Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know...?"
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP: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 22 1
December 25 1
December 27 1
January 31 1
February 6 1
February 9 1
February 23 1 1
February 26 1
February 27 2 1
March 3 1 1
March 4 1
March 8 1
March 9 1 1
March 11 1
March 12 3 1
March 14 2
March 15 1
March 17 1
March 18 3
March 19 2
March 21 1 1
March 23 2
March 24 1
March 25 2 1
March 26 2
March 27 1
March 28 1
March 30 1
March 31 1 1
April 2 2 1
April 3 1
April 4 3
April 5 2
April 6 1
April 7 1
April 8 2 2
April 9 1
April 10 3
April 11 1
April 12 2 1
April 13 2 1
April 14 5 1
April 15 2 1
April 16 1 1
April 18 1
April 19 1
April 20 3 2
April 21 3 3
April 22 6 4
April 23 7 6
April 24 11 10
April 25 5
April 26 13 9
April 27 9 6
April 28 6 4
April 29 6 5
April 30 5 3
May 1 9 6
May 2 8 5
May 3 17 10
May 4 8 5
May 5 7 2
May 6 6 5
May 7 8 3
May 8 9 4
May 9 7 2
May 10 6 5
May 11 9 6
May 12 6 2
May 13 9 3
May 14 11 5
May 15 9 4
May 16 8 2
May 17 9 3
May 18 7 2
May 19 7 1
May 20 12 2
May 21 6 3
May 22 6
May 23 4 1
May 24
Total 332 149
Last updated 00:51, 24 May 2019 UTC
Current time is 01:01, 24 May 2019 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.
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.
  • 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]

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]


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.

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.


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash
A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash

** ALT1:... that ...security forces in India also use slingshots for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir? Source: The Central Reserve Police Force uses a variety of weapons, including pellet guns, tear gas, and slingshots that hurl stones when glass marbles aren’t available. National Geographic

Source: "The army has recommended replacing pellet guns used by paramilitary forces and state police for crowd control in Kashmir with less lethal weapons such as sound cannons, pepper shotguns and chilli grenades." Hindustan Times
  • Comment: image is entirely optional, only text DYK or text+Image DYK can also be considered. ALT2 if approved would need a different image 2

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk), DBigXray (talk), and Kautilya3 (talk). Nominated by DBigXray (talk) at 18:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Everything looks great. Can you pick a hook and image should I can approve it? All hooks should work, and both images do as well. DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712 test, thanks a lot for your kind comment and review. we did a quick poll among ourselves, we feel that ALT0 is the best among the three along with pic 1, please proceed with ALT0. DBigXray 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Also notify User:DannyS712 DBigXray 05:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: thanks. The test sig was a mistake, the real reviewer is this account. I'll pass this now.
Thank you User:DannyS712. I made a minor correction in the caption above. regards. DBigXray 13:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: still Symbol confirmed.svg passes --DannyS712 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Put this on hold, please. Unless I manage to read the entirety and (possibly) get over my initial feelings of slapping a POV tag. If you see no editorial efforts of mine within the next 48 hrs. at the article, feel free to proceed. WBGconverse 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712:--This's is a blatant POV piece; manifested as an highly effective praise of the Indian machinery. The author has been careful in weeding out any source (of which there is an abundance) that criticizes the methods.
That I'm not involved with the article/ broader area in any editorial manner (and nether with the author in any manner), I don't see any reason to not perform a second-review.
This's a solid ☒N decline from me on grounds of Rule 4 (NPOV). WBGconverse 14:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Winged Blades of Godric thanks for sharing your opinion on the article. The article authored by DiplomatTesterMan as it stands right now covers all aspect of the crowd control in J&K and covers the victims from both sides. This article has recently been created so it does "not" need to pass a GA criteria for being able to pass the DYK nomination stage. That said there is always some room for improvement everywhere, even in a GA/ FA article. So lets contribute collaboratively. If you can elaborate your specific problems with the article on the article talk page and your suggestions on how it can be addressed we all can see what more can be done to improve this article. regardsDBigXray 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I'll re-read the article. I'm sorry I didn't catch this when doing my review --DannyS712 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 it would be very helpful for the article if after your review you can also share (here or on article talk) your suggestions to improve if you find any "major" issues. regards DBigXray 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The article mentions in the lead the number of protestors killed in 2018 - "51 rioters being killed during clashes and 37 rioters being killed during encounters". The article mentions how over 100 protestors were killed in police firing in 2010. The article mentions how "thousands of people in Jammu and Kashmir have suffered pellet wounds, hundreds have eye-injuries, and at least 14 people have died due to their pellet injuries." The article also talks about "One of the youngest pellet guns victims is a 19 month old child, Heeba Jan, who suffered injuries in 2018. Another young person to suffer from pellet injuries is Insha Malik (Insha Ahmed), who was left blind as a result of her injuries." The article also mentions pellet guns are criticised. The article also mentions how tear gas shells have killed people. It also says how curfews have been held for long periods... Winged Blades of Godric is inaccurate according to me in saying that this is NPOV. I would request someone else to go through it, or even better..... expand it so the NPOV is sorted and we can get over with this, rather than say that this is a highly effective praise of the Indian machinery which should be meaningless here... I also think Winged Blades of Godric is throwing his own highly effective propaganda around if they can't help improve the article despite clearly knowing its faults and saying they are uninvolved despite "trying" to touch it up.
@DannyS712: Even after this if you think it is NPOV should I create an entirely new section in the article called "Criticism" and stuff it with criticism of the methods of India dating all the way back to 1947, about the horrendousness of Indian crowd control methods and how severely inhumane and barbaric they are... that is according to the sources Winged Blades is probably talking about? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Without an explanation from WBG about what specifically they object to, and given that, having re-read this, I believe it to be NPOV, this review is still a Symbol confirmed.svg pass from me. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg The page itself is misleading by its name. There is no mention of neutral sources like local newspapers, UNHRC or any representative report of other countries. The page should be renamed as Kashmir Uprising and content included from those hundreds of neutral sources out there and can anyone explain how can be a 19 month old child as a rioter?  MehrajMir (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mehrajmir13: in that case, I'm going to recuse myself from this DYK, and ask for another reviewer: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at [1] another article and you have followed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with. The language used in your comment clearly shows that you are at an impasse.
  • There is nothing misleading about the article title, it has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.
  • Your suggestion to rename this as "Kashmir Uprising" is entirely frivolous because that article on that topic already exists at 2016–17 Kashmir unrest.
  • After your comment I have included the UNCHR report from a local Kashmiri newspaper. I note that the article already includes criticism from notable organisations such as Amnesty International. DBigXray 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Mehrajmir13, that is unfortunately not a productive comment. You very well know that Crowd control in Kashmir and Kashmir uprising can never be the same article. If you would like an article on the latter, you are free to create one. As far as this article is concerned, if you are able to make any suggestions for improvements, either before or after DYK, I am sure DBigXray will take them on board and I will be happy to help to the extent I can. The current sources include the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and Reuters. They are from "third countries" as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the renaming that is suggested in the link above will occur and I have commented the same on the talk page WP:BOLD. The other points raised related to the sources cited can be addressed accordingly, and do not have anything to with this DYK as far as I can tell now since Winged Blades doubts have also been addressed as far as I can tell since there in no reply from his side here above. I request this DYK to continue for now unless no one has any other page rename suggestions, and inclusion of sources which haven't been used, can carry on. Again I repeat, as far as the DYK issue is concerned, I think it can proceed as normal. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be "WP:BOLD" to reply on talk page. Fact that you are completely misunderstanding the concerns and throwing a bunch of personal attacks as per your talk page comments,[2] it only means that that the issue has not resolved. A simple concern, that you are still not understanding, is that this is not a normal crowd but protesters, and this issue doesn't concerns entire Jammu and Kashmir but only Kashmir Valley. The problem is not just with the title but article itself.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 you are acting naive now. Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, ("crowd control"+"kashmir") which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term.
  • DiplomatTesterMan (You do not have to respond to Mehrajmir) let's wait for a neutral DYK reviewer to come along and review this, as I already noted above, Mehrajmir13 has followed my contributions to reach this DYK and to continue his content dispute with me. The points he has raised are clearly frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of stalling tactics. DBigXray 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I watched this DYK since it is concerns one of the area where I frequently contribute and I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you.
  • You should refrain from any more personal attacks now. Your "standard terms" show nothing compared to what we see after searching "protestors"+"kashmir"+"pellet" on Google. Indeed, reliable sources like Amnesty, BBC[3][4], DNA India, The Hindu and many others make no mention of "crowd" but talk about "protestors".  MehrajMir (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Congratulations to you, that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. You have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that you have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this.
  • The comments by Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article) have already been replied to both here and on the talk page. WBG has also warned him against this behavior [5]. The consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article, there is absolutely no consensus for any kind of merge or rename. DBigXray 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I note here, that I will wait for comments from a new DYK reviewer, so that this DYK page does not become another WP:BATTLEGROUND.DBigXray 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed, as noted above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Simple requests: who, what, where and why? I made a few edits but have already been reverted: one to explain that the region belongs to India, and to explain who is using these weapons. I am not interested in an edit war, only in resolving this nomination. I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period.
  • Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?
  • Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • SusanLesch, my aim was also not to start an edit war. I reverted my own edit of your edit. The lead is again as you had put it. Thank you for these points. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SusanLesch, For your point - "I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period." This article clearly has SOPs and laws and incidents and equipment which are prior to 2016 -17. There are plently more incidents which can be added prior to 2016. Hence the shift to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest isn't needed apart from the reason of WP:TOOBIG also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SusanLesch:, You have written - "Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?" It already says that. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?" I have added two lines to the background section accordingly. I also mentioned security forces in the lead again. I think all your points should be covered with these answer? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: SusanLesch, You had written "I am not interested in an edit war". This is exactly how edit wars start. I will let others see how to handle this since this is taking too much energy and I don't have the energy to explain why so many points you have written above are nonsensical in my opinion stemming from not being able to understand what this article is about and seeming to not understand that other Wikipedia articles already cover your points which you want to add here. I am nominating this for article for AFD since if it can't pass a simple DYK then I don't think it should even be an article. Regards. Happy editing. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • AFD link - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @DBX and DTm:- This's getting more and more farcical with the passage of time. This article (though on a notable topic) will need a huge lot of work to be NPOV-free (and be DYK suitable) and rebut concerns of Cforking. Please withdraw this nom. WBGconverse 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    SusanLesch thanks a lot for giving a detailed review along with your concerns. IMHO this is much more helpful than some of the other comments that were made above. DTM is on vacation and I will take time to fix the issues that you pointed. Thanks for your patience. DBigXray
Thank you, DBigXray. Something tells me there's a chance this could work out. P.S. Maybe you can edit down the section I added about the UN report. It sticks out like a sore thumb, maybe that's allright. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WBG that you ought to withdraw your nomination unless one of you is going to fix this article now. Four days have passed since the second rejection, yet the original authors have made zero contributions. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. reviewing material and sources. DBigXray 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working After a much needed break from this article, I am now able to shift to this article again and will take up each point raised one by one, as calmly as possible with the patience this one requires. This is a difficult article and will be given due consideration accordingly, as I had been giving accordingly when I first created it. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a new section on the talk page of the article (Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Points_raised_in_the_DYK) that will deal with all the points raised by SusanLesch one by one. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg, ALT3 is ready to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "the plastic of the soft-nosed shells easily melts and releases a gas that disperses the crowd. These soft-nosed shells cannot cause fatal injuries. According to CRPF officers, another point is that there have been advancements in tear smoke munitions allowing them to be used more prominently as compared to the other crowd-control weapons" with "The plastic of the soft-nosed shells melts very easily, releasing a gas that helps disperse the crowds. So the shells cannot be fatal in themselves. Secondly, we have made advancements in tear smoke munitions (TSM) that can be used more prominently than other crowd-control weapons". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. DBigXray 05:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg article should be reviewed again. As noted above, the issues have been fixed. DBigXray 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

XIX Army Corps

  • ... that the XIX Army Corps, a Nazi era German Panzer corps, fought its way from Luxembourg to the English Channel in just ten days? Source: Guderian, Heinz (2003) [1950]. Erinnerungen eines Soldaten. Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3879436932. OCLC 460817326.

