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...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

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.

Contents

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
February 26 1
February 27 1
March 3 1
March 6 1
March 11 1
March 24 1
March 27 1
March 29 1
April 9 2
April 12 1
April 16 1
April 18 1
April 19 1
April 23 1
April 24 1
April 25 2
April 26 2
April 28 1
May 1 1 1
May 2 1
May 3 1
May 8 1
May 9 3 2
May 10 3
May 14 2
May 15 1
May 18 2
May 19 2
May 20 1
May 21 1
May 24 1
May 26 5 3
May 27 1
May 28 1
May 29 1
May 31 3 1
June 1 4 1
June 2 4 1
June 4 1
June 5 3 2
June 6 3 1
June 7 2
June 8 6 1
June 9 5 2
June 10 3 2
June 11 6 4
June 12 5 1
June 13 5 1
June 14 6 3
June 15 8 7
June 16 3 2
June 17 10 5
June 18 8 4
June 19 7 4
June 20 8 6
June 21 7 3
June 22 11 2
June 23 5 1
June 24 1
Total 173 60
Last updated 23:23, 24 June 2018 UTC
Current time is 00:04, 25 June 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

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

To nominate an article[edit]

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

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

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

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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

Where is my hook?[edit]

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on February 26[edit]

Isabelle Druet

  • Reviewed: Stanley Gelbier
  • Comment: a bit of a rush job, trimming to only sourced, and I didn't get to the recordings.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 15:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC).

I'm nor sure what you mean about "I didn't get to the recordings." Did you refer to the discography of the artists (like those provided by Discogs, AllMusic and their ilk or other links to YouTube or Dailymotion, which I thought should be used with parcimony?LouisAlain (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I was rushing to rehearsal. For DYK, inline citations are needed, - a match/connection of what disdcogs says and the list, for example. Will do, but not now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citations check out, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Gerda Arendt, the hook feels like a bunch of facts slapped together, could you condense it a bit or suggest others? Omitting the reference to Concepción might help, or combining it with the last part (recording of L'heure espagnole), as they appear to be related. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought we should explain the lesser known work, but here you go:
ALT1: ... that the French mezzo-soprano Isabelle Druet performed as Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf, and appeared as Concepción on stage in Lyon, and on a recording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I was thinking of something along the lines of:
ALT2: that the French mezzo-soprano Isabelle Druet performed as Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf, and was recorded in Ravel's L'heure espagnole on stage in Lyon? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice try. For some reason, we seem to say "she recorded", never "she was recorded". In your wording, that could be some minor role, everybody knows "important female character" for Carmen ;)
ALT3: ... that the French mezzo-soprano Isabelle Druet performed as Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf, and as Puccini's Ciesca at the Paris Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Rather than a list of roles and performances, how about something unusual, such as the fact that she co-founded a theatre company in 2000 when she was in her early 20s (since she was born in September 1979, she was either 20 or 21 at the time, and it's still in business today) and then went on to become a successful Carmen? (The co-founding—not founding—of "La Carotte" would need to be sourced, but that's easily done, though the description of their genres should also be verifiable.) Perhaps something like:
  • ALT4: ... that Isabelle Druet co-founded a French theatre company soon after turning 20, and later performed many mezzo-soprano opera roles, including Carmen in Nancy and Düsseldorf?
I've heard Druet in concert with Le Poème Harmonique—she's quite good—and I'm very surprised to see no mention of her work with them in the article, even though they account for 40% of her listed discography. Indeed, the article is clearly unbalanced since it makes no mention of her career outside of opera, and as over half her discography is non-opera, this is a significant part of her singing career. The article is also awfully close in tone to an artist's concert bio. Can it be made more encyclopedic, perhaps? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It could, but by whom. It was translated from French, - I thought it was interesting enough for DYK, but reduced things I couldn't find sources for. - I have other to-do, especially now that March is over. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, it's your nomination. I'm afraid I don't have the time myself. You can work on this one, or you can work on others. It's your choice, naturally, but this one needs more if it's to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Repeating: it's my nomination. I noticed a great woman, about whom I knew nothing, and trimmed the article to match requirements. Her concerts and recordings are in hidden text, but lack citations. - The article is higher standard than some others of mine that "make it". You, however, heard her, so I dared to ask if your urge to improve might be higher than mine. I have a GA on hold, that I don't get to (soon( enough (see my talk), and it's a topic dear to my heart. There's real life also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, why not, I just think that DYK rules don't require completeness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Narutolovehinata5. To my view, the article as it currently stands falls short of WP:DYKSG#D7, in particular the section that reads: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. This article doesn't currently deal adequately with Druet's artistic career, though with a bit more work it could do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. If you know that so much better, could you please do this little bit more work? If not I will "in den sauren Apfel beißen" (don't know the phrase in English), meaning: very reluctantly do it, because it's a woman. I just started to make Péter Eötvös a bit more encyclopic, and there's also much room for improvement. - I received bad news in RL. Sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I added some, and GRuban added an image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"Bite the bullet" may be what you want. Which tells you something about what different cultures think about biting, I think... :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Right now the article has some issues; the body itself has a number of unsourced statements. Since she's a performer, I don't really think that hook is that hook-worthy. I actually find her holding a master's degree more interesting; unfortunately it's one of the unsourced statements. Some other statements in there Awards and Works sections also lack citations. Considering how long this nomination has taken; a prompt response is requested. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This is DYK, not FA. Not every fact needs a source, but one ref per paragraph is recommended. Would you say about a sports person that they hold a degree, or not rather try to say a bit about their sport? - If this was about a man, I'd have dropped it long ago, but now it's about a great woman who deserves more attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a FA but it is a BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a BLP, thank you letting me no know (please excuse me being in the mood for sarcasm). "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. I added a source and more info, - don't read French, so the whole thing is extra hard for me. Please remove contentious facts, and mark those where you think a citation is required. No more time right now, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this any good for the Zonta prize? Don't understand the different year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
another recording - off for rehearsal --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
after rehearsal: I gave almost all recordings a ref (can't help thinking that I could also have written two articles instead, - a recording is a recording, no?), and here's one more to exploit by someone reading French. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's a quick translation Gerda. LouisAlain (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 27[edit]

Tribune East Tower

Tribune Tower property
Tribune Tower property
  • ... that the proposed Tribune East Tower is part of redevelopment plans for the Tribune Tower property whose views are being protected by local politicians?

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new and long enough. Sourced adequately. Within policy. QPQ done. Hook is within formatting guidelines, but not particularly "hooky". However, I think it's decent enough to pass unless another reviewer vehemently agrees that a different hook is necessary. This is my first DYK review so let me know if there are any problems with my review. I'm still learning. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The hook facts are not made out in the article which does not mention politicians. Could we have a different hook please? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current article has a well sourced sentence that says: "...prospective buyers of the Tribune Tower property had redevelopment plans that were at odds with local interests to protect views of the Tower..." So I'll go with ALT1, which just removes the last three words of the original hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I find the phrase "whose views are being protected" somewhat ambiguous. How about expressing it differently as in ALT2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps @Skyes(BYU): could consider the wording of ALT2 and give it a tick if appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The article is pretty short, so I'm not sure there is any way to make it more "hooky". If anything, the hook is more clear now and not as overly wordy. It sounds great! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The reason it's so hard to come up with a hook is because there's hardly any information in the article to work with. It reads like a bulletin in a business magazine. I do not think this article meets Rule D7 in its present form. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks, TonyTheTiger, for your new hooks. ALT4 is great – short and snappy. ALT5 is okay, but the part about surpassing Trump Tower as the second-tallest building is not in the article. The article only cites the January 2018 plans where Tribune East Tower would be shorter than Trump Tower. I'll go ahead and approve ALT4, with the hook ref verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 3[edit]

Endsleigh Gardens

Hannah Dobbs
Hannah Dobbs
  • ... that Endsleigh Gardens was originally part of Euston Square, but was renamed following a "gruesome murder"?
  • Alt1... that in 1878, Endsleigh Gardens was the scene of a murder for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey?

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

COMMENT: @Philafrenzy: the hook is ambiguous, maybe even to the point of being misleading. It was named following the murder, not named after as in given the same name as. Umimmak (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Umimmak. Agreed, hook reworded accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Gruesome murder put in quotes as it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook issues have been discussed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Long enough. The DYK submission was made a day and half late, but personally I would be willing to overlook that. There is a citation needed template on the article which must be fixed before promotion. No copyvio detected, images properly licensed. Alt1 hook is ok, the first hook would be acceptable if "Euston Square" was changed to "part of Euston Square". I'm concerned with the general quality of the refs. I only did a small sample, but the results were mixed. Ref#1 does not have a named author, but it is on a university site so probably ok. Ref#2 is a ref to a book, but the information appears to have been taken from the publisher's advertising blurb rather than the book itself. At least, that's where the link goes and there are no page numbers cited. Ref#3 is a blog. Ref#4 checks out, but the cited sentence contradicts the lead. The article (and the source) say the whole square was renamed. The lead says the South side was renamed. Ref#9 goes to the promotional site for Friends House, apparently to verify the location of Friends House, but the word "Endsleigh" does not appear on the page. It gives the address as Euston Road, and that's putting aside the question of using a promotional site as a reliable source. I'm not seeing any contribution from either author on the page cited for QPQ. SpinningSpark 18:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for the review. First hook struck as not needed. Regarding the refs:

  • I agree that Indiana University Bloomington is reliable despite not having a named author.
  • Ref 2 should be acceptable as a page from The History Press which is a reputable publisher.
  • The only function of Ref 3 appears to be so that we can use the quote "gruesome murder". The Alt can work without it and I take your point that it is a blog, however it is Senate House Library of the University of London (nearby) and can't all murders reasonably be described as "gruesome". There are no nice murders. Do you feel strongly about it?
  • Ref 4 replaced with a better source and wording amended accordingly.
  • By Ref 9 do you mean Ref 5 https://www.friendshouse.co.uk/ ? I have removed it as the fact was already supported by the Ordnance Survey map reference.

There is no requirement for the person who did the QPQ to have made any contribution to this article. The QPQ was a gift in consideration for helping out elsewhere. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there is no indication from the reviewer either here or at the reviewed article that the review has been "donated". More importantly, the QPQ requirement is on the nominator of the article: " For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍" (my emphasis). I haven't done a new review, I'll wait till the QPQ issue is resolved first, but judging by your replies it looks like it still has problems. SpinningSpark 22:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Your italics, it just means that it's one for one, hence quid pro quo. If you check the edit history you will see that the review was added by Whispyhistory, unprompted, with the edit summary "(dyk qpq- gift to EdwardX)". It's not a trick to try to get out of doing one. Edwardx and I have done 100s, it was just a nice thought from another user. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Spinningspark, having an uninvolved editor donate a QPQ has been done many times in the past here at DYK. It is perfectly legitimate: so long as a full review has been done of another article, while the onus is on the nominator, someone else can volunteer to supply the needed QPQ in place of the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Bluemoonset, thanks for clarifying that. QPQ is all good now. It would have been clearer if the donation had been stated and linked to the edit summary that actually made the donation. I'll take another look at the article. SpinningSpark 08:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Still problematic
    • "gruesome murder". If this is in quotes, it must be attributed to someone and cited directly with an inline cite per WP:V. If it is not in quotes, it is being said in Wikipedia's voice and runs afoul of WP:WTW.
    • "The Ghosts of Senate House" ref is still a blog regardless of Sarah Sparkes' (the blogger) connection with Senate House Libraary. There is no evidence that Sparkes meets the expert requirement at WP:SPS. The strapline at the top of the page reads "apocryphal stories and the spirit of the place", to my mind, openly declaring itself to be non-RS. The page calls for ghost stories to be sent in, and many of the posts on the page are from authors other than Sparkes with no sign there has been any kind of editorial fact checking. The relevant post is not by Sparkes, but by Chris Josiffe who appears to be an undergraduate, again almost certainly not meeting WP:SPS.
    • On reflection, I accept the History Press source as being reliable, but only because it was written by Jan Bondeson himself, the author of the book being discussed, and he probably does meet WP:SPS. We do not normally accept publihser's blurbs as being reliable, no matter how notable the publishing house is. Basically, they are advertising and can't be relied on to be a true reflection of the book's content or all its nuances.
This will be my last review of this submission. Please do not ping me, if you need another review then wait for anouther reviewer. SpinningSpark 09:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "Gruesome murder" replaced with just murder. Blog removed. New reviewer required for the final tick since everything else has been done as far as I can see. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A lengthy-ish book account of the murder is here. Might make a better ref. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Johnbod:, but as far as I can see everything has been addressed and it just needs a final tick. (perhaps you could oblige?) Philafrenzy (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg article appears quite clear and concise, cited and laid out out well. Very interesting. I might have added a hook about Persephone books wishing a well deserved blue plaque for Amy Levy, but current hook great. copyvio 7.4% ok. Noted slight delay in nomination was ok. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep for further work per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 1 - who is Hannah Dobbs?. New hooks under consideration:
  • ALT2: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT2a: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey in 1879, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Needs the pic I think since it clearly places it in time as a Victorian murder mystery. And since we are saying unsolved we can also say acquitted. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: ALT2a is really wordy. If you want to work in Hannah Dobbs, although she's not notable enough for her own Wikipedia page (maybe you want a double hook?), try:
  • ALT3: ... that in 1879, Hannah Dobbs (pictured), a former servant at No. 4 Eaton Square, was implicated in the discovery of a corpse in the coal cellar, but was acquitted at the Old Bailey for lack of evidence? Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Either Alt2 or ALT4: ... that the "Euston Square Murder" for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens?
I don't see why we can't use the image, she's long dead and closely relates to the hook. We don't need to explain everything and the reader can easily infer from the image that we are talking about an historic event. I don't think she needs to be notable either. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg But she's not notable, and she was acquitted of the crime. The people over at WP:ERRORS are very insistent on notability on the main page. Thanks for okaying ALT2; new reviewer needed to review that one. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
She doesn't need to be notable, it's the street that is notable and she an illustration of someone from the street. It also doesn't matter that she was acquitted. Let errors moan if they like, that's what they enjoy. It's twice as strong with the pic. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 6[edit]

Mindy Alper

Created by Ringbang (talk) and Girona7 (talk). Nominated by Ringbang (talk) at 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Comment I realize to be subjective: reading the article, I found myself wondering what Alper’s art itself is actually like. Entry has loads of great stuff about her training, places she’s exhibited, teaching she’s done, the film about her (well done!)—but just a handful of sentences about what art she’s produced. (This is also reflected in the lead, which indicates she’s known as a painter and sculptor, but doesn’t say what materials she works with, what school she belongs to if any, what themes she’s known for engaging, or other major identifying qualities for summarizing an artist’s work.) If secondary sources for this just aren’t available, I understand and will be happy to check this off as I think it meets the letter of the DYK criteria; but if it’s possible to add more about the substance of her artistic output before it goes out to DYK readers, I think that would make it much more useful. Let me know! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Related: noticing lead says her media are painting and sculpture but infobox says drawing and sculpture—adding at least enough about the work to nail this down one way or another would be great. I’ll look for refs too. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over a month since the above, and I have just repinged nominator Ringbang's talk page. Perhaps Girona7 can help with Innisfree987's questions, and perhaps Innisfree987, who edited the article last week, can follow up here. Thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I added a bit to the entry about a month ago and then checked back on progress last week. I noticed meanwhile the creators were discussing proposing a different hook, so I was waiting to see where they landed on that. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    Hi there. I'd be happy to help but at present I'm trying to deal with the fact that the image I procured for the article has hit a snag in terms of getting OTRS to accept the permission I obtained from the creator as valid. As soon as this is resolved I'd be happy to follow up on the possible DYK. Thanks for keeping this one alive! And more soon... Girona7 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Ringbang and Girona7: Any updates? It's been more than a month now. If getting difficulty getting permission for the image is dragging this on, perhaps the hook could simply run without the image? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5 and Girona7: I'll have time today to review my source materials and make another pass over the article. Having the photo is ideal, but I'm okay with going without it if necessary. —Ringbang (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, I've submitted my revisions. —Ringbang (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check the recent revisions to see whether they have addressed the issues previously raised. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 11[edit]

Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin

Created/expanded by Ali Ahwazi (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online English-language sources. No QPQ needed for first-time nominator.
  • However, the article needs a copyedit for an English-language readership. It is unclear why the article begins with the section "Al-'Alamin" or what this section is coming to tell us. The rest of the writing is written in an unencyclopedic manner and is hard to understand, like:

Besides, it is quoted that Muhammad said “Fatimah is the leader of the ladies of paradise”, then it was asked of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq that “Is Fatimah the best lady of her time?” then he mentioned Mary as the best lady of her time, and Fatimah as the best lady of the paradise since start till end of the world. Meanwhile, many famous Shia scholars among Shaikh Tusi have quoted such high title(s) of Fatimah in their books.

