerda Arendt, there's a big block of German in the penultimate paragraph that hasn't been translated. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know, the very end. It would be hard to translate (excited poetic language), but is a nice extra for those who know German to give a feeling for the taste of the period. It is summarized before. I can ask Moonraker if a translation is possible? I gave up just on "wunderzart, poesieverklärte", which is literally "wondertender, poetrytransfigured". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Gerda, I agree with Usernameunique, this would really be better in English. As you know, German has a lot of compound words that we need two or three of ours to translate, or else hyphens, so for wunderzart, poesieverklärte Töne we could say "wonderfully tender tones, transfigured by poetry", or perhaps "poetry-transfigured". I'm busy today, but I could have a go at it tomorrow or the next day if needed. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please, if desired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Moonraker, do you plan to return to this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I'll second that the present format isn't acceptable; it's just a quote validating a point that has already been made and really belongs in the footnotes. If it's really needed, it should go into a {{blockquote}} [done] or table with parallel translation. Ms Arendt, how about just nixing it altogether, if the nomination's being held up over a difficult and needless translation? — LlywelynII 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

    It's not really part of the DYK but it would also be good to have cites for the DOB and date of death. — LlywelynII 09:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There's no rush. If Moonraker translates, it will be formatted like in Der 100. Psalm. Green pumping hearts.jpg Happy 2018 to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Tatar Cavalry Regiment

Сavalrymеn of Tatar (Azerbaijani) regiment in reconnaissance, July 1917
Сavalrymеn of Tatar (Azerbaijani) regiment in reconnaissance, July 1917

Created by Baskervill (talk). Nominated by Grandmaster (talk) at 01:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Note: struck ALT1, which at 309 characters is far too long for DYK, where the maximum is 200. (The original hook, at 198 characters, just squeaks by.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Size and date check out. However the vast majority of the article is unreferenced (or, at least, lacks inline citations); only 8 of 28 paragraphs even include a single citation, and while foreign-language citations are certainly acceptable none of them provide translations, or even transliterations, of their titles, making them practically impossible to properly verify. This is a very intriguing subject, but the article needs a lot more love. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is translated from the Russian Wikipedia, and the references are all in Russian, but I agree that the referencing could be improved. Will work on it. Thanks for the advice. Grandmaster 00:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 2[edit]

Yaa Ntiamoah Badu

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, long enough, in time, sourced, QPQ done. Striking ALT1 as less interesting (and too many acronyms). Crosstemplejay, a few phrases need to be reworded. Second, which source supports the fact that she used to be a zoologist? That fact needs to have an inline citation in the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 10[edit]

Valentine (Maurice Chevalier song)

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Legendary song, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The hook is fine and sourced. I have some wishes for the article which is a bit like a collection of interesting facts in no particular order. Example: under the header "Background", I'd expect a brief introduction who the singer was (no, don't take for granted that all our readers know him), and then in chronological order what made him write this song when etc. in chronology, not first what someone thought about it later (which would better go to the lead). Generally, one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Do you agree to make some changes? - Take your time, then perhaps we reserve this for Valentine's day, - reservations no longer than six weeks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I will try to expand it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have expanded the article by translating from the French Wikipedia. Is the article okay now? Yes, I would like it to be reserved for Valentine's day.
By the way, I wonder if we can find a hookier hook. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
COMMENT: I find the article still too choppy. Would there be a copyright problem with adding the lyrics of the chorus to the article? In French and in English? The rhyming makes great sense in French (petons/tetons, menton/mouton). Apparently, the 'cleaned-up' version in French but for the American audiences, rhymed petons/piton. David notMD (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I will look later. I doubt that the translation is out of copyright. Better link to it if available somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The article already has an External link to the lyrics in French. I recommend adding a link to an English translation. I guess the question is how much of a copyrighted song can be in the article as fair use, and also if a translation can be copyrighted. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Translations can certainly be copyrighted. If the above is from a published translation, then it shouldn't even be reproduced on this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Chorus removed from this page. Would fair use allow for quoting a bit more of the chorus (both French and English) than is currently in the article? David notMD (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Assuming the song is still under copyright and given the short length of the lyrics, most likely not - per WP:COPYQUOTE we can't quote a "substantial portion" of the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is much improved! Can you be consistent about songs in quotation marks (vs. italics)? And about the tense, - past tense preferred to present tense for encyclopedic "narration". I am not sure about "Maurice Chevalier", - usually it would be just "Chevalier", but his name is almost a trademark. - Can you write a bit more lead? No reference os needed in the lead for facts sourced in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 13[edit]