Created by Ted52 (talk). Nominated by DannyS712 (talk) at 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - I'm probably just blind, but I don't see where the article explicitly supports the material in the DYK hook and cites a source supporting it
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I find the article very interesting and comprehensive; I can tell the creator worked very hard on it and that is much appreciated! However, I'm afraid this will require work before it can be eligible. I'd suggest first making sure all material is supported by a reliable sources and then requesting a copy-edit. I haven't fully reviewed for neutrality yet but will soon. Best of wishes, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: can you take a look at this? I'm not any where to as knowledgeable about this page as you are... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: All material can be supported by sources, but I was of the impression that citing the same page over and over again is just bad style. I could go through the work of citing every paragraph? Ted52 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Ted52. Since you're using an inline citation style, then the general rule is that there should be a cite for at least every paragraph, and if a paragraph has material from multiple citations you may sometimes want to distribute multiple refs within that paragraph. Using a cite multiple times it's not a problem; it's certainly better than having unsourced material. The following sections in particular need to be sourced better:
  • Wizna and Brest-Litovsk (6–16 September 1939)
  • The "German-Soviet Parade" and the Conclusion of the Campaign (17 September - 6 October 1939)
  • Preparations
  • Attack towards the Meuse (10–13 May 1940)
  • In the Somme Basin (17–20 May 1940)
  • Towards Dunkirk (21–29 May 1940)
  • Panzergruppe Guderian and southern Redeployment (28 May - 9 June 1940)
  • Southern Offensive (10–22 June 1940)
  • Panzergruppe 2
  • XIX Mountain Army Corps
It's an interesting read, and again, I can tell you worked hard on it. Let me know if you have any questions.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Template:Reply to:SkyGazer 512Very well, will do. Is there a way I can template one reference and use it for the next? Reentering the same book's info over and over again is cumbersome, but I also don't want to do the thing where it's like "p. 100 - 200", because that's silly. I would like to preferably use the same reference over and over again for like 60% of the passages you inquire about, but with a slightly different page notation each time. The reason why most of the paragraphs aren't cited is exactly that 'cumbersome' functionality of having to build the reference from scratch everytime. Ted52 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ted52: Well, I suppose you could convert to using {{sfn}} refs. Basically how that works is you have two reference sections; one of them has a list of sources and the other usually just contains {{reflist}}. For the list of sources section, you include |ref=harv at the end of each citation template. Then, whenever you want to use a reference in the article, use the coding {{sfn|Author's last name|Year the author wrote it|pp=Page number range (or p=single page number)}}, and make sure that in the list of sources section each ref has a last= parameter and either a year= or date= parameter. If you do everything correctly, when you click on a sfn ref used in the article, it will be abbreviated and take you to the ref section with the reflist; then if you click on the highlighted ref there, it will take you to that ref's entry in the list of full sources, which only need to be listed once. It sounds confusing, yes, but once you get used to it it's not as bad as it seems. The documentation page for the template gives a lot more details. I can give you some examples if you'd like and I could help you convert the refs for this one. It's often a good idea to use it when there are book citations which you use a large number of pages from. Another technique sometimes used is having sfn for some sources and the other "main" ref style for others, such as using sfn for only books.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
An example of a page using sfn for only the book refs is Chinese alligator (e.g., the abbreviated Reading & Miller 2000, p. 72. in the reflist which links to the full ref in the sources subsection: Reading, Richard P.; Miller, Brian (2000). Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0313308161. Retrieved December 9, 2018.). Molly Morgan is an example of a page which uses sfn for all references except one. If you have any further questions, please let me know; this can seem quite confusing. I highly recommend that you read the documentation page for the sfn template if you might want to use this style.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
(btw, Ted52, the correct coding for a ping is {{reply to|USERNAME HERE}}, not {{reply to:USERNAME HERE}} :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Another way to repeat citations of the same source, specifying different pages, is to define a reference by name (e.g. SOURCE) and combine that with a page number template e.g.
    <ref name="SOURCE"/>{{rp|6-42}}
    Repeat as needed, just give relevant page numbers each time. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────G'day all, I just noticed this on the Milhist alert list. I thought I'd give you a heads-up that Guderian was the commanding general of this formation at the time, and we need to be careful about accepting what he says as gospel, given he is probably too close to the subject. It would be much better if this hook was cited to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. As a general observation, the article relies far too heavily on Guderian's writings, needs more independent reliable sources, and we need to be wary of the clean Wehrmacht trope associated with many Wehrmacht generals trying to whitewash their activities during the war. Also, the article should be at XIX Army Corps (Wehrmacht) IAW pre-emptive disambiguation arrangements for military formations per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: It's been a while since this nom has received any activity; would it be possible for you to cite the hook to a source that is independent of the subject and reliable, per Peacemaker67's suggestion? Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512:@Peacemaker67: I think I have been quite careful in pointing out the rather obvious flaws with Guderian's writings in terms of the war crimes committed by the German units during the operation, and used them strictly for the purpose of the unit's military movement. Yes, there are authors I could cite - Piekalkiewicz, Mazouwer, Shirer, Frieser, Kershaw, Bishop and others have all at least tangentially written about XIX Army Corps, especially as it was so central to the operational success of the whole campaign. But - and this a big but -, they all go back to Guderian's writings as their source for any troop movements they describe. You'll reliably find his books in their bibliographies, and, if inline citations are used, they either reference him or often earlier authors that also referenced him. You're not going to find precise primary source information about what battle lines the units were to take on Guderian's orders or what crossroads they were to advance to or what towns were or weren't captured in a single day outside of Guderian, who got to use his personal notes for the information at hand. I tried desperately to staff up any information that could be double checked, but even good old Percy Schramm couldn't help me, as his war diaries don't start before August of 1940. So, if it's okay to just phantom cite Guderian through other authors, I guess I can try and do that, but that's hardly intellectually honest. Ted52 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you very much for your work on the article, Ted52. Looking through this nomination and the article, I think it would be best if I let somebody do the rest of the review. It would be nice to have a second opinion on whether the sourcing is sufficient now. Also, it is a really long article and I have been doing quite a bit in both real life and Wikipedia lately, so I'm not sure I would be able to take thoroughly look over so many paragraphs and sources myself. In addition, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the article topic (although it is very interesting) or the languages the refs use. Therefore, I'm requesting a new reviewer. I apologize for taking so long to get back.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg I appreciate the substantial effort that has been put into this article, and I would like to see this nomination move forward. Before I pick up the review, I have a couple suggestions. The article's introduction is very small compared to the text in the main body. I think it should be expanded to adequate summarize the key points of the article. I also note that there are several properly licensed photos in the article which would be suitable for a photo hook. It would be nice to feature this nomination in the photo slot. Once the introduction is expanded, I will go ahead with the full review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ted52, thank you for the expanded introduction. It looks good at first glance. I will start reading through in more detail later today. It might take me a few days to do a full review because this is a big article, but I promise to do a bit each day until we are done! Flibirigit (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, your contriubtions to the introduction are noted here. Would you like to help out with this nomination? Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, thanks for the acknowledgement. I actually came here as I need to do some QPQ reviews, saw that this needed an intro, and started it. I do mean to extend on it to cover France but have not returned – real life and all that! – but I will get to it within a few days. I can't be a reviewer now that I've added half an intro, but I will help out if I can. Certainly the article deserves main page exposure, but also a copyedit and some referencing work like including English-language titles of references. EdChem (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, thanks again for what you have do so far. I can wait a day or two if time is needed. I understand, as we all get busy. I will likely do this review in bits and pieces since it is a substantial work. Aside from the introduction, I am curious if a hook can be formed from one or more of the photos in the article. I'm also curious about limiting the very long table of contents via Template:TOC limit. We could leave each day as a header, but add one more level to the hierarchy and group them by week or battle perhaps? Flibirigit (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting back to this sooner. I will go over it again in more detail tomorrow and on the weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ted52, EdChem, I am about halfway finished reading through the article. I will post a finished review tomorrow. I can work with the present hook, but are either of you interested in proposing a hook with a photo? Flibirigit (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Second review

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Red XN - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg The article is still new enough and long enough as in the first review. I found nothing that makes the article biased in favour of either side of the war, and is neutral in tone. I alos detected no plagiarism issues. The hook is interesting, mentioned inline, and is cited by a combination of sources. There is not photo used in this nomination as of yet. The nominator User:DannyS712 has more than five DYK credits, therefore QPQ is required. There are still a few paragraphs which need citations, however I note a big improvement from the first review. Also, there are a few section headers which are blank. I'm unsure if more text is coming to fill these in, or if they can be removed. The introduction appears to summarize only the eastern front. It needs to be expanded with content from the western front. Flibirigit (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: qpq added --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 31[edit]

Lorraine 12 D

The Lorraine 12 D engine
The Lorraine 12 D engine
  • ... that the Lorraine 12D (pictured) was put into production before the design was finalized?
    • ALT1:... that the Lorraine 12D originally had a horsepower of 350 at the time it was first manufactured, but only 50 were produced before they managed to improve it to 400 horsepower?
  • Comment: Just made this, looks good and rather long

Created/expanded by Username Needed (talk). Self-nominated at 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Review: These aren’t bad facts. My only issue is there is no source for the hook and only one source for the article. Jhenderson 777 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that the Lorraine 12D was put into production before the design was finalized?(source: [6] page 9 (in french) Could somebody verify that please. [Username Needed] 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Note. I might need help on reviewing. I am not familiar with the source being reliable or not. Also I don’t know what it says since it’s in French. I tried googling this particular engine to help find sources but I didn’t find much. Jhenderson 777 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Petebutt may be able to help, he's done some work with this article recently. [Username Needed] 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There isn't much available WYSIWYG I'm afraid. The engine was developed rapidly at the start of its production, that much is clear!--Petebutt (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) The article is presently ineligible because some non-lead paragraphs do not have inline citations, per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines. The Variants section also has no sources. Also, as per the above, none of the hook content is sourced within the article. North America1000 11:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed the variants section, and propose a new, sourced hook. ALT2:... that the Lorraine 12D was the first french engine to reach 400 horsepower?(source: [7] page 9 (in french) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talkcontribs) 13:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that additional sourcing has been provided and a new hook as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment, but I don't find ALT2 to be interesting. ALT0 probably remains the best option if the source mentioned above could be confirmed as being reliable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Nominator has not edited since March 14 and has not been able to address issues with ALT0. If there is no response in a week I will mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry, Narutolovehinata5—they have in good faith provided an ALT2 to replace ALT0, and a drive-by comment is not a review. This nomination still has not been given a full review, and frankly needs one. Until that happens, it doesn't matter how actively the nominator is editing or not editing, so long as they return to address any issues once the review has been given. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including of the hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. For the most part it is adequately sourced: both sources are not in English so they are accepted in good faith. QPQ check is down at the moment but this appears to be the nominator's first nomination (at least from what I can tell on his talk page) so no QPQ is needed. Concerns have been raised on the reliability of the French source, and while I took a look at it and it seemed professional, I'd rather leave this analysis to a French speaker or an expert on this sort of thing. As I mentioned above, ALT2 (and by extension ALT1) do not feel like they'd be interesting to a broad audience, so I have struck them. This will be good to go once the nominator returns and/or the issues with the ALT0 source are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm here, just not very active and not checking very often. [Username Needed] 17:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Probably needs a second opinion on the source in question, it is the only remaining issue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The source is a document hosted on the website https://www.hydroretro.net/, a website about aviation history published by Pierre Pécastaingts, who appears to be private enthusiast. The document does not list its own sources. Gérard Hartmann, who wrote the source document, is a regular contributor to the site. I found M. Hartmann mentioned in one news article, which described him as "spécialiste de l’histoire de l’aviation" (an expert in aviation history) but I cannot find any biography that might explain more about his qualifications. He does have books on this topic published with traditional (that is, not vanity or self) publishers: I found two with Les Éditions de l'Officine (one received a nitpicky critical review from an aviation website) and one book published by Jaca Book, a traditional publisher at the University of Milan. Could someone who knows if this passes Wikipedia reliable source requirements please weigh in; I hope this is enough information to decide.
Re the hook fact, "put into production before the design was finalized", the source says: "Le Lorraine 12 D est homologué en janvier 1917 à la puissance de 350 ch. Par la suite, en 1918, ce moteur développe jusqu’à 400 ch, ce qui fait de ce moteur le plus puissant moteur français de sontemps." (roughly: the Lorraine 12 D was certified/approved in January 1917 as a 350 horsepower engine, and was subsequently expanded to 400 horsepower in 1918, which made it the most powerful French engine of its time.) (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: One of the paragraphs in the "Design and development" section has no citation. Flibirigit (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


  • I am adopting this nomination to help move it forward. I will do some housecleaning on the article, and may propose new hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I have struck ALT0 since it is not mentioned in the article. I will propose something else when I am finished housecleaning. Flibirigit (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I will need a day or two to rewrite the body. I have discovered more text that is not supported in the cited sources. Flibirigit (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 6[edit]

Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures

  • Comment: I know that I have 7 days to take action for nominating DYK, but since it is my first experince, please do not ignore me.

