Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DYK queue status

There are currently 2 filled queues. Assistance in moving preps is requested.

To discuss the content or layout of the Template:Did you know page itself, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.
"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
February 5 3 1
February 11 1
February 12 2
February 13 2 1
February 15 1
February 16 1
February 19 1
February 20 1
February 21 1
February 23 1
February 25 4
February 27 1
February 28 1
March 1 1 1
March 2 2 1
March 3 1 1
March 6 2 2
March 7 3 2
March 8 4 4
March 9 14 12
March 10 8 7
March 11 4 4
March 12 9 7
March 13 9 8
March 14 4 4
March 15 4 3
March 16 8 4
March 17 4 3
March 18 4 4
March 19 12 10
March 20 4 4
March 21 12 9
March 22 10 9
March 23 12 8
March 24 25 14
March 25 10 5
March 26 11 8
March 27 3
March 28 5
March 29 3
March 30 3
March 31 2
April 1 2
Total 215 136
Last updated 17:19, 1 April 2025 UTC
Current time is 18:08, 1 April 2025 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

[edit]
Shortcut

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the DYK guidelines.

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below). Because of WP:DYKTIMEOUT, a nomination should be reviewed within two months since the reviewer/promoter may agree to reject and close an unpromoted hook after that time has passed.

Where is my hook?

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

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


Instructions for reviewers

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

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

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

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

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.
  • After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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.

Advanced procedures

[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook

[edit]
At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area
Check list for nomination review completeness
  1. Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: .
  2. Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
    • Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
  3. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
  4. Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
  5. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
  6. Hook should make sense grammatically.
  7. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
  8. Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
  • In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
  • In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.

Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)

  1. For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
    • Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
  2. Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
    • Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
    • Check that there's a bold link to the article.
  3. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
  4. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
  5. Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
    • At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
  6. Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. At the bottom
    • Just above the line containing

      }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

      insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
      To [[TM:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
      To [[TM:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
    • Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
  3. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
  4. Save.

For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources:

  • To [[TM:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
  • To [[TM:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook

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

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

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

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

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

Nominations

[edit]

Older nominations

[edit]

Articles created/expanded on February 5

[edit]

Japanese Girls Never Die

(
)
5x expanded by Miminity (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: No issues with eligibility, hook is fine and sourced even if it's not the most interesting. The double digit percentages on Earwig are from review quotes/proper nouns. The film has been released, so the premise section should be a fully-fledged plot section. There are also multiple grammatical errors in the article, including run-on sentences. The flow of the article is also pretty bad (e.g. 12/19 of the non-lead/plot/cast sentences begin with "The film" or slight variations such as "The film's", with 4/7 of the remainder being about reviews that all go "X of Y said Z". Release and marketing are both short and should probably be combined in some way per MOS:FILM. There are serious, but not insurmountable presentation issues that need to be addressed before approval. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some preliminary cleanup work. Also, in the hook, "on" should probably be replaced by "of".
@Patar knight: Thanks for reviewing, I fix some of the issues you pointed out, tell me if there's more, also, I'm slighly confused with story's phasing, so It hard to make a plot summary but I'll try my best. Also, your suggested hook is much better. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just ping me when the plot summary is written and I'll take another look. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight:, I had written the plot. I don't know how to write one so this might be a sloppy one and I hope you can help me fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one, it's more than 700 words, which is the limit recommended at MOS:FILMPLOT. It should use the narrative present tense (WP:PLOTPRESENT). There's so many tense flips here, I'm not sure what the narrative format of this film even is, and without watching the film, can't really fix the issues. I would recommend reviewing the two pages I linked and rewriting the plot summary. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: I done what you are talking about and lower the word count to around 670. Also, as the movie, switches between two people. I retain some of the past tense when character is talking about what happen in the past. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section (or rather, plot paragraph!) is still very poor with lots of typos (e.g. Masabu/Manabu? Haruka?) and grammatical mistakes and what seem like many prima facie irrelevant details (e.g. exact salaries, exact punishment for vandalism) while lots of essential details are omitted, including but not limited to:
  • What job does Haruko have?
  • What exactly is Yukio's relationship to the other characters?
  • What Yukio's gender is (only revealed after the third namedrop)?
  • Why should Aina and Yukio remember Manabu from just seeing him?
  • How much time is passing between events? Does the film take place over two days or more?
  • Why does Haroko have a missing person poster?
  • Was Aina using a fake identity?
From what I can tell the movie seems to follow two main characters (Haruko and Aina) in a linear manner and there is some sort of reveal about the missing posters at the end, which is not explained very well Having multiple protagonists/storylines is a very common feature of movies, so perhaps you can take a look at a film that you have seen from Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Films and see how their plot section is written and try to emulate it here. Given that the plot section is in this state, it is probably necessary to have brief descriptions of the characters in the Cast section as well, which would alleviate some of the issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: Sorry for the late reply, the movie does not seems state how much time has passed each scene, as even the reviews by users on Eiga.com talks about how confusing the story is. There is a lot of details was missing in the movie. this is the pirated version of the movie on dailymotion (I don't think there is a english platform where this can watched legally) if you want to watch it for yourself.

I don't think I can answer most of the questions above, but I have fixed most of the issues I can fixed. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: The prep set for International Women's Day is now open, please return to this nomination when you can.--Launchballer 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a brief look at the pirated film version to try and get a grasp on the plot. It seems pretty clear that the two main plotlines are (mostly?) happening at different times since Haruko is obviously not missing yet in her scenes while the Aina plotline resolves around creating art around Haruko's missing poster (which has a 2015 date) until apparently near the end, when Haruko shows up with a child. I would suggest the plot be rewritten in a way similar to The Godfather Part II which also follows two different timelines. Also, since we have access to the film credits, a fuller cast section can be written in accordance with MOS:FILMCAST (e.g. multiple roles currently described in the plot do not have listed actors in the cast section, and one actor in that section has a role not named in the plot). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: I don't know if it helps, but I had a go at reordering the Plot section myself. I got hold of a cast list from Themoviedb and added it as an invisible comment - @Miminity:, I don't speak Japanese, so please verify it and publish it.--Launchballer 07:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Thanks for the help, Yes it is true base (though I tweak a little bit) on this Eiga.com Source, though do I have to source it or leave it as it is. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. If you got it from the film, you can leave it unsourced; if you got it from somewhere else, you really should cite that. Ball's in Patar knight's court.--Launchballer 13:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:  Done Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: There is a date request for the next set to be queued. What else needs to be done here?--Launchballer 16:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to AGF that the credits are correct, but the plot summary is still a mess with no delineation between the two timelines. Last week, I suggested following the format of The Godfather Part II, which still has not been done. That article has a short out of universe blurb at the top to introduce the two timelines, a subsection for the past with Vito Corleone and followed by a subsection for the present with Michael Corleone, and then a short bit at the end where they include the ending flashback, which for this would probably just be the ending where they apparently tie up the timelines. Another example of this plot summary structure is Memento, which also separates out the two different timelines until the unifying ending segment. I would rather not have to watch an 1h40m film myself as the reviewer, so I would prefer if the original nominator did that. If there's major push to get a special queue for International Women's Day (right now there's only one entry in the holding area), I can see if I have time later this week (please ping me if that's the case). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The set I had in mind is currently in queue 7, but it may have to go back. I added a couple of section headers and an introductory sentence.--Launchballer 20:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now prep 3, but I also added a short "Ending" subsection, so this should be done.--Launchballer 12:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I watched the first 15 min. to get a grasp of the film. The film actually opens with a montage and the scene with the mother seemed very unimportant, which appears to be correct given that she's not mentioned again in the plot summary. The description of Haruko going to Yuji's place for the first time is entirely overly detailed (he waits for her outside and lets her in, which is the actual focus of the scene) There are still all kinds of grammatical mistakes and unexplained characters (e.g. "A man told him that Hitomi" has an unexplained man and "him" should probably be "her"?). I don't have a lot of confidence in the fidelity of the plot. I'll make some changes based on what I watched, but I'm not sure its read for DYK. It also looks like queues are not being switched to doubles, so perhaps this can wait? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made some fixes based on the first 15 min and did my best to copyedit some of the remaining plot section based on the reviews I read and what I did watch. It is still not up to par, with highly confusing statements such as Manabu is found in a car by a police beaten up; Yukio and Aina argue in the car about whether they are why. What are they arguing about? Were Yukio and Aina not found by police even though they are ostensibly in the same car? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected that statement as I introduced it (I meant 'why he was beaten up' and those the prose improved for not having 'beaten up' twice.) I can't help you with text-to-source integrity.--Launchballer 11:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity: Please address the above.--Launchballer 05:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)][reply]
@Launchballer: @Patar knight:. I rephrase it base on my observation. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Miminity, Patar knight, and Launchballer: The nomination is timing out in less than a week, have all the concerns been addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm think there are likely serious issues with the plot. For example, before I made some plot revisions after watching the first 15 minutes, the article [1] included the following: She sees Yuji outside his home and decides to talk to him, but he goes inside his house. Haruko follows him and looks around. about an unremarkable 15-second sequence where the characters go inside and completely ignores the relationship talk that follows. Similarly, I discovered through a very quick scrub that not only was Haruko's disappearance covered, but entire scenes in the Haruko plot were out of order. [2] I appreciate Miminity addressing specific concerns once brought up, but getting basic chronology wrong and deciding that the literal disappearance of the title character (at last in the original Japanese) was not worth including, leads me to believe that someone else has to watch the film to verify the plot section.
    How strict is the timeout? Two months would be the 5th, so if no one else has vetted the plot and someone pings me, I can try and watch the film that weekend. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timeout is not super strict as it's largely editor discretion as to whether or not to time out an article. In practice though, we tend to time out nominations that are two or more months out and have open issues that seem unlikely to be resolved in the near-term. As such, if this nomination is to proceed, I would suggest addressing the plot section issues quickly, within the week, as this is one of those cases where WP:DYKTIMEOUT definitely would apply if the article was two months old and the issues remained. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Selma tornado

(
)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shirley A. Pomponi
  • Comment: Will do QPQ tomorrow, as it's getting relatively late over here. Feel free to reword hook. I wass initially going to go with "...that a historic tornado caused historic damage in a historic town?" but sadly couldn't find refs to back up the "historic tornado" part.
Created by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.