  • I suggest you ask at WP:GOCE for help in bringing this article up to English-language standards. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the references a bit and it doesn't seem very satisfactory. Especially the Sunni section, it cherrypicks several opinions of individual Sunni scholars (who might not even use the exact term as far as I can see), and then use those to support the generic statement that "Sunni Islam considers Fatimah as Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin". Many of the citation are primary (using primary texts from centuries ago) and might not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Sunni community as a whole. HaEr48 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, HaEr48, have subsequent edits dealt with the issues you raised, or are there still issues that need to be addressed? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: To be honest I'm still not satisfied with the Sunni section. The references seem to be cherrypicked and not very encyclopedic. There are a lot of WP:WEASEL wording such as "there are quotations from famous Sunni scholar" or " There are also similar narration(s) from Sunni sources", cited to either questionable source or very fringe books. If this is a title that mainstream Sunni use, surely the author should be able to find a more mainstream citation? Therefore, I doubt the suitability of including Sunni in the hook, or even in the article. No comment on the Shia part, because I'm not familiar with Shia sources. HaEr48 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There have been no edits to the article since April, and despite the recent comments by BlueMoonset and HaEr48 in May, there has been no response from the nominator either here or on their talk page. I will leave one final message at the nominator's talk page, but if there is no response within the next few days, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I eliminated the section of "Al-'Alamin" from the mentioned article. Besides, I edited/removed some texts of it --in order to make it more appropriate in an encyclopedic manner. Additionally, hopefully I'll pay more attention to edit it --especially in "Sunni narrations" section in the next days/weeks. Finally, I appreciate profit mentioned recommendations. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ali Ahwazi, your recent edits have left the article below the minimum 1500 prose characters required for DYK; it is currently at 1402 prose characters. You will need to bring it back above this minimum, and since the nomination has been open for over three months now, I don't think we can wait "weeks" for that to happen; please try to make the necessary improvements in the next seven days or so. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is now over 1500 characters. @HaEr48: are you satisfied with the Sunni section? Otherwise I will fail this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 24[edit]

Louise Mitchell

Moved to mainspace by Grangehilllover (talk). Nominated by Soaper1234 (talk) at 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Reviewing now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough when nominated. More than long enough. Hooks ALT0 and ALT1 are both cited to sources that support them, and are both neutral. Hooks about a fictional character both involve the real world. Hooks are short enough. Article seems to be free of copyvio and close paraphrasing, hits on ECD are cited quotes. QPQ done. Article is neural, as are he hooks. Policy issues: article has a greatly excessive amount of plot summary, as per WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT. I have tagged it with {{plot}}. Much of the sections with plot summery are completely uncited. I know that plot summaries are considered to be implicitly cited to the work summarized, but I believe that DYK rules still require cites, and later plot sections are cited.(MOS:PLOT says in relevant part: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research.") This is more important where the work is a series, not a single work, and cites could at least indicate the episode or episodes being summarized, which is not now indicated. Of course this problem would disappear or be much reduced if the plot summary were reduced to a more reasonable length. These policy issues are the only problems with this nom, it is otherwise OK. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: In the case of plot summaries, the general consensus (and this is usually followed by DYK too) seems to be that citations for plot summaries are not necessary, though they are required for discussion of the plot (like in Themes or Development sections). I took a look at the article and yeah the plot section is way too long, and honestly the length is a far more pressing issue than the sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your review DESiegel and your comments Narutolovehinata5. I would tend to agree that the plot does not require sourcing, although should you feel this to be a pressing issue, I can add a general reference in the reference section. The plot is lengthy so I will try to cut down wherever possible. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am aware of the general consensus - indeed I quoted the relevant guideline above. I do think that at DYK things should perhaps be a trifle stricter. At least the episode, or minimally the season in which a storyline occurs should be cited, I would think. I agree that the overall length of the plot sections of the article is a larger problem. It would also be harder to fix, I would think. In any case I have notified the nominator, and this page is also transcluded on the article talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: So would you be fine with a general reference? I'm thinking something similar to that used on the Babe Smith article. Soaper1234 - talk 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
No Soaper1234, I really wouldn't be "fine" with that. I think that there ought to be a footnote for each story line mentioned, giving the episode(s) in which it occurs. However, given the wording of MOS:PLOT and the comments of Narutolovehinata5 above, I will not try to make this a condition of DYK approval. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
However, the excessive length of the plot summary is another matter. Currently the "Storylines" section runs just about 2,600 words, plus additional plot summary in the "Development" section. And that is after your edit, winch removed some 2,600 characters, perhaps 4-500 words. (It now, after the edit, runs a full 4 pages when copied to a word processor document, without section headers.) By comparison, WP:FILMPLOT suggests an upper limit of 700 words for the plot summary of a feature-length film. I really think it should be no longer than 1,200 - 1,500 words in total. This is for the article quality as much as for DYK. But since DYK rules specify "no dispute tags", this nom can't proceed until the {{plot}} tag is addressed, one way or another. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that WP:FILMPLOT says: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." I think this should apply, and it has not in my view been closely adhered to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point DESiegel, but I would appreciate it if you would not be rude to me. I'm still working with the length of the plot and as I'm sure you can see, I have only edited one subsection of the plot and the second subsection is still to be edited. Please bear with me until this has been completed. Also, I believe when creating the article, the creator tried adhering to the EastEnders MOS rather than WP:FILMPLOT or any plot guidelines relating to films. In regards to footnotes for each episode, at a push, this could be sorted for any storylines since 2016, but I would struggle with storylines between 2000 and 2010. Soaper1234 - talk 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Soaper1234 I am sorry i\that I seemed to be rude, this was not my intention. I was merely trying to make my view as reviewer clear. I did not know if you considered the edit I linked to above merely a first step, or a sufficient correction. I did not want to imply that I thought it an acceptable final state. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I had not previously noticed WP:EE/MOS#Storylines. I now note that it says "This section is not a character's biography and should not be a detailed recording of the character's every move, as this can create an overly long section devoted entirely to in-universe information – the information should be succinct. Try and summarise major events that occur with the character. Avoid using "Biography" in the header for this section, as it can insinuate that the section should detail everything that happened to the character. If possible, use the {{cite episode}} template to source events in the show." I cited the FILMPLOT page as the closest one that I knew of to specify a length for a plot summary, and a reasonable analogy. I note that the page linked to above says that a storylines section should be "succinct" but does not give any specific word count. Of course, as a project page, it is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not override wider guidelines or policies. But I don't see any glaring conflict between it and, say, MOS:PLOT. Again i apologize for any rudeness. And I want to make clear that while I personally think the plot summery should include footnotes specifying episodes described, and it seems that the EastEnders project style guide agrees, that is not a policy issue and I would not make it alone a reason to reject this DYK nom. I accept that your aim here has been to improve the article and the project in good faith, and i appreciate your work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Don't worry about it. This is the most problematic DYK I've encountered so I'm still getting to grips with everything really. I view the linked revision as a first step rather than a final state. I'll continue working on it. I completely understand that it is a project and therefore, it cannot override other guidelines. I also understand how you cannot reject the DYK nom based on a lack of episode references, but I'm glad you brought it to my attention so I will try to look into this in the future. Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Out of curiousity, how long would you expect the plot to be, bearing in mind that this is a soap opera, which airs all year round. I've narrowed it down to about 13,000 characters, without references and sub headings. Soaper1234 - talk 19:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Soaper1234 and Narutolovehinata5: I seem to have missed a ping, my apology for that. There has been one edit since this duiscussion started that significantly reduced the size of the "storylines" section, this one. I commented on that edit above, at 15:13, 29 April 2018. I was under the impression that Soaper1234 intended to make additional edits further reducing the size of the plot sections. The storylines section is now about 2150 words. I suggested above that it should be no more than 1,300-1,500 words. That figure, however, has no real basis -- there being no counterpart to FILMPLOT for long-runing TV series articles with any consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you DESiegel. I've had a bit of a struggle chopping the plot, but if need be, I can always ask some other editors for help. Soaper1234 - talk 21:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to try to help move things along. I see that some parts of the plot summary are now sourced. The plot summary is approximately 35% of the total text. However, in view of the lengthiness of the whole article, and the fact that the plot summary covers episodes over a 10-year period, I think we should overlook the current length and just pass this. Pinging @DESiegel:. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 27[edit]

Alma Mahler

Improved to Good Article status by Gandhi (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg As interesting as this article is, unfortunately I do not see the criterias of new within the past seven days, or prose portion expanded at least fivefold or prose portion expanded at least twofold fulfilled apart from the promotion to good article status. Or is that enough? If so, more references need to be added though to the hook, I only see one at the moment. Gryffindor (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gryffindor, according to this page recent GAs are eligible for DYK nomination. Could you elaborate about the need for more references to be added to the hook? The reference refers to all the facts in the hook, however, if I'm not understanding something please let me know. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment you have only one source. Do you have another source that can verify the claim of the first? It would be better. Gryffindor (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gandhi (BYU) and Gryffindor: Posting here per Gryffindor's question on my user discussion page. A recently promoted GA is fine (no expansion is necessary if the GA was promoted within seven days of the nomination, which it has). This is long enough at 14,309 prose characters. It is okay to source a hook to a single reference, as long as the hook actually says what is mentioned in the reference. Both hooks do so, but IMO, ALT1 is more interesting. Here is a template to make the review easier. (Gryffindor, you still have to check sourcing, neutrality, and whether this article has any plagiarism. For the plagiarism issue, you can check from this link, though in this case, it looks like someone copied from Wikipedia.) epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gryffindor, the Youtube page cites Wikipedia as its source. At the end of the video's description it says it came from Wikipedia. I have corrected your concerns. Please link me to this page so I am able to know when you next respond and how you would like to proceed. Thank you! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg @Gandhi (BYU): Got it. It looks good, ready to go. Gryffindor (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gryffindor and talk, thank you for looking over the DYK nomination. If you could strike through the problems that were fixed I would appreciate it. Thank you!Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gandhi (BYU): Done. Gryffindor (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - In my opinion, ALT1 is more interesting, but feel free to disagree. epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 hook is fine with me. Rest see comments above. Gryffindor (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC) :Looks good to me now, thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I wrote two more hooks. If there is anything else I need to do please let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm interestd in the woman and ready to review, - please write the two hooks you mean below, - can't tell where in the above I'd find them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, the hooks at the top of the page are the new ones. Thank you for reviewing! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's consider this then (I thought that ALT1 was pulled, sorry), from above:
Alma Mahler by Kokoschka, 1912
Alma Mahler by Kokoschka, 1912
ALT2: ... that many artists, including Gustav Mahler and Oskar Kokoschka (portrait of her pictured), considered Alma Mahler their muse? I added a comma and the questionmark. How about saying that Mahler was a composer, and Kokoschka a painter, and adding architect Gropius? We should not expect people to know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, what about this? Also, will you tag me next time so I get notified when you respond? Thanks! Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that many artists, including Gustav Mahler the composer, Oskar Kokoschka the painter, and Walter Gropius the architect, considered (portrait of her pictured) Alma Mahler their muse?
I suggest the other way round, - we want readers to click on her, not all the men ;)
ALT4: ... that Alma Mahler inspired artists including composer Gustav Mahler, painter Oskar Kokoschka (his portrait of her pictured) and architect Walter Gropius? - No I usually don't ping, expecting the nomination to be on your watchlist. I'll ping if weeks pass without a response.
Symbol voting keep.svg Image is licensed and unusual, and a good illustration of the hook. I'll watch for other suggestions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article doesn't say anywhere that I can see that the subject "inspired" either Mahler or Gropius, so ALT4 looks dodgy to me. Gatoclass (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I only translated "considered their muse" to active voice, or what is a muse if not something inspiring art? Our article says "inspirational". Do you have a different way to say the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, I don't know how I'm supposed to find "muse" when the hook says "inspired", but regardless, it seems to be sourced to a satirical song, which hardly qualifies as reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I came here to review, but here you go without musing and inspiration:
ALT5: ... that Oskar Kokoschka portrayed Alma Mahler (pictured), who was then the wife of composer Gustav Mahler, and later married the architect Walter Gropius and the writer Franz Werfel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Better, but it looks as if it is not quite correct as the article says she was Mahler's widow by the time the painting was made. I suggest a tweak along the following lines:
Could we maybe not? It's kind of a sexist stereotype to define women by the men they're associated with. I'd rather see something about Mahler herself than something about her husbands. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I am a woman, and think it says a lot about HER that she attracted all these creative men, and don't know any comparable biography. Her compositions don't match that, for example, unfortunately. - I said "inspired" above, but that is not sourced ;)
I was a little uneasy about proposing that as a hook myself David Eppstein for the reason you cite. The problem could probably be resolved, I think, by referring to her as "composer Alma Mahler" to emphasize her own accomplishments. I guess we could also eliminate the mention of her relationship to Kokoschka, although like Gerda I think it interesting that she was able to attract four partners who were notable in their own right. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein and Gatoclass, I am a woman as well. Alma Mahler is a complicated topic but she is notable because of her romantic achievements and the tampering of her first husband, Gustav Mahler's, legacy see the Alma Problem for more information. Many notable women have been neglected because history and writers decided who these women married and who they had affairs with was more important. This is an injustice. However, Alma Mahler is notable for her marriages and affairs. I don't like this reason because it is derogatory to Alma Mahler and to women, yet it is unfortunately true. Many women are notable because of their achievements in society. Alma Mahler is notable for exactly what woman are often stereotyped as.