Created by M1nhm (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

  • @M1nhm: (QPQ not required for new DYK nominators) You must review another nomination to validate your nomination. ~ R.T.G 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: This appears to be the nominator's first nomination: per the rules, nominators with less than five DYK credits are exempted from the QPQ requirement. With that said, I am not very sure about either hook: the topic has potential, but each hook has inadequate wording and may need rephrasing, and I'm worried that the article itself may not pass due to possible POV concerns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I was trying for a neutral hook. Maybe I have a line, ALT2: "...that insulting Sunni religious figures was not prohibited by fatwa in Iran until the 21st century?" I only didn't review it because I couldn't neutralise the hook... ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds better, but I'd like to hear from the nom first. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: The nominator hasn't edited in almost two weeks and never replied here. What can be done at this point? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:, In fact they haven't edited since a few hours before the first ping to them from this page, except one "mobile" edit to correct a typo. Either I have scared them away from the site or, they do appear to take wikibreaks for a few days up to a couple of weeks. This editor has only edited a relatively few pages for about 1,000 edits, the largest part of which to one draft article and not many talk pages, so they are a hands off editor.
I think the done thing is to post it on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, so I've done that.
I will also suggest slightly less worded, ALT3 "... that insulting Sunni religious figures was prohibited by fatwa in Iran in the 21st century?" ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will give the nominator one week to reply to the messages here. If there is no response, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. I don't see how we can possibly close this without an actual review, since we have an ALT3 proposed that seems to be free of POV issues, and no need for a nominator response unless and until issues are found in the review that need (and do not get) such a response. Thanks to anyone who gives this a full review. (I've done a very minor edit to ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to give this a full review, but it probably wouldn't hurt to at least raise some immediate comments. For example, the "Reactions" sections probably works better in prose instead of as a list. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg While this was nominated a day late (the article was created on February 6 but not nominated until February 14), we typically allow leniency for newcomers to DYK, so that will not be an issue here. What is an issue is that the article is too short: at 1363 prose characters, it's below the 1500 minimum required at DYK. (Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to turn the Reactions lists into prose is one way to solve this problem.) It is really a shame that such a basic check was not made sooner. Another significant issue, I think, is that the Reactions are uniformly positive to the Fatwa. This strikes me as a potential neutrality issue—were there no countries or significant religious figures that objected? Finally, I don't understand why there are so many sources cited in some places: for example, the text of Khamenei's statement only needs a single reliable source, not four separate sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator hasn't edited in almost a month, hasn't edited the article since February, and never responded to reviewer concerns. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've converted the Reactions list into prose, making the article long enough for DYK. Now the main problem is that the section is too positive. Are there any responses to this fatwa by secular/irreligious critics? Surely a legal opinion condemning criticism of religious figures would be a trespass on the freedom of speech? feminist (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I had mentioned my concerns about the neutrality of the article above. I have just added a neutrality template to the article, which will need to be addressed before the nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I won't be that surprised if it turns out there is indeed little criticism of this topic from secular (or at least non-Muslim) critics. It may likely be considered too far from home for non-Muslim audiences, resulting in little coverage. It's the same reason why Christian conservative organizations in the US tend to get outraged easier by an American celebrity than someone from Europe who is decidedly more socially liberal. I've tried Google searching for opinion pieces regarding this fatwa but most results I get that aren't overtly religious seem to concern an unrelated fatwa involving Salman Rushdie. The cited Reuters article suggests that the support this fatwa enjoyed among the Muslim world is unusually broad. This means we are unlikely to find negative coverage from non-progressive Muslims. If the reactions are primarily positive, it's not necessarily inappropriate for this article to cover primarily positive reactions. feminist (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well if that were the case, we'd probably need a source to confirm that reactions were primarily positive, otherwise the neutrality issue still won't be resolved. And in any case, some negative comments might still be needed while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the Reuters source: The fatwa issued on Sept. 30 was not unusual in itself but the fact that Saudi Shi’ites publicly requested Khamenei’s opinion and that it has been so widely welcomed by Sunnis and Shi’ites suggests Iran is winning the regional clout it craves. and Khamenei’s intervention won widespread praise. feminist (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • feminist, even the Reuters article isn't universally positive, as witness the final four paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess we should keep looking then, if that's the case. feminist (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As the article length issue is now addressed, I will give this nomination one more week. @M1nhm: Please respond to the comments left above and leave us a notice if you will be able to fix the issues, so that this can continue. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset:I am sorry for the delay, I didn't access to the net for logging on the wiki. I will do my best trying to solve problems of the article such as length or adding opposite views. For the reason, I ask you to give me time from three days up to one week. M1nhm (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist:Thanks for your precise comment. I added some opposite opinions in the article M1nhm (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:I do not agree with ALT 2. What is the POV problem with hooks that I suggested? Which words do violate POV exactly? M1nhm (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue was that initially, there were no negative reactions mentioned at all in the article, and it wasn't initially clear if this was simply due to them not being included or if it was because reactions were generally negative in the first place. Secondly, as for ALT0 and ALT1, not only do they have severe grammatical problems, but they are not well-written enough to count as "hooky". I took a look at the article right now, and while some of the concerns have been addressed, the text and POV issues still persist, and it would take some more work for this to be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @M1nhm: I will give you one more week to address the remaining article issues. Failure to do so will result in the nomination being closed as unsuccessful. If you are having difficulty understanding exactly what needs to be done, you are free to ask me or any of the other commenters here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am going to suggest new hooks what is your idea about them?
  • ALT4:...that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures was described as winning "widespread praise"? Source:reuters
  • ALT5:...that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures? Source:reuters M1nhm (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Of the two, ALT5 is probably the best option and probably the most neutral, but in any case either option would need to be copyedited for grammar. Due to the sensitivity of the topic and my reluctance to review such topics, I am deferring giving this a full review and letting any of the previous commentators give their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I added some negative reactions in the article, In other hands, the article was copy edited but you think that article is suffering from POV issue yet. can I ask you to show me sentences that have POV issues? M1nhm (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As you asked to edit ALT 4 and ALT5:

The grammar remains a bit iffy, I suggest you put this up at WP:GOCE/R to address the issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I nominated the article to copy edit. M1nhm (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The article was copy edited before and was approved in this page, so new review for copy edit is not necessary.M1nhm (talk)
It needed a new one because of the expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: In order to save time I did some copy edit in the article. Is it ok right now? M1nhm (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 9[edit]

Dolo hospital airstrike

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 10:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, no apparent copyvios. Chetsford, QPQ needed. Also, please clip the newspapers.com articles so that those without subscriptions can also access the content. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Usernameunique - thanks much, I've finished the QPQ now. Chetsford (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, could you also clip the newspapers.com articles so that others can read them? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Note that your clipping request above is not part of the DYK rules, and also that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is advised to "not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". North America1000 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, they are not being rejected, nor are they "difficult or costly to access". Rather, newspapers.com provides a simple way of letting other people access them: clipping. Moreover, since at least one of the articles supports the hook fact, I think it is reasonable to ask Chetsford to clip the articles in question. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I've been a bit behind and haven't had a chance to get around to clipping all the articles. I'm not 100% sure I know how to do it, but I'll figure it out and get to it ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over a month without a response or edit from Chetsford. There needs to be progress on this soon if the nomination is to proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably won't be able to get to this in a timely manner. If clipping is a prerequisite to promotion I may have to withdraw this nomination. Apologies, I will make a note of this for future nominations. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look more closely at this, I wonder why clipping is being required at all—I can't recall ever seeing such a case. Usernameunique, the AGF tick was invented for just this reason, that we assume good faith that the sources are as claimed, even if they are behind a firewall or not on line at all. Clipping might be required at FAC, but at DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, neither FAC nor GA nor DYK requires clipping. WBGconverse 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg--Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it, for there is considerable doubt over the precise death tally. Also, the statement is not hooky, at all. Airstrikes can kill lots more than 30 and it's entirely non-surprising.
    The way to elicit attention of the reader is to emphasize upon the extraordinary fact that Italy was bombing a hospital; something which is now deemed as a war-crime. So, a new hook, please:-) WBGconverse 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem changing the hook, but on what basis is it "blatantly wrong"? Three sources report death totals of 22, 28, and 30. The hook establishes that between zero and 30 people were killed. If you have better sources and could add them to the article, that would be appreciated. "Something which is now deemed as a war-crime" - under customary international law I'm certain attacking a hospital was a war crime in 1935 as well, and it was most certainly a codified war crime under the convention of 1864. A hook which suggested otherwise would be blatantly wrong, I'm sure. Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong. As many as means different things to different readers across different contexts and it does not always equate to maximum.
AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. Also, I was not asking for any insertion about war crime bit, either and I mentioned the particular locus as to locating a more interesting angle (violation of war-conventions) to write a hook. Something of the form:-
ALT1 ... that Italy chose to assault a Red Cross Hospital during the Dolo hospital airstrike in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?
WBGconverse 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
... when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong ... No.
...AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. As I said, the inviolability and neutrality of hospitals was codified in the convention of 1864. Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's wrong. 22 is not as many as 30. WBGconverse 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Yep, that's wrong." As I, and others, have counseled you: no, it isn't. If you require further clarification or would like to debate and/or promote any alternate theories of predicate logic, I suggest you take this to a Talk page or to DYK discussion as there's probably no point in continuing it here since we've moved to a new hook. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have no idea why Winged Blades of Godric gave this an AGF tick when saying "Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it", because that tick means the nomination has passed, which is clearly not the case. The slash icon is the best given the hook strike. Also, Chetsford is correct: saying "as many as 30 people were killed" when the reports include the number 30 is not wrong at all, since "as many as" gives an upper limit. It is, however, not a good idea to give the high number of a range of reports in a hook, because it gives emphasis to a number that may well be incorrect. (I don't know the comparative reliability of the sources and their source material.) While the article gives the number dead in the lead as 22 to 30, if there were 2 Swedes and between 18 and 28 Ethiopians killed, shouldn't that range be 20 to 30? For ALT1, I'm wondering why "Italy chose to assault" rather than "the Italian Air Force chose to bomb" (when I see "assault", I imagine a ground assault), and would suggest a piped link rather than the direct one to the article: "a Red Cross hospital in Dolo during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?" (Still not happy with the flow of "chose to", but couldn't find any better wording that was as clear that this the hospital was picked for bombing, not struck as the result of targeting gone awry.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not thrilled by the use of "chose" simply because it's an unusual, albeit not necessarily incorrect, word to use in reference to a corporate body. I'd suggest -
We can't name Tito Minnetti by name since Italy never attributed their retaliation specifically to him, only to an unnamed Italian aviator (the article, itself, is careful to only mention that Minnetti was lost at Dolo right before the attack but doesn't make a direct connection). I think this is hooky, though, as the casual observer will wonder what the circumstances of the execution were that caused a Swedish installation to come under attack. And, indeed, since the role of Sweden in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is not widely known, it will be unlikely anyone will realize this occurred in Ethiopia at all until they click. It also maintains a NPOV by acknowledging both of the war crimes that occurred on the part of the two separate parties to the conflict. Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is damn good. WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BMS:-The article was solidly crafted with due sourcing and the tick for that. That, I've struck the hook, there did not lie any possibility of mistaken promotion. WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A tick indicates a nom is ready for promotion. You can't strike the hook and then tick the nom. We can't promote blank space to the main page. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We can't promote blank space to the main page--I have my assurances that not all are fuckwits. WBGconverse 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to formally approve ALT2 and the rest of the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Hook does not give enough context to the event. Based on ALT2, a reader may make the assumption, that Sweden may have had a part in the execution of an Italian pilot. A new hook is requested.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg After the review, I see neutrality issues were resolved by including the response of Euthopia regarding the event which is the subject of the article. This was not included in the 9 February 2019 version. The hook could be more accurate. Nominator is a heavy contributor to DYK with 91 credits at the time of this review; I will assume good faith that when the nominator said that QPQ was done on 10 February, that it was. Please provide more possible hooks, so that this nomination may proceed. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 26[edit]