EF5 00:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Eight days? That's out of the window of a week and I don't see any connection beyond that in the source, beyond it happening "ahead of" the holiday. Can you find any other sources further connecting these events? Departure– (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Not sure what you mean; Selma was a prominent civil rights town that MLK frequented. But alas, sure: An MLK Day Reflection In The Aftermath Of Selma’s EF2 Tornado, Residents in Selma, Ala., commemorate MLK day while recovering from tornadoes and Tornadoes rattle historic civil rights community of Selma, Alabama. Take your pick. :) EF5 00:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Alright, #1 is from a Forbes contributor (generally unreliable) and #3 doesn't connect much, but I do think that you can get a good hook from #2:

...that a 2023 tornado in Selma, Alabama that struck days before Martin Luther King day was described as bringing together the historically racially divided community that had been at the heart of the Civil Rights movement?

This goes over the prose limit for DYK, but if you approve of a hook in the same manner as this, we can get this condensed. Departure– (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that sounds great. EF5 01:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Are you still reviewing? EF5 17:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Yes, but I'm waiting for you to finish your QPQ. Finish that up and I'll go on with my review. Departure– (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. EF5 17:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Other than that, the article is new enough, QPQ now done, long enough and seems neutral and well-sourced. The fact just needs to be put in the article. If you're using the one I suggested, it's the PBS source that I took it from. I can condense it down to:

... that Selma, a racially divided community and the origin of the Civil Rights era marches to Montgomery, was described as being brought together by a 2023 tornado that stuck days before MLK day?

Barring any objection, we can go with this. Departure– (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. :) EF5 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Well, by adding it to the article, I didn't exactly mean copy and pasting the hook into there. It still needs attribution to who said it, and it should be cleaned up a bit in general. Departure– (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it, but please tell me if I'm wrong. EF5 18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, but forgive me for not checking before, but there were three marches. It's marches, plural. Change it there and then we'll be good to go. Departure– (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EF5 18:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your checkmark: good to go, on the hook ... that Selma, a racially divided community and the origin of the Civil Rights era marches to Montgomery, was described as being brought together by a 2023 tornado that stuck days before MLK day?
@EF5 and Departure–: In the article "brought together" is in quotes, but I don't see that phrase in the cited article. Also, how is the article describing the tornado as bringing the town together? Rjjiii (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a second opinion on whether the original hook I suggested looks fine? The approved one is also creating issues at the GAN; it would have been much easier if the original was approved; the Forbes source is from a person with a PhD in meteorology. EF5 12:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Departure–:. EF5 12:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(that's a whole lot of indents, but) Yeah, I do think the Forbes source is accessible. Per RSP, Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert, which we have now proven he is. I think the first and original hook is factual but a bit lacking in the DYKINT elements, whereas the second one is a bit long-winded and would need more elaboration in the article than we've gotten so far. Departure– (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: is this resolved? Just passed GA. EF5 21:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Where is "brought together" in the cited source? Rjjiii (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, I was asking if the original hook proposed (the MLK one) is good-to-go. Other hooks proposed are creating issues and that one's the most solid. EF5 19:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At 192 characters, that hook is on the long side and very close to the 200-character limit. Could that be shortened? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutoolovehinata5: "... that Selma, Alabama, known for the Civil Rights marches that were attended by Martin Luther King Jr., was damaged by a tornado just eight days before MLK Day?" How's that look? EF5 13:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repinging @Narutolovehinata5: since I screwed up the last one. EF5 13:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot shorter but still a bit too wordy for my tastes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those hooks where removing any more info (I personally think it's fine as being well below the limit) would compromise interestingness and the ability to clearly understand the hook. You could remove the "Civil Rights" and "just", but other than that it's as short as I can get it. EF5 13:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably go with that, perhaps with some kind of piped link for "marches". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 11

[edit]

The Ethereal Rock

(
)
Source: Zeitlin, Judith T. (1993). Historian of the Strange Pu Songling and the Chinese Classical Tale. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804720851. p. 79
Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 181 past nominations.

KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]


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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook needs to be cited, anything else seems fine. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was away and only just saw this but, with respect, I find part of your objection to the SL93's first suggested alt ("... that the inspiration for the short story "The Ethereal Rock", about a man's friendship with a rock, was the painter Mi Fu?") strange ("Not much of an improvement since it's reliant on knowing who Mi Fu is.") since countless DYK hooks have involved some kind of reference to somebody or something (apart from the nominated article's subject) that a "non-specialist" audience would be unfamiliar with. Noting your point about wordiness, however, I propose thjis: "... that a Chinese short story about a man's friendship with a rock may have been inspired by the painter Mi Fu, who was reportedly obsessed with rocks?" Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 11:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 12

[edit]

St. George Utah Temple

(
)
The cannon used as a pile driver
The cannon used as a pile driver
  • ... that a cannon used by Napoleon in his Russian Campaign (pictured) was later repurposed as a pile driver to create the foundation of the St. George Utah Temple?

"The St. George Temple, completed in 1877, was a study in pioneer ingenuity...

An old cannon, one that was taken by Napoleon for his siege of Moscow, and which had found its way out west, was used as a piledriver... and then dropped upon the rock fill to solidify it into a strong base(foundation)"
    • ALT1: ... that Brigham Young altered the architecture of the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) from the afterlife?
St. George temple architecture, a tower that burned down, and was later replaced to fit Brigham Young's preference
The St. George Utah Temple

*Source: https://www.deseret.com/2003/7/11/19734272/temple-burns-151-but-not-angel/ "In the case of the St. George Temple, the fire became a local legend. Brigham Young had never liked the short, squat original temple steeple, and when the fire occurred — after his death — officials sighed and concluded that President Young was directing temple architecture from the afterlife. The new, taller steeple was built according to his stated desire."

    • ALT2: ... that the St. George Utah Temple's baptismal font, modeled after a live ox and supported by twelve iron-cast oxen, was transported by oxen? (pictured)
Ox Team That Hauled the Font from St. George
"He began the Davis Foundry in 1872, and one of his first orders was to make the baptismal font and the twelve oxen to support it for the St George Temple.... Searched for a perfect ox... (it was) used as a live model...The rest of the way it was transported in three specially built oxen-drawn wagons"
    • Reviewed: N/A
    • Comment: I put the hooks in order of those I thought would be most intriguing for the recent GA grade for the St. George Utah Temple, a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since I felt the first was strongest, I put that as the default photo. If we want to make the hook for #1 more of a surprise, I would say instead: "The cannon used" so it is more of a surprise.

Each hook I've listed would go best with a different photo. I couldn't find any rules against having a possibility of different images, so I added links to Wikimedia commons for clarity.

Hook 1 image: The one shown (St. George Temple Visitors Center Cannon.jpg)

Hook 2 image (A front view of the building): St. George Utah Temple 2023-10-02.jpg Caption: The St. George Utah Temple

Hook 3 image: Ox Team that Hauled the Font to St. George Temple, 1874.png Caption: Oxen that hauled the baptismal font


For those checking the validity of the source, Deseret News is considered generally reliable as a source, per the Latter Day Saint Wiki project movement.[1]

I went back through this nomination template after the date it was nominated several times and added a few things to make the nomination more clear. March 1st I added some links to images to clarify things. However, the nomination itself was done within 7 days per the DYK rules, which is shown in the edit history of this template. This is my second DYK, so I'm not perfectly familiar with the rules, but I wanted to make things clearer while also showing that I am complying with the time rule.