Proof of Notability: Subject must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability

  • NY Times article about The Bride of the Wind which speaks about Alma Mahler's conquests. I am happy to add this.
  • Chicago Tribune tells the story of Alma Mahler's life through the men she was around.
  • Alma Mahler Muse to Genius
  • Malevolent muse The life of Alma Mahler
  • Alma Mahler or the Art of Being Loved

Alma Problem Notability

As a composer

  • Her compositions were published because of her husband, Gustav. However, since then they have been performed. Sarah Connolly is a performer who has played songs by Alma Mahler. The Alma Problem

Alma Mahler's composition have been notable enough to be written about. However, the majority of writing on Alma Mahler is about her romantic conquests. Her marriages and document tampering must be taken into account to accurately depict her life and why Alma was notable. I believe adding "composer Alma Mahler" is relevant as well as keeping the relationships that are referred to in the hook.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on March 29[edit]

Conflicts of interest in academic publishing

Panel discusses conflicts of interest in academic publishing.
Panel discusses conflicts of interest in academic publishing.
  • Comment: I don't think an image of a journal supplement would add much, but if we need images I could probably dig one up

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (created by HLHJ on 29 March 2018), long enough (17,394 characters "readable prose size"). The article still has three "citation needed tags" (D6) and references 7, 8, 9, 40 and 53 are bare URLs (D3). Main hook is no good; journal staff do not do the peer reviews. (This could be fixed by removing the last three words.) ALT1 approved. QPQ done. No need for an image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll fix the problems you mention as soon as I have time. Apologies for the poor hook, I obviously wasn't thinking. Another suggestion follows. HLHJ (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ...that academic journals' "supplements" and "symposia" may be paid publications, neither independently peer-reviewed nor edited by journal staff?
    ALT3 approved Still have {{citation required}} tags and bare URLs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you. I've fixed those, apologies for the delay. But I found another uncited statement, and am still working on finding a source. Any improvements to the hook are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol possible vote.svg @HLHJ: One month later, this is still tagged as [better source needed] from March and [citation needed] from April. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, you're right, it's been too long. I need to go consult some offline sources, but I'll try to get that done this weekend. Failing that, I'll remove the statements that are not adequately sourced. HLHJ (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @HLHJ: The article still has an unsourced statement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed. Found the source I was looking for, got better sources for one better-source-neededs, changed and sourced the second, and made a few additions. Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. I prefer ALT3, as more likely to be of interest to front-page-readers. Why I skipped ALT 2 I do not know. HLHJ (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Added an image below the "Please do not edit above this line" line, least it be needed. It's not an easy topic to photograph, but Commons managed it! HLHJ (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Image formatted for DYK template. Yoninah (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to see whether all the issues have been addressed. Pinging original reviewer Hawkeye7 and later commenter David Eppstein, in case either wishes to review this further. (I did query Narutolovehinata5, but theirs was just a passing comment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    Nearly there. Fn 50 is in error, and the last sentences of "Interests of research participants" and "False statements of COIs" require references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 9[edit]

Non-science

  • ... that history is non-science?
    • 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)

Created by WhatamIdoing (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Starting the review.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • New enough.
  • Long enough.
  • Well-sourced, with one error in formatting (confusion with article title/work) that I've fixed.
  • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • Neutral tone.
  • The hook is properly formatted, short enough, neutral and interesting.
Symbol question.svg *User:WhatamIdoing: Do you have a QPQ please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that I have five DYK credits yet, but I reviewed Superfest International Disability Film Festival last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg By "I don't think", I assume you mean "I am positive I don't." So it's fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hello, I came by to promote this, but the article right now has a big "{{Globalize}}" template in one of its sections. This might need to be resolved first before this is approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SteveMcCluskey: I removed it as undue. Wikipedia is a work in progress, everything could potentially be improved, but I don't see it as a pressing issue and if it's going to block the DYK, that's not good. The issue could potentially be addressed afterwards, although I don't see it as a problem frankly.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg It seems there are no more objections from SteveMcCluskey so I am restoring Zigzig20s' tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg The hook is decidedly not neutral as there are sources (now cited in the article) that put history (and other humanistic disciplines) within the sciences. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Archeology is not history, stricto sensu. History would be the interpretation (or commentary) of archaeological discoveries. Zigzig20s (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Do you have any suggestions for alternative hooks? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the suggested hook works, as archeology is not history. It's a tool of history, like statistics or geography.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@SteveMcCluskey: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, all, I understand that there's some legitimate disagreement about classifying archaeology in this concept (i.e., a concept that separates natural sciences and similar disciplines from other knowledge-generating activities, like religion and art), because archaeology contains both science and non-science aspects, and any given researcher's work might be best described as one label or the other. Steve added information about the OECD's bureaucratic numbering system, but archaeology isn't really the important example there. The OECD's list explicitly includes the whole of humanities as one of the six areas of science and technology. This means that the OECD believes that (for their funding and statistical purposes) art and religion are "sciences". Opera and religious ceremonies are all perfectly fine in their own way, and they are perfectly legitimate Wissenschaftlich subjects – but they are not Science (in what Steve calls the English sense of the word, i.e., the only sense that's actually relevant for this article). The point of the OECD classification is that when a government gives a grant to encourage religious participation, then that should be called "science and technology research". The point of this concept is that religion is not science.
Also, as a general point, I'd like to say that a bureaucratic classification system is a weak source for deciding how one ought to organize knowledge. Epistemiology is an ancient academic subject that is not constrained by the rules written 12 years ago about how governments ought to report their research and development spending to another government agency that they hope will give them money. But if Steve really believes that's the true definition, then I'd invite him to add that definition to Science and see if he can get a consensus for it. If editors agree to re-define Science as including all of these "non-science" subjects, such as the entire list of things called "Humanities" in the OECD list, then we could merge this article away and be done with it. But if they don't – if, as I suspect they will, they insist upon defining Science as being only and exclusively systematic knowledge of a particular kind, and therefore all other knowledge is not science – then we should set the subject of this article accordingly (and probably link to Wissenschaft in the article about the OECD's FOS categories, so readers don't get so confused about religion being considered "science and technology"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: Do you have alternative suggestions for a hook then? It seems the original won't fly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Why isn't the original acceptable? It's sourced, and it's the mainstream position. Finding "history" listed in a document about how to report government funding of "science and technology" does not actually prove that there is a general consensus that history is science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: I'm personally fine with the hook, it's SteveMcCluskey who has issues with it. Anyway I took a look at the source given in the article, and while it suggests history is considered a non-science, the same article suggests that there's significant debate on the matter and the status of history as a science or non-science is controversial. I suppose to be on the safe side, an alternate hook is suggested here while the original hook remains under discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • The cited source says, "The English word “science” is primarily used about the natural sciences and other fields of research that are considered to be similar to them. Hence, political economy and sociology are counted as sciences, whereas studies of literature and history are usually not." That doesn't sound like classifying history as non-science is controversial. At minimum, it's no more controversial than the whole (English and French) idea that there is some significant difference between the study of physics and the study of morality, which some (mostly German- and Dutch-speaking) philosophers reject. It is true that some historians in the 19th century tried to re-define science to include the historians' particular style of creating knowledge, but it didn't fly. (See Nomothetic and idiographic for some of that; 'the proton always behaves thusly under these circumstances' is nomothetic knowledge, but 'this Great Man, in this time and place, behaved thusly' is idiographic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
          • My concern is that the article can be read as taking non-science as an inferior grade of "knowledge" -- or even as not being real knowledge at all. Hanssen nicely addresses this issue in his article in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The German term [Wissenschaft] has the advantage of more adequately delimiting of [sic] the type of systematic knowledge that is at stake in the conflict between science and pseudoscience. The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the misrepresentations of natural science promoted by creationists and homeopaths." Unfortunately, this important concern is not addressed by the Wikipedia article Non-science, which is one of my problems with it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that having this article at all is the first step in addressing your concern. Step 1 in not thinking that non-science is bad information is discovering that (most) non-science is things like history and art and literature, rather than things like lies and fraud. Can you give an example of a sentence in the article that implies that non-science is inferior? I can understand reading it and learning that some non-science is inferior, but that's the parts of non-science that wouldn't be considered Wissenschaft, either. To put it another way, . WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @WhatamIdoing: It has been one month since the last major edits to the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Narutolovehinata5, I am not planning any further major changes. The concerns about Wissenschaft are orthogonal – they are, essentially, that this idea should not exist, because people ought to divide knowledge into scholarly vs non-scholarly rather than scientific vs non-scientific. I agree that often they should, but (for other purposes) they shouldn't, and more to the point, they frequently don't. I really don't think there is anything actionable in those comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As it appears we're currently stuck, I'm now requesting another uninvolved user to continue this review. Fresh minds are needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Piotrus, I'm afraid the hook is too long at 240 characters; removing " to the Secretary" will reduce it to 224 characters, which really isn't short enough. Probably the best place to save space is by condensing what comes after "Department" and making it clearer what the State Department did. It's tough, when the full article name uses up 89 of the available 200 characters, but something interesting can be made of the remaining 100+. You could also seek consensus at WT:DYK for an extension of the 200 max, or ask for help devising a hook within the limits. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the WT:DYK discussion produced three hooks by SoWhy, all under 200 characters, which I have included below, but incorporating Piotrus's suggested removal of " to the Secretary" to make them even shorter. (I have struck the original overlong hook now that we have three are short enough. Piotrus has expressed a preference for ALT3:
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that the hook issue has been settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citations check out (struck ALT1 as less interesting), no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Piotrus, this isn't a DYK requirement per se, but the article is slightly confusing. What happened to the report? The article treats it in the past tense with details obscure (e.g., "The document has been described as a 17 or 18 pages-long memorandum."). Was it classified and then destroyed, with its contents staying unpublished? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: The sources I've found did not mention what happened to the physical copy; presumably it was destroyed or archived as most such relatively routine documents. I included all details I've found. I am afraid we could only speculate as the answer about your queries, through it's clear that the report was republished and became public at some point. How did it happen, exactly, I did not see mentioned in the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Fair enough, all set then. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I had to pull this because of possible inaccuracies in the article and hook. I did initially try to tweak the hook to more closely follow the sources, but when I looked at the article I noticed what looked like similar inaccuracies that I didn't have time to resolve. I'm not going to detail them now as I'm tired and about to log off, but the article and hook imply that the report condemned the State Department for preventing the rescue of "European Jews", broadly speaking, a highly exceptional claim to make, when the underlying sources appear to be referring to a particular incident when the State Department allegedly ignored an opportunity to rescue 70,000 Jews. Gatoclass (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gatoclass: Can you be more specific? Yes, the source given for the hook mentions 70k, through the context is not that clear, I assume this number was related to some refugees somewhere. But other sources don't mention this number and support the hook. The report itself is clear on that, and talks about the entirety of the European Jewery: "Unless remedial steps of a drastic nature are taken, and taken immediately, I am certain that no effective action will be taken by this government to prevent the complete extermination of the Jews in German controlled Europe, and that this Government will have to share for all time responsibility for this extermination". See also [2]; two pages in it talks about 100,000+, as far as estimates, and that's just an example. It is clear to me that the generalization presented in the hook is supported by the sources. If you disagree, this is something better discussed on article's talk. As far as I am concerned, the 70k number is a poorly sourced, unclear example, at best, one of several examples the report is presenting as a case for said generalization, and has no place in the hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass and Piotrus: It's been a month since the last comments: any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 12[edit]

Kronans Apotek

  • ... that in 1967, sales in Kronans Apotek amounted to 31,3 million SEK, of which 28 million SEK were to pharmacies?

Created by Newroderick895 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: Remember to wikilink and bold the article in the hook. I've taken the liberty of doing this for you above. (: There's also a grammatical error, which I've fixed too.―Biochemistry🙴 04:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. No close paraphrasing seen in 2 English-language sources; the rest of sources are foreign-language. No QPQ needed for new nominator.
  • A few issues:
  1. I do not think the company logo is correctly licensed. It is lifted from a website. It should probably be re-licensed as "Fair use" on Wikipedia (not on Commons, which doesn't accept fair use licensing).
  2. The book refs to Swedish-language books should be reformatted per Wikipedia:Citation templates. The publisher is not Google Books, but the publisher of the book. The title is not the isbn number, but the title of the book, etc. If you need help, let me know.
  3. The hook reads more like a business brief than a hook. Try to find something that's catchy or surprising. That 400% increase in sales, for example, is hooky. A hook could also be made out of the historical details.
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've struck the hook as I concur with Yoninah that the hook is not appropriate. Please propose a new hook. In addition, no major edits have been done to the article since the review: please make the necessary edits. Finally, the sentence "In 1959 a consortium owned by the company Kronans Droghandel was bought." is unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg No edits have been made to the article since my review a month ago and Narutolovehinata5's ping over 2 weeks ago. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I've left a final message on the nominator's talk page. Let's wait and see if he will reply; if he doesn't reply in a few days to a week, then this nomination can be closed. Note though that the nominator has not edited since the 21st. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 16[edit]

Dafydd Gibbon

Dafydd Gibbon in Poznań, 2010
Dafydd Gibbon in Poznań, 2010
  • ... that Dafydd Gibbon (pictured) started his academic career in London Baptist Students Society?
  • Comment: This is a website created on 16th April 2018.