1 the Road

  • ... that artificial intelligences have have begun to write novels...? Source: "On March 25, 2017, a black Cadillac with a white-domed surveillance camera attached to its trunk departed Brooklyn for New Orleans. An old GPS unit was fastened atop the roof. Inside, a microphone dangled from the ceiling. Wires from all three devices fed into Ross Goodwin’s Razer Blade laptop, itself hooked up to a humble receipt printer. This, Goodwin hoped, was the apparatus that was going to produce the next American road-trip novel." (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that at nine seventeen in the morning, the house was heavy...? Source: It is a partial quote of the AIs first words "The novel begins suitably enough, quoting the time: “It was nine seventeen in the morning, and the house was heavy.”" (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy, and the hook meets the hook criteria. Good to go. In my personal opinion, however (@RTG: this is more food for thought if anything) that the premise of the article is interesting enough as it is (the first book to be written by AI!) that it doesn't really need a super quirky hook like ALT1 to capture the reader's attention, and the primary hook might be a tad confusing as readers may think that it's an article talking about AIs writing novels in general when it's instead about a specific novel. I personally think something super simple like ALT2: "...that 1 the Road is marketed as the first novel to be written by an artificial intelligence?" would work best, but again, that's up to you Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes the primary is clunky. ~ R.T.G 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 is the best hook listed here. It is very catchy, properly cited and mentioned in the article. Accepting hook, with the rest of the review as per User:Satellizer above.Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't find an inline cite for the ALT2 hook fact. I also don't think the article is start-class yet. It has a largely uncited lead section and one paragraph of authorship, also cited to a single source. Aren't there any production details or publishing history? Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry I musn't have pressed send. In fact the first article is called "The First Novel Written by AI Is Here—and It’s as Weird as You’d Expect It to Be" and it goes on to say, "1 The Road is currently marketed as the first novel written by AI." A quote from the AI creator Goodwin. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: OK, I moved the cite up to the first sentence in the lead. But the article still doesn't seem start-class. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I must put it that this article requires the reader to scroll to finish reading. The subject is a book which makes no sense, is significant only in regard of its author, and has captured a lack of popularity which is both amazing and unsurprising at the same time. If 1 the Road was published in 2000, or even 2010, you could be telling us there was too much useless information in the article, but this is the future and the future is way more crap than advertised.
  • Sorry for the delays. I swear my ping system sometimes flashes up a ping then makes it disappear before I can read it. I must request somewhere that no notification ever be auto-deleted. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been another month without any further needed action from RTG. Allowing another seven days for action, but after that, this may well be marked for closure as abandoned by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am the last one to post here. You say, "without any further needed action from RTG" yet in the next sentence that I have abandoned the nomination under a deadline for "action". The reviewer is asking for more than DYK requires. The reviewer is claiming they simply can't believe the topic is so short. I'm agreeing with them. They are the ones who have left it here. If they just reviewed it under the DYK rules, it would have been done long ago because it met that on the first day. It was written specifically with DYK in mind. "This will make a good DYK," I was thinking. The purpose of DYK as I recall was to attract editors to new content, not present them with a finished article. The idea was to have the article to a certain standard, not the ultimate standard. I've gone over it several times. I don't want to lose any love for the topic. I repeat, I have responded here. It is not my action you are waiting for. The article meets the character limit. It meets all of the DYK rules. The reviewer is asking for more. Please tell them not to, thanks. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • RTG, as far as I could tell, Yoninah was saying that the article, while technically meeting the 1500-character length criterion, did not meet "a certain standard"—it wasn't sufficiently robust (hence the comment about not being start-class, which is the next level of quality above a stub). I believe she was referring to this rule: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. I notice that another editor has expanded the article from 1728 to 1996 prose characters; perhaps Yoninah can take another look to see whether her concerns have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I rewrote the lead and added more information from the sources, as well as reorganized the page so it reads like a Wikipedia article. I removed the part about it being 60 million words long, which is a misquote from the source. The article is now start-class. But ALT2 is not going to work. An article about it in The Atlantic states: "They’re collected in 1 the Road, a book Goodwin’s publisher, Jean Boîte Éditions, is marketing as “the first novel written by a machine.” (Though, for the record, Goodwin says he disagrees it should bear that distinction—“That might be The Policeman’s Beard Is Half Constructed by a program from the ’80s,” he tells me.)" Perhaps it's best to say just that the novel was written by artificial intelligence, period. Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 4[edit]

Werner Schneyder

Werner Schneyder in 2012
Werner Schneyder in 2012
  • Reviewed: to come Zond 5
  • Comment: our hook size is not compatible with him who described himself as allround amateur

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but what do you think of the following ALT?
Looking at the article, it seems that he did both singing and sports commentating, but that contrast in careers might be more interesting to general audiences than performing cabarets alone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
He was legendary in Kabarett, - is that different from cabaret? Should we change links? Sports was rather "also", therefore I won't go for ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure: as I mentioned before I am not very familiar with classical music, so I can't help out much on that end. With that said, you mentioned that you found that it would be difficult to emphasize his many careers in a hook. How about this suggestion then?
ALT2 ... that cabaret singer Werner Schneyder (pictured) also worked as a journalist, writer, actor, stage director, television presenter and sports reporter?
Readers might find it interesting that he had several careers, at least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I found that interesting, therefore I made the original hook, with a focus on two pinnacles, rather than a multitude. - Can you tell me if we should prefer to link to Kabarett? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure but considering the lede only talks about cabaret, I suggest that the hook reflects that (meaning just stick to cabaret). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
For expanding the lead, I need to know if I should better link to Kabarett, implaying political satire, nit just entertainment. I thought cabaret is just a translation, but it seems to have a different meaning. Nothing about him has connection to classical music ;) - Happy Bach's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
ps: do we have rules now which request that a hook fact has to be in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Before I can return to him, I have a full day of RL, want to expand an article about a Bach cantata, have to nominate a DYK or it will be too late, and was shocked by another death, expanded his article from stub at least. Sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article meets newness and length requirements. QPQ has been done, no copyright violations were found, and German sources are accepted in good faith. As I suggested hooks, the final decision on what hook to promote will be left to a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I read the hooks and the discussion again. I came to think that we should say Kabarett (serious and political), not cabaret (light and entertaining), quote: "Unlike comedians who make fun of all kind of things, Kabarett artists (German: Kabarettisten) pride themselves as dedicated almost completely to political and social topics of more serious nature which they criticize using techniques like cynicism, sarcasm and irony." - I am sure that "singer" is misleading, - a master of the sharp written and spoken word he was, not a singer so much. Sorry for not noticing that sooner. So here's mine, revised:
ALT3: ... that Werner Schneyder (pictured) performed political kabarett programs with Dieter Hildebrandt and commentated on television on boxing at the 1984 Summer Olympics?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 8[edit]

British Rail Class 458

A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.
A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.

Improved to Good Article status by Pkbwcgs (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg QPQ not needed. Promoted to GA on March 8. Hook is interesting. Article is NPOV with no obvious copyvio. Image is currently CC licensed. (I took the liberty of adding (pictured) to ALT-1.) The hook is inline cited using the term "reconfigured" instead of "converted" which I think is fine. The source used to cite that is offline (Modern Railways), however, meets what I would consider a reasonable definition of RS. All looks good. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. I was wondering if it's obvious that the hook is referring to British Rail Class cars (it's not obvious to me). I also wonder if anyone cares. This is a GA; could you suggest a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: How about ALT3 which replaces "Class 460" with "trains" with a link to the article Class 460. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: I have a feeling you're so familiar with the subject that you can't see it like an outsider. I don't live in England. I have never taken a train. I'm afraid that ALT3 isn't even remotely interesting to me. What would make it interesting is adding another fact that I could relate to, like the cars were too squishy, or cars were eliminated in the process of renovation, or...? Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: How about ALT4? Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: Better, thanks! Please add an inline cite after that sentence. Chetsford could you review ALT4 please? Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: This source. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: thank you. I meant you should add a cite to the article after this sentence: Six of the eight Class 460 trains lost three carriages in the process, leaving them as 5-car trains that were also reconfigured as class 458/5 trains. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: That is the best source I can find to give the general idea that the eight-car Class 460s were converted to six five-car Class 458. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. So are you going to add the citation to the article?
    Meanwhile, I see someone else has deleted the part about losing 3 carriages. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: I reverted the edit as the previous version was more detailed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. Please add the inline cite to the sentence about losing three carriages. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: I can't find a citation that says that the Class 460s have lost three carriages. The best I could give was the website I have stated above. I may need help from another user who has expertise in British railways. Maybe User:Redrose64 could help. I have done a detailed search and the citation from railnews was the best I could find. Perhaps this citation could be better but it doesn't make a specific mention of the Class 460s losing carriages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. So from a DYK point of view, we need another hook. From a GA point of view, that sentence does need to be sourced, or deleted. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    From what I understand, it goes something like this. Class 458 was originally 30 x 4-car units, total 120 cars; class 460 was originally 8 x 8-car units, total 64 cars; for a grand total of 184 cars. Of the 8-car units, six have been reduced to 5-car units and redesignated class 458, releasing (6 x (8-5)) = 18 cars; the other two 8-car units were disbanded, releasing 16 cars of which four have been stripped for spares and scrapped. This means that the cars released from class 460 units totalled (18 + 16 - 4) = 30 cars, exactly the number required to strengthen all of the 4-car Class 458 units to 5-car. The final tally is 36 x 5-car units, total 180 cars. So in terms of factual accuracy, ALT4 should have the word "each" inserted before the word "lost". But I don't have a source explicitly stating that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    The more I look at this, the more shaky ALT4 becomes. Having now analysed the individual car numbers allocated to the units before and after conversion (using various editions of the Platform 5 "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock"), here is the breakdown:
    Former units 460001 and 460002 were entirely split up, each car ending up in a different unit, with six cars from each (12 in all) going to former 4-car units, three cars being redistributed among the other former Class 460 units, and one car scrapped
    Former units 460003 to 460008 were partially split up, with three cars from each unit (18 in all) going to former 4-car units, but the remaining five cars of each were not kept together:
    • 458531 includes two cars from 460008 and one each from 460002, 460003 and 460006
    • 458532 includes three cars from 460007 and one each from 460004 and 460005
    • 458533 includes three cars from 460003 and one each from 460006 and 460007
    • 458534 includes four cars from 460004 and one from 460008
    • 458535 includes four cars from 460005 and one from 460001
    • 458536 includes three cars from 460006 and one each from 460002 and 460008
    The four scrapped cars were one each from 460001, 460003, 460007 and 460008.
    So I find that there isn't a single instance of a class 458 unit containing five cars from the same class 460 unit, which is what we would expect if three cars had been removed from six of the 8-car units. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pkbwcgs, Chetsford, Yoninah, and Redrose64: This has been stuck for over a month. Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    I added a new hook above. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I find it hard to find ALT5 in the article. All I see is a chart with the (unsourced) number 6 as to the number of trains. I also think that all the life has gone out of the hook. This is a GA; could you suggest something else that is interesting and has an inline cite? Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reading the hooks again, I have to say that none of them are really interesting to a broad audience: at best maybe they only appeal to train fans. I agree with what Yoninah mentioned above: can something better be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that the Gatwick Express-linked hooks are quite specialised and dry, too much so really, but I think there is a wealth of potentially interesting hooks in the article - I've suggested some below. Spokoyni (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT6:...that the British Rail Class 458s were awarded a Golden Spanner?
  • ALT7:...that the British Rail Class 458s initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km)?
  • ALT8:...that the British Rail Class 458s initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km), but by 2012 managed 106,049 miles (170,669 km) between failures?
  • ALT9:...that the Class 458s were the first new fleet of trains to be delivered following the privatisation of British Rail?
  • ALT10:...that six years after first entering service, the British Rail Class 458s were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all?
  • ALT11:...that in 2004 the British Rail Class 458s were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all, but by 2012 they were the most reliable fleet in Britain?
Symbol question.svg Of the new hooks, I think ALT10 and ALT11 are the best, with a slight preference for ALT11 as it shows both the reliability and unreliability. I don't have access to the sources used for them so I am assuming good faith. This is almost ready to go: my only concern is that there's no footnote in the "Fleet details" section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT11 and I think that this should be used as the source for the hook. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pkbwcgs: Can you please cite the "Fleet details" sections so that this can be approved? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have cited the "Fleet details" section. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 11[edit]

Lady Ponce

Lady Ponce
Lady Ponce

Created by Toreightyone (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Nominated on the 7th day, 1806 characters, Copycvio unlikely, 0% at EarWigs. Hook is 136 characters.
Issues: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • albums and singles unsourced, should be cited or can be commented out. Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • the article focuses almost entirely on tabloid fodder. Can you add some info about her music. Since that is her basis of notability why is it not discussed. Why is she called "the queen of Bikutsi"?
  • I don't think this article demonstrates notability as written.
  • please add some location info to the hook, easiest way: "..her wedding in Les Clayes-sous-Bois a secret", either that or add "Cameroonian singer". I don't see any location marker to orient the reader. Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • how do we know this photo was legitimately added to Commons. Anyone could have uploaded it

Sorry to do this. Please ping me and I will return. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Coffeeandcrumbs, how does this hook sound?
  • ALT1: ... that Cameroonian singer Lady Ponce (pictured) invited the paparazzi to her wedding at 3:30 pm, but actually held it at 9:00 am to keep her wedding a secret?
As for the image, how does the one on the side look? I can message Sergelowe (uploader) with any questions you have. As it stands right now, the citations for the singles and appear at citation 16 on the discography box on the right. I can add info regarding her music and her nickname either today or tomorrow. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Who is Sergelowe? The uploaders for the images are Rogeraepoh and Photokadaffi. I think we have to go with no photo. Her face is not visible in the other photo and I have suspect that the main photo is COPYVIO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you add some sentences about when she release the albums. Something like: "Lady Ponce released her debut album in ... Her second album, Le ventre & le bas-ventre, came in ..." I can not pass the article as neutral when it focuses so much on tabloid-y stuff. Right now, her biography is mostly rumours, weddings, and hoaxes claiming she died. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sergelowe is the uploader for the image I added. It may be possible to crop the one I added in a way that focuses on her face - but if it cannot, then no photo is fine with me. Toreightyone (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg OK, both photos are no good. Moving on the article, it fails WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It has an undue focus on the subject's personal life. It does not appear that the subject is only notable for her personal life.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Toreightyone: You have been unable to edit the article in almost a month, and Coffee's concerns appear to have been unaddressed. I'll give you until May 16 to address the issues; if you will be unable to do so, the nomination may be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg No response from the nominator despite a ping, a talk page message, and a DM on Discord. He has also not edited in two weeks. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just received a message from the nominator that he will try to address the issues by tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey @Coffeeandcrumbs:, I have made several expansions to the career section. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 12[edit]

Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC), co-nom by DBigXray 12:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) .