Nana Kofi Obiri Egyir II

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 13:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC).

will review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Interesting combination of "jobs", on good sources, no copyvio obvious. A few questions:
  • The name. In the article, the full name appears only in lead and infobox. Can you describe (in a footnote, and/or by "birthname") what part in the name is what. If the common name is what you always call him in the article later, perhaps it should be moved? But then, the hooks should also use that name.
  • Can you link "traditional leader"?
  • Can you say a bit more about the kind of business(es) he ran?
  • "to offer accommodation to the several tourists who flock the region" - that adds nothing (for me), it's what such a thing normally does.
  • "Some believed that his vast experience in business and traditional rule would be brought to bear on the various issues that the council would be confronted with" - I am not happy with the wording, "bear" what? - is it flowery for "would be useful for the council"?
I like the first hook best, as the broadest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 18[edit]

Pearl and Hermes Atoll

5x expanded by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 04:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Premeditated Chaos, QPQ needed. Otherwise 5x expanded, late but see Rule D9, long enough, sourced (a one sentence paragraph in "Geography" is not cited, but it's essentially map data), inline citation checks out for ALT0, and inline/offline citation accepted AGF for ALT1, no apparent copyvios. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and well referenced. QPQ is done. I find the main hook very interesting. A couple of issues: 1. "fear of water" should be changed to "fear of the sea" per sources and article. They are related but not the same. 2. The sentence "direct criticism of the Supreme Court over its handling of the criminal contempt case involving the New Patriotic Party’s Sammy Awuku." is almost directly copied from the source. It needs to be paraphrased. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Zanhe, looks like "fear of the water" has already been changed, and I've just rephrased the sentence you highlighted. Anything else needed? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've adjusted the original hook and ALT1 because they both used "fear of water" (they now say "fear of the sea"), and added "the opportunity" to ALT1, because "rejected to head" made no sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 19[edit]

Forty Five Hundred Times

Rick Parfitt playing with Status Quo
Rick Parfitt playing with Status Quo
  • ... that "Forty Five Hundred Times" was Rick Parfitt's (pictured) favourite guitar moment in Status Quo? Source: [interviwer] "What are your own favourite guitar moments?" [Parfitt] "The one that comes to mind is Forty-Five Hundred Times. I'll always remember sitting there doing it, getting goosepimples." [21]
  • Reviewed: Good Omens (TV series)
  • Comment: A "shoot the moon" DYK this one in tribute to Rick Parfitt, that has little of chance of getting listed in the timeframe given, but if you don't ask you don't get. Article is currently at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forty Five Hundred Times) and is not obviously going to close as "keep" right now, but most !votes were lodged before the expansion. The hook would be ideal to run on 24 December, the first anniversary of Parfitt's death - if that's not posssible (and it probably isn't), maybe save it for 12 October 2018 which would have been Parfitt's 70th birthday.

5x expanded by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

will review - will review after deletion discussion that is, ping me please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I never pictured you as a closet Quo headbanger, Gerda. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
24 Dec is full, and the other too far in the future, and I am not supposed to be amused about the images people nurture about me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: AfD closed as keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Interesting music and history, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and a good illustration. - Article: I'd like a bit more lead, about what makes it special. (Not needed for an approval, but think about it.) - Formality: please copy the ref for the hook to the very sentence. - Hook: can we polish? Sorry, not every reader will have heard the name, so can we please mention that he was among the authors and performers? Somehow? Please get rid of the possesive if you want (pictured), because it breaks the flow. - I got two GAs approved today, and the third is in making: happy music, also for you (yes, everybody who reads this)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 23[edit]

Bartell Group

  • ... that five siblings and an in-law, all from Wisconsin, made up the Bartell Group, which owned radio stations around the United States during the 1940s–1960s and were pioneers in the Top 40 format?