Created by Jolanta Bachan (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Apart from the fact this was moved into the wrong template space. Created 16th April, nominated 24th April. this is outside the 7 day window thus is ineligible. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg We can certainly give one day leeway to a new DYK nominator. However, the article is tagged for primary sources. Can you improve the page with secondary sources? Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @The C of E and Yoninah: The nominator hasn't edited since May 22, so it might be possible that the issues may not be resolved soon. As for the hook itself, I think it needs to be rejected: for one thing, the society doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and it frankly feels bland. Going to his article, there are a few other things about him that could be hook worthy: one was that he was both a "Linguist of the Day" and a "Featured Linguist". Another, possibly more interesting hook for the general public, is that he has published on European, African, and Asian languages: sure he's a linguist, but that variety might catch readers' attention. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: This isn't an abandoned nomination; in fact, the nominator made those changes on May 22 and is waiting for me to respond. I will do so later. Yoninah (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: The nominator has added additional sources to the article. @Jolanta Bachan: As for the hook itself, I'm afraid I've struck it since it's not really that interesting or hook worthy. Please suggest another hook based on the article text: my comment above has some suggestions for hook bases. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I also question the notability of this subject. The page is tagged for primary references. Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Yoninah and Narutolovehinata5, I added another external source for the article of Dafydd Gibbon. Now there are 5 primary sources and 9 external sources. I don't know what else I could do to removed the tag for primary references. Jolanta Bachan (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • There are so many primary references here that I'm ready to tag this for lack of notability per Wikipedia standards (please read that page). The lead says nothing about his notability, just facts about his academic career and publications, which many other professors share. Rather than cite facts to his CV, can't you cite them to independent sources? Has he been interviewed by newspapers? Has his work been written up in magazines or journals? I wonder if you have a personal interest in posting this page. I did some editing on the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Yoninah! I am so surprised by the strick comments on English Wikipedia. I did the website in Polish and the experienced Wikipedists were content. The professor is well known in the field of linguistics, computational linguistics, and phonetics, was the editor of 3 handbooks published by Walter de Gruyter, received the medal of Ivory Coast, the medal of Adam Mickiewicz University, and supervised over 20 PhD theses of people from all over the world. This means he is well known in the field and maybe someone else could evaluate his notability. Is Wikipedia only for celebrities who appear on "breakfast programs"? On ResearchGate he has over 1000 citations and over 7000 reads. And ResearchGate is much younger than his work and people who he educated. I looked for articles or interviews with him, but he lives in Germany and it was a bit difficult to find on German sites, not to mention I wouldn't find online articles which appered 30 years ago in newspapers. Greetings from Poland. --Jolanta Bachan (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how he meets any of the criteria under WP:PROF. Most of the information here is sourced to his curriculum vitae. I don't see independent sources. I don't see significant awards. I'd like to call on another editor to re-review this. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 18[edit]

Joice Hasselmann

Created by DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) and Lionelt (talk). Nominated by Lionelt (talk) and Richvianbonett (talk) at 07:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The full review is to follow, but considering how unpopular Rousseff was and how most legislators voted for her impeachment and removal, I don't think the hook is really that "hooky" or quirky. I see that she was a journalist before entering politics: perhaps a hook about that might be more appropriate here. In addition, the last paragraph of the Biography section is unreferenced; also the phrase "The journalist has also been regularly invited..." could probably be rephrased as "Hasselmann has also been regularly invited..." Finally, some phrases in the article are in the present tense when they should be in the past tense. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All criticisms are constructive. I believe that together we can make the article better and better. Let's sharpen it! --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, the creator ran into a little problem with his account. Well to tell the truth, looks like he got indeffed. You know, it happens to the best of us! Anyway I'm kinda waiting to see if his 3rd unblock request is the charm ;-) – Lionel(talk) 06:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, Lionelt, given that DavidStarIsrael7 has had his talk page access withdrawn as part of the indeffing, which was based on checkuser evidence of socking, the odds of a third unblock request (this one offline) bearing any fruit at all are effectively nil. If this is to proceed, Lionel needs to propose that ALT1 soon (I agree that the original hook is not interesting, as is typical of hooks of the form "Did you know that X did Y?"); since he's the nominator, it's his responsibility anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gone over the article and there is nothing remotely interesting about her. – Lionel(talk) 10:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg As there is nothing remotely interesting about Hasselmann in the article to make an interesting hook, the nomination doesn't have a chance of meeting the hook criteria. Marking for closure. (If someone does come up with an interesting hook before this closes, then the review can certainly resume.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @BlueMoonset and Lionelt: I've gone through the article, and I did find some information that could be hook worthy. For example, her having been a speaker at an event where Brazil asked for forgiveness for "the aggression that the Brazilian government made against Israel at Unesco". Specifically, I think this phrase ("Hasselmann, who delivered a Brazilian flag in a symbolic act, receiving in return a flag of Israel from the hands of the authorities") could form the basis of an interesting hook. In addition, I think another hook proposal could be that she considered taking up medicine (specifically neurology) before taking up journalism. So we've got two hook proposals here: one about the Brazil-Israel flag thing, and the other about her initially wanting to be a doctor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have newfound inspiration thanks to Narutolovehinata5. I'm back on track for my DYK25 Medal!!! – Lionel(talk) 05:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that Joice Hasselmann, as part of a delegation sent to Israel in 2017, apologized for the Brazilian government's opposition to the Jewish state? Source: [4]
  • Lionelt, just a reminder that you will need to submit a QPQ. I changed the period at the end of ALT1 to a question mark per DYK guidelines. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @BlueMoonset: Since ALT1 involves a topic I'm personally uncomfortable editing with (Israel), I'm requesting a new review here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hi, I came by to review this and found it impossible to read. As I went along, I added "clarification needed" tags wherever I didn't understand something. I suggest you submit this to WP:GOCE for clean-up. I also added "citation needed" and other tags. Please remember that this is the English Wikipedia and that most readers have no idea of what the initials of TV networks or Brazilian political parties stand for, nor what the Lava Jato trial is. The ALT1 hook is actually pretty good and I will be happy to complete this nomination when the English grammar is taken care of. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, it looks like another editor came along some days later and addressed most of the tags (but not all) that you placed. No request has been made at the Guild of Copy Editors, though, and I have no idea whether the prose concerns you have has ben addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: yes, Richvianbonett did a great job cleaning this up. There are still a few "clarification needed" tags and one calling for "further explanation needed". Perhaps the nominator could address these. Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Yoninah: Hi. Thank you for mentioning me in this talk. Indeed, the wording of the article was defective, probably translated directly from Portuguese into English by the other editor, without any revision or weighting of particularities. I tried to correct it as much as possible. The work is still incomplete, but I promise I will complete it in the next few days.--Richvianbonett (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 19[edit]

Tammie Jo Shults, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

Tammy Jo Shults with a F/A-18 Hornet of VAQ-34 squadron
Tammy Jo Shults with a F/A-18 Hornet of VAQ-34 squadron
  • Reviewed: Campanino; Al-Mahani
  • Comment: There have been many contributors to these articles. I started the article about Shults and then a redirect was merged into its history. The page about flight 1380 has had numerous contributors.

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk) and Jax 0677 (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 23:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is not a full review but a reminder since this nomination is almost a month-old now: @Andrew Davidson: since this nomination has two bolded articles, two QPQs need to be provided here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's only been a week but I take the point, thanks. I'm quite busy currently and so have a backlog that I'm working through but hope to get back to this soon. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: I proposed to review these two articles for DYK but they will be unable to feature while one has a "too many quotes" tag on it. Please ping me when the quotations matter is resolved if you wish me to complete the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Andrew Davidson: These two articles are new enough and long enough. Tammie Jo Shults is neutral and policy compliant and the excessive quotes have gone. Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 is neutral but brings up a 93.4% figure on Earwig. I suspect that the source, the US Government investigation page is probably in the public domain. If that is the case, I think you should add a statement at the foot of the page something like "This article incorporates text from ... which is in the public domain". There is an appropriate template I imagine.
My other concern is the hook. The article and source states that she was "one of the first female F/A-18 Hornet pilots in the United States Navy". As other jet fighters presumably preceded this particular plane, I think the hook is inaccurate. Can you suggest a revised hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The articles got a lot of attention and edits after the nomination and so the way the information is presented may have changed. The issue of the "first" is discussed on the article's talk page. As I understand it, she was certainly in the first group (cohort) of female pilots to fly this type in the USN and women didn't get to fly earlier types of tactical jet fighter in that service. If the issue seems debatable then we might quote the presidential commendation [5]:
@Andrew Davidson: I have added the word "tactical" to the original hook and with the alteration you made to the article, now think the hook is satisfactory, and better than ALT1. The other point about the US Government source remains. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

Intel 5-level paging

A diagram of five levels of paging
A diagram of five levels of paging

Created by Bellezzasolo (talk). Self-nominated at 22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is long enough and has been moved from the Draft namespace on the indicated day. Bellezzasolo has 2 DYK credits so far, no need for a QPQ. I'll still have to check for copyvios. For now I see the following issues:
    1. The article is currently an orphan. I guess this needs to be resolved before it can appear on the main page.
    2. I like the original hook. It is quirky but I'm not sure it is correct: As far as I can tell, it is not a processor walk but a page table walk. I'm not knowledgeable about this topic, and I haven't got access to the ACM DL source, but it seems to me (from an unreferenced section of Page table) that this process is not directly, or not always, handled by the processor. Could the article section be expanded to clarify this?
--Pgallert (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pgallert: I've fixed the orphan issue, it was a natural addition to the IA32E page. Page table walks are performed by the MMU (Memory Management Unit), which is generally a part of the processor. (I mean, processors do a load of different things all at the same time). I'll clarify on the article. (Edit: I think done). Bellezzasolo Discuss 12:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: Ja, and someone undid your edit. I have re-inserted it in another form now. Doing the plagiarism check tomorrow morning, too much to download from my current connection. --Pgallert (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added ALT2, which is the hook, but with a quirky tie in to the picture. Bellezzasolo Discuss 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: I have now done the copyvio check and detected no problems. All meticulously reworded. In fact, I couldn't find one statement in the source, details on the talk page. ALT2 is a good suggestion, but the word "fields" would have to appear in the article for this hook to be good. The picture is self-created by the nominator and can be used for the hook, although without the picture subscript. I have missed that this is now common. Pgallert (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Taking quirkiness a step further, how about ALT3 below? --Pgallert (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Fails criteria - there is no way it is of interest to a broad audience, not by any reasonable definition of that term. Only specialists in Intel CPU architecture will have the slightest clue what this is about. "Will make Intel processors walk farther" is a cute hook but that's not enough; you don't want a DYK to leave readers wondering "what was that about? I never heard of any of that stuff." Anyway, although this particular article is new, Intel has made their CPUs "walk farther" twice before (once with PAE, once with em64t paging). If it's ever actually implemented this will be completely invisible to the average user and even to most developers - hardly a broad audience. And regarding that point, the suggested hook is misleading, even just plain wrong; the reference is to a specification for a possible future implementation. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that Intel is actually going to implement it. So at this time it is a gross overstatement to say that Intel is "planning" this. Correcting the hook will only narrow the interest further. Jeh (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This nomination has been stalled a bit by side discussions, here, on the nomination talk page, and on the article talk page. Trying to sum up, and from my perspective, we have the following:

  1. Most typical formal DYK requirements have been checked by me and are fulfilled. No copyvio, image suitable, long enough, new enough, referenced, etc.
  2. There is a concern by Jeh that the hook statement is not interesting to a broad audience and that it thus violates 3a of the eligibility criteria. I'm not sure how to handle this, or if the various songs, fungi, sports results and low-level biographies fare any better.
  3. There is a further concern about the word "planned" in the various hooks. I'd like to solicit opinions and suggestions about how to make a more realistic statement, preferably keeping a somewhat quirky hook.

I'll weigh into the discussion but am currently uncomfortable to approve or disapprove the nomination in general, or a specific hook. --Pgallert (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding planned, the fact that intel developers added the code required to handle this to the Linux kernel is very indicative. The impression given by the secondary sources is that this change is in the pipeline, so I don't see anything wrong with planned. Planned extensions may not come to pass, and still be planned - and notable (e.g. SSE5). I didn't say "upcoming" because of this uncertainty, and "proposed" may be accurate, and would work in the hook. However, "planned" does have a basis in our primary source - "This document describes planned extensions". From WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" (emphasis added). This would merit an article if it comes to pass or it doesn't, so shouldn't be a problem on that front. As for interest, support for lots more RAM is an important advance, and will have be significant in the future, even if very much behind the scenes. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding interest, 3a applies to the hook. We don't want hooks to be dry and boring, but to rather entice people in. Obviously subjective, and I'll leave that to others. But it only applies to the hook. The purpose of the articles, stated as an aim of DYK, is

To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure
To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers.

I'd say that this means we cover somewhat quirky, niche topics, not shun them. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should say it's "planned" unless and until it appears on an Intel CPU roadmap.
"Support for lots more RAM is an important advance." But this isn't about RAM! 4-level paging already supports a 52-bit physical address space, and the 5-level paging hierarchy doesn't change that.
Even if it were about RAM, current processors can already address far more RAM than motherboards have places to plug it in, or that anybody outside of a supercomputer center could afford.
I do not agree that the extremely specialized nature of this topic is not a problem here. I know what you are saying in that rigorously interpreted, point 3A only applies to the hook. But the whole concept will still be completely opaque to the vast majority of readers. As in "no, I didn't know that, and even after reading the article I have no idea what it meant." What good will it do the general reader to attract them to an article that they're not going to understand? Heck, most developers aren't aware of or care about this stuff any more. Jeh (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not the case. I assure you that the developers are aware of this stuff. I think that given the sort of readership we have, the article will do alright at DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Double depression

Created by Dmaynd2019 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Dmaynd2019: Date and length fine however the hook fact in the article needs an inline citation. QPQ not needed as this is the nominator's first nomination. No close paraphrasing. Just needs that fixed, please ping me when it is, then I can pass this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Marking for closure as the nominator has not edited since the day of the nomination, and the issues have not been addressed. Courtesy ping The C of E. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @The C of E: isn't the hook fact cited in the first sentence under Clinical description: Individuals with double depression meet the DSM-5 classification criteria for both MDD and PDD? Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, isn't this article one of many from an unregistered college course that ran into trouble due to problematic medical sourcing? It might be a good idea to ask the medical topic authors to take a quick look before finalizing this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite. After lengthy debate, the instructor conceded he'd been unaware of our standards for medical information (yet, alarmingly, has been assigning Wikipedia as coursework for six years...) and none of the entries created this term have been edited to make the corresponding changes since that discussion. So I'd think a Med project review would be a wise choice, or simply to remove the nom, since the creator/nominator hasn't engaged (no reason to force the Med project to work on a nomination if the nominator doesn't wish to.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Well, in that case, I think we should reject it. And please tell the instructor to vet the articles himself before they're posted. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Very much agreed that (or going through AfC) would be desirable Yoninah, and several of us tried to convey that message (in this AfD and the last three sections on the instructor's talk page) but I'm not sure we got through. So, just so you have some flavor in case these come back to DYK, as it seems that must have been encouraged for the course (given this also happened). Innisfree987 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Serra Cross (Ventura, California)

Serra Cross in 2018
Serra Cross in 2018
  • ... that the Serra Cross (pictured) in Ventura, California, was sold in response to a threatened lawsuit challenging the use of public funds to maintain a religious symbol on public land? Source: The newspaper articles at notes 24-26 and 29 all report on the settlement which mandated the sale of the cross.
  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC).


Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - I can't actually read the sources, but they seem to be reliable, so am accepting in good faith.
  • Interesting: ????

QPQ: Red XN - QPQ needed
Overall: Symbol question.svg Not strictly necessary but I think you should add references to "The first road was built in 1920." and "The park has remained closed for several months since the fire." epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Can you respond to the above comment so that this nomination can proceed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I left Cbl62 two messages on their talk page (the first was a month ago, the second was a little over a week ago), but have received no response. However, they have continued editing during this time. Should this nomination be considered abandoned, or should we wait a little longer? epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: It is disappointing that @Cbl62: has not responded seeing that this article is his creation and he nominated it himself. I have commented out the two statements you were concerned about, and I will donate an extra review I have done (Juliet Appiah) so I think you could approve the nomination now if you think fit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Sorry about that. Thank you, Epicgenius. When I have a moment, I will pass a QPQ back to you, if that works. Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 28[edit]

Gevninge

The Gevninge helmet fragment
The Gevninge helmet fragment

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 16:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article was created on 28 April, so is new enough, it has 1640 characters, so is long enough to comply with the rule, and is neutrally written and well-cited. The problems are with the hook and the image.
  1. The text in the article can be taken as based in good faith on the offline sources, but the first part of the hook offered here says something not claimed by the article. What the article does say is "Gevninge may have thus served as the "port of Lejre"... This role is evocative of the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, for the titular character passes through such a place..." and that is quite different.
  2. There's also the problem that Beowulf is legendary and we have no evidence that he ever lived or did anything at all. We can't really treat him as if he were a historical figure.
  3. The second part of the hook, about the helmet fragment, can be accepted AGF, but the image of the fragment is of very low quality, and there is no link from the Wikimedia image to a Lejre Museum page, no photographer name, and nothing to say how or why or by whom a CC licence was created for this low-grade image. "An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS" does not really meet the case.

This hook needs rethinking: perhaps an actual quotation from one of the sources could be added to the article and the new hook could be based on that? Or it could be cut down to just the second part, as the two parts are trying to marry up quite unrelated facts. To be used on the Main Page, the image should really be of better quality and there should be some details of how it comes to be in the public domain. Please ping me here when you have the answers. Moonraker (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Moonraker. How is ALT1 instead? (Grendel isn't mentioned in the article at the moment, but can be easily added.) I think "poetical" describes Beowulf's nature adequately, though "legendary" or "fabled" would also work. The image is OTRS pending, which I understand to be allowed for the main page; there's a 66-day backlog for such emails, so it would be hard to do otherwise. The email in question was sent on April 12 by the head of communication for ROMU, who kindly offered a commercial-use-allowed license for a low-resolution photo (would want it to be non-commercial for anything higher). I think it looks nice in the small size afforded for the main page, although I agree with you that when blown up it gets fuzzy.
    • Symbol possible vote.svg All right, we are now on ALT1. On the image, the Reviewing guide says "Make sure the image is free of any copyright restrictions... Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page". The volunteer moving this on might feel we have made sure of the copyright status here, not sure. The clarity is all right at 100 by 100 pixels, but it's still a low-grade image, and it might or might not be used. Without it, the hook doesn't work well. Another reviewer has drawn my attention to Rule C6, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." That might help, although here the subject is Gevninge and not Beowulf. Also, I can't find Grendel mentioned in the article, and I don't think Grendel can be parachuted into the hook like that, we are supposed to be able to verify everything in the hook. Could you please quote the exact passage from Christensen (2002), p. 45, that you are relying on? It's just that I think we need to see what Christensen actually says. Could you give it in Danish and English? Moonraker (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. The image is clear at 100x100 pixels; it is up to the promoter whether to include it or not.
  2. I've added Grendel to the article.
  3. If Rule C6 applies here (I don't think it does), it is clearly satisfied by the hook, which involves the real world in some way: Gevninge is a part of the real world. Indeed, the hook is really about how the fictional world of Beowulf intersects with contemporary reality.
  4. The offline Danish sources could be accepted as good faith, but since you asked:

For en besøgende, der kom sejlende til Lejre, matte vejen mest naturligt gå via Gevninge. Her skulle man stige i land og foretage resten af turen langs ådalen til fods eller til hest. Her må man også have mødt en af Lejrekongens betroede mænd, der bevogtede vejen til Lejre. En sådan strandvagt optræder i kvadet om Bjovulf. Her modtager han helten og hans mænd, da de stiger i land på kysten på vej til danerkongen Roars kongsgård (i Lejre?):
“Ridende på sin hest drog Roars stridsmand
så ned til stranden, i næverne svingede han
kraftfuldt sit spy dog spurgte med hofpli:
‘hvem er I, som er kommet kampklædte her
skærmet af brynjer, med skibet det høje
sejlende hen over havets vej,
over bølgerne til landet? længe har jeg været
vogter af grænsen, holdt vagt ved havet
for at ingen fjende skulle anrette skade
i danernes land med ledingsflåde”

For a visitor who came sailing to Lejre, the road that made the most natural walk was through Gevninge. Here you should go ashore and take the rest of the trip along the river valley on foot or by horse. Here one must also have met one of the trusted men of Lejre's king, guarding the way to Lejre. Such a shore-guard appears in the quarters of Beowulf. Here he receives the hero and his men as they go ashore on the way to Hrothgar's kingdom (in Lejre?):
"he rode to the shore,
this horseman of Hrothgar’s, and challenged them
in formal terms, flourishing his spear:
'What kind of men are you who arrive
rigged out for combat in coats of mail,
sailing here over the sea-lanes
in your steep-hulled boat? I have been stationed
as lookout on this coast for a long time.
My job is to watch the waves for raiders,
and danger to the Danish shore.'" --Usernameunique (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    • Symbol possible vote.svg Usernameunique, progress. I agree with your points (1) and (3), thank you for (2), and (4) overcomes my doubts. So ALT1 is cited for everything except Grendel. If you want Grendel, there should really be a reference to cover it, I don't believe the rules allow us to parachute things into hooks (or, indeed, articles) that rely on people's general knowledge. Please would you ping me here when it's sorted? Moonraker (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks Moonraker. I've added a source for Grendel to the article. It's paywalled, but the relevant part reads: " The news of the inroads of Grendel reaches the ears of Beowulf, and he sets out to the court of Hrothgar. But the departure, the journey, and the landing are shrouded in a fog of hazy speech that not only makes the geographical identity of their destination a matter of question but has given modern scholars cause to write reams about the nationality of the Geats. The journey is safely accomplished and the warriors disembark. They are met by a mounted sentry, who challenges them and then points out the hall? [Same Beowulf passage as above.] This seems to indicate that the distance from the ship to the hall was not very great. The warden of the coast rides with them a little way until the hall may be seen in the distance and then lets them follow the path. If the march were long, it seems reasonable to suppose that there would be a definite reference to a somewhat more involved journey." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article created on 28 April, so is new enough, is long enough, and is neutrally written and well-cited, with no copyvio found. Offline sources for the ALT1 hook can be accepted AGF. On the image, we read that this small version of it has been licenced by the museum organization it belongs to, per Commons:OTRS, and it looks all right at the size of 100 x 100. The ALT1 hook is rather a complicated one, and the words "with an associated helmet fragment" might be better left out if the image is not used. Moonraker (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As you know Usernameunique, I pulled this hook last night, mainly because I was unable to confirm the hook in a timely manner. But my issue with it at the time is that the hook says the warrior "may have passed through a place like Gevninge", but Gevninge isn't mentioned in the supplied source (Herbert), indeed Herbert doesn't mention any kind of settlement where Beowulf lands, and neither, apparently (judging by what I presume is an extract above) does the poem. So how can he have passed through "a place like Gevninge"? Also, Herbert (page 937) says that the notion that the Heorot of Beowulf was the same place as modern day Lejre is "utterly untenable", and says that Heorot was "miles away". Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, as mentioned above, Herben is used only for verification of plot summary, i.e., for the fact that Beowulf's journey to Heorot is to fight Grendel. His own theory of where Heorot is is an outlier, and has been debunked (see p. 290 n.8: "Since the time of Chambers and Klaeber, most scholars have been willing, if pressed, to locate Heorot at Lejre even if with caution. n.8: Again, voices dissenting from this orthodoxy have occasionally been heard. In an article published in 1935 titled simply "Heorot," Stephen Herben proposed to locate the action of Beowulf at a village to the northeast of the city of Roskilde, ... but the connection that he proposes remains practically groundless."). As also noted and quoted above, Christensen 2002 is the source for linking Gevninge with Beowulf. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Firstly Usernameunique, your new source doesn't "debunk" Herbert, in fact, it says the opposite to what you claim (page 292): "No one today would agree with Sarrazin that this landscape "is" that of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf ... traces of ancient halls are being excavated now, in "the very place" (as Sarrazin liked to say) where the Beowulf poet may have imagined Heorot to have stood, even if the poet never ventured near that place in person." (my emphasis). Also, note that Christenson above doesn't assert that Heorot and Lejre are the same place, he merely suggests, very tentatively, that it might be. But it appears that his subject is Lejre and how one might have got there in ancient times, and is only touching on the Beowulf connection in passing. Regardless, saying that Beowulf "may have passed through a place like Gevninge" is highly misleading IMO, because it implies that he passed through a similar settlement when the poem itself only mentions a "lookout" on "the coast". [Addendum: I notice you added a quote while I was researching my response - I missed that before making this post. I'm not sure it changes anything substantive though]. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, I can see both sides of this, but for now I am agreeing more with Gatoclass. In the middle of this page I asked you to quote Christensen (2002), so that we could see what he actually said, and you gave us a passage including "For a visitor who came sailing to Lejre, the road that made the most natural walk was through Gevninge". At first sight that supports Alt1; at second sight, it does name Gevninge, but it says nothing about "a place like Gevninge", and when Christensen later says "to Hrothgar's kingdom (in Lejre?)" that seems to suggest that a reasoned link with Lejre might be beside the point because Lejre may not be the real or fictional seat of Hrothgar. Also, we now gather there is scholarly controversy on these matters. If you want Beowulf in the hook and he does get into it, I see no problem with Grendel as well, but to link Beowulf and Gevninge you need to rely on something actually said in a reliable source. Can you perhaps come up with a hook that does exactly that, without any interpretation of it? If not, then I see nothing wrong with Vanamonde's suggestion of "Gevninge, a small village, may have been the port for a royal capital?" as that is a fair summary of something you can cite from the sources. Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that two scholars passed through Gevninge in Denmark in their attempt to recreate the journey of Beowulf to Heorot to destroy the monster Grendel, arriving at Lejre?
  • Source 1: Gillian Overing, Marijane Osborn, Landscape of Desire: Partial Stories of the Medieval Scandinavian World (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 1-2
  • Source 2 (for Grendel): Stephen J. Herben Jr., "Heorot" in Publications of the Modern Language Association (Modern Language Association, December 1935) L (4): 933–945. JSTOR 458100
Vanamonde93, do you have time to review this, as I have suggested it? Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Moonraker: The hook looks okay. Given the previous discussion here, though, I'd like to see a quote (or quotes) just in case; and I'd suggest omitting the "arriving at Lejre", as it is distracting from the main point of interest. Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not keen on the proposed alt as it again conflates the fictional and real worlds and again implies that this was the location of Heorot when its location isn't known. What is wrong with Vanamonde's proposed hook? That seems more than sufficiently interesting to me and we have had a surfeit of Beowulf-related hooks lately. Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, as I said before, I see nothing wrong with Vanamonde's suggested hook, but it hasn't been proposed here for review yet. If he would like to do that, perhaps you would review it. On mine, which is trying to rescue something of what Usernameunique wanted to say, please see Rule C6, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." That doesn't apply here, as the subject is Gevninge, not Beowulf, but it does suggest to me there's no problem with fiction and the real world going into the same hook. The words "attempt to recreate the journey" don't seem to me to imply that they succeeded in doing that. Moonraker (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Moonraker, Gatoclass, & Vanamonde93, sorry for the delay in responding. Perhaps it's worth focusing on something other than Beowulf, partly for Gatoclass's point that the poem has been well represented on the main page recently; and much as I still think the link between Beowulf's journey and Gevninge is appropriate, it's clear that trying to force that point here would take a lot more discussion. What about something along the lines of:

ALT3: ... that Gevninge, a Viking outpost with an associated helmet fragment (pictured), may have been the port for the seat of the Scylding dynasty? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Usernameunique, the main elements of this can probably be taken AGF, but I am doubtful about the term "Viking outpost". The article says there is evidence of occupation during the Viking age, but my understanding of Vikings is that they are seafarers rather than villagers, and I don't quite see why this would be an "outpost". Does Christensen use the terms "Viking" or "outpost"? Moonraker (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Moonraker, I won't be able to look at Christensen until after the weekend, but Ulriksen also speaks about this, and has a detailed English résumé. Perhaps linking to Viking Age instead of Vikings, and using the word "settlement" instead of "outpost," would work. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, settlement would be fine if a reliable source says there was a settlement. Viking age also sounds better, but it tells us the period and not the location. If you can tell us exactly what the sources say that should make things easier. Moonraker (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Moonraker, the Ulriksen résumé can be found here. It explicitly uses the terms settlement and Viking. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, you may like to update ALT3? I'm not sure of the best way to bring in the helmet fragment, but the present form of words isn't ideal. Perhaps "where a helmet fragment (pictured) was later found"? On another point, the article talks about Scylding kings rather than dynasty, which is better. I don't see how a dynasty could have a seat. Moonraker (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 2[edit]