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, since the nomination is continuing rather than being withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed; it's been over two weeks with no review posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Historical significance

  • ...that historical significance is subjective and open to challenge? Source: "But historical significance is often a subjective decision, something that makes it contestable (open to challenge)." (and [9] the source)
    • ALT1: ...that historical significance defines history books, street names, museum displays, pictures on stamps, bank notes, and television shows? Source: " Ideas about historical significance help to shape how the past is remembered and represented and influence who gets remembered and who gets forgotten and who and what gets included in history books, commemorated on bank notes, in the names of streets and squares, in museum displays, in television programmes, and so on" (and [10] the source)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Leaving aside a review of the article itself, I've corrected some grammar issues with the hooks; struck ALT0 as unsupported by the source ("often" ≠ always in all cases) which itself isn't remotely a qualified WP:RS for a point of that magnitude, however WP:BLUEy; and struck ALT1 as unsupported/ungrammatical/tautological. It isn't "defining" "pictures on stamps" or "museum displays" and, to the extent historical significance shapes others' inclusion in that laundry list, such reshaping is the very essence of the concept of historical significance. The hook essentially says "historical significance is historical significance", which fails the "be interesting" criterion for DYK. — LlywelynII 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 seems bland but unobjectionable. ALT4 is a quote quoted by your source; Febvre's original work should be found and cited and it's just his opinion, not a fact. ALT5 isn't cited in the article. — LlywelynII 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • To check through the rest of the list, though, the article is timely but currently consists of an overlong intro from one source (WP:LEADCITE; WP:ONESOURCE) and three lists without commentary (MOS:LEADREL; WP:LISTDD); all three lists are theoretical and sourced to historians unimportant enough that they lack existing biography articles (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE) rather than any discussion about the actual criteria used by major past or present historians; it's barely long enough (1520ish elig. chars.) but full of grammatical mistakes and needs a rebuild (e.g., the WP:LEADSENTENCE vaguely describes the topic instead of defining it) that will change that number; removing the current deadweight would put it under the requirement; Earwig finds no major copyvio, but the lists need an overhaul to make more sense even if they're found to be notable; QPQ done.

    At minimum, ♦ the lead sentence needs to define the topic; ♦ the lead section needs to be an overview of the body of the article, not the body of the article itself; as such, ♦ the running text in the body of the article needs to be (at minimum) 2–3 times longer than the text in the lead; ♦ the citations in the lead need to be moved to the body; ♦ the lists that are currently being used should have some indication as to who these people are and why anyone should care about their opinions on historical significance; ♦ the lists that are currently being used should be rephrased to explain exactly what each point means and how it is different from the other points, ideally with clear examples.

    I've often said that this is DYK, not GA, and that's completely true (a good article would include discussions of changing historiography over time discussing major international historians/schools from Sima Qian to hagiographers to Gibbon to the Marxists) but there are some minimum standards that aren't being met here that really should be. — LlywelynII 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: Thanks Llywelyn, I have added a separate short lead and I understand what you are saying about referencing the lists against each other, but these were simply the lists that seem to be used a lot in a relatively superficial search and read up on the topic. I will look into validating the lists a little better but it will be down to online availability. ~ R.T.G 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you see what I'm saying, then you understand that online availability doesn't actually make these lists NOTABLE or non-FRINGE. There has to be some context that other people actually pay attention to these particular writers or that their ideas represent widespread consensus in the field, established practice among actually noteworthy historians, etc.

If that's really impossible to manage, then we're better off moving this to a sandbox for future work and redirecting to the good general treatment at Historiography or sth. — LlywelynII 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I have expanded the article a little. Historians notoriously do not get the kind of recognition you seem to be trying to demand. I assure you, there is more than copy and paste going on here even if there is no FA yet, so I invite you to the articles talkpage to discuss further relevance of the lists.
I invite you to read historiography for that context, as I have done. This subject is widely published and is not covered on Wikipedia. I am sorry that you cannot bear start class articles, but that's where articles start. If you are offended by this article or believe it misrepresents sources, is based on unreliable sources or is unbalanced by fringe views, discuss on the talkpage or request deletion. DYK is asking for stub-class articles recently. Well, here's one both of us would have expected to be covered already. I've put it on the history project. Let's get it through the DYK and see if an article comes of it, ~ R.T.G 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like to help, find me a connection that says Lis Cercadillo, Ministry of Education (ESP), various important university postings, is the same author. If she is not, why can I not find the Spanish Lis, referred to all over the place in English, who is? ~ R.T.G 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII:, I invite you now to review the article again and remember, it is a start, and as such is written to encourage participation and interest, not instil authority, so I encourage you to help me improve the rationale of the lists as an important part of the subject rather than simply demand credentials. ~ R.T.G 14:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested; previous reviewer has not been active as is unlikely to return. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 14[edit]

Orvar Swenson

  • Reviewed: Lu Xiaopeng
  • Comment: Note that congenital megacolon is synonymous with Hirschsprung's disease.

Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Reviewing. New enough, copyvio ok. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi @97198:. Did he do it solely or with Alexander Bill? All else ok.Whispyhistory (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Whispyhistory: From the sources it doesn't seem 100% clear. Bill and Swenson certainly developed and reported on the technique together, but whether Bill was in the operating theatre is unclear. That the surgery is known as the "Swenson pull-through" is maybe an indication. In any case, I don't think the hook is inaccurate – whether or not Bill was directly involved, Swenson certainly would have had assistance. 97198 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @97198 and Whispyhistory: This has been stuck since March; I'd suggest revising the hook or proposing a new hook if the lack of clarity on Swenson's role is what's preventing this from moving forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Narutolovehinata5:. This should all be clear in the article. I will leave to @97198:, otherwise I can research the topic in the summer. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory: The nominator hasn't edited in over a month. Can this still move forward? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:...let me see if I can improve the article (not claiming to be an expert fixer). The article is wrong as it stands. I'll ping back soon, but then someone else will need to review. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Olivia Jade Giannulli

  • ALT1 ... that there has been a delay in the processing of the trademark for Olivia Jade due to "poor punctuation" on the application? [13] [14]
  • Reviewed: forthcoming / needed

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size (bare minimum but passes), copyvio check, neutrality, hooks, pass. QPQ review needed. But I also have one more concern that would be best answered by a second reviewer. The article is borderline with regards to WP:BLP - most of the content is tabloid-level criticism of the subject. I am unsure if it is due weight to discuss such incidents including the one the hook is citing. And frankly, removing even one sentence from this article could make it not eligible as it will be too short. Not sure if we want this type of content for the front page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is currently at AfD; therefore no decision on DYK can be made until and unless it is kept. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Outsider comment; courtesy ping to all parties as AFD is closed as keep and article has been further expanded. Review can be continued although the problem of recentism would need to be addressed per tag. Daniel Case, Piotrus, Chetsford. :) Adog (TalkCont) 15:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article passed AfD (which I have not been aware of), this suggests it is at least notable. It also has been expanded. As for the tag about 'being slanted towards recent events', I am not sure it is justified - is there any coverage of her that's not about 'recent events'? I am inclined to change my vote to GTG unless counter-arguments are presented (please ping me if anyone wants to address me). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of notability or recentism issues, the hook seems to be a BLP case and personally I don't feel comfortable using it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Would you be able to propose an alternate hook? I'm concerned that the current one falls afoul of BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
Sure, Narutolovehinata5. Alt proposed, above. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Piotrus: Thoughts on the new hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. Possible BLP issues... but I guess we can leave the choice of the hook to the closing admin, both are ok-ish, if we squint long enough... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Probably needs a new reviewer, this hasn't been touched in over a month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 15[edit]


  • ... that the medieval Perso-Arabic legend of al-Nadirah was the source of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Princess and the Pea"? Source: "The widespread popular legend about the Hatrene princess Nażira and her betrayal of the city for love is still lives on in the modern fairy tale (by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen) “the princess and the pea”" [15]
  • Reviewed: coming soon

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Thank you. The hook is excellent. The Princess and the Pea is one of my favourite tales and no doubt this information will be of interest to many. QPQ to do, copyvio okay, new enough, sourced and cited. One bare url needs a fix. Character count too low. Can you expand a bit more, maybe add the information of why it linked with the fairy tale? Another source [16]. Ping me when done. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Whispyhistory, I get the character count of the prose at around 2,000, shouldn't that be enough? I think the hook needs to be reworded though: neither its source, nor the first relevant thing I could see in a quick search [17] suggests that the legend was the actual source of the fairy tale. All that is stated is that they share a theme, stopping short of implying a causal connection (which is likely but not certain and it would be otherwise quite difficult to establish). – Uanfala (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg ALT1 works with "one of the sources". The article still has a bare url needing a fix. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 17[edit]

Felipe Reinoso

Created/expanded by Vycl1994 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The lead is too short. In the original hook "state legislature" must be replaced by "state legislature of US". RRD (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The article lede now mentions Reinoso's tenure on the Connecticut House, and his election to the Peruvian legislature. ALT3 above specifies U. S. state legislature in addition to the wikilink state legislature (United States) that was already present. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vycl1994: The lead claims that he was born in circa 1950. However, there is no source for it in the article. I have also added a when tag to the article. The article needs a little copyedit also. RRD (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: The biographical sketch attached to Reinoso's interview with Reyes states "Reinoso was born in Peru and immigrated to Connecticut in 1969" Keating, Pazniokas, and Lender (2008) states "Rep. Felipe Reinoso, a Bridgeport Democrat, flew back from his native Peru - where he lived for 19 years before moving to Connecticut".... Both references are linked to the sentence "Reinoso and his family immigrated to the United States in 1969, settling in Bridgeport, Connecticut." at the moment. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 18[edit]

Chowkidar Chor Hai

  • ... that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministers prefixed the name 'chowkidar' (watchmen) to their social media profiles in response to election slogan Chowkidar Chor Hai? Source: "In recent days, leaders and supporters of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have launched a coordinated effort to popularize his watchman campaign, with many changing their social media names to add the prefix ‘chowkidar’" Reuters, "Prime Minister Narendra Modi today changed his personal Twitter account name to -- Chowkidar Narendra Modi. Following Prime Minister, BJP president and other BJP leaders also changed their profile names to Chowkidar Amit Shah, Chowkidar Piyush Goyal, etc. The campaign has been launched to counter the Congress President Rahul Gandhi's " chowkidar chor hai" jibe against the Prime Minister."Economic Times, Telegraph

Created by DBigXray (talk). Self-nominated at 07:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I've modified the hook slightly to include "Narendra Modi" in it. The article is new enough and long enough, and QPQ is present. However, the article has some slight grammatical issues and most pressingly it is up for AfD. I'd like to reevaluate pending the result of the AfD. Raymie (tc) 17:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "his ministers" seems quite strangely put. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming his government ministers? Not exactly a big leap of faith in a parliamentary democracy... Raymie (tc) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article was kept at AFD, but the 2019 Indian general elections are currently ongoing, so in light of the rule at WP:DYKHOOK for avoiding articles featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the election, it would seem that the promotion at least will have to wait until they have concluded. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's also an RM now on this page, as a note, requesting a move to Main Bhi Chowkidar. Raymie (tc) 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Further update: having survived the RM, this page is now a candidate to be merged. Can't say I've seen an AfD, an RM and a proposed merger on the same article before? Raymie (tc) 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The article that is the proposed merge target is also under a merge proposal, for merging into yet another, higher-level article. That's something I can't say I've seen before. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That proposal was archived with three "Oppose" votes, so that tag can be removed. Good catch. Raymie (tc) 00:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There have been four comments over a month and a half of the merger proposal being up for discussion, and three of them are in support. I believe the merger would mean the end of this DYK nomination, correct? Raymie (tc) 22:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

High Orchard

Llanthony Provender Mill, High Orchard
Llanthony Provender Mill, High Orchard
Fielding & Platt 150-ton rivetting machine (1885)
Fielding & Platt 150-ton rivetting machine (1885)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. The image is in the public domain but I don't think it goes with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find the hook more a statement of fact than hooky. It's also not clear that High Orchard is an industrial area. Could you come up with something more attention grabbing, perhaps playing on some of the names or the incarnations of the area? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that an arson attack on Llanthony Provender Mill (pictured) in Gloucester's High Orchard area left it a "dilapidated shell"? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: thank you for the alt, but isn't that an obvious result? I've combed the article for other hooks, but the material is very dry. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I will have another look at my sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That's interesting, thanks. Do you have a link for "rivetting machine"? Calling on new reviewer to look at ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Linked, using British spelling. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Honestly I don't really find ALT2 to be interesting. It seems rather dry, and perhaps a bit too complicated (it seems hard to tell if it's focusing on the industrial area or the machine). I think the original hook fact (about the area formerly being industrial but is now a shopping district) has potential: perhaps a new hook can be suggested based on that? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory: Could you suggest alternate hooks here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I have unstruck both the original hook and Alt1 for further discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that High Orchard (buildings pictured), a former industrial area in Gloucester, England, is now the site of a shopping centre?
ALT3a ... that High Orchard (buildings pictured), a former industrial area in Gloucester, England, is now a shopping centre?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt4 ... that High Orchard (buildings pictured) in Gloucester, England, was part of a medieval priory, then an industrial area, and is now the site of a shopping centre?
The image is splendid, and if it is to be used, the "(buildings pictured)" bit of the hook should follow mention of the industrial area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt4a ... that High Orchard in Gloucester, England, was part of a medieval priory, then an industrial area (buildings pictured), and is now the site of a shopping centre? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Kamchatka meteor