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 03:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 24[edit]

Persoonia adenantha, Persoonia chamaepeuce

Persoonia adenantha
Persoonia adenantha

5x expanded by Gderrin (talk) and Casliber (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 13:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Casliber: Both articles confirmed 5x expanded. Images in both articles are properly licensed. Earwig gives the all-clear on both articles. Although the Persoonia adenantha article mentions the Czech nationality of the describing botanist, I couldn't find reference to this in the cited sources. The Polish nationality of the botanist isn't mentioned at all in the Persoonia chamaepeuce article, and the Carl Meissner article says he was Swiss while John Lhotsky was Austrian. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll put it in. Lhotsky was born in Lwow (now Lviv) and described himself as Polish - see here. Will amend both articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt

Latin and Czech print
Latin and Czech print

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hi Gerda! Formalities first: article new enough at time of nomination; article long enough per DYK Check; no policy problems. I like this a lot, but can I suggest a tweaked hook? The "huh" moment from the hook comes from how old (1500 CE) a contemporary carol is -- we could accentuate that by adding the publishing date of the German version to the hook. So for example: ... that the German Christmas carol "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt", first published in 1844, is based on a Czech song derived from a Latin model dating to 1500? A Traintalk 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that it is better because it makes the song look old-fashioned (19th century), while it's a song used often today, see my Christmas music. But why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In that case I think the contrast is even better: that a contemporary Christmas song dates back to 1500! A Traintalk 20:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand, - I'd avoid "contemporary", might call Christmas Lullaby contemporary, composed in 1990. But I would call this frequently performed in our time. The hymns by Luther are all from the first half of the 16th century, so not much "younger" than the Czech hymn, and still sung a lot! We sang Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ yesterday in a Catholic service, and only then I noticed how often Luther mentions Mary whose day was celebrated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
All right then, well how about: " ... that the German Christmas carol "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is based on a Czech song derived from a Latin model dated to 1500 (pictured)?" A Traintalk 09:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, "to" is too precise, we don't know exactly, that's why I suggested "around". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok then, " ... that the German Christmas carol "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is based on a Czech song derived from a Latin model dated to around 1500?" The English is a little jarring without the "to". A Traintalk 11:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Next concern: doesn't that read as if the Latin is from around 1500, while it's the Czech? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the German Christmas carol "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is based on a Czech song derived around 1500 (Latin / Chech pictured) from a Latin model? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Red Spears' uprising in Shandong (1928–1929)

  • ... that although the Red Spears' uprising in Shandong (1928–1929) broke out in protest against high taxes, banditry, and government brutality, the rebels themselves came to raise high taxes, loot, rape, rob and kidnap for ransom? Source: Bianco, Lucien (2015). Peasants without the Party: Grassroots Movements in Twentieth Century China, p. 5-7, 9
  • Reviewed: Pending

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 14:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Barnet Nover

  • Reviewed: forthcoming

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 03:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Comment: Chetsford, there's a 200 character limit for the hook, and your suggestion is about 249. Can you come up with something(s) shorter? --Usernameunique (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and uses inline citations. There do not appear to be copyright violations. I changed a number in the article. Please change it back if the original was correct. The hook is cited, but the QPQ review is not yet done. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 26[edit]

Lobt Gott, ihr Christen alle gleich

"Puer natus est nobis" in a codex
"Puer natus est nobis" in a codex
  • Reviewed: Jeans jacket

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Bajirao Mastani

Improved to Good Article status by Krish! (talk). Self-nominated at 22:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg QPQ check failed, everything else looks fine. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

Sibirotitan

  • ... that the newly named dinosaur Sibirotitan is only the second sauropod species named from the country of Russia, and one of the oldest sauropod species known from all of Asia?
    • ALT1:... that fossils thought to belong to one individual of the dinosaur Sibirotitan, found in Kemerovo Province of western Siberia, were excavated from 1960s through to the 2010s?
  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination, I apologize if I've done anything incorrectly.