Samuel Croker-King

Samuel Croker-King
Samuel Croker-King

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 08:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, created day of nomination. Prose length of 2797 exceeds requirement of 1500. Article written in neutral manner, and cites sources with inline citations. Some of the phrasing is close to one original source, but the Cameron source, from 1886, is clearly public domain so there are no copyright violations. Earwig only detects book titles, and no other copyvio issues found. The hook is within policy and of interest to a general audience. Hook fact is found in the article directly supported by inline citation, and source clearly supports the claim. Image is licence as public domain. Remaining issue: QPQ needs to be completed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Well, that is interesting, a tag-team review of another DYK by this article's creators. Where's the rule on that? Blast any rule, IAR and all that. QPQ done. This interesting article deserves mainpage exposure, all criteria now met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 06:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Given the amount of copying from the PD source, this doesn't meet requirements for amount of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It just has to be text new to Wikipedia. The original PD source has since been extensively reworked as you can see if you compare the first and most recent versions. Here is the PD source. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I have compared them, and that's not correct. See WP:DYKRULES 2b. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you exclude the quotes and verse? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The quotes and verse are copied from the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I made some copyedits to the article and compared it in Earwig to the source material which I pasted into a sandbox here excluding quotes and headings etc. This gave a match of 13% which was mainly names, so I think it is OK now. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The 1500-character specification is for original prose. While this is now not identical to the source, it would be a stretch to call it original. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
If it were any more original it would break the rule against original research. Paraphrasing existing sources without crossing over into plagiarism is precisely what we are required to do. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two sentences which are close paraphrases of the original. ("His family was originally..." and "A Miss Jane King...") Taking these out, and removing the 2 poems and the quote leaves a character count of 1808 without spaces or 2176 with spaces, which surpasses the requirement of 1500 characters of "original prose". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I slightly reworded those two bits rather than remove them. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a question of removing them, it is just a matter of whether or not it counts toward the DYK criteria. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No updates to my comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • nor to mine, I'm afraid. I count 2176 characters of "original prose". Perhaps this needs another reviewer, but it passes DYK requirements by my reckoning. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Since it has been ticked and has sufficient "original prose", why can't it be promoted? I don't see the need for a new review. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria's issues on original prose have not yet been addressed. This can't proceed unless she withdraws her objections. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. I directly addressed Nikkimaria's concerns. I'm not sure if she's re-reviewed the article or not. If so she disagrees with my assessment, which is her right. Would it help if I created a formatted sandbox article showing how I conclude that the amount of "original prose" exceeds the 1.5k requirement? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to confirm, I have indeed re-reviewed the article, and remain of the opinion that with the extent of the close paraphrasing from the PD source, there is not sufficient original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@78.26: yes please create the sandbox showing your calculation. Nominations shouldn't be blocked based on incorrect information. Frankly, I think an admin should just step in and promote this to stop further time being wasted. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have done so. Please see the talk page of this nomination. The character count of "original prose" is 1791 as calculated by this diff. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
[6]. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: Well, there you have it. I may not agree with Nikkimaria's analysis in this particular instance, but it doesn't mean she's wrong. So now there's three ways forward, as I see it. 1)you could wait for a another reviewer 2)you could re-write the parts Nikkimaria has issues with 3)I could re-write this (I can easily see how), and since my review is all shot to hockey-sticks anyway.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Or (4) you could add more original content from another source. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
New source found. Will expand. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 3[edit]

Solomon Richards (surgeon)

  • ... that Irish surgeon Solomon Richards (died 1819) acquired fame by performing a tracheotomy in public?
    • ALT1:... that Solomon Richards was said to be the fattest surgeon in the United Kingdom, requiring him to enter his carriage sideways?
  • Reviewed: Cauca molly
  • Comment: Alt might be a bit negative but he has been dead for nearly 200 years.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 10:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I prefer hook 1. Would suggest removing the date of death; I don't think it adds to the hook, and even if this was an early notable tracheotomy, I'd imagine performing one in public is a somewhat notable event in itself (regardless of date). Anyhow... WP:DYKCHECK says all is good, and I've added a new citation to further reference the hook. HOWEVER... it seems that the article prose is lifted directly from [7] (Cameron 1886). The source is obviously public domain, and there are a number of citations to the work (so it's not as if it's WP:PLAGIARISM). I'd be happy to pass this once there's been a second opinion, if someone wouldn't mind. MIDI (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was as acknowledged in the edit history but its been fairly heavily edited since then. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg I've also added Template:PD-notice to the Cameron reference, so I'm happy. Given that this acknowledges the text used verbatim in the article, I'd be happy to approve this one, either with or without the date of death (perhaps a matter of personal preference; as above, I think it's superfluous but no dealbreaker!). MIDI (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Not enough original prose to met the 1500-character minimum. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have done some more copyediting and am getting low similarity with the PD source once quotes and titles are excluded. Note there is a large piece of verse that is of course identical. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Note though that close paraphrasing of PD sources is also excluded from the prose count. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any close paraphrasing. Please give an example that isn't a quote, job or institution title, street name or poem. The original PD text is here for use in Earwig if you haven't already made that comparison. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
"grew so wealthy that he was able to purchase considerable estates in the counties of Dublin and Wicklow. In 1812, he won a prize of £10,000" vs "amassed so much money that that he was enabled to purchase considerable landed properties in the Counties of Dublin and Wicklow. In 1812 he won a lottery prize of £10,000". Because the original text is PD this isn't a copyright concern, but keep in mind more broadly that Earwig's tool cannot catch close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Fixed and has been slightly expanded too. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Nikkimaria's comments here—we're still at close paraphrasing. It's still clear, when reading the article, that the text has been copied verbatim (although with appropriate PD template/refs etc.) but with minor changes to the odd word—the sentence structure is the same as the source. For example (bold to show changes):
  • ARTICLE: Richards was apprenticed to James Boyton, of St Andrew Street, an assistant surgeon to Dr Steevens' Hospital. After the end of his apprenticeship in April 1781, he travelled to London, Edinburgh, and Paris, to study under the foremost teachers of his time.
  • SOURCE: He was apprenticed to James Boyton, of St. Andrew-street, an Assistant-Surgeon to Steevens' Hospital. His apprenticeship having terminated in April, 1781, he proceeded to London, Edinburgh, and Paris, and studied under the most eminent teachers of the day.
At WP:DYKRULES, rule 2B states "DYK articles may freely reuse public domain text [...] with proper attribution. However [...] text copied verbatim [...] or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count". We still have close paraphrasing of a PD source, so until this is resolved I don't see this DYK nom progressing. MIDI (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The current expanded article includes material from a wide variety of sources and is far from verbatim with the odd change. The objection is that it is too close to the Cameron source but the current version also includes significant material from Burke, O'Brien, University College Dublin and others. The Cameron text is here and the article text minus quotes etc I pasted here to see it in isolation. An Earwig comparison shows only a 12.3% match. To the extent that there is still a similar structure I think that is inevitable for the parts where there is only one source to paraphrase from. To depart any further from the source risks straying into OR or giving a new meaning not intended by the original author. That does not constitute close paraphrasing, it represents respecting the integrity of the original meaning while rewriting it as far as is safe. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As the creator of Earwig has said many times, low percentages do not mean there is no close paraphrasing; indeed, I've found unacceptable examples down at 9%. MIDI demonstrated above that there is still very clear close paraphrasing, and none of it can count toward the 1500 prose character minimum. If Nikkimaria still thinks this does not meet the 1500 requirement excluding the copied and/or closely paraphrased Cameron material, then I don't see how the nomination can proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's pretty close to having enough, so I imagine it wouldn't be beyond reach to have it qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Philafrenzy, if you are prepared to add more original prose to the article, it appears that it can qualify here at DYK. Additional edits to the Cameron material are not what's needed at this point. Please let us know whether you plan to make such edits. As it currently stands, there are apparently fewer than 1500 original prose characters (i.e., neither copied nor closely paraphrased), and that is not sufficient for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I added a section on his apprentices and one on his treatment of syphilis that total around 1,000 characters as well as some more on the tracheotomy. That should be enough to push it over the line. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on May 8[edit]

2018–19 RFU Championship

Created by Steven a91 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article checks out the requirements: it's new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, with appropriately-licensed images, and with a QPQ provided by the nominator. Earwigs gives a score of 2.0% confirming that it has no copyright infringing material or plagiarism. However, @Steven a91 and The C of E:, I have concerns about the hook: while rugby is a popular sport worldwide, I'm not sure if the hook is interesting to a broad audience since the British and Irish Cup may not be familiar to those who do not regularly follow rugby. Perhaps an alternate hook could be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, and The Rambling Man: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Basically meaningless jargon and almost certain to drive readers away. Either more links are required or a different hook should be proposed which complies with the DYK rules (see 3a - interesting to a broad audience.") This clearly does not meet that requirement. (P.S. I played rugby for ten years, and I certainly don't think this is even that interesting to a rugby fan, let alone "a broad audience). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • ALT1 ...that Coventry RFC will return to the 2018–19 RFU Championship for the first time in eight years?
    • ALT2 ... that the 2018–19 RFU Championship will feature London Irish after their relegation from the Premiership? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
      Both boring, just plain statements of what happens in a league structure. Teams go up, teams go down. And the refusal to link the teams is detrimental to the reader who may not be aware of "London Irish" for example. This may be one of those articles which just needs to be failed because it contains nothing of interest to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In your opinion of course, Interest is subjective and furthermore I am not "refusing" to link the teams as I do not want WP:OLINK and I can leave it to the prep builder if they want to add extra links. Nevertheless ALT3 ... that the 2018–19 RFU Championship will be the first season of English rugby's second tier without Rotherham Titans in 14 years? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I think I may have to agree with TRM on this one. None of the other alternate hooks appear interesting to a broad audience (if anything, perhaps ALT2 might be the closest to being interesting; perhaps it could be approved with some changes). This is because, honestly, few non-rugby fans would be aware of these teams and thus won't be able to appreciate the hook. At the very least, I suppose I suggest we stick with ALT2 and find a way to make it have a broader appeal (as the London Irish appear to be a particularly famous team in the world of rugby union). Narutolovehinata5 t ccsdnew 08:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm just ensuring you comply with DYK rule 3a. These proposed hooks are, of course, not interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The original hook looks okay to me but you'd have to link British and Irish Cup. I'm not keen on the alts, I'm inclined to agree with the others that relegations up and down are pretty standard fare. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I don't see what the error here is: if it's officially called the British and Irish Cup but it was English teams that withdrew, then I'm not sure how that's an error. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Which blurb are you asserting is the one to post? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: ALT0 since that appears to be the preference of both the nominator and Gatoclass. Personally I don't have a preferred hook at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, so see above. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to try to help. I know nothing about rugby. The article doesn't seem to have much material to draw on for a hook; maybe it should be expanded? In the meantime, I wonder if you could do something hooky resembling a final score, like:
  • ALT3: ... that the teams playing in the 2018–19 RFU Championship are 11–1? Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand that one at all @Yoninah:, sorry (where is 11-1 in the article anyway?). Would you be able to look at the others originally proposed please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @The C of E: I was trying to work something around the 11 English teams and 1 Jersey team in the championship. Like the other editors here, I don't find the other hooks particularly interesting. Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • OK I get it now. Well I have no problems with it but I do suspect some may raise their eyebrows like I did but would be happy for it to go forward @Yoninah:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg OK. New reviewer needed for ALT3. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

Unity of the intellect

Created by HaEr48 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article currently focusses on the ideas of Averroes, crediting him with the main thesis. But he was interpreting Aristotle and was not alone in this. When one searches for the phrase unity of the intellect, one finds this attributed to other earlier thinkers such as Avempace. For example, "Ibbn Bajja was known preeminently as the proponent of the theory of the unity of the intellect". So, there seems to be two ways that this can be resolved. If the article keeps its current title, then it should present the development of Aristotle's idea of the passive intellect as the work of many philosophers over time and not start with Averroes. If it is to focus specifically on Averroes' ideas then it needs a narrower title and some justification for being distinct from Averroism. Also, a QPQ is needed too, of course. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Thanks for your review. QPQ is added. As for your question. Yes he interpreted Aristotle, but that doesn't mean it's not a distinct idea. During his time, the scientific method wasn't commonly practiced and progress in thoughts was often made by exegesis and drawing new conclusion from previous texts (especially Aristotle). The background section had a little bit more about previous theses on a single intellect, and also how Averroes' idea is distinct. Basically the other thinkers hold that each individual human has their own intellect which somehow cooperates with the single, superhuman intellect, while Averroes' idea says this singe intellect is the human mind itself, and there is no individual intellect. The sources I cite clearly associate this thesis with Averroes, e.g. "Averroes' proposal was greeted with derision" or "Averroes' best known philosophical doctrine holds that there is only one intellect for all human beings" (see also surrounding texts in both sources). As for Ibn Bajjah, I haven't read about his thesis in detail, but Adamson p.190 says that "Averroes decided he could not accept Ibn Bajja's teaching", which indicate his idea is different from Averroes'? Does this make sense? HaEr48 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I'm waiting for your reply. HaEr48 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg My point has not been addressed and so I'm not willing to pass this. As we don't agree, I suggest getting another opinion to help establish a consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article otherwise meets all the DYK requirements (length/newness/copyright/stability/QPQ/etc.), but I'm concerned about the article's structure. Checking online, it seems that most discussion of the concept was made by Aquinas, and yet Aquinas only gets one paragraph in the article. I also agree Andrew that the article needs more discussion about other proponents of the theory (such as Ibbn Bajja). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review. As for why most internet search result had Aquinas, it's because Aquinas wrote a book trying to reject the theory, the book is called On the Unity of the Intellect against Averroists I suspect most of your search result mentioning Aquinas is actually an e-book or an e-commerce site selling this book. Aquinas himself reject the theory (see paragraph 3 of "Legacy" section in the article, where Aquinas' rejection is discussed with citation). Since Aquinas is not a proponent of this theory, but a denier, it makes sense that he's not discussed in the "Theory" section where we discuss the theory itself, but only in "Legacy" section where we discuss various responses to the theory. Does that make sense? HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@HaEr48: If that's the case, perhaps some more detail could be added to the article? Considering Aquinas' treatise doesn't appear to have its own article, and how retrospective coverage gives a lot of attention to said treatise, it probably needs at the very least its own section as opposed to just one paragraph. It doesn't even elaborate Aquinas' critiques other than the sentence "He used the philosophical and theological oppositions mentioned above, and used his own reading of Aristotle to show that Averroes misinterpreted what Aristotle said". And as I previously mentioned, the article still feels incomplete with regards to discussion by other supporters of the theory. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the response. The paragraph before the paragraph you cited detailed the criticism from Aquinas—which he shares with other Scholastics. I feel it unnecessary to repeat it in the next paragraph. I updated the article to make it clear that the preceding paragraph includes Aquinas' criticism [8]. "Criticism" now has its own section. As for the other supporters of the theory, the "Latin Averroists" section names multiple supporters of the theory as well as their contributions. Let me know if there's more I can do. HaEr48 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg @HaEr48: The sectioning is a lot better now and I'm almost ready to pass this. With that said, Andrew Davidson's concern about other proponents of the concept (such as Avempace) are not even mentioned in the article remains unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: added a passage about avempace or Ibn Bajjah. HaEr48 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Tuzex

  • ... that Tuzex issued a shopping voucher of 71.5 crowns as well as 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 crowns...? Source "Odbûrní poukazy emisí 1959 a 1960 mûly sérii oznaãenou jedním velk˘m ãern˘m písmenem vyti‰tûn˘m souãasnû s ostatními texty. Sériové písmena vytváfiela postupnost koordinovanou s nominále – nejvy‰‰ímu nominále 100 TKãs odpovídá písmeno A, zatímco nejniωímu 0,50 TKãs písmeno G. Dodateãnû doplnûné nominále 71,50 TKãs mûlo pravdûpodobnû písmeno H. âíslovaní je ‰estimístné, ãervené, typu „Fojtá‰ek mal˘“ – typ 1 (odpovídá typu 2a,