Timelapse of the Kamchatka meteor's smoke trail by the JMA's Himawari 8
Timelapse of the Kamchatka meteor's smoke trail by the JMA's Himawari 8

Created by Exoplanetaryscience (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Exoplanetaryscience: New article, long enough, and within policy - although the references could do with improving. My main concern is with the hook. ALT1 seems a bit disparaging, so I prefer the first one. However, the diameter of the meteor seems to be 12 +- 2, not exactly 12 - it might be better just to say the name of it. Also, I don't understand where the 30 years number came from - it's smaller than the 2013 and 1908 ones, so shouldn't this be "the last 6 years"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice second largest in 30 years- a rather conservative estimate by the BBC source I gave first since we're only confident that similarly sized asteroids have only hit once in the last 30 years (the chelaybinsk event as you said) It wouldn't be supported by the source given, but I could say it was the third largest impact on Earth since 1900. I also chose to state the size of it over the name as I couldn't seem to fit both in without seeming overly verbose, or just the name without making the size of it seem rather meaningless. I might even say putting down the size range and risk getting verbose is better than not giving it at all. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Exoplanetaryscience: Sorry for the delay, I hadn't spotted your reply here. "third largest observed since 1900" might be easier to understand than "second largest in 30 years", since the latter presumably depends on an observational technique having changed 30 years ago (looking at the source for the BBC article at [21]). Perhaps "10-metre class asteroid" might be a way to avoid giving uncertainties on the diameter while not being overly precise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: I prefer the "third largest observed since 1900" with the keyword being observed. Given that "Events as large as this are statistically estimated to occur once every 20-40 years on average" it seems difficulty to justify that we know that it is the "third largest impact on Earth since 1900." --mikeu talk 21:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Sorry for the delay with re-reviewing this. I think it's now good to go with the revised version of the first hook. I forgot to check for the QPQ earlier, but it isn't needed as it's your second DYK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook has too many numbers in it. Could you pare it down? Here's a suggestion:
  • ALT0a: ... that in 2018, the third-largest asteroid observed to impact Earth since 1900 fell over the Bering Sea near the Kamchatka Peninsula?
  • Also, why are you calling it an asteroid when the page name is meteor? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Exoplanetaryscience and Mu301. On 'asteroid', that's what it was before it fell into Earth's atmosphere (see Asteroid#Terminology), so that makes sense in the context: an asteroid fell and became a meteor. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, a meteor is the visible passage of an asteroid (or other object) thourgh the atmosphere. Asteroid is the "thing" and meteor is the impact "event". --mikeu talk 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: God, I'm horrible at being timely recently. Anyway, I think it would be good to include the size because otherwise you've just got "an unusually large asteroid" and nobody knows how big it is- is a golf ball particularly large for such an object? Perhaps an entire mountain? There's no good way to give reference save just giving a size. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: see the reply from the nominator above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
To explain "how big it is" I have a slight preference for TNT equivalent force as in ALT1. The primary notability of the event is that it released a great amount of energy when it detonated in the atmosphere.[22] A small mass moving fast or a large mass moving slow could have the same impact.[23] But, diameter is ok imo. --mikeu talk 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Exoplanetaryscience: all I'm saying is that the hook has too many numbers in it. If you want to keep the size of the meteor, then edit the hook so the size doesn't run into the date. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


Alright, here's a couple of proposed modifications, which do you like more? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW the image is really too dark to be discerned at thumbnail size. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Exoplanetaryscience: in case they haven't spotted this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Really sorry about the delay, I've been juggling a lot and have been ab it overwhelmed recently. I don't think I can easily brighten the image up without an unreasonable amount of work- if it won't work as an image then it's best to just remove it. And I like The DYK proposal that Yoninah gives. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Pema Dhondup

Created by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 21:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is too short, and contains less than 500 bytes of readable prose, which is all in the lead section. Please expand the article to have at least 1,500 bytes of readable prose. List and plot info do not count toward this total. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ynhockey: I've expand the article.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thanks, the length looks OK now, though I would still recommend expanding the article further. In any case, the article requires copyediting for grammar and style; I have added a relevant tag, this will likely be addressed by the guild of copyeditors. Feel free to post a request on their page to speed up the process. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ynhockey: I've fixed copyediting for grammar and style. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: It seems that the article is still not well-written, and contains many English language mistakes. I see that you have requested a review at GOCE though, I think we can wait until they help you. I might be able to do so at a later time, but then another reviewer needs to look at the nom. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ynhockey: Article has been copy edited by Guild of Copy Editors___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook + source look good, article issues have been fixed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not understand the hook. What is a "Nepalese Hollywood film"? The source doesn't call it that, nor does Wikipedia's article about it. Also, the hook seems to be implying that it is the first Nepalese Hollywood film, while the article says it is Dhondup's first Nepalese Hollywood film. I suggest you fix this description in the article and try a different hook. Mentioning his background or studies in Los Angeles might lend themselves to a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: you new hook doesn't make sense. "Between" implies a contrast between two things, not one. I also don't see the hook fact in the article. I fleshed out the biography and note that you are not making full use of your sources in writing the article. While I used his LinkedIn page for biographical details, you can look up these facts online and then credit them to other sources if you wish. Here is another hook idea:
  • ALT2: ... that Pema Dhondup studied filmmaking at the University of Southern California on a Fulbright scholarship so he could use the medium to tell the story of his "lost generation" of Tibetan youth? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ehud Arye Laniado

  • ... that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado died during penis enlargement surgery? Source: "Billionaire Jewish diamond trader dies during penis enlargement operation. Belgian-Israeli Ehud Arye Laniado, 65, suffers heart attack after unnamed substance injected during cosmetic operation in France" ([24])

Created/expanded by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Snickers2686 (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new and seems well referenced but does not come close to the minimum length required for DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That's true, it's about 300 characters short. I expect Edwardx will expand it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Surtsicna:, it's now long enough. Please continue review. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Philafrenzy "it's now long enough" - trust that is a reference to the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Oh yes, it's BBC quality now. The sources are all fine, the hook is excellent and referenced, but we still need a QPQ review. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Surtsicna. QPQ now done. Edwardx (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The article now meets the new article, length, and policy criteria. The hook is concise and catchy. QPQ done and a questionable image removed. It's ready now! Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK. Please provide a different hook, optimally about his life or notability. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado was known as "the Argentinian" because he was short and "looked like a tango dancer"?
Thank you, Philafrenzy. For ALT2, I have added "€4.6 billion", along with a supporting ref in the article. Edwardx (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • flag Redflag-Don't proceed with this unless a relevant OTRS ticket gets resolved. Regards, WBGconverse 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 23[edit]

Oei Hui-lan

Madame Koo (then Mrs Caulfield-Stoker) with her eldest son, 1920
Madame Koo (then Mrs Caulfield-Stoker) with her eldest son, 1920

Improved to Good Article status by Clara dari Semarang (talk). Self-nominated at 13:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Note: struck ALT1, which was 213 prose characters (including spaces). Also fixed up the original hook so the nominated article is in bold per DYK guidelines, and the "(pictured)" is included (which doesn't add to the hook's prose characters). Proposing a shorter version of ALT1:
  • Symbol question.svg Article is a recent GA, long enough, neutral, and well referenced. No copyvio detected. QPQ not required as it's the nominator's first DYK. There are problems with the hooks, however, as the supplied source says she was actually born in Amoy, China, not Dutch East Indies (or Indonesia, which is anachronistic). The image is PD, but does not show up well in small size. I suggest using the image in the infobox instead. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Zanhe The quoted source, which is not an academic work, contradicts Suryadinata et al, who says that she was born in Semarang. Should I include another source?
  • I'm quite happy to use the Met exhibition quotation instead if you prefer.
  • How do I transfer the image to the infobox?

Clara dari Semarang (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clara dari Semarang: You're right, Suryadinata 2015 says she was born in Semarang, and that's a far more reliable source than "Nee Hao". Still, I think "Indonesia" is anachronistic and should be changed to Dutch East Indies. As for the image, what I was suggesting is to use the photo currently in the infobox (File:Madame Wellington Koo (née Hui-lan Oei) with baby.jpg) for DYK, as that one shows up better in small size. -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe, it's been over a month. What is keeping this from being approved? Since the nominator is new to DYK, perhaps you could make any minor adjustments to get this moving again, such as displaying the other photo here so whoever promoted this can choose between the two photos. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I was simply waiting for the nominator to respond to my comments, but she hasn't edited for over a month. I don't mind making the changes myself, but sometimes people get very offended when I do that without getting their consent first. -Zanhe (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe, I've just posted to her talk page; sometimes pings don't work. If there's nothing in the next few days, I'd go ahead with whatever's needed; if she doesn't like a change, she can simply say so. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Methodist Church Ghana

  • ... 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) Have you ever wondered about Methodism in Ghana? Whether you said yes or no, this article is for you.
    • 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)

Expanded by Saborbie (talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg At the time of nomination, the only change from the past month week was from CommonsDelinker. hinnk (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article was expanded from 1597 prose characters to 2000 prose characters on April 7 (definitely within the past month), a 20% expansion. So the nomination was made 17 days after that expansion, or 10 days late. It would need to be expanded to 7985 prose characters to meet the 5x (500%) expansion requirement, which does not seem to be feasible. In addition, the hook does not meet DYK requirements for formatting or interesting facts. Best of luck for next time; before the next nomination, I suggest that Saborbie read WP:DYK to find out more about how DYK works and what it expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry yes, the expansion was within the past month but way outside the window to nominate for DYK. Amended my original comment. hinnk (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The nominator appears to be working on the article in their sandbox, and it looks as if a 5x expansion will be achieved. Marking this to keep the nomination open until the article is updated with new text or the semester is over, whichever occurs first. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Saborbie, thanks for submitting this DYK nomination. if you wish to pursue it—it definitely now qualifies—you will have to provide an interesting hook about the article (the initial one you tried does not qualify; please see the guidance about hooks at WP:DYK). If you aren't interested, then we can just close it. However, we need to hear from you here. Hope you respond soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 24[edit]

Herbert Schachtschneider

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article created on 24 March as stated. Contains 2210 characters of prose, is neutral and sourced. Complies with core policies and contains no close paraphrasing [[26]] (I don't see how it could given the sources are in German). Hook contains fewer than 200 characters and is cited in the article. However, the source does say that he recorded Gurre-Lieder mit Inge Borkh und Kieth Engen and although I think that's okay, this may upset the pedantic. Is it interesting? Well, I suppose some people will find it interesting but I would've preferred something about his capture by allied forces. Still, good to go IMHO as soon as the QPQ is done.Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I am not sure why you'r mind that the source mentions his colleague singers, whom I'd mention if only Engen had an aticle, Inge Borkh was one of the most exciting sopranos of her time, and some readers may remember (she died last year). However, the who review comes under the header Kubelik, who is pictured on the cover, and unites three different recordings. Pedantics might rather complain that it's only "Ausschnitte" (excerpts) of Gurre-Lieder, but it's more than one Gurre-Lied, so should be ok. Will review later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I read that as if all the compositions were sung as a trio but in any event, I'm not one of those pedants so as soon as you've done the QPQ, ping me and I'll GTG this nom. Regards Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ykraps, I reviewed now, s. above. Just for teaching: the set combines three recordings of music by different composers, at different times, with different people. Of the three, he sang only in Gurre, but that's a giant piece. No tenor in the Alto-Rhapsody (as one might guess by the title), and a different tenor (who was less praised) for Das klagende Lied. I liked the Gurre because of the praise, and because his other connection to the composer, but "UK premiere" is a bit awkward. Thank you for listening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the extra info. All good to go now.Ykraps (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Honestly, a new hook is probably needed here: it doesn't seem to be intriguing that a singer recorded a song, isn't that their job? Ykraps' suggestion about him being captured during World War II is honestly better than what has been proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with Gurre-Lieder, which - inspite of the harmless title - is a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers. Not a song. - DYK is to promote knowledge that is not yet known. Many performers' articles are a vehicle to make also compositions known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
But does the hook appeal to a broad audience? To be frank, a hook that requires familiarity with a niche topic rarely works out, especially in cases like this. There's probably a better way to present the hook fact and the current one isn't really working out. Being "a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers" does not matter if this is a fact that is only known to opera circles and not the average reader. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I am so tired of this, and today actually sick in bed. Please join the central discussion on WT:DYK#Opera role (where I said that I'd prefer 3 readers actually interested in the topic to 3000 who click and return.) I am here to expand knowledge, - there's a link to Gurre-Lieder for those who don't know. (I see I said that already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to capitalize "Cologne" in the hook. Jmar67 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 25[edit]