Improved to Good Article status by Itsetsyoufree32 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Itsetsyoufree32: Long enough, new enough. No QPQ necessary. You're going to need to add any images to this nomination for me to be able to consider them; I can tell you that ALT0 would require an end-of-sentence citation. However, there is a fair amount of close paraphrasing in the article and that would need remedying before primetime.--Launchballer 17:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Hi, thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination for the St. George Utah Temple.
As far as it goes with the close paraphrasing- the user that did the GA said there was no close paraphrasing,[2] but he mentioned that Earwig picked up to 35.5% similarities, but that it was mostly proper nouns. I looked at the report, and I found a few phrases that were very close, but I rephrased those sentences. Otherwise it is mostly just things like names of the organization (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, titles of leaders (president of the Quorum of the twelve apostles), etc. Do you see specific spots where there are close paraphrasing sections that I can address- or were you specifically referring to something else besides Earwig?
The only phrase I wasn’t sure I could replace was "Two days and two nights." I could say 48 hours, but since that isn’t verified (it could be 47 hours, 49, etc), then it would amount to original research. I’m curious about your opinion of that.
I did some more research on the origins of the cannon- there are various reports that the cannon came from different places, so I may need to add more information and citations to the article. I’ll continue to do some research on that and ping you (hopefully within a few days). For now, I added that citation to the relevant part of the article. I’ll add the images here as well.
Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever close paraphrasing I found before I now can't, so nice one. Looking at the hooks/images in more detail, I could approve ALT0 and ALT2, but the oxen image is of technically poor quality (I wouldn't have known they were oxen if you hadn't told me) and the cannon probably shouldn't be obstructed. The source for ALT1 attributes officials, so the hook should as well.--Launchballer 12:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great—the paraphrasing issue is resolved, and I've upgraded to a better-quality oxen image. Let me know your thoughts.
Regarding the cannon photo, I've looked into clearer images, but they’re extremely scarce—especially now that the cannon isn't publicly displayed since the recent renovation. Wikipedia’s manual of style advises using the best available image to illustrate the subject clearly, even if it's imperfect. Although the bottom of the cannon is partly obscured, the current photo clearly shows that it's a cannon and effectively illustrates the subject. Cropping can help remove distractions, but the bottom part would still remain hidden.
I'll still reach out for a better shot, but realistically, this may be the best available image within our nomination timeframe. Alternatively, we could default to the temple’s front photo—but the cannon image uniquely captures readers’ interest. Let me know your preference.
Also, what do you think of this refined hook for ALT1?
ALT3: ... that Brigham Young altered the architecture of the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) from the afterlife, according to Latter-day Saint officials?
Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking very roughly in terms of ALT4: ... that Mormon officials interpreted architectural tweaks to St. George Utah Temple (pictured) as posthumous instructions from a former president of the church?--Launchballer 13:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like your wording of this sentence better, it seems to flow well and make sense.
As for the word Mormon, generally members of the Church oppose the use of the word Mormon in reference to it’s membership or theology.
The manual of style says that “It is usually best to follow the predominant form found in the sources used for a particular Wikipedia article.” It also mentions using the full name of the Church in first reference, but since hooks are meant to be under 150 characters that may prove difficult. Since the sourcing we’re using refers to members as “Latter-day Saints”, and even has an article on the side that reads “Latter-day Saint Leaders” in a title, that would be preferred. Here is the improved hook:
ALT4a: ... that Latter-day Saint officials interpreted architectural tweaks to the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) as posthumous instructions from a former president of the church?
“Church officials” would also work to keep it snappier.
Once we’ve gotten this hook buttoned up, are there any other steps we need to do to get this nomination approved?
Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I need another reviewer for the fact that Brigham Young was "president of the church".--Launchballer 14:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem—another reviewer stepping in is fine with me. We can easily adjust the hook by replacing "president of the church" with "Brigham Young," as originally suggested:
ALT4b: ... that Latter-day Saint officials interpreted architectural tweaks to the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) as posthumous instructions from Brigham Young?
If you prefer, I can also add more citations to this nomination clarifying Young’s role as church president during the temple’s construction.
Thank you again, Launchballer, for your quick reply and all your help with DYK!
Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would pass WP:DYKINT as it would require knowledge of who Brigham Young is.--Launchballer 05:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to reply and give me feedback so far. I'd like to clarify a few points directly, as some questions I've asked haven't yet been addressed.
I suggest we revert to your earlier recommendation of using 'president of the Church' for this article. However, I still firmly believe the original hook mentioning Brigham Young is appropriate, particularly since the current DYK on Wikipedia's main page references individuals such as Zhou Enlai, Vince McMahon, and Eskimo Joe—figures not universally known.[3] Their lesser-known status didn't disqualify them; in fact, it made their hooks intriguing, as users can easily click or hover for context.
According to the guidelines you shared, hooks must be intriguing and understandable without special knowledge or interest. Referring to "Brigham Young" or, more simply, the "president of the Church," clearly meets these guidelines. The idea of a religious organization having a president isn't obscure or controversial and shouldn't confuse general readers.
Additionally, the DYK rules simply require reliable sourcing for the claim made in the hook. Here are two clear citations confirming that Brigham Young was president of the Church during the temple's construction:
“President Young took a personal interest in the temple construction and basically moved to St. George to supervise construction.”[4]
“President Brigham Young lived in this home in St. George, Utah… While living here, he continued his regular work of administering to the Church, including overseeing the construction of the St. George Temple.”[5]
Given this clarification, can you please confirm:
- Is there a specific reason we're unable to use either "Brigham Young" or "president of the Church" in the hook?
- How close is this DYK nomination to receiving a full review?
Thanks again—I look forward to resolving these questions soon. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:DYKINT, specifically the part about how hooks must be written in such a way that they must not be reliant on specialist or niche information. That is, even if a hook mentions an unfamiliar name, the hook must be phrased in such a way that knowing who the person is, is not necessarily central to the hook's interestingness. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you are a Latter-day Saint. If this is the case, then I may have to note that LDS figures are not as well-known to the general public as Pope Francis is, for example. Indeed, may not even know who Joseph Smith is, or if they do, it's only a passing knowledge (possibly through the Book of Mormon musical or through South Park). It's even more so with Brigham Young, who I imagine may not be well-known among many non-Mormons apart from being the namesake of Brigham Young University.