Created by Lusotitan (talk). Self-nominated at 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

  • I can review this shortly. Chris857 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Article created 6 days before nom, and is plenty long (~3800 characters)
  • Copy edit suggestions:
  • Add space after period in "S.astrosacralis"
  • "noted that it was one of the oldest" -> could we say "noted that Sibirotitan was one of the oldest". I was a little confused wondering if "it" referred to Arkharavia.
  • "refers to star-like way" -> "refers to the star-like way"
  • "Several characters were noted" -> "Several characteristics were noted"? Or is "character" typical for paleontology articles?
  • "These include the fashion the tooth crowns align in the jaw..." - I'm not sure what the fix is here, but this seems grammatically wrong
  • "matrixes" -> "matrices"
  • "it's" -> "it is" (manual of style recommends against contractions)
  • "Using one of the dorsal vertebra" -> "Using one of the dorsal vertebrae" (you would say, for example "one of the people", not "one of the person")
  • "and made the suggestion a" -> "and suggested a" (seems a little more active in wording)
  • "might've" -> "might have"
  • The two non-journal references are currently WP:BAREURLS and could use more information (title, author, date, etc.)
  • Hook
  • Short enough, I prefer the first option, is backed up the journal article
  • Because this is your first DYK, no need for you to review a nomination
  • Point of technicality for when you created the nomination template, you expanded the article but did not create it (but I don't think it matters to anything in this case).
Symbol question.svg Article needs some improvements, and I'll come back through tomorrow to check if there is any close paraphrasing. Chris857 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tajemnica Statuetki

  • ... that Metropolis Software's Tajemnica Statuetki has the distinction of being the first Polish adventure game...?

5x expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Coin945: Date and length fine. QPQ done. However the article does still have a banner tag on it and the hook fact needs citing inline. No close paraphrasing I could see. Just ping me when you've fixed the above and i'll be able to pass it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • May I suggest some small tweaks to the hook (ALT1 below)? — Kpalion(talk) 14:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT1:... that Metropolis Software's Tajemnica Statuetki (The Mystery of the Statuette) has the distinction of being the first Polish adventure game?

American Base Hospital No. 57

Surgical assistants in WW1 U.S. Military Hospital No. 57 Operating Room
Surgical assistants in WW1 U.S. Military Hospital No. 57 Operating Room

Created by Esemono (talk). Self-nominated at 07:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Not a stub. No pic to review. It's neutral and references are adequate. AGF on offline sources. No copyvios or close paraphrasing seen. Hook is correctly formatted but is not very strong unless they died because they were at that particular hospital. It doesn't relate directly to the activities of the hospital. I assume they would probably have died whichever hospital they had been in. I also don't see the deaths attributed to the Spanish flu in the source? Can we have a new hook please? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. There's another source here including pictures of a triage centre and operating theatre that may be free to use as U.S. govt. publications? https://books.google.com/books?id=cTpU7iDjE6MC&pg=PA154 Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Took out the Spanish Flu info. The Triage center looks like Hospital Base 45 in Tours but used the other picture. -- Esemono (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1... that the World War I American Base Hospital No. 57, in Paris, had a normal capacity of 1,800 beds but during October of 1918 had as many as 2000 patients? Source: Paris, Base Hospital No.57 ... with a normal bed capacity of 1,800 ... during October 1918, as many as 2,000 sick and wounded were in the hospital. [25]
  • ALT2... that the World War I American Base Hospital No. 57 had a normal capacity of 1,800 beds but during October of 1918 had as many as 2000 patients? Source: Paris, Base Hospital No.57 ... with a normal bed capacity of 1,800 ... during October 1918, as many as 2,000 sick and wounded were in the hospital. [26]
Thanks but we are still not there on the hook. Saying it was normally 1800 and then increased to 2000 doesn't amount to much. The reviewer is not supposed to suggest hooks but how about going with the numbers of medical and dental patients treated? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: How about ALT3? Esemono (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT3... that from September 1918 until August 1919, when it left France, American Base Hospital No. 57 treated 8,585 surgical and medical cases, and a further 7,292 dental cases?