Golem (Casken opera)

  • ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem received the first Britten Award for Composition? Source: book source

Created by Marosc9 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - new and long enough (barely). Inline citations checks. Review made. No image to review. Hook looks interesting enough for inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg What is this award? If it's notable, can a page be started to link it? Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No idea. Midnight, and Easter for 2 days. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would have created a page on the Britten Award for Composition myself but research on the internet came up with almost nothing on it beyond John Casken being the first winner for Golem and Philip Cashian being the second winner, though I don't know what the composition was in his case. I've emailed the Britten Pears Foundation today who, if anyone should, should have more information. Let's see what they come back with. --Marosc9 (talk)
  • @Marosc9: thank you. But if it's not a notable award, why are you using it as a hook fact? Could you suggest another hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you need to ask those questions of the nominator Gerda Arendt. I'm hoping the Pears Britten Foundation will be able to provide enough of a lead so that I can write an article on the award.
  • Suggesting ALTs below, might work better since the award in question does have an article (which says that it is considered the Oscars of classical music):
ALT1 ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem won the 1991 Gramophone Classical Music Award for Best Contemporary Recording?
ALT2 ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem is a recipient of a Gramophone Classical Music Award, often considered as the "Oscars of classical music"?
@Gerda Arendt, Marosc9, BabbaQ, and Yoninah: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for offering. ALT1 is fine by me. ALT2 has too much focus on the award for my taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT hooks, and also to do the rest of the "within policy" checks (neutrality and free of close paraphrasing, etc.). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 26[edit]

Sylvia Geszty

Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra in Handel's "Giulio Cesare", 1970
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra in Handel's "Giulio Cesare", 1970
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra in Handel's "Giulio Cesare", 1970
Sylvia Geszty as Cleopatra

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC).

I guess the image would be better if cropped for this purpose, not for the article. What do you think, David? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I've uploaded a cropped version. —David Levy 02:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, here's a square crop. —David Levy 05:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that images are set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article meets DYK requirements, no close paraphrasing was found, and a QPQ has been provided. The roles section currently lacks references, so that has to be resolved first. While the hook fact is cited inline, I find the wording a little clunky and could be written better. Perhaps something like:
ALT0a ... that the Hungarian coloratura soprano Sylvia Geszty (pictured) started her international career as a member of the East Berlin Staatsoper?
With that said, I honestly am not sure if that's even interesting (either the original or my own rewording). Another option could be a more minor rewording of the original hook, something like:
ALT0b ... that the Hungarian coloratura soprano Sylvia Geszty (pictured) was a member of the East Berlin Staatsoper before joining the Stuttgart State Opera?
Which doesn't really resolve the hook interest issues, but personally I think that a Hungarian joining both East and West German musical groups does sound intriguing. In case that doesn't work out, perhaps:
ALT1 ... that Sylvia Geszty's portrayal of the role of Zerbinetta in the opera Ariadne auf Naxos was described by a critic as the "most emotional, multi-faceted and human of all"?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for offering. I didn't dare to suggest ALT1, because it's one critic's pov, - beautiful as it is. Where would "pictured" go? East-West is something specific to her career, - they changed record covers when she dared to leave the Berlin Opera. ALT0a is boring, therefore, showing only one side. In ALT1b, where would "pictured" go? It's East style which needs to show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talkcontribs) 14:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1a ... that the portrayal by Sylvia Geszty (pictured) of Zerbinetta in the opera Ariadne auf Naxos was described by a critic as the "most emotional, multi-faceted and human of all"? —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Hanna McCormick

Improved to Good Article status by Knope7 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article was promoted to GA status within the last seven days, is over the required prose size and has no copyvio concerns. Both hooks are interesting and supported by reliable sources with inline citations. User has provided a QPQ review to meet the requirement, good to go. Kosack (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find both hooks pretty pedestrian. This is a GA; can you provide a juicier hook? Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm perplexed by this. Would it help to trim hook 1? The first woman to receive a major party's Senate nomination is a huge achievement and hook worthy to me. The fact that she defeated a sitting senator to win the nomination underscores the difficulty of what she did but it's not crucial. Knope7 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to ping @Yoninah: earlier so I am doing it now. Knope7 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Knope7: it's interesting to you because you're American, right? But it's not going to be interesting to readers in other countries, and frankly, we've had our share of women "firsts" at DYK. It's also very wordy. The best you could shorten it to is:
  • ALT2: ... that Ruth Hanna McCormick was the first woman to run on a major party ticket for the United States Senate? -- which isn't so interesting, is it? Are you sure you can't pull something else hooky out of the article that will entice readers? Something about her relationships with major American political players? Something about her own family's immersion in politics? Something else? Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:Not quite. It's not that she just ran, it's that won a primary to get there. It's pretty clear we have a different interest in celebrating the achievements of groundbreaking women, which is fine. If there are a lot of women "firsts" at DYK, that's probably a sign I'm not alone in finding them interesting. I'll note ALT1 does not rely on her being a woman. I would not support a hook that relies on her connections to major American politicians because of how that feeds into a larger problem for how women's biographies are often presented on Wikipedia. Tying her to American political figures does not solve one of the reasons you have rejected my prior hooks, that it won't interest readers in other countries. With all that being said, here are two attempts, below. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 27[edit]

Samra (rapper)

  • ... that Samra, a male German rapper, performs under a feminine Arabic pseudonym?
    • ALT1:... that a German male rapper's pseudonym is an Arabic feminine name that means "Dark"?
    • ALT2:... that a German male rapper takes an Arabic feminine name as his pseudonym?
    • ALT3:... that Samra, a German male rapper, takes an Arabic feminine name that means "Dark" as his pseudonym?

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I'll review this one. The review will be up in the next day. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - The article should be edited to clarify that the weapons he was arrested with in Prague were non-functioning; as it stands the article gives the misleading impression that he was caught with working military-grade weapons.
  • Neutral: Red XN - The language is sometimes excessively promotional (particularly "at age 23, Samra scored his first solo number one" and "set for release on April 26") and needs to be cleaned up. You can state that his EP will be bundled with this other album without sounding like you're trying to get readers hyped for the release date. There's also no reason to have a floating link to his music video; any reader who can use Wikipedia can find a music video on YouTube without our help.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article was new enough when nominated, is just long enough (~1900 characters of readable prose), and shows no signs of plagiarism of online sources when run through Earwig's tool. There are citations to support the article's claims throughout. The language is sometimes excessively promotional and needs to be cleaned up. The hook proposals are all variations of the same thing, which is interesting and is supported by a citation; I like ALT0 the best and am lightly editing it for clarity. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 28[edit]

Ruth Hesse

  • Reviewed: Hermann Herlitz
  • Comment: Article comes with a rich list of roles and detailed recordings which I have no time to reference bit by bit.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg There's just too much information being crammed here in the hook and it's rather difficult to read. I understand that you want to show the variety of roles she's had, but there might be another way to word the hook if you really wish to go in that direction. Will be suggesting alternatives below, the first based on ALT0 and the second is based on how she's performed internationally. I've also suggested an ALT3 but I honestly don't think it might appeal to non-classical music fans:
ALT1 ... that among the roles that mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse has performed include the Nurse in Die Frau ohne Schatten and a part in the premiere performance of Henze's Der junge Lord?
ALT2 ... that German mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse has performed at opera concerts in Spain, Sweden, Russia, the United States, South America, and Japan?
ALT3 ... that German mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse was appointed a Kammersänger in 1982?
Another issue I have with the original hook is the words "created a role" - did she really invent the role or merely played it? I don't think I've ever heard the word "create" used in that sense. I will be leaving comments on article wordings later, including apparent typos and redundant words. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You should know me for long enough not to waste time on proposals such as ALT2 and ALT3. A laundry list of places is not even wanted in articles of project opera, and the year of Kammersängerin says nothing if no birth date is supplied. ALT1 is possible but I don't see how not mentioning the highly notable and well-known places the things happened makes it better. Drop the ROH if you have to, - it was meant to illustrate that it's more than German speaking. The Salzburg performance, recorded, and alongside the most prominent singers of the time, should be mentioned, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Remember that we are writing for a broad audience, and non-opera readers and editors are unlikely to see the significance of those factors. What may be obvious to those in the scene may not be to those who don't know. With that said, I can't really see any way else of moving forward here: suggesting more alternatives seems difficult considering the content in the article. Thus, I'll be requesting a second opinion here on ALT0 and ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-opera readers will not be interested in the article at all, and we should not lure them into it, imho. Readers can expect that something said in a hook has relevance, and if curious enough, they can click and find out the details. What we should not do is tell those who may be interested nothing more than a boring list of places without any music, and you can almost exchange the same list from one singer to the next. Remember ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, here for a second opinion. ALT0 is not bad, but it's not clear what "created a role" means. I read the article and was amazed by all the places this woman performed. Maybe mention that, plus one role, like:
  • ALT2: ... that mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse, who sang in major opera houses around the world over a 30-year career, performed the Nurse in Die Frau ohne Schatten at the Royal Opera House and the Salzburg Festival? Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Better that than nothing, but ... creating a role is much stronger, - it means singing the role in the world premiere, and this is an important opera. Check out DYKs for opera, - many "created", DYK readers should know by know ;) - Rather mention only one place for the Nurse (which is a good role, but no lead character. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg OK, so let's go back to ALT0. Full review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. As all sources are foreign-language, unable to check for close paraphrasing. Foreign-language ALT0 hook refs AGF and cited inline. QPQ done. ALT0 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Due apologies, but due to the wording and hook interest concerns raised at WT:DYK, I've pulled the hook from Prep. @Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: please feel free to suggest new hooks; I've also unstruck ALT2 and ALT3 for discussion purposes (ALT1 remains struck as it's mostly a simplification of ALT0). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing from me. One of these days I'll go on DYK strike, and some will be delighted. You can cut the hook after the role creation, and you can say a clumsy "performed the role in the world premiere" instead of a simple "created the role" (but she really got famous for singing the Nurse). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
like this:
ALT3: ... that mezzo-soprano Ruth Hesse performed the role of Frau von Hufnagel in the world premiere in Henze's Der junge Lord at the Deutsche Oper Berlin? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest here, ALT3 does not solve the issues raised in the WT:DYK discussion. In the end, it's basically another "Actor X played Role Y" role, a format that editors such as Khajidha have objected to. As advice, instead of using writing a hook that goes "Actor X played the role of Y in opera Z", you can try a hook that goes something like "Actor X did Action Y", "Actor X is a Thing Y", or even "Actor X, who is known for Role Y, did Action Z". You don't have to limit yourself with acting roles, especially if there is plenty of material to go by. With Ruth's case, I see that she performed at many locations around the world, and I still believe a hook based on that (i.e. some variation of ALT2) has potential. I have seen your non-opera related hooks and most of them are perfectly acceptable, so I know you can do it. If you're having difficulty with wordings, you are always free to ask for assistance in writing or suggestions. Just remember just to keep a broad audience in mind when doing this, not only classical music fans ;) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Performing in the world premiere, especially of a notable work, is not just actor plays role. The playbill is pictured, did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda. Performing in the world premiere of a notable work is not simply "Actor X played Y role" How about:
Frankly the original hook and Alts were rather cluttered with too much extraneous information crammed in. Sometimes less is more and is more likely to tempt the reader find out more. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Just adding that this whole business, and especially the lengthy farrago at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, reminds me why I never nominate any articles that I've written for DYKs—it's an utter time sink. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 30[edit]

János Gerendi

  • ... that the Transylvanian nobleman János Gerendi refrained from eating blood and strangled animals, but did not keep all the Old Testament laws around 1585? Source: "Around the middle of the 1580s it was known that ... certain rules - though only a few - were followed with respect to diet and the slaughtering of livestock. The innovation-friendly nobleman had introduced some Old-Testament laws..." [29] "At the beginning of 1585, Christian Francken, in a letter to János Gerendi, criticized the ideas of the Gerendists, as István Szántó Arator, the Jesuat, called the Gerendi-circle. It turns out from this letter that at the beginning of the 1580s, the Gerendists kept from the Law the forbidden eating of blood and strangled animals." [30]
    • ALT1: ... that the Transylvanian nobleman János Gerendi refrained from eating blood and strangled animals, but did not keep all the Old Testament laws? Source: "Around the middle of the 1580s it was known that ... certain rules - though only a few - were followed with respect to diet and the slaughtering of livestock. The innovation-friendly nobleman had introduced some Old-Testament laws..." [31] "At the beginning of 1585, Christian Francken, in a letter to János Gerendi, criticized the ideas of the Gerendists, as István Szántó Arator, the Jesuat, called the Gerendi-circle. It turns out from this letter that at the beginning of the 1580s, the Gerendists kept from the Law the forbidden eating of blood and strangled animals." [32]