In the case of ALT4b, I'm actually fine with mentioning Young by name, I'm just explaining what the argument against mentioning him is. With that said, I don't think ALT4b works because it begs the question of "Who is Brigham Young, and why should I care?" At the very least, some kind of identifier is needed, which I get may go against WP:DYKTRIM, but in some cases it's necessary to make the hook more understandable. We could also go with ALT4 instead as a compromise: I understand Nelson doesn't like the word "Mormon" all that much, but even among Mormons themselves the reaction to the move away from the term is mixed, and in any case "Mormon" is still the familiar term among the general public rather than Latter-day Saint. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points about Brigham Young, thank you for explaining that more fully. It sounds like explaining it would be a lot of extra work and would be really inconvenient to add more information about using Brigham Young’s name. I think it would work just fine without it, like using “president of the church” or “former leader”, as that is shorter and shouldn’t be confusing, as I mentioned earlier. Here’s a few more ideas on ways that we could reformat that would make it work:
ALT4C... that architectural changes to the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) were viewed by Church officials as posthumous instructions from a former leader?
ALT4D…that a lightning strike was seen by Church officials as beyond the grave architecture changes from a former leader for the St. George Utah Temple? (pictured)
As an aside about using the word Mormon- In my experience, real people I've met who called Latter-day Saints “Mormons” often had no idea what members of the Church actually believe. The correct name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (showing that members actually believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior). Despite being more well known, using “Mormon” to refer to members promotes misinformation and disinformation- as it is really not the actual name of the Church (and even historically, the origin and use of the word “Mormon” to describe members was used as an epithet).
In addition, the Latter-day Saint Wiki, as I mentioned earlier in this discussion, states that while the word Mormon can be used, it is better to use the sources that are primarily written for the article (which use the term Latter-day Saint, not LDS or Mormon, etc). The other options I’ve put forward should avoid the much lengthier “Latter-day Saint leaders”, so I feel these hooks should work as a better compromise for every party here, while also meeting the character limit. If you want to remove “Church” from the statement, I think it still works, since it mentions a former leader, it could be assumed to mean officials from the Church.
I am a member. With that, I hope is that in good faith I will not be unfairly accused of not being neutral. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have with ALT4c/ALT4d is that "Church" becomes too generic. Like, what specific denomination? We can go with "LDS church" in the hook while linking to the article on the church. Something like "LDS church". The hooks themselves are interesting even to those unfamiliar with the denomination, so at least that particular concern is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's great these hooks are interesting, and are one step closer to being ready to go. What you said makes sense, I could see how just using “Church” being unclear to a certain denomination is confusing. From what was said, while there are less problems with using LDS over Mormon, the Church’s stance on using the abbreviated “LDS” in reference to their members has been asked not to be used as much as “Mormon”, which comes from a released Style Guide.
My thought on why is that the term “LDS Church” is not clear on what the Church believes, as mentioned before. Using the name Latter-day Saints is encouraged, because it connects being a Latter-day Saint as being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, clarifying a belief in Jesus Christ. “LDS Church” is better, but it is still not clear what “LDS Church” is connected to in belief, and as far as an unfamiliar general audience is concerned, it could still misinform. This connects back to the Church’s belief that it is the actual Church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, connecting to a sincerely held belief of the faith.
With what you’ve suggested are great good faith edits that we can use to work towards a common solution. I tried to come up with something alliterative to make the hooks more poetic and interesting, while still fitting the character limit. I think what you said with linking would work well to help clear up confusion on the denomination. Latter-day Saint, instead of “LDS” should still be clear as long as it is linked (like you’ve said). Here are the refined hooks:
ALT4E... that architectural changes to the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) were viewed by Latter-day Saint leaders as posthumous instructions from a former president?
ALT4F…that a lightning strike was seen by Latter-day Saint officials as beyond-the-grave design changes from a former leader for the St. George Utah Temple (pictured)?
Using the term “Leaders” instead of “officials” should communicate the same idea- while making it a little lighter on characters. I tried a few options. It’s not a stretch that someone who knows what “LDS” means to use instead “Latter-day Saint”, which is clear and respectful, especially when it links the denomination, like you suggested. As long as it fits the character limit, I believe it should serve the same purpose. I reworded ALT4F, and I think it works a bit better grammatically:
ALT4G…that a lightning strike to the St. George Utah Temple (pictured) was seen by Latter-day Saint officials as beyond-the-grave design changes from a former leader?
The best solution seems to be to link and use the term Latter-day Saint, while shortening other elements to make a more engaging and concise hook. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just removed the bolding for "Latter-day Saint" in the most recently proposed ALT hooks, since it isn't a nominated article, just a wikilink, and put "(pictured)" in italics, as is required. Grammatically, "beyond the grave" should be hyphenated before "design changes", so I've edited that as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help with the formatting and grammar! I appreciate the quick feedback and your being bold in fixing things.
Something else I want to mention is that I am not opposed to using “LDS”, it is preferable if the hooks would work with the alternative “Latter-day Saint” (or not mentioning it by name)- as requested by the religion and their name style guide.
Other users have not responded to me about what else specifically to fix, the original user doing the review hasn’t commented in about 9 days, given that the review expires in 2 weeks it is making me nervous, as I’m doing what I can, but the hook review doesn’t seem to be progressing. You seem to have lots of experience with DYK- may I request that you @BlueMoonset: do the full review on the hooks?
I would welcome additional feedback or opportunities on how I could improve additional hooks. I also edited and added information to the Wikipedia page about the cannon corrections. Here’s are some alt ideas for the cannon hook:
ALT0A...that one source reports a cannon used by Napoleon in his Russian Campaign (pictured) was used to create the foundation of the St. George Utah Temple?
ALT0B...that according to folklore, a cannon used by Napoleon in his Russian campaign (pictured) was used to pile drive the foundation of the St. George Utah Temple?
The other hooks that would be best to use are ALT4F and ALT2 (there are also other variations throughout the article). Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St._George_Utah_Temple
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know
  4. ^ https://www.deseret.com/2013/11/14/20529587/brigham-young-the-architect-involved-in-all-kinds-of-utah-buildings/
  5. ^ https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/locations/brigham-young-winter-home-and-office?lang=eng

Zimbabwe at the 2014 Winter Olympics

(
)
  • Reviewed: n/a
  • Comment: FYI, I might not reply fast on this nomination.
Improved to Good Article status by Yue (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

🐝 B33net 🐝 15:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - n
  • Interesting: No - n
  • Other problems: No - ?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Drive-by nomination. The issue is that the hook is not particularly interesting, many tropical nations that do not snow have participated in the Winter Olympics. Also, the source does state that Zimbabwe had not had snowfall in 40 years... except it's the skier who said that, "I don't think there has been any recorded snowfall in Zimbabwe in something like the last 40 years," the 20-year-old skier said in a telephone interview., I would not consider this quote to be reliable. @B33net: jolielover♥talk 14:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the claim is contradicted by a quick search: apparently it may have snowed in Zimbabwe in the 1930s, but more importantly, there have been reports of snow in more recent years (which may or may not be accurate, but at the very least it makes the claim questionable). I don't know if the following would be considered interesting, but the article is rather sparse on hooky material, thus:
ALT1 ... that Luke Steyn, Zimbabwe's only athlete during its Winter Olympics debut in 2014, moved to Switzerland when he was two years old and grew up in Europe?
Otherwise, the nomination may sadly have to be rejected for lack of a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I did think of that, but most reports (that I saw) about snow in Zimbabwe concluded that it was a country that does not snow, and its last recorded snowfall was 70+ years ago. The reports of snow in Zimbabwe in recent times, though debated, reportedly all happened after his participation. That's what I remember of when I searched info about snow in Zimbabwe when reviewing this hook. I do like your rewording of the hook, though not sure if I should pass it since the nominator has been AWOL from this nom since. Alternatively:

ALT2 ... that Luke Steyn was Zimbabwe's only athlete during its Winter Olympics debut in 2014?

@B33net:, what do you think about the new hooks? jolielover♥talk 16:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 13

[edit]

Sequoites dakotensis

(
)
Sequoites dakotensis cone cast fossils
Sequoites dakotensis cone cast fossils
  • ... that in 1935, when Sequoites dakotensis (pictured) was first described as a member of the genus Sequoia, it was common for such species to be known only by their fossilized cones?
  • Source: Brown, Roland W. (October 15, 1935). "Some fossil conifers from Maryland and North Dakota". Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences. 25 (10): 441-450. JSTOR 24530142.
5x expanded by Pbritti (talk), Bubblesorg (talk) and Kevmin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 68 past nominations.

Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

He may be a specialist, but a taxonomic authority prefers Sequoites. The link you provided above considers Sequoia dakotensis a synonym of Sequoites dakotensis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The website is just a taxonomic names list, it does not speak to a consensus per say. Also, it does not confirm synonyms here, it just puts this as saying that some authors consider it a synonym or basionym. https://www.ifpni.org/species.htm?id=C5C500AA-BA29-4A36-B914-5696D1B33A65. Bring me papers and books. Actually the Sequoites dakotensis discussion should be separate from this discussion. Sequoites is not the same thing as Sequoia from a paleobotanical sense. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kevmin: I was not expecting a long-dead tree to cause such disruption! I'm requesting a stay on this review until the taxonomic issues are sorted out. @Bubblesorg: multiple taxonomic authorities superior to a non-peer-reviewed amateur book reject the Sequoia name. The plant has been reassigned and remains somewhat uncertain, per Kevmin. Cut-and-paste moves are disruptive. We can discuss this further on the talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What multiple papers? Most papers either suggest Sequoia or Parataxodium. Only parts of the plant are assigned to Sequoites. You did not have any consensus here to change it. I only used the Gary point to respond to the other person when they questioned the reliability of the source, I am not using it here to keep the name as Sequoia instead of Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti agreed, we should reach a stable version of the article and correctly cover the taxonomy issue (some authors fully and wrongly ignoring Bell) before we continue the nom here, I'll have to step out from reviewing as I have now added notable information to the article.--Kevmin § 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg This discussion needs to be at the article talk page. The IFPNI listing at Sequoia dakotensis specifically links it to Sequoites dakotensis as a jr synonym, and notes it as the older name. I also just added a summary from Kevin Aulenbacks book on the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where he specifically also uses Sequoites dakotensis, connects it to PArataxodium and links several other organ taxa into a larger whole plant reconstruction based on foliage, ovulate cone, pollen, and pollen cone morphology. All that we now seem to be missing is a formal paper making the official moves and synonymies.--Kevmin § 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He linked it to many genera not just Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question, does the Saurian field guide count as a reliable source? Probably not. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

new reviewer needed as I have substantially added and edited the article now, also the page move of the nomination here is creating editing access issues wit the nomination templates.-Kevmin § 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing an actual review here, so I'll take it once I've eaten.--Launchballer 15:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti, Bubblesorg, and Kevmin: Long enough, new enough. QPQ done and Earwig is clean. I see nothing deserving of a maintenance template, but I do see that the hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I cant seem to find this statement in Brown, do you remember where you found it? If not we should come up with a different hook:
  • ALT1 "... that Sequoites dakotensis (pictured) was first described from clay-filled casts and not the original cones?"
Brown 1935 "These cones are ferruginous mud casts, the solid portion of which represents the spaces, and the cavities the woody substance of origin"--Kevmin § 14:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and Kevmin: I'm not on the computer I use for most of my editing today. I'll get back to you on this late tomorrow or early Monday UTC when I have access to the JSTOR and the relevant articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the ALT1 proposal. Once the article move goes through (it looks like a sure thing now), I think we just need a new reviewer and we're good here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 15

[edit]