Mandisa Thomas

Mandisa Thomas speaking at California Freethought Day
Mandisa Thomas speaking at California Freethought Day
  • ... that the 2013 Blackout Secular Rally, organized by Mandisa Thomas to celebrate racial diversity in the secular demographic, was the United States' first outdoor event headlined by nontheists of color? Source: "In yet another sign of how the American secular demographic is emerging – in terms of both raw numbers and organizational commitment – the first-ever rally featuring nonbelievers of color is scheduled for later this month in New York." (Blackout Secular Rally: Atheism Makes Minority Inroads)
    • ALT1:... that California bill SCR-79 recognizes speakers including Mandisa Thomas, and officially proclaims October 15, 2017 as the 16th annual celebration of California Freethought Day? Source: "be it Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature proclaims October 15, 2017, as the 16th annual celebration of California Freethought Day in Sacramento, California..." (Bill Text - SCR-79 California Freethought Day)

5x expanded by JGehlbach (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough (5x expansion). Article gives subject's full DOB; this needs a citation. Even though the claim "the first outdoor event featuring nontheists of color" is in the source, I am rather sceptical. Have there never been such events outside the US? And I don't see how the source supports it being "the first secular rally celebrating diversity", which also seems an improbable claim. ALT1 is not fully supported by the article, which does not mention it being in Sacramento. Perhaps "in Sacramento" could be dropped, as it is ambiguous anyway. Earwig and spot checking found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Edwardx (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: Thanks for the thorough review. I removed the DOB from article infobox and lede until RS can be located. Also reworked primary hook to tighten claims and ALT1 to remove mention of Sacramento.
  • Symbol question.svg Thank you, JGehlbach. Looking more closely at the at the hook claim, the article reviewing the rally was written by Thomas, and as the organizer, we can reasonably assume the poster was created under her direction. The cited source (review article written by Thomas) begins with, "Mandisa Thomas, organizer of the first-ever outdoor event featuring nontheists of color, reports on the success of the event...". The poster describes the event as, "The first outdoor rally/celebration that will predominantly feature secularists of color". All of these claims are rather vague, and their independence is debatable. Is there no other coverage of the rally available? Edwardx (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: You're right about the primary hook and the likely bias of its supporting source. I found a different source which I also added to the article, and rewrote the DYK hook somewhat to eliminate the secondary hook claim which I'm indeed finding troublesome to support. Please have another look, and thank you again for your diligence. If you find the primary hook still too problematic, I'm happy to go with ALT1. JGehlbach (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 28[edit]

Pope Miltiades

The icon of Pope Miltiades at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, Italy
The icon of Pope Miltiades at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, Italy
  • ... that it was during the pontificate of Pope Miltiades that the Edict of Milan, an agreement to treat Christians benevolently within the Roman Empire, was issued by Constantine and Licinius? Source: "The pontificate of Miltiades coincided with the events that gave birth to the peace of the Church. After the victory of Emperor Constantine at the Millvian bridge on 28 October 312, the policy of tolerance illustrated by the edict of Milan in February 313 established new ties between the papacy and the emperor." (Levillain, Philippe, ed. (2002). The Papacy: an Encyclopedia. 2. New York, NY: Routledge. p. 993. )
    • ALT1:... that Pope Miltiades was the first pope to receive a letter from an emperor? Source: "The letter Constantine wrote to the Pope was the first known official correspondence between an emperor and a pope." (* Malveaux, Ethan (2015). The Color Line: A History. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corporation. p. 114. ISBN 9781503527591. )
    • ALT2:... that the first pope to inhabit the Lateran palace was Pope Miltiades? Source: "The next pope, Miltades (or Melchiades), reigned until 314. To him Constantine presented the palace of the Empress Fausta as his residence near where the Lateran basilica would soon be built". (O'Malley, John (2009). A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present. Lanham, MD: Government Institutes. p. 31. ISBN 9781580512299. )
  • Comment: I'd like the article to be on the DYK section of the Main page on 10 January if possible, not sooner. But after 10 January is also fine.

5x expanded by Governor Sheng (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Ilya Espino de Marotta

Created by Nejaby (talk). Self-nominated at 12:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is mostly unsourced; unacceptable for a BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 29[edit]

George Boris Townsend

  • ... that English physicist and television technology developer George Boris Townsend once described color television as a "judicious combination of human imperfections and clever technical solutions"?
  • Comment: Article created by Kingston451 via AfC process on May 7, 2017; moved to mainspace by BusterD on December 29, 2017

Moved to mainspace by Kingston451 (talk). Nominated by BusterD (talk) at 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