BAJER 2003)“".: Odběrní poukazy Tuzexu, by Šustek et al., 2005 page 15

    • 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)

5x expanded by Chemical Engineer (talk). Self-nominated at 09:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately this has to be a fail. First, the article was not created or expanded fivefold within the nomination period of 10 7 days before. Although the article was indeed expanded from the original, it was only at best a 2x expansion rather than the required 5x. In addition, the article is currently classified as a stub. Finally the hook does not meet our guidelines of being quirky or hooky. The work on the article is greatly appreciated, but unfortunately it does not meet the DYK requirements at this time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought a denomination of 71.5 crowns was pretty quirky for what was effectively a form of money. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Chemical Engineer, the article was 543 prose characters before you expanded it, and it is currently at 1526 prose characters. It needs to be 2715 prose characters in order to reach a 5x expansion. Articles are sometimes nominated on time yet fall short because they don't have a good way to count prose; if you think you can expand the article by another 1189 prose characters (a bit more than your initial expansion) over the next several days, the nomination could then continue, since at that length it would also no longer be a stub. Perhaps the hook would be more interesting if it specified the reason for the 71.5 crown voucher. Something along the lines of "that Tuzex, which did not accept Czech koruna for goods but would take shopping vouchers purchased with foreign currency only, issued 71.5 koruna vouchers in exchange for a US $10 bill?" (It definitely needs cleaning up, but at 189 characters it is below the max of 200.) Please let us know whether you wish to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not know about the 5 times rule, or would have waited before making a nomination. However, I have been working on it since. If still valid. my suggestion would be "Did you know that Tuzex shopping vouchers were a parallel currency in Czechoslovakia, and included one of denomination 71.5 crowns." Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed now that the article is 3808 prose characters, well over the 2715 required to be a 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg While the article now meets the 5x expansion requirement, I'm still not keen on the voucher hook here. I suggest that a different hook be proposed here. For example, how about a hook involving this sentence? ("However, the fact that otherwise unavailable luxuries could be purchased led to an unofficial or 'gray' market (technically illegal but tolerated) buying Tuzex vouchers with Czechoslovak currency at a high premium"). It seems like Tuzex vouchers being unofficial parallel currency is itself pretty interesting, far more than the value of the vouchers themselves. Courtesy ping @BlueMoonset:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Another interesting fact is "In 1988 the first payment card in Czechoslovakia was introduced to allow cashless purchases at Tuzex stores." Chemical Engineer (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Chemical Engineer: Personally I feel that it might be better to stick with a hook regarding the use of Tuzex as unofficial parallel currency given that even back in the 1980s, cashless payments were already relatively common in some countries. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There seemed to be no enthusiasm. I thought it was interesting, but would not push it if no-one else does. However, I think I made a significant improvement to the article. Chemical Engineer (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Chemical Engineer: As I mentioned before, the most interesting thing about Tuzex that I can see in the article is that it was used as an unofficial currency in Czechoslovakia; perhaps a hook about that could be worked on? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Such as
  • ...that Tuzex shopping vouchers were a parallel currency to the official crowns in Czechoslovakia, and included a note of 71.5 crowns. Chemical Engineer (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What about simply:
... that Tuzex shopping vouchers were used as unofficial parallel currency in Czechoslovakia?
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since I proposed the above hook, I'm requesting another review to provide input here. Pinging BlueMoonset. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Campanino

Campanino apples (National Fruit Collection, UK)
Campanino apples (National Fruit Collection, UK)
  • ... that Campanino apples (pictured) have high content of antioxidants (up to 4 times more than Golden Delicious apples), high content of pectin and polyphenols, as well as ascorbic acid (vitamin C)? Source: E. Cocci; G. Sacchetti; M. Carboni; G.G. Pinnavaia; D. Mastrocola (2003). "Caratterizzazione e valorizzazione tecnologica di antiche varietà di melo dell'Emilia Romagna: studio sulle proprietà funzionali di trasformati in purea". Rivista di Frutticoltura (3): 69-72. , cited here
    • ALT1:...that Campanino apples can be easily preserved for six months after harvesting, without any use of refrigeration? Source: Agriculture department of Regione Emilia-Romagna; Sacchetti G.; Cocci E.; Pinnavaia G.G.; Mastrocola D.; Dalla Rosa M. (2008). "Influence of processing and storage on the activity of apple derivates". International Journal of Food Science and Technology (43): 797-804. , cited here

Created by Holapaco77 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC).

Review


Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The first hook seems too technical to be easily verifiable from an Italian language source. ALT1 is better but the source seems to indicate that the apples were preserved using natural cold and frost. That might not be easy and is arguably a natural form of refrigeration. I suggest focussing on the fact that the frost makes them taste better.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Mimi Mondal

  • Reviewed: QPQ To Come Alfred Eteson
  • Comment: Both hooks are supported by several other sources already cited in the article

Created by Draken122 (talk), DESiegel (talk), TheOneWorkingAccount (talk), and Ymblanter (talk). Nominated by DESiegel (talk) at 09:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT0 is more hooky IMO; hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. ALT0 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Still waiting on a QPQ. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Nope. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hello, I came by to promote this, but I have some questions about the article. First: is her date of birth or at least year of birth unknown? Secondly, the "Bibliography" section completely lacks references. Perhaps each work could be individually cited, or a general citation listing all her works could be added here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Narutolovehinata5. She does not list a year of birth in the biography section of her own web site, nor in her online resume. None of the cited sources list one, nor did any source I found, and I looked for one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Bibliographies are generally self-citing,and do not need footnotes, as a published work is a valid source about itself, if proper bibliographic info has been listed. However I see the info about several of the works is incomplete. I will attempt to fill it out and/or provide additional souring, and ping you when I have done so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 14[edit]

Zoë Porphyrogenita

A mosaic of Empress Zoe
A mosaic of Empress Zoe
  • ... that five years after Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married, aged 50, her husband was murdered by her teenage lover, who married Zoë the same day and was crowned emperor the next? Norwich. Byzantium: the Apogee pp. 270–71, 276, 278–79. Garland. Zoe Porphyrogenita (wife of Romanus III, Constantine IX, and Michael IV). Kazhdan. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium p 2228
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: Only my third nomination, so no QPQ required, although I have reviewed 2 other DYK articles.

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Gog the Mild, your hook is certainly vivid. The attribution of the death to Michael IV the Paphlagonian does not have a source in the article; please include a quote form your source that supports the hook statement, or pick another hook.
Earwig finds copyvio (results), but is seems that the first one copied from Wikipedia, and there are only a few sentences in common with the second source (which is one that you cite, so you might have just subconsciously remembered a couple fragments of phrasing). Please look into this and report back.
I found the article somewhat confusing, especially the chronology of the lede. You also have only two sentences on the actual reign, as opposed to the machinations around the transfer of power. I realized that Byzantine politics were like that, but it would be good to hear about what happened to the empire when it wasn't deposing emperors. And what Zoë did when she wasn't marrying, squabbling with her sister, or making ointments. I was also curious as to why Theodora was furious at being recalled from Petrion; you might link to her article's reasons. HLHJ (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2018‎ (UTC)
Hi HLHJ. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful review. I am just back from a few days holiday and it may be a day or two before I can respond in full. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@HLHJ:. Progress report. In no particular order.
  • Zoe was only a ruling empress for 65 days, so what one can say about their reign is limited. Especially as the two main sources completely disagree and both state that Theodora was the driving force. Zoe, apparently, had become used to her husbands running affairs.
  • I have deliberately not gone too much into the affairs of the empire. The 65 days aside, Zoe had little influence on them and there is no logical stopping point this side of a book length treatment. During her adult life there were five emperors, plus herself, and major ups and downs in the empire's military, territorial, financial, religious and foreign affairs fortunes. All in the unique Byzantine way. It seemed (far) more confusing than it was worth to try to sketch this in.
  • Chronology. I have tweaked things a bit. I have also tried to explain some background which I may have been taking for granted - eg her exclusion from power other than through a husband. Hopefully this also explains why Zoe didn't do a lot other than marry, squabble and make ointments.
  • I have added a (sourced) sentence on Theodora's motives for being "furious". Always difficult to decide how much to say about people who aren't the subject of the narrative. And, frankly, who knows what she was thinking. The chroniclers can only guess and they all had their own agendas and their own narratives to fit things into.
  • Earwig. Given that it is fresh out of GAN I am surprised. I didn't write this from scratch so it seems that someone may have helpfully cut and pasted. Amended. The only Earwig issues are now on Wikipedia mirror sites.
  • I have expanded the section on Romanos's death quite a bit and given a summary of the views of each of the contemporary sources. (Psellus is amusing, he writes at length (I haven't quoted this) about the circumstances, clearly convinced that Michael was responsible, but takes a "I wasn't there, maybe three thugs walked in off the street, you have to make your own mind up" attitude.) Not sure if this is sufficient for you to pass the hook; let me know if not.
  • I still have to proof read all of my changes, so bear with me for a day or two with copy edit issues.
  • Theodora should be up for GA this week. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Gog the Mild, and thank you for the progress report. I'm afraid I can't share your kind assessment of my review; I hadn't realized that she only reigned a few months, and it does seem that her life was remarkably unconnected from the Empire, and it doesn't seem as if Psallus actually gives reasons for Theodora's fury, either (tho as reactions go, it was a safe political bet in a pretty unstable situation). My tone somehow came out rather impolite, too. Your response, on the other hand, was worthy of your byname.
I have made some comments on the talk page. Hooks... do you think that any of these are any good?
  • ALT1:... that ...five years after Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married, aged 50, her husband was (probably) murdered by her teenage lover, whom she married the same day and had crowned emperor the next? Source:Norwich. Byzantium: the Apogee pp. 270–71, 276, 278–79. Garland. Zoe Porphyrogenita (wife of Romanus III, Constantine IX, and Michael IV). Kazhdan. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium p 2228
  • ALT3:... that ...five years after Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married, aged ~50, her husband died under suspicious circumstances, and she married her teenage lover the same day and had him crowned emperor the next?
  • ALT4:... that ...Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married aged ~50 (three days before the death of her father), lived in an open marriage until her husband died in suspicious circumstances, married her teenage lover the same day, had him crowned emperor the next, was imprisoned by him until his death, was exiled by his successor and nephew, was restored by a popular revolt, and ruled with her sister before temporarily ousting her from power and marrying a former lover? (maximum drama version)

@HLHJ:.ALT4 - you forgot the beauty parade of her former fiancés and lovers to pick her third husband! And that third husband's mistresses and their official positions and... and... As they say, you couldn't make it up. And they say that politics is over-personalised these days.

Re the hook, before I comment, are you sure that all of them, not ALT4 Face-smile.svg, are short enough?

And can I remind you about the image? There seems to be a bit of a drive to get more images of women on the front page and Zoe seemed a rare example of a powerful historical woman.

I have moved further response, including on your edit on Zoe's talk page, to my talk page, so as to keep it all together. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And the suspicious death of the second candidate third husband, and the fate of her second-marriage-brother-in-law and adoptive son, and her rise being partly due to an odd imperial habit of castrating ones' male relatives... I feel as though she should be a major character in a season or two of an HBO TV series. Apologies for the delay. Serious review follows.


Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Green tickY
  • Neutral: Green tickY
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Red XN - The sentences "The sisters granted Skleraina the title of sebaste and she took rank after Zoë and Theodora, being called despoina, mistress or empress, like them and taking her place behind them in official processions and ceremonies." and "Her rooms in the palace were filled with boiling pots and pans for the manufacture of ointments and perfumes." need rephrasing to avoid copyvio of the Garland source.

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The sources seem mixed on attributing responsibility for the death to Micheal, or Zoe and Micheal, or Zoe Teenaged or ~24-year-old Micheal?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Newness via GA. ALT1 short enough, ALT 2 on the 200-character limit, ALT3 is over at 212. The ALT1 hook also awkwardly changes subject in mid-sentence. Being really pedantic, she wasn't empress until three days after her first marriage, but I think we can ignore that.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg HLHJ (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@HLHJ:

Copy vio.

  • Done. Good spot. I must get into the habit of checking this myself instead of assuming that the GAN assessors are on the ball.

Cite.

  • True. But there are two primary sources, and I have two secondary, which say that Michael did it, either solely or jointly. There are always (nearly) sources taking a different point of view. ("Oswold shot JFK." Plenty of sources to say he didn't; some reasonably reliable.) Anyway, your call.

Hook.

Flows a bit better and only 169 characters. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It does flow better, although the wanting to know why she first married age 50 is gone; a marriage across an age gap seems less unusual, in cultural context, although I might be wrong there. I feel it might be slightly better to leave the author of the murder unmentioned, as a tease hook, but if you don't I'm happy with that hook, Gog the Mild. HLHJ (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@HLHJ: Apologies for the lengthy delay. Chewing over your comments, while I would like to get in the "married at 50" bit, I think that it is probably trying to get too much into 200 characters; as you suggest, let's focus on the actual tease. Also as you suggest, let's duck the issue (in the hook) of just who killed, or ordered to be killed, Romanos. So, what do you think of ALT7? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(I have done some work on the Romanos III and Michael IV articles (one is a GA, one is a GAN Face-smile.svg) and am now unsure whether Michael was a teenager at the time or whether it was an exaggeration to slur Zoe, so have fudged this bit in the hook.)