Louisiana Mayor's Courts

(
)
  • ... that in the United States Louisiana and Ohio are the only states with Mayor's Courts?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Under "Mayor's Court" drop-down
Created by Otr500 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Otr500 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - There are at least one non-lead paragraph without sources (see the section Issues of conflicts of interest and bias). There are also failed verifications from sources, for example completely dead and recent sources (ref 5) and sources that links to appearently personal files on OneDrive (ref 4). Also see the comment I gave for the hook's source (ref 2).
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The source have a failed verification to the hook: it had zero mentions of the word "Ohio", so it's safe to assume that it didn't verify the hook.
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I'm quite concerned about whether the hook is relevant to the article: it doesn't quite make sense to say that there are two states with Mayor Courts, but linking the bolded link to one of the state's court.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Earwig said 16.7% simliarity, but Court costs section seems like the list is a mostly-copy of the source (with some modifications), so I'm not entirely sure about this. There are some style issues with the page, eg. starting a list without starting a new line and not using a list in the See also section. Overall, well done on creating the article, but there is some work required to be eligible DYK levels. (PS: I'm a new reviewer, other reviwers: please correct me if necessary) Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Otr500: Have the above concerns been resolved, and is this ready for a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG! I am so sorry all. I have been having problems, including health, the internet went out, and a laptop dying. I am better (I still have health issues), bought a new PC, and changed internet providers. Hopefully, this has not expired. I will try to resolve the issues (hopefully) tomorrow. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I think it is ready. I have made what I think are improvements, removed redundancy, replaced dead sources, and removed the improper source. I changed the list to prose and added more sources. I think I have covered all concerns unless I just overlooked something. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 16

[edit]

Nicole Gee

(
)
Gee with an infant in Kabul, 2021
Gee with an infant in Kabul, 2021
  • Reviewed:
Created by DMVHistorian (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

DMVHistorian (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

ALT2 ... that six days prior to her death, Nicole Gee (pictured) posted a picture on social media of her holding an Afghan infant, remarking "I love my job?"
ALT3 ... that following Nicole Gee's (pictured) death in a suicide bombing attack in Afghanistan, the California State Assembly renamed a portion of Interstate 80 after her?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the approach of ALT2 to explain the image, but it misses what her position and what she was doing. In ALT3, I don't like the awkward position of pictured between name and "death", and see too much attention how she died, and who renamed what, - too little about her for my taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging AirshipJungleman29 regarding thoughts on ALT2/ALT3, or if another angle is needed. As for Gerda's concern regarding ALT2, mentioning that she was a Marine might be redundant considering the image shows she's a soldier. It could be added if the hook ultimately runs without an image. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how Gerda can prefer the former hooks which say nothing about Ms Gee beyond her employer, to the latter ones which actually describe her life but somehow "contain too little about her". Not a very convincing argument, in my book. ALT2 is fine with me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) reply to N:
If you can see anything in that rather dark picture, your eyes must be better than mine. We (or at least I) can't even see that she is probably not Afghan, nor a uniform, in small size, + we should not count on the picture being taken, remember Mirella Freni?). ALT2 spends characters on the exact number of days (which could be "shortly") but only says "holding an Afghan infant", not that this was in the process of rescuing the baby, babies and women, in a major action (which I think should appear linked). ALT2 doesn't say that her death was being killed in duty, which would make the hook meaningful. ALT2 conveys (for me) that a woman holding a baby loves to do it but sadly died. The connection between acting and death is missing, but seems crucial to me.
reply to AJM: I accepted the nominator's suggestion as I tend to do. I like ALT2 better and thought I said so, it's just too meaningless so far but I hope for improvement. You can help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I'm guessing ALT2 is approved then? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used this review as a qpq and would like to conclude it; therefore I refrained from wording an ALT, just expressed what would be needed to clarify that she wasn't just some woman who likes babies, loves her job and dies. Better versions welcome.
ALT3: ... that Sergeant Nicole Gee, who helped to evacuate Afghan infants and women, posted "I love my job" with an image (pictured) six days prior to her death?
We might be more explicit about how she died. I cropped the caption, - the image caption of this story is not the place to educate where Kabul is located. I don't know if the placement of the ? in ALT2 has a meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you are being strangely possessive over a nomination that is not even yours, merely one that you are reviewing. AJ29 already said they liked ALT2, so I don't see why you believe that her manner of death is non-negotiable. AJ29 also said that they prefer a hook that moves away from the operation itself, so I'm not even sure if your hook (which I've labeled ALT3) even satisfies their concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DMVHistorian, what do you think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 19

[edit]

Pijush Kanti Mukherjee

(
)
  • Source: Sukhabilāsa Barmā. Socio-political Movements in North Bengal: A Sub-Himalayan Tract, Vol. 1. Global Vision Publishing House, 2007. p. 76
Created by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 422 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Newly created, no paraphrasing issues, hook interesting. Seems GTG. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this pass WP:DYKINT for folks who might not be immediately associated with West Bengal? Sohom (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does; Soman, a new hook is needed to address the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think one way to increase the hook's interest is to trim it of fat. @Soman and AirshipJungleman29: How does this sound?
ALT1 ... that Pijush Mukherjee supported merging India's Cooch Behar State into West Bengal?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 doesn't exactly work. The merger took place decades ago, and saying 'India's' enters in a bit of a gray area, Cooch Behar was one of hundreds of princely states that merged into independent India. Perhaps something along the lines of ALT2 "... that when Pijush Mukherjee was elected Deputy Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1971, he won a seat in the assembly in every election since independence?" --Soman (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit on the long side and I feel like the meaning might be lost on readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3 "... that six-time legislator Pijush Mukherjee was elected Deputy Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1971?" --Soman (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I do not see this as interesting either. Being a deputy speaker is not uncommon, nor is multiple-term legislators getting important positions in a legislature. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the article right now and I have some concerns about it. Most notably, the article is missing information about his early life, or what he did prior to becoming a legislator. This means the article might not meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Such information does not have to be detailed, even just a few sentences should suffice, but if information exists out there, that has to be included in the article. The article might benefit from a copyedit as well as I'm seeing grammatical errors like "Around time of merger." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: The nomination will be marked for closure if the article and hook concerns are not resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 20

[edit]

Jorge Munoz (American football)

(
)
Created by JTtheOG (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

JTtheOG (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Also pinging BeanieFan11 for possible hook suggestions as ALT1 seems marginally interesting to me at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance (looking at the ALT0 hook), maybe something like ALT2: ... that American football coach Jorge Munoz is an assistant to a former player he coached? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've modified it to say "American football" instead for the benefit of our non-North American readership. Pinging JTtheOG for their thoughts on the new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that BeanieFan11's suggestion is easier to understand than my original hook. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 and JTtheOG: Thanks! Just one last thing. The current wording could be challenged by other editors per WP:DYKHOOK (the "unlikely to change" criterion). It's true now, but there's a chance it could change before promotion/running. A more future-proof wording may be needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2b:... that American football coach Jorge Munoz served as an assistant to a former player he coached? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great to me. Would it be considered bad form to do a piped link to Desormeaux? JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's optional. Ideally we try to avoid too many blue links in a hook to prevent viewership diversion, but it might not be harmful in this case. I'll leave it to you, and if there are any objections those can be sorted out in prep. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I am fine with omitting the additional link. I suppose readers may click on the Munoz link or the reference for more information. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help, as this is my first DYK nom. JTtheOG (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article, created on 21 Feb, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. No copyvio problems. However, JTtheOG Narutolovehinata5 I can't find the hook about Desormeaux (ALT2) in the article. It says Desormeaux was brought on as an assistant, but nothing abt Munoz being an assistant to Desormeaux. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for taking a look at this. The first source (The Athletic) identifies: 1. Desormeaux as having inherited the Louisiana head coach position from Billy Napier and 2. Munoz as being Louisiana's "new associate head coach and tight ends coach", both of which are assistant positions under a head coach on a staff. I should probably remove the quote from the ref, since you've correctly shown that it does not completely verify the claim. JTtheOG (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG: Thanks for the response, which admittedly goes over my head a little (I'm not awfully familiar with American football). Per WP:DYKHOOK, the hook has to be clearly in the article and with a citation at the end of the sentence. Can you make it obvious somewhere in the page, with citations? Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Miller, Brody (May 29, 2022). "Louisiana football has reached new heights, but plenty of upside remains for Ragin' Cajuns". The Athletic. Archived from the original on February 21, 2025. Maybe the most interesting addition is yet another person familiar with Lafayette, and that is new associate head coach and tight ends coach Jorge Munoz. Munoz previously spent 10 years at Louisiana coaching various positions, including being Desormeaux's quarterbacks coach. It was actually Munoz who brought Desormeaux on staff as running backs coach in 2016 when Munoz was offensive coordinator.
  2. ^ "UL's Munoz promoted to offensive coordinator". The Daily Advertiser. February 5, 2016. For Desormeaux, working with his old mentor may mean as much as being back on campus.
  3. ^ Brents, Phillip (September 10, 1994). "Apaches are at bottom looking up". The Star-News. p. A6 – via Newspapers.com. Open access icon


Articles created/expanded on February 21

[edit]

Sophie Rain

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 278 past nominations.