For now, I just formatted the hook. May review, don't know yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Since the nominator has more than 5 DYKs, a QPQ is needed here. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Interesting bio, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - First job: we need more inline citations, recommended at least one per paragraph, best at its end. Second: his name should be repeated at the beginning of each section, instead of "he" or "his", - readers may jump from the TOC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I found this at AfC awaiting review and liked it. Clearly I'm a bit out of practice but I'm glad to do a QPQ (thanks for the formatting help). I've requested sources about early life from the author twice but no response. It's entirely possible the editor had given up on awaiting review (and that editor has taken several whacks at this subject) and isn't following this discussion. I've performed a reasonable search and I'm not seeing anything that would support the early life section. I'm presuming the author has access to offline sourcing. I was hoping a copyvio search would get me close to some sources but the author has done a good job and I'm not seeing close paraphrasing. I'll perform the suggested style changes. With any luck I can cite something in that section. Appreciate the reviewing help. BusterD (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I asked the project how much good faith we have to offer for the early life. Please find sources for the later paras. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 30[edit]

Celia Cooney

  • ... thatCelia Cooney gained fame in 1924 for repeatedly defying the New York police with 10 successful robberies?...? Source: Duncombe, Stephen; Mattson, Andrew (2006). The Bobbed Haired Bandit. NYU Press.

Created by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Hélio Gelli Pereira

  • ... that... Hélio Gelli Pereira, who first isolated the common cold virus, was described as having an "infectious good nature"? Source: [27]
    • ALT1:... that Hélio Gelli Pereira, who was the first to isolate the common cold virus, didn't realise he had done so until years later? Source: [28]

Created by GilbertoSilvaFan (talk). Self-nominated at 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - First hook is fine, but the article should clarify that this was one description of his personality, rather than an "often cited" one. Second hook, particularly the "years later" realization, does not appear directly in the article. Assuming good faith on the sourcing on both, as they are in another language and behind a paywall, respectively.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Just a few things needed before this can pass. SounderBruce 06:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Thank you for reviewing this nomination! All three of the issues that you flagged were valid, and I think I have addressed all of them.
1) Adequate sourcing: Red X - A few paragraphs in the Early work section need an inline citation.
I have added citations to all early work paragraphs.
2) EarWig picked up a few similar phrases ("first five years of his life", " known internationally for his work on the viruses of vertebrates") that should be changed.
I have reworded these phrases that were too close to the original source material.
3) Cited: Red X - First hook is fine, but the article should clarify that this was one description of his personality, rather than an "often cited" one.
I have removed this 'often cited' phrase from the article. Hopefully the first hook can now be used (instead of the second one).
Thank you again for reviewing this! GilbertoSilvaFan (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@GilbertoSilvaFan: There's still two paragraphs in the Early work section that lack inline citations. I would also suggest (but not require) merging some of these short paragraphs together to help with the flow of the text. The paraphrasing looks good now. The second hook (which needs a bit of rewording, perhaps "Hélio Gelli Pereira, who was the first to isolate the common cold virus,") will be good to go after you address the last two paragraphs. SounderBruce 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Thanks again for the reply. I have added citations to the Early Work section. I have merged the many short paragraphs to help with text flow.
Regarding the "didn't realise until years later" hook, I do not have a source for this statement (even though I know it to be true), so I think it should not be used. I hope that the first hook can be used instead?
Thanks again! GilbertoSilvaFan (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

National trauma

  • ... that wars, battles, assassinations and natural disasters can all cause national trauma? Source: See the multiple sources for the "examples" section
    • ALT1:... that national trauma can shatter the social life of an entire country? Source: "Something terrible, deplorable, or abnormal has happened, and social life has lost its predictablity". Arthur G. Neal, National Trauma and Collective Memory: Extraordinary Events in the American Experience
  • Reviewed: only my 2nd DYK nomination
  • Comment: The "recently expanded" criteria may be borderline due to the holidays enforcing some time away from this article. I finished updating tonight, so that is clearly in the last seven days. The article was at 360 characters before I started and is at 8,442 now so it is a large enough expansion. The problem is I started a complete re-write of the previous article on December 1 and only finished adding examples tonight.