Created by Borsoka (talk). Self-nominated at 04:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment, not a review. It's not obvious that the ref as quoted supports the hook! "around 1585" should be placed earlier, if that is the actual dqate. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, thank you for your comment. Why do you think that the refs do not support the hook? Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The vnew hook is better, & I'll leave the reviewer to worry about that if you don't mind. Johnbod (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]



5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. It's been nearly three weeks without any follow-up. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article meets the technical requirements. Assuming good faith for the offline sources. No close paraphrasing found, QPQ done. However, the children table lacks a reference, and I feel that the current hook might be too prosaic to be hooky. Perhaps a better hook could be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: The children table has been removed. New hook
I think that's a much better hook. Will try to give this a full review by tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay as I had been caught up in other matters. Anyway, I have two issues at the moment: firstly, the sentence discussing ALT1 lacks a footnote. Secondly, are there more details about this revenue administration system? The sentence that comes after seems to talk more about government administration than the revenue administration. Or was that sentence the one which discussed the revenue administration system? The wording isn't very clear on that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have now added an inline cite

Articles created/expanded on April 3[edit]

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017

Created by Icewhiz (talk). Self-nominated at 08:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Date and length fine. I am approving ALT1 only as I think it's more recognisable and doesn't use acronyms. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Object, the hook has clear NPOV issues (Polish nationalists), same for the article, which is rather one sided and suffers from neutrality/undue issues. I'll explain more on article's talk, but the hook is also misleading. The "nationalists" were, at the very least, Polish American, not Polish - unless the Polish government flew in a few hundreds demonstrators from Poland...? PS. I do think that the topic is interesting, but we need a different hook, and the article needs an NPOV c/e and source review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:OR aside, multiple WP:RSes describe them as such - "Polish Nationalists staged a demonstration in New York"[37] "A large group of Polish nationalists took over a major square in downtown Manhattan[38], "Polish nationalists protested in New York City against a bill"[39]. Calling them "Polish American" would be borderline OR - though JC does have that in an image caption (using "Polish Nationalists" otherwise) - and possibly imply that these groups represent in some manner Polish Americans at large (which I assume they most definitely do not).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article has ton of other problems - at least in your version of it - in addition to that one, like WP:SYNTH, use of crappy sources which make obviously outlandish and false claims ("The Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers"), and hyperbolic POV language. It's nowhere near ready for DYK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article follows the language in mainstream English language WP:RSes. Disliking what a RS says? Write their editor a letter, we follow sources here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It actually doesn't. SYNTH isn't an issue with reliability of sources but how these sources are used, for example. Additionally, some of the sources you are attempting to use are clearly not RS in this case. Are you seriously claimig that "the Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers"? Yeah? Then go put that in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article. Either that, or admit that this is nonsense and the source is obviously junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If the sources are clearly wrong, reliability is not relevant. Again, did they fly from Poland to NYC? If not, they are not Polish, but Polish-American. Anyway, singling out a nationality or ethnicity for a hook is not a best practice. While we work out the NPOV/sourcing issues with the article itself, I recommend a non-controversial hook. Here's ALT2 for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Multiple sources - in fact all English sources describing this group, describe them as "Polish Nationalists". They may be Polish nationalists who are US citizens/residents (marching in NYC, carrying Polish flags and antisemitic placards - in Chicago incidentally they had a guy wearing an NSZ armband, flanked by another fellow with a NSZ armband fellow - video of rally - speaking for 20 minutes in Polish. The NSZ - [40] - was "openly anti-Semitic National Armed Forces (NSZ), an extreme right-wing organization that characterized communists, Jews and Soviets as Poland’s principal enemies". In any event - we follow sources - which frame the bill in terms of Polish opposition (other countries having carried out restitution Jewish property stolen by the Nazis) - and which describe the protesters as "Polish nationalists".Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not all sources use the term (see talk page). Anyway, not everything the sources say, including language/etc., is appropriate for the DYK, per NPOV and DYK guidelines ("Consider whether there might be neutrality problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook."). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: ...that Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 requires US State Department to monitor how European countries are compensating Holocaust survivors and their heirs for assets seized by war and post-war governments?
Not hooky. The protest by Polish Nationalists is amply sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean, hooky, is this a word? This is an interesting fact. We are not a tabloid that draws attention to the most controversial aspect. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide: "Consider whether there might be neutrality problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook.". Sometimes we have to chose a less tabloidy, controversial hook, to address Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"Not hooky" here means "not POV enough" Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKHOOK - "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. . WP:IDONTLIKE is not a neutrality problem. We have several English language WP:RSes reporting on the protests in New York - e.g. Newsweek, Forward1, Forward2, TOI, Haaretz, JC, Tablet - we follow sources. Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
DYKHOOK also clearly states "The hook should be neutral." And that the hooks should not "misstate the article content". The description of the protesters as "Polish nationalists", while present in some sources, is not neutral. I've presented other sources at talk that don't use such phrases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The English language sources above all use "Polish nationalists", per WP:NOENG we prefer English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Icewhiz for Polish nationalists. You could have written Polish Nazis or Polish anti-Semites but you limit your attacks to nationalism. Really strange - 200 Poles in Manhattan create one of the most important events of the world. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not everything that is in sources belongs in articles or particularly in the hooks due to a certain policy known as WP:NPOV. Check it out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The official invitation to this event actually read "Drogi Rodaku," (dear compatriot) calling on those not indifferent to their homeland to protest ("jezeli lost Twojej Ojczyzny nie jest Ci obojetny przyjdz, zaprotestuj przeciwko tej ustawie"). Per WP:NPOV: "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Do you have any English language source not calling the protesters "Polish nationalists"? Newsweek, Jewish Chronicle, Forward, Haaretz all use "Polish Nationalists". If you want to suggest other language - the route forward is presenting multiple sources, of equal weight, calling them something else. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Polish-language sources are fine, and call them Polish-Americans. PAC Polish-American source calls them demonstrators. You don't want to acknowledge those sources - but others involved in discussion on article's talk seem to seem them as reliable. Let's continue the discussion there, rather than splitting it in two places, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources of a dubious reliability in Polish are far from fine - any RSN discussion backing up these sources? That more than one editors showed up in parallel in an article with similar arguments not grounded in policy - matters very little. WP:NOENG is policy. The Polish-American Congress is not a reliable source (and is generally ignored by mainstream media), and its warning against the protests backfiring (as they had) was issued prior to them taking place. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
" WP:NOENG is policy" - yes it is. And it says: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". Are. Freakin'. Allowed. What so hard to understand about that? You've been misrepresenting WP:NONENG in your futile attempts to remove Polish sources from Poland related articles (!!! Somehow nobody ever argues that French sources shouldn't be used in France related articles - which just shows how fucked up such a notion is) for months now and NOBODY agrees with your odious demands to exclude sources based on ethnic criteria. Drop it. You want quotes and translations? Fine. No problem. But stop. Judging. Sources. By. Their. Ethnicity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Summarizing - Polish people are racilaly lower, they don't have any rights to present any opinions. Only WASPs and Jews are allowed to judge them.
The subject of the event were money. If you demand money from me it's COI, we both shouldn't participate in this discussion.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
How do you call supporters of Israel? Israeli nationalists? Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
List of RS: Newsweek, Jewish Chronicle, Forward, Haaretz. Why not the NYT and WP? Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svgObject,article suffers from serious neutrality issues and is missing some crucial information(ie:most property in Poland was destroyed by Germany, and rebuilt postwar by efforts of new inhabitants and authorities which makes the question of reprivatisation to people who aren't heirs extremely controversial).The extreme hook is based on a very weak source and is contradicted by other reliable sources.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The first two hooks are non-neutral and should be rejected. I prefer ALT2 by Piotrus, which can probably be improved.Tatzref (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This nomination has been open for some time. While I sympathize with the nominator for their fine work, and don't agree at all with the complaints above (as Icewhiz notes, the sources clearly say "Polish nationalist"; if the source said "Martian invaders" then we should report that as well, verifiability not truth and all), this article still doesn't seem to be stable with contentious edits still happening, and it seems unlikely something this controversial can have a consensus hook made on it that won't just start complaints at WP:ERRORS when it goes live. I would recommend this nomination be closed. Not all articles are good DYK material alas. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

Created by Night Lantern (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Will be claiming this for review; I have struck ALT1 as being too long and too winding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Took a quick look at it and the article is a bit long for a short review, but right now my concern is the "Background" section. It doesn't seem to present the material in a neutral way, and even seems to use some POV-ish language. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for the review Mr. errr.. Naruto? 😅 Regarding the "background section", do you mean the POV on word such as "ignorance"? Seems I don't have idea on what choice of words that are very suitable for the replacement, mind to share some suggestion? Night Lanternhalo? 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This would include words that "Among the very sensitive breached agreement", "negligence", "cannot appreciate the diversity and decentralisation were connected in the process aside from the ignorance", which are not suitable for Wikipedia in their current form. One suggestion I could give could be to request for a copyedit of the article over at WP:GOCE/R; this could also prove useful as there are also quite a few grammatical errors in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I've gone ahead and requested a copyedit; this nomination should be put on hold until that is finished. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. Naruto. ☺ Night Lanternhalo? 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hi Narutolovehinata5, I have rewritten the background section. There's still a lot of room for improvement, so it would still benefit from a GOCE lookover, but I believe it is an improvement in terms of POV. CMD (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll defer comment until the copyedit is accomplished given the sheer length of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Adam Aziz (9 April 2019). "No two-thirds majority for Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners". The Edge Markets. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
  2. ^ "Status of Sabah, Sarawak stays". Bernama. Daily Express. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
  3. ^ "Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners rejected in Malaysia parliament". Bernama. Channel NewsAsia. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.

Xiuxiong Chen, Song Sun

Created by Zanhe (talk) and Dennui (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 03:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

Revolution of 1719

John Rutledge
John Rutledge
ALT1 ... that, almost six decades after the Revolution of 1719, John Rutledge (pictured) was elected the first President of South Carolina? [42].
  • Reviewed: forthcoming

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 02:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size, refs, hook, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, all GTG. Nice historical article. 1st hook is more interesting IMHO. I've added one sentence copied from the parent article, please reference. Next, the article suggests the revolution was bloodless and that there was no fighting; is this correct? No fatalities, no violence? In either case this should be clarified in the article if possible. Also, the article is almost an orphan, only two other articles link here - can you fix this? Once the ref is added and the article is linked from several more other articles, this can be fully GTG - ping me when this is done so I will update the review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 5[edit]

Palmer Street

Cypher by Tim Morgan
Cypher by Tim Morgan
  • ... that Palmer Street was the location of the London office of the British spy agency GCHQ, and a sculpture by Tim Morgan titled Cypher (pictured)?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Whispyhistory (talk), and Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 12:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Solid article on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and shows well, but I don't believe it's typical for that street, rather the exception, and as long as the sculptor has no article not necessarily worth mentioning. Another little problem I see is grammar, because I get the impression that the sculpture is still in place, so "was the location" doesn't fit. How about the more typical building pic? Or stop after the spy agency, which might be interesting enough? (And have the sculptor image with the artist's article?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I will look at those things Gerda. Did you get that the spy building has a sculpture named Cypher opposite it (installed before the spying nature of the building was officially revealed)? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
No, the hook doesn't say that, and for me, who had to look up cypher in a dictionary, the two things were not connected. Perhaps clarify that yes they are unconnected, but secretly look related ;) - more important than the sculptor's name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's coincidence. I will look at doing the sculptor too. Here are spying Alts:
  • ALT1... that Palmer Street was the location of a secret British spy base that intercepted the communications of London's embassies?
  • ALT2... that London's Palmer Street was the location of a secret "Dictionary" run by spies? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I like them but think a link to the office would be helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that the London office of the British spy agency GCHQ was in Palmer Street, opposite a sculpture by Tim Morgan titled Cypher (pictured)?
We have no picture of the offices. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg that's it! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Returning from prep for further work. If the image is to be used, perhaps write a stub article about it so we can link it. Alternately, I'm un-striking ALT1 and ALT2 for reconsideration. Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Artist has an article, and his own DYK, but Cypher doesn't really qualify for an article of its own. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 & ALT2 are more interesting, you could link "secret British spy base" and "Dictionary" to GCHQ if you think it's an issue, but the hook is about how quirky Palmer Street is, not anything else, and finding out about the spy base may be incentive to click the intended target link. I'd think the word cypher, since it's a very common noun in British English, is obvious enough that the original can be used and needs no explanation, surely. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ruth-Margret Pütz

  • Reviewed: Marni Abbott-Peter
  • Comment: ... a well-received Recital, but lovely comments seem a bit too long to be mentioned in the hook

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and