Launchballer 05:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've seen the subject in the news a bit lately. I find it extrodinary that there are so many simps willing to throw ridiculous amounts of money at content creators, but whatever floats your boat. Approve hook ALT4 which I think is a hell of a lot more interesting than references to Hugh Hefner in ALT0. Ps, for anyone looking for the supporting source it's this one TarnishedPathtalk 10:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, from WT:DYK) New one on me regarding the Evening Standard, but I've cut everything except for an attributed opinion, which is also what Vice is solely used for. People is only being used for the claims that she goes to church and grew up on food stamps, neither of which I would describe as contentious (but the latter claim's also in the South China Morning Post and in this Riverfront Times piece). Complex is Complex Networks and has an editor-in-chief, according to Variety. Also, the number is also in this National World piece, which I was surprised to see people at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 465#NationalWorld.com sticking up for earlier this year. I'll take a closer look at Complex once I've eaten.--Launchballer 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed Complex for everything other than "$10 a month", which isn't contentious, and People for everything other than $50 million (I don't think it's contentious to say that "person who made lots of money makes even more"). What else?--Launchballer 13:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, putting aside your dislike for the content matter, are the changes which have been made sufficient? TarnishedPathtalk 02:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a big backlog of better material to run. I don't see that we need to go here. RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have the smallest backlog we've had all year, and this meets all five of WP:DYKAIM.--Launchballer 16:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd prefer we don't run this kind of sensationalistic drek at all, but even if we do end up finding better sources and running this, please change "$43,477,695.01" to "$43 million" in the hook for style reasons. RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4a: ... that Sophie Rain went from living on food stamps to making $43 million in a year on OnlyFans?--Launchballer 13:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to ossify, so I posted at WP:RSN#Sophie Rain.--Launchballer 18:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just archived and they were fine with what was there. New reviewer needed.--Launchballer 17:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 23

[edit]

Accomplishment of Fudanshi Bartender

(
)
  • Source: Shūkan TV Guide [ja] (link): ドラマは、なる粉氏の同名コミックを原作に映像化され、2021年12月に台湾で先行放送された。
Created by Lullabying (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 63 past nominations.

lullabying (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article, created on 23 February, is long enough, new enough, well-sourced, and presentable. No copyvio issues. QPQ done. @Lullabying: This hook isn't very interesting (to me, at least). Did you have any others in mind? Tenpop421 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try my best, but this is all that I can find for now, as coverage on this series is limited. lullabying (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hook is more than adequate IMO. If everything checks out and the hook conforms to all the requirements, the DYK should not be held up any further. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @P199: I just don't see what's interesting about a Japanese show being broadcast in Taiwan first, but I'll move this forward if you could explain your perspective. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it is not the most exciting hook, but adequate. We just can't expect every hook to be amazing, especially if the article's topic is rather bland. But we should keep in mind the main principle of DYK: "we want people to see the new articles our volunteers have put time and effort into crafting." -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 25

[edit]

Inchnabobart

(
)
  • Source: ["At one point I told Gan-Gan about Ali G, the character played by Sacha Baron Cohen. I taught her to say "Booyakasha", showing her how to flick her fingers the way Sacha did. She couldn't grasp it, she had no idea what I was talking about but she had such fun trying to flick and say the word. With every repetition of that word, Booyakasha, she’d shriek which would make everyone else smile. It tickled me, it thrilled me. It made me feel … part of things". Spare (memoir), Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Penguin Group, 2024, 978-1-78222-191-3, page 79]
Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 125 past nominations.

No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough (nominated within 2 days of creation), long enough (1767 characters). AGF on offline book sources, of which there are several, which one would expect for the subject. Copyvio seems highly unlikely. There are several sentences quoted and cited appropriately from a book by Prince Harry. Tone is neutral. QPQ is done. Hook is attention-getting. It appears in the article and is cited appropriately. Per past discussions on DYK Talk, it is OK for hooks to cite primary sources. Excellent candidate for the quirky slot. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle and No Swan So Fine: I do not believe that half of the article sourced to Spare are WP:DUE, especially the trivial details of cooking, drinking, teaching catchphrases, and the quotes. Obviously, that is a problem for DYK reasons, as without them the article would be way under the DYK limit; nevertheless, I cannot promote this article in its current state. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: The details about the building's interior and how the royal family has used the building helps to bring the building to life. Point taken, however, about the footprint of the Prince Harry anecdote relative to the total real estate of the article. To address this, I have split up the overlong paragraph about the royal family's historical use of the property (which didn't really belong with the Prince Harry story about spending time there with his grandfather and great-grandmother). I've also created sections and sub-sections in the rest of the article, re-arranged some of the flow, and added a few more details from the other extensive sources cited in the article in the first place. I respect your personal wish not to promote this article, but hope that another promoter will look at the article more kindly. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine and Ravenpuff: Having recently had a back-weighted hook sink like a lead balloon at DYK, my proposal is to deliberately front-load this one. I know it doesn't read as "smoothly" as an English sentence, but for DYK hooks, the choppiness can often work in your favour, and the evidence generally points to readers preferring front-weighted hooks because otherwise it's unclear where they are supposed to click. So the revised hook I am proposing is:

Francisco Mascarenhas (Governor of Macau)

(
)
  • Source: Boxer, Fidalgos in the Far East (1948), p. 98: "On the homeward voyage, he 'ordered a gentleman of quality to be burnt to death, after finding him guilty of indulging in the unspeakable sin of sodomy'. This surely must be the only instance of an auto-da-fe at sea! Although the stake was the recognized penalty for this crime, the victim's social standing (he was a fidalgo named Francisco Pereira Pinto) got Dom Francisco into trouble, [...]"
Created by Underbar dk (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

_dk (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: New, long enough, and no paraphrasing issues. Looks GTG. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss and Underbar dk: there is a discrepancy between the certainty of the hook and the source, which by stating "This surely must be the only instance..." does not make it certain. Is better sourcing available? See the last sentence of WP:DYKDEFINITE for why it is necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fine if I added "according to historian C. R. Boxer?" to the hook? _dk (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, although that may make excessively long.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo-Ashanti War

(
)
  • ... that the Brits and Ashantis had a musical standoff during the Battle of Nsamankow?
Improved to Good Article status by Setergh (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Setergh (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC). Your hooks need to include a link to the DYK article you are nominating. Have a squiz at some of the other articles at WP:DYKN Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added it to the second one. The first more refers to a battle (which although not as detailed on the main page, technically includes it), so I don't want to use alt1. As for the second, should I do it the way I have, or should I perhaps link something like "ate the heart of Sir Charles McCarthy" instead?
    This form is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Good to go with ALT2 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled this from Queue 2 per Special:Diff/1281305560. There's some WP:CLOP to be fixed and it'll need a new reviewer. RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abseil rack

(
)
Created by Kingsmasher678 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: No - The article was first created February 17th, but discounting a one-line stub that was made then it was pubished February 25th. I am not sure if this meets the newness requirement or not.
  • Long enough: Yes

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Neither hook seems to adequately be cited by the source(s) in question. For ALT0, there seems to be no indication that rappel racks have "excellent" heat dissipation, only that more recent designs have better dissipation than older models that have poor dissipation. For ALT1, I couldn't find this claim in the source. The closest seems to be this: "Before 1956, people suffered with body rappels. In the next decade, many new ideas appeared. Since 1966, there has been no real progress in rappelling." Sourcing issued addressed for ALT2.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is interesting, but requires more work before it is eligible for WP:DYK. After that, I am inclined to request a second opinion on whether or not the article is eligible to be submitted for DYK given the date the article was first created. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sky Harbor:I think that I have corrected the problems now. If possible I would like to change the hook to "some cavers prefer the rappel rack for it's excellent heat dissipation?" Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kingsmasher678. I see the open WP:CITE tag has been addressed, which is great, but for your proposed hook (ALT2), where in the sources is this indicated so I can vet it? --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Harbor that would be in reference 4. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the source supports that hook, Kingsmasher678. This is the same source that you used to back up ALT0, and I did not see anything in the source that indicated that rappel racks are preferred for excellent heat dissipation, but I may be reading the source incorrectly. I would appreciate it if you could point me to the specific instance in the source that points to your claim since I can't seem to find it; the source seems to point out how alternatives to rappel racks have poor heat dissipation, as opposed to rappel racks having "excellent" heat dissipation. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have found another source for this, though I do feel that that is a fair extrapolation from the source provided. The new source should be in place now. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, change to "above average heat dissipation" which is certainly supported by the sources.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Sky Harbor's question: the article was not eligible as a new article. It does not matter if the original article was created as a short stub: once the article is created, the seven-day count starts ticking. However, it could be accepted as a 5x expansion, as a 5x expansion began on February 25 and was nominated on the 28th. I have no opinion on the rest of the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, I don't believe that is correct. I had the article moved from userspace on the 25th. This is explicitly addressed inWP:DYKNEW. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason it wasn't showing up as such on DYKcheck for me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's because of the usurpation, Narutolovehinata5. I don't know if the user page was created on the 17th or the 25th, but I'm inclined to believe that the page itself was created on the 17th, then Kingsmasher678 created a userspace page and had the two merged on the 25th. How is that situation addressed in the DYK guidelines?
The page existed as a redirect, and I created a userspace page on the 17th. I had that page moved to mainspace on the 25th. I had to have a page mover do it so the page editing history from my userspace followed the page. So it was created, as the rules read, on the 25th. Regardless, I expanded 5x anyway, so it's a moot point. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the review itself, I think the sourcing issue has been resolved so that has been marked accordingly, but the newness issue remains. I think a 5x expansion would work though if the newness guideline hasn't been met. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In cases of usurpation, the rules are silent, but I imagine it's still the original creation date that is considered the actual creation date regardless of any history merges, in which case 5x expansion is really the way to go here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, and given that the sourcing issue has been resolved, I think this nomination is good to go as a 5x expansion. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only reference 3 and 5 aren't self-published. Please check for that because it wastes time otherwise. SL93 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While they are self-published, the vertical museum in paticular is maintained by Dr. Gary Storrik, who has written extensively for the NSS news. He is likely the best informed person in the world when it comes to the history of Single rope technique and its general development. He was also given a certificate of merit by the NSS for this work. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 27