5x expanded by Eggishorn (talk). Self-nominated at 00:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Cystocele

Treating prolapsed bladder in ancient Greece
Treating prolapsed bladder in ancient Greece
  • ... that the ancient Greeks treated a woman's prolapsed bladder by hanging her upside down by the feet and shaking her up and down (pictured) to let gravity cure the condition? Source: Lensen, E. J. M.; Withagen, M. I. J.; Kluivers, K. B.; Milani, A. L.; Vierhout, M. E. (2013-10-01). "Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a historical review with emphasis on the anterior compartment". International Urogynecology Journal. 24 (10): 1593–1602. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2074-2. ISSN 0937-3462.
  • Comment: It would be great to have this on the main page for April 1.

5x expanded by Barbara (WVS) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC).

  • On it. Some issues with the hooks, but that's easy enough to fix. You sure you want all those links in there? A) "pessary" is the one people won't know; B) you're just siphoning clicks away from the article you worked on. — LlywelynII 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

    Symbol delete vote.svg Huh. Same issue as over here. Wasn't actually 5× in the last ten days (5× began Dec 17); this is closer than the Isabella article but I'll just wait on the decision there about whether we have a backlog or whether y'all should just be more timely about submitting these things. — LlywelynII 09:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I would like to remind everyone that April Fools' Day is the one exception to the newness criteria—as long as the article is "new" since the most recent April 1, it is eligible for consideration. Complete details on eligibility are at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. So long as this qualifies for an April 1 outing, it is not a late submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Outing? Who will we be outing? EEng 17:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I like the first hook the best if that matters. I agree that people will not know what a pessary is. How about I improve the pessary article enough to also be a DYK. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh goody. Great hooks available in the text I linked above. EEng 04:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw. You are quite outrageous, you know. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 18:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

Umkhosi Wokweshwama

Created by Pharos (talk). Self-nominated at 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Jagdgeschwader II

  • ... that the engines of Jagdgeschwader II could not tolerate artificial castor oil? Source: "Their engines showed troubling signs of failure after seven to ten hours of use, the synthetic castor oil substitute Voltol contributing to overheating and eventual engine failure."

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Yasonna Laoly

Yasonna Laoly, the incumbent Indonesian Minister of Laws
Yasonna Laoly, the incumbent Indonesian Minister of Laws

5x expanded by MezzoMezzo (talk) and Awewe (talk). Nominated by Awewe (talk) at 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is a 5x expansion, but requires more sourcing as there are unsourced paragraphs. Also QPQ is needed, as User:Awewe already has six. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 1[edit]

Martina Mayne

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 11:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Joginder Singh (soldier)

Improved to Good Article status by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk). Self-nominated at 08:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

La Loche Formation

  • Reviewed: I have fewer than 5 DYK credits, so I am exempt from the QPQ requirement

Created by Georgialh (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Tammy Abraham

  • ... that English footballer Tammy Abraham was the first-ever player to win Bristol City's Player of the Year, Young Player of the Year and Top Goalscorer awards in the same season? ref 18
    • ALT1:... that during the 2016–17 season, Tammy Abraham broke the record for the most goals scored by a teenager in a single EFL Championship campaign? ref 16
  • Comment: I have been unable to add the image from the page for the DYK nom. Could an editor/administrator please assist in this regard?

Improved to Good Article status by Liam E. Bekker (talk). Self-nominated at 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Danny Lloyd (footballer)

5x expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 13:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten, BWV 202

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 3[edit]

Never Waste a Good Crisis

  • Reviewed: to follow

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Lygon Arms

The exterior of the Lygon Arms Hotel from Broadway's High St.
The exterior of the Lygon Arms Hotel from Broadway's High St.
  • ... that the Lygon Arms (pictured) is believed to have played host to both Charles I and Oliver Cromwell? Source: "In the Charles I suite at this historic hotel, the king's coat of arms hangs above the fireplace. It is reputed that Charles and his supporters assembled in this room during the Civil War. Later on, Oliver Cromwell stayed at the Lygon the night before the Battle of Worcester." [30] (subscription required)
    • ALT1:... that the Lygon Arms (pictured) has seen everyone from Prince Philip to Kylie Minogue? Source: "Former guests include .... Prince Philip and Kylie Minogue" (link as above))

Moved to mainspace by Siobhan.mcmorran (talk) and Ritchie333 (talk) (cont). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

SSK 90 helmet

SSK 90 helmet
SSK 90 helmet

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 10:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Special occasion holding area[edit]

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 nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=818488099"