Articles created/expanded on May 15[edit]

Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy

5x expanded by Shobhit102 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The original hook is OK but I think that ALT1 is too complex for a hook. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. @Shobhit102: There are two paragraphs without any references and this will have to be addressed before this nomination can move forward. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 18[edit]

Poralia, Discomedusae

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 05:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

  • "Poralia rufescens, a deepwater discomedusan jellyfish, is so lacking in nutritional value that the leatherback sea turtle "feeds only on its gonads and tentacles'"?
  • Members of the order Rhizostomae are collectively known as "root-mouth jellies" and are very diverse. They do not have tentacles ??
  • What are gonads? Why is such a word not linked?
  • Yes, thanks. I see the confusion now, the link "discomedusan jellyfish" brings me to "Discomedusae" and there it speaks of "Rhizostomae". Maybe better to link to Semaestomae directly? And the gonad article needs some work, great to have that trigger now. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The link goes to Discomedusae because that is the second of the two articles I have expanded and nominated in this hook. The article gonad I only linked because you asked me to do so, and I agree that it is in need of improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of both articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Both articles were sufficiently expanded, in time for nomination, QPQ satisfied for the two articles, hook is short enough and seems interesting enough, images correctly licensed, cites sources.
  • Issues:
  • In Poralia, Capone 2008, it doesn't seem to clearly indicate that the turtles are feeding on Poralia, or if they are, that they feed this way on many jellyfish species.
  • In Discomedusae, "a large surface area of [missing word?] with which" - seems to be missing a word after "of"
I still need to spot check the other sources. Chris857 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the observation on eating gonads and tentacles does not necessarily refer to Poralia, although because it has such a low nutritional value, it probably does. Perhaps we need a different hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Given the issues raised with the hook, this doesn't need a new reviewer at the moment, but that new hook Cwmhiraeth alluded to. Chris857, have you completed those spot checks yet? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Chris857: It's difficult to tie in the leatherback turtles, so how about ALT2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Railway surgery

  • ... that some railway surgeons opposed the introduction of first aid kits on trains maintaining that only doctors should carry out this work? Source: Aldrich (2001), pp. 286-287

Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

  • reviewing, long enough, interesting, well written Whispyhistory (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: ????
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Really a very well written, thorough article. copyvio ok. Pleasure to read. Sampled some references, most I do not have access to, but appear very well thought out. Did you want links to general practitioner (links to modern version) or physician? AGF on most references. Everything is cited. The hook is correct but should it be in the article? Article says "There was some opposition to first aid through fear that it eroded the professional status of doctors and that local contract railway surgeons would lose the fees they would otherwise have accrued for the work". In addition, a hook centred around the attempt to remove an accidentally appointed female railway surgeon might be considered. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand why you think that the hook is not cited. Do you think that the article does not say that doctors should be rendering first aid rather than other railway workers? I would maintain that that is what the article says through the device of enumerating the reasons that railway surgeons argued this. In any case, the source cited is perfectly clear on this:

Yet if some railway physicians embraced first aid, to many others it was anathema. In the discussion of a paper by Dickson presented to the Association of Railway Surgeons in 1902, W. B. Outten of the Missouri Pacific claimed that “it is very difficult to teach these ignorant men very much about rendering First Aid as it ought to be rendered.” Yet the real complaint of those who opposed first aid training was not that the men were uneducable, but just the reverse: that rather than becoming an extension of the surgeon, as Jonas saw them, they would be a substitute. Thus, Outten went on to claim that “those who have no hospital department in connection with their railroads are naturally friends of first aid.” Another physician, Dr. James H. Ford, worried that “we should not permit them to have the idea enter their heads that they are to displace the local surgeons.” Dr. W. A. McCandless also worried about economics: “I believe much of the work entrusted to railway employees in rendering First Aid should be assigned to physicians. They are poor and they need the money for rendering such service,” he candidly observed.

— Aldrich, 2001
I don't think that general practitioner or physician should be linked. The doctors they had especially in mind were other railway surgeons or local doctors under contract fulfilling the duties of railway surgeon. On Sofie Herzog, I think the first aid issue is more directly relevant to the article and is thus a better hook. Although her case is astonishing to modern sensibilities, I rather think the company would have reacted in exactly the same way on discovering a female train driver had been appointed. The fact that the post was for railway surgeon is almost incidental. But put that article up for GA if you like and get it in DYK that way. As far as I can tell, it's never been to DYK before. SpinningSpark 14:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Ok to hook wording. Will let you decide about your GP links. The hook fact in the article still needs an inline citation at the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief, I thought we were supposed to be WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The cite is a dozen words away and those twelve words are still talking about first aid kits. Maybe I'll do it in a couple of weeks time if I happen to be overcome with the urge to do something utterly pointless. SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: IMO What Whispyhistory asked is a simple and reasonable request in good faith. Please just address it without snarky comments. HaEr48 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @HaEr48: What you are all forgetting is the actual purpose of that rule. It is there so that reviewers do not have to trawl through the refs to find the cite, they can go straight there and verify the fact. There is little doubt what the relevant cite is in this instance, but in any case, I went to the trouble of transcribing a lengthy passage from the ref so the need is now moot (and it's behind a paywall anyway so you can't verify it directly). That took some effort on my part, but I did it with good grace and without any "snarky comments". So sorry if I have now run out of good grace, but I have a long list of articles to write and I'd rather be doing that than servicing useless bureaucracy. You can wait your turn – I'm a volunteer, I'll do it when I feel like it, if ever. SpinningSpark 23:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 19[edit]

Alligator Man

Created by StewdioMACK (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Should mention that Atlanta is a TV series in the sentence, but otherwise ok.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Not sure if the above is a review (hope it is not because it would be a terrible one), but I think this obviously won't do for now. It is imperative that you beef up the "Prod." section that the hook is derived from, while refining the plot section (also remove or address the plot tag which is currently quite warranted). If Childish Gambino/Donald Glover wrote the episode, that should be mentioned and cited in the body, rather than just in a pic caption and infobox. Much cleanup is in order before we can take a closer look at this. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 20[edit]

Wally Schirra

  • ... that NASA astronaut Wally Schirra was Walter Cronkite's co-anchor during the seven moon landings? Source: Schirra, Wally; Billings, Richard (1988). Schirra's Space. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-792-9
  • Comment: The source of the hook is on page 221-223

Improved to Good Article status by Balon Greyjoy (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Reviewing... Chris857 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Article was promoted to GA status recently enough, I took the liberty of adding some needed formatting to the hook, hook is short enough and sourced and pretty interesting (though he's got a lot of other interesting stuff).
  • Minor issues:
    • "co-authored the book 1962 We Seven" - I assumed this should say "co-authored the 1962 book We Seven"?
    • Per rule 3b, the citation for working with Cronkite has to be no later than the end of that sentence, and it's currently one sentence too far away.
    • Is this your first DYK submission? If so, you don't need to do a QPQ review.
    • IMDb seems less than ideal for the portrayal credits. Not a big deal to me or this review, but do we have better options available?
  • Symbol question.svg Chris857 (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 21[edit]

Claire Ptak

  • ... that Claire Ptak baked the lemon and elderflower wedding cake for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?
  • Reviewed: Jack Kirby
  • Comment: I hope to get some photos too but need to get the nomination started now

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk) and MurielMary (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. - The hook is fine, but I linked a bit, - don't expect every reader to know who the people are, I also fixed the spelling of the bride's name. Consider to use File:Sambucus canadensis W2 IMG 3144.jpg for the article and even hook, because elderflower may not commonly be known and suggests bridal outfil soo well. I suggest a redirect from Wedding cake of ... . Waiting for qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Sambucus nigra is probably the source of the elderflower rather than canadensis being more readily available in the UK.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 24[edit]

Clifford Braimah

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 10:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article meets the newness and length requirements, is free from plagiarism, and the article and hooks are adequately sourced. QPQ provided. However, I'm concerned about Braimah's notability: I made a search and from what I can tell, coverage about him appeared to either be routine coverage or more about Ghana Water itself than him. As such, I'm not sure if the coverage specifically about him that does exist is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 For anyone who is interested. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Find sources: "Clifford Braimah" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Narutolovehinata5 and Maile66 Thanks for your reviews. I will leave the dyk above and its concerns to be addressed by other editors. CrossTempleJay 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 26[edit]

Marketing of electronic cigarettes

The adverse effects of vaping[1] are rarely described in marketing of electronic cigarettes
The adverse effects of vaping[1] are rarely described in marketing of electronic cigarettes
  • ... that believing marketing that presents e-cigarettes as not harmful or addictive makes non-smokers, but not smokers, more likely to start vaping? Source: more likely,[2](quote: "perceptions of a lower degree of harmfulness (OR = 1.13, p = .047) and addictiveness (OR = 1.34, p < .001) of e-cigarettes predicted initiation among non-smokers, but not among current smokers."; in article, mention is ""Nonsmokers are more likely to start vaping if they think e-cigarettes are not very harmful or addictive; beliefs about harmfullness and addiction don't affect the probability that smokers will start vaping"") commonly presents[3][4][5][6]
  • Reviewed: Zoë Porphyrogenita
  • Comment: Much of the text is copied from Nicotine marketing, but it was new there, too. I suggest running this on May 31st, the WHO's World No Tobacco Day[14] The image is not very good at this size. I don't think we could use the FDA's photos of the unicorn-rainbow with-lollipop-and-sticker packaged e-fluid as they presumably contain trademarks and copyright images. Pretty much all of these hooks are about false advertising, as "Some ads are honest" is not very hooky.

Created by HLHJ (talk) and I've had some helpful WikiGnomes and a helpful reviewer. (talk). Nominated by HLHJ (talk) at 01:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Detailed reference list is located on a separate image page.
  2. ^ Cooper, Maria; Loukas, Alexandra; Case, Kathleen R.; Marti, C. Nathan; Perry, Cheryl L. (2018). "A longitudinal study of risk perceptions and e-cigarette initiation among college students: Interactions with smoking status". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 186: 257–263. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.11.027. ISSN 1879-0046. PMC 5911205Freely accessible. PMID 29626778. 
  3. ^ "Vape Shops Clouding Issues of Safety". Truth In Advertising. 2016-05-24. Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  4. ^ Truth in Advertising (2015-09-01). "Smoking Out E-Cigarette Ad Claims". Truth In Advertising. Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  5. ^ a b Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182Freely accessible. PMID 24821826. 
  6. ^ Database of examples
  7. ^ Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Professionals: Educate Your Young Patients About the Risks of E-cigarettes (PDF), retrieved 2018-05-27 
  8. ^ Food and drug Administration, Electronic Cigarettes, What is the bottom line (PDF), retrieved 2018-05-26  fulltext on commons
  9. ^ "Warning Letters - Omnia E-Liquid 5/1/18" (WebContent). Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  10. ^ Affairs, Office of Regulatory. "2018 Warning Letters" (WebContent). Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  11. ^ "FTC, FDA Take Action Against Companies Marketing E-liquids That Resemble Children's Juice Boxes, Candies, and Cookies". Federal Trade Commission. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  12. ^ "FTC, FDA Warn Marketers of E-Liquids That Look Like Kids' Candy". Truth In Advertising. 2018-05-02. Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  13. ^ "E-Cigarettes Hitting Teen Targets?". Truth In Advertising. 2014-03-24. Retrieved 2018-05-26. 
  14. ^ http://www.who.int/campaigns/en/
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Comments on the hooks: Article is new and long enough. No copyright violations or plagiarism detected using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I like ALT2 (it's verified and interesting), though I would change "labeled and sold" to "marketed." ALT0 and ALT1 are not verified by any of the citations in the article. ALT3 is too long (270 characters out of a maximum of 200), but is otherwise interesting and verified. ALT4 is not verified by any of the citations in the article. As you mentioned, none of the potential hooks are neutral, although I agree with you that I do not think it is possible to have a hook from this article that is both neutral and interesting (which suggests that this article should not be eligible for DYK).
    Comments on the image: The text in the image is too small to be read at the 120 x 133 px resolution that it would appear at on the Main Page and is more of an infographic than a picture anyhow. None of the potential hooks include "(pictured)", which they would need to if that image were to be used. I would recommend dropping the image.
    Comments on the article: This article is a content fork. Much of the content is off-topic (this is an article about marketing of e-cigarettes, not safety of e-cigarettes), cited using unreliable sources, or contains claims that are not verified in the sources. More specific issues include the following:
  1. Article should be titled "marketing of electronic cigarettes," to be consistent with the main Electronic cigarette article and the Safety of electronic cigarettes article
  2. An image cannot be a source for claims about the harms of vaping; insert the references from the image into the article.
  3. "Addictiveness" section is not verified by source.
  4. "Use by non-smokers" section is entirely unrelated to the topic of the article.
  5. Everything but the first sentence in the "Stress" section is not relevant to the article.
  6. In the "Cost" section, the sentence "costs of e-cigarettes vary widely by jurisdiction" is almost entirely meaningless; please add more specifics.
  7. There are three citation errors that need to be fixed.
  8. Only one other article in mainspace (ignoring redirects) links to the article.

--Chumash11 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed review. I think I've fixed all the problems in the article that you list except the last two, cite errors and near-orphan status; I will work on those when I have time. I agree that the image is lousy and too small. Unfortunately, any good image will almost certainly be in-copyright and thus unusable. Dropping makes sense.
ALTs 2, 3, and 4 are about false and illegal marketing. ALTs 0 and 1 are not; I put them first on that account. I've added quotes for better sourcing, along with information about where they are found in the article. I've tried to make the hooks neutral, as in I think that a strong partisan for or against e-cigarettes could read them as neutrally informational (and false ads and packaging poisonous stuff as candy, while definitely likely to be seen as negative, seem likely to be seen as negative regardless of views on e-cigarettes). I've struck part of ALT4 as I think it needs a medrs; I would tend to strike the whole thing for lack of interest and neutrality both. HLHJ (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The article is no longer stable. I ask that this nomination be placed on hold until it is stable again, although I still welcome comments. HLHJ (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg I think that is a wise decision. Best to table this until the issues with the article can be fixed. Thank you for being so reasonable. Chumash11 (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Piposh

5x expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 28[edit]

2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations

  • ... in the 2017–18 Thai temple fraud investigations, it turned out that government officers illegally asked Buddhist temples to return 75% of government funds received? Source: "มีการทอนเงินกลับไปที่ผู้บริหารชั้นสูงของสำนักงานพระพุทธศาสนาแห่งชาติ 100 ละ 75 ค่ะ ขอไปร้อยหนึ่ง ทางวัดได้แค่ 25 ค่ะ" [75% of the money was returned to high-level managers of the National Office of Buddhism. For example, they asked for 100, but only obtained 25.] (Thai Rath, 2017)
  • Reviewed: Australamphilina elongata
  • Comment: Source is a video news report. Thai news outlets only upload their reports on Youtube.

Created by Farang Rak Tham (talk) and Wikiman5676 (talk). Nominated by Farang Rak Tham (talk) at 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Maybe something like "on May 25, 2018, the Thai junta launched simultaneous raids of four Buddhist temples using up to 200 commandos to bring in six monks for questioning?" Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, but you need to add the title of the article, and keep it brief. Personally, I think the part on the officers' abuse is what stands out most though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Could be interesting. Have made some minor edits on it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that an ALT hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg @Farang Rak Tham and Wikiman5676: The hook fact (that four Buddhist temples were raided) is not explicitly mentioned in the article: it only mentions that temples were raided without giving a specific number. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a detail mentioning the fourth temple now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ping, ping, ping.
The three temples are mentioned in the Third investigation section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What is the source of the statement? The English source provided does not mention four temples. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, which English source are you referring to? This source mentions the temples. It is an article in the China Morning Post, is in the section on the Third investigation. It was first published in Bangkok Post.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I meant that the source does not specifically mention that four temples were raided, only that temples were raided. Perhaps the best course of action here is simply to omit the number of temples here? Since the sources aren't really clear on the number. Something like "...simultaneously raided Buddhist temples,..."? Narutolovehinata5 t