[edit]

Climate change in Antarctica

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by InformationToKnowledge (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Feedback
  • Any interest in cleaning up the hook: "... that between 1990 and 2020, the South Pole warmed more than three times faster than the global average?" Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through the article. I see it is labeled as {{EngvarB}}, but the English is clearly not American. Is this British, Canadian, Australian, or something else? I ask because some of the word choices, tenses, and sentences threw me for a loop. I was about to correct them when I realized this is acceptable in non-American English. Perhaps it should be labeled as such in the heading or talk page so someone like myself doesn't try to change it?
  • Some of the sources in this article are more than a decade old, making me wonder if the claims are still true. For example, in the "Temperature and weather changes" you write "some scientists continued to emphasize uncertainty", but that source is from 2015.
  • Not a fan of the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes". It has a very in medias res approach which is confusing AF. "There were fewer than twenty permanent weather stations across the continent and only two in the continent's interior." But you aren't talking about today, you are talking prior to 1981 or some other more relatively recent date at the end of the 20th century. It would help if you could fix this.
  • Another editor has stepped in to complete a review for 2024 Tallahassee tornadoes. Because you didn't offer a full review, and only made a comment about the newness and length criteria, I think you might have to do another QPQ. Not sure about this, of course, so you may want to ask elsewhere, but from what I can tell a full review of the same article was offered by User:Cremastra.
  • The climate engineering intervention sentence in the "Long-term sea level rise" section is a bit of a red flag as it vastly simplifies this kind of thought experiment and future study and fails to note that the researchers don't support it. They write: "we do not advocate for deployment of ice sheet interventions in either the short or the medium term". I think it's important to briefly note that most scientists do not believe that anything less than drastic carbon reductions now can make a difference and that loosely mentioning this sci-fi scenario is slightly misleading without the caveats. This problem has come up many times before in other topics which is why I raise it here. It's a common talking point in climate denial that technology will easily solve the problem without reducing energy use, but this is not true. This is also a popular talking point within the effective accelerationism movement, whose advocates want to use as much fossil fuel as possible to bring about AGI. They are fond of promoting these climate engineering ideas without telling people that no scientist currently believes it can work. The argument is long and complex, but these people believe that we can get away with destroying the planet in the short term to create a planetary civilization in the long term; this will in turn allow us to fix everything we've broken. I think we need to be careful here not to feed into those ideas. For a longer, more detailed explanation of this argument, see tescrealism. When you listen to these proponents carefully, except for a small minority, they generally share an antagonism towards actualizing decarbonisation, and often promote climate engineering interventions in its place.
  • On the Antarctic continent, plants are mainly found in coastal areas; the commonest plants are lichens (386 known species), followed by mosses (133 species) and ice algae, as well as liverworts (27 species). Lichens and ice algae are not plants.
  • You've got Clem et al. 2020 cited for your hook up above, but your hook seems to derive specifically from Stammerjohn & Scambos 2020, which preceded Clem et al. You've also got both cited in the article for the hook. Stammerjohn & Scambos 2020 says: "The end result is a warming rate at the South Pole during 1989–2018 more than three times the global rate (+0.6 °C per decade versus +0.2 °C per decade)", or "in the past 30 years, the South Pole has been warming at over three times the global rate". Clem at al. 2020: "Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 ± 0.34 °C per decade, more than three times the global average." Just noting this as it isn't explicit.
  • Finding a lot of issues/typos.[4] Please review.

@Viriditas: Well, I was certainly hoping for a smoother review, but I appreciate the effort invested into this. If you don't mind, it'll probably take me another day or two to start responding to this in detail - not in the least so that I can find another QPQ, where I could invest the same kind of effort. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the same thing happened to me on a QPQ about a month ago and I had to find another one right quick. One way to prevent that from happening is to use the review template in the header and to put question marks in that areas that are unknown and then mention in the review that it is still in progress and you haven't yet finished. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Review
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: Promoted to GA (new and long enough); sourced, neutral, and plagiarism-free; hook is cited and interesting, I think it could benefit from an image of a graph showing the warming, but it would have to be zoomed in to work; others may disagree. Could a different image work? I don't know. I made a list of issues in the article up above in the feedback section, although I fixed most of them. I would recommend that you review my changes to make sure I didn't accidentally mess anything up. I would be happier if you were able to fix the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes" as I specified in the feedback up above, as it really doesn't work for me. We're just waiting on a new QPQ to move forward and perhaps a slight fix to the hook, otherwise I think we are pretty close to done. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas: thanks for your review here! I fixed one error with your ce. In terms of an image on temperature rise, it's tough to find a good one, and I believe the current image is a better representation of the topic. I did finally find a recent paper on the temperature rise (see Figure 3), which might be useable for the first paragraph. I'm happy to help copyedit a bit if ITK doesn't return to editing. My fingers are itching to make the lead shorter too, as its 600 words are a bit intimidating to me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree with you about the lead. I am also happy to donate a QPQ if that is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The literature on temperature seems a bit contradictory, so I've asked the author of the above study to clarify if there is now consensus on how much temperatures have gone up, if it has gone up at all.. There is an issue with failed verification in the paragraph you suggested I copyedit, so I'll see first what ITK thinks. That section can be shortened if we dwell less on very old debates, and more on the current knowledge around temperature changes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed to a QPQ donation, largely because we need to help ITK learn how to do full reviews and gain reviewing experience. QPQ donations should really used sparingly and only for exceptional cases where the nominator can't do a QPQ for exceptional reasons (for example, multi-article hooks with several bolded links). Donating a QPQ at this stage would prevent ITK from gaining the experience needed to make their future reviews more complete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the original nominator remains MIA, assuming Femke is willing to adopt the nomination, we can probably wait a few days to see if Femke will address the concerns. Otherwise, this will be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose closing this as stale since the nom has only been open for several weeks, not several months. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:DYKTIMEOUT talks about two months, it is part of reviewer discretion to mark for closure nominations that do not have a reasonable path forward, even if two months have yet to pass. Often, the nominator being inactive without another editor being willing to adopt the nomination can count as such. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry. If you like, you can start a discussion on the main talk page for outside input. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 28

[edit]

Jimena Sánchez (queen)

(
)
  • Source: Margarita Torres Sevilla and José Miguel Ortega del Río, Kings of the Grail: Tracing the Historica Journey of the Holy Grail from Jerusalem to Spain (Michael O'Mara Books, 2015), p. 100.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Inner Cambodia
  • Comment: The source I offer is (a) accessible online, (b) in English and (c) written by experts in medieval Spanish royalty and nobility, so the highly questionable thesis of the book is not, I think, relevant to it as RS.
Created by Mychele Trempetich (talk) and Srnec (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

Srnec (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • At a glance everything looks sourced (will do a spotcheck soon enough) but is this hook really interesting? It boils down in my eyes to "a king took power and arranged a marriage" at first glance. I think either making it clear that the king was out of power and adding chronological context would be great, or having another fact from the article as hook - the one that stood out to me in the article was the length of the prose about her tomb - there's probably a good hook to be made in there somewhere. Departure– (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that by the 13th century, Spanish chroniclers knew neither the correct name nor parentage of Jimena Sánchez, the queen of León from 1035 to 1037?
  • Source: Jaime de Salazar y Acha, "Una hija desconocida de Sancho el Mayor, reina de León", Príncipe de Viana, Anejo 8 (1988): 183 and 185: "casi olvidada por la documentación. El error de los cronistas posteriores y su lápida sepulcral en León, han producido el desconocimiento de su auténtica filiación. . . Los cronistas del siglo XIII ... aseveran ... [lo] que es a todas luces erróneo a la vista de la documentación, en cuanto al nombre de la reina ... y los historiadores posteriores, tranquilizados por esta coincidencia, no han vuelto a poner en cuestión la filiación de nuestro personaje."
  • ALT2: ... that only a fragment survives of the tomb in the Basilica of San Isidoro belonging to Queen Jimena Sánchez (1035–1037), which once had an effigy and two epitaphs?
  • Comment: Could take out "in the Basilica of San Isidoro" and link tomb effigy and epitaph instead.
  • @Srnec: I don't speak much Spanish, but Hook 2 (the one I'm looking at) comes out a bit incoherent when translated. From my understanding, it's something along the lines of "Early chroniclers were incorrect about Sanchez's name, but later historians have full confidence as to her parentage". Is this on the path of being right? It nearly verifies the hook, I just want to double check that's what I'm reading. Other than that it's ready to go. Departure– (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would put it differently. Later chroniclers were incorrect about her name and her father's name, but modern historians are certain about the former and confident about the latter. It was difficult to come up with a wording to express this. A possible rewording below. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that both the name of the queen of León from 1035 to 1037 and the identity of her parents had been forgotten by the 13th century, although recorded in contemporary documents?
  • Source: Salazar y Acha, p. 189. The document of 1062 refers to "Queen Jimena his [Ferdinand's] sister". The documents of Vermudo III cited in the article call his queen Jimena.
Pulled per WT:DYK.--Launchballer 05:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: So what is the problem? Srnec (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 2

[edit]

Betsy Arakawa

(
)
Moved to mainspace by PrinceArchelaus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 283 past nominations.

Launchballer 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

No, and I wouldn't have thought that was a problem. Articles are only disqualified if they appear as a boldlink and Arakawa was never boldlinked there.--Launchballer 18:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I wasn't talking about a disqualification, I just thought it might attract flack as gratuitous, as the ITN blurb did. BLP does apply to the recently dead, and to focus on the particularly unpleasant death of the pair seems unfair to this talented couple. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to do some actual research into her.--Launchballer 18:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much information on her. She was a private person and died a sudden natural death caused by illness, which is not a noteworthy fact, and Hackman subsequently died essentially from old age, being 95, i.e. from a heart condition, which is even less noteworthy, and the fact that they died seven days apart during which period he did not call anyone because he did not comprehend the situation due to his advanced Alzheimer's is also exactly what anyone* (* anyone who knows what Alzheimer's disease is and what it means to be 95 years old with advanced Alzheimers) would expect to happen under the circumstances. Therefore, the hook fails WP:DYKGRAT. It is not unusual or intriguing and it is gratuitous.—Alalch E. 22:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E. Launchballer there's an ongoing AfD discussion about this article. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to know for sure, but it doesn't look like the article will be deleted. @Launchballer: I'm not a fan of ALT0 based on what Alach E. wrote above. Can you offer another one? Up above, Alalch says Arakawa was a private person and her death isn't noteworthy, but I disagree with them on that point. Exposure to hantavirus is rare, but New Mexico has had the highest number of hantavirus cases recorded since 1993.[5] Further, our article on the effects of climate change on hantavirus suggests that climate change in New Mexico may be partly to blame. For me, the rarity of Arakawa's death due to hantavirus is notable and should form the basis of the new hook. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS is well out of my comfort zone, but I can suggest ALT1: ... that Betsy Arakawa died of a rare disease passed from rodents? I can also suggest, per a tip-off at the AfD, ALT2: ... that after Betsy Arakawa died, Snopes debunked a rumor involving the FBI discovering 701 bodies in a tunnel under her house?--Launchballer 13:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the ALT2 claim from the article, consistent with the rationale in my edit summary.—Alalch E. 16:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit. For those not familiar with what is happening, the QAnon disinformation effort mines science fiction for ideas and then adapts it to modern news stories to use as propaganda against so-called liberals. The "underground tunnels" idea began with Mole people in fiction. During the COVID-19 pandemic, pro-MAGA QAnon-related social media accounts (some homegrown, some connected to foreign nations) began to spread the idea that the pandemic was a cover story for saving the "mole children" in underground tunnels. As always, liberals and democrats were the antagonists in these tales. Gene Hackman was a famous supporter of the Democratic Party. It is not surprising to see the same QAnon conspiracy theories about underground tunnels being found under his house after his death. This is part of a larger disinformation campaign by the pro-Trump wing injecting an infodemic of false information into the media on a daily basis, or what they refer to as "flooding the zone". There are earlier antecedents to this kind of thing in the right wing literature focused on conspiracy theories in United States politics. While the more modern version is focused on the exploitation of children in underground tunnels, Mother Jones traces it back to 1980s conservatism and the Satanic panic.[6] It also resurfaced in the 1990s as part of the right wing underground bases conspiracy theory (see Dulce Base), which was traced back to old science fiction stories created by Richard Sharpe Shaver in the 1940s. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was kept at AfD and this DYK nomination needs a complete review from the top. (Struck ALT2 per discussion above). Full credit will be awarded to the reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... ミラP@Miraclepine 00:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approved at AFC seven days before nom and sized at 3060 B; ITN/R appearance doesn't disqualify. Everything is verified and RS; did minor edits for close paraphrasing. Unless there are objections, I had to add a ref from the Gene Hackman page to fix a V issue. Oh, and ALT0 is relatively too in poor taste I agree, so we're going with ALT1 per what Viriditas said. BTW ref 7 notes she was a Punahou School graduate, but consider this optional. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Struck ALT0 so there is no confusion. Added Punahou School and other details from in-depth article in El País which refers to her as "Mrs. Hackman" throughout (the name she went by in real life). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Over the course of this DYK nomination, I have somehow become the #2 contributor to this article, but personally I am against running this article at DYK at this time. With nearly 700k pageviews to date, it has managed to generate enough readership on its own. Furthermore, despite the expansion and the fact that it has survived an AfD discussion, it seems to continue to provoke a negative response from readers who keep tagging it for deletion. I did not !vote in the AfD discussion as I was ambivalent initially; I now think the article does satisfy WP:GNG but that the article remains "unstable" and for that reason does not meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE. (Also, while memorialization of notable individuals is important, perhaps it's also OK to let people rest in peace.) (That said, I won't object if there's enough consensus to move forward with this DYK.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share Cielquiparle's concerns. Adding a question mark because there doesn't seem to be consensus to promote at this time. Tenpop421 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is stable and technically passes the criteria; I can't agree that it isn't stable. However, "X died of a rare disease passed from rodents" goes against my moral sense as indelicate and ... irreverent. I just don't like it.—Alalch E. 16:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should calm down in its own time. As for the hook, ALT3: ... that Betsy Arakawa studied with Barack Obama? or ALT4: ... that Betsy Arakawa's house was once featured in Architectural Digest?--Launchballer 11:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say that I support ALT3, but that statement is not explicitly made in the article. It is only said that she went to the same school, not "studied with Obama". She and Obama did attend the same school during partially overlapping periods, but this isn't stated explicitly in the source(s).
No opinion on ALT4.—Alalch E. 15:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3a that Betsy Arakawa went to the same school as Barack Obama? Does that work better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For sure it is better than ALT3 but it is just another example of Betsy ostensibly deriving notability from a notable man who happens not to be Gene. (It's a Forrest Gump hook!) Still think we should just close this out rather than fan another round of AfD discussion. Lots of energy from a lot of people went into improving the article so far. Don't poke the bear. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ALT4 would be a suitable compromise? At least that hook doesn't link Arakawa to another person and is actually about her. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was a decisive keep. This isn't going anywhere.--Launchballer 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 7

[edit]

James Nwoye Adichie

(
)
Created by SafariScribe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @SafariScribe: The article is new enough and long enough. No copyvio detected. QPQ done. The hook is interesting but I don't see in the source where it says he was the first person in Nigeria to have a PhD in statistics? The source says he was "the second person to obtain a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of California and the first Nigerian to do so." The source makes it sound like he was first Nigerian to get a PhD in statistics specifically from that college. Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC "first to do X as a Y" hooks are generally frowned upon in the DYK community. Bremps... 15:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know Bremps left that comment above about "first to do X as a Y" hooks but I still think it's kind of interesting. Others can disagree if they want. Also, were there anymore details on his kidnapping or no? The article doesn't explain why he was kidnapped. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 9

[edit]

Alex Garfin

(
)
  • ... that five-year-old actor Alex Garfin had his hair and eyebrows dyed blonde to play a Russian spy-in-training?
  • Source: "Alexander Garfin," TV Insider. "By five, he was playing a very young Russian spy in training in the Angelina Jolie movie "Salt" (2010) for which the five-year-old actor had his hair and eyebrows dyed blonde.'"
  • Reviewed: Festungshaft
  • Comment: Nominated on behalf of an IP editor, who usually also provides the QPQ, but they have forgotten this time. This is their reminder :-)

The history is a bit convoluted and to save you the bother trying to decipher this, here's what has happened: the article was created in draft space, didn't pass an AfC, but some editor moved it to mainspace anyway (28 Jul 2022), it was moved back into draft space within an hour, and eventually deleted (27 Dec 2024). Upon request, the bio was restored to draft space (14 Feb 2025), expanded by the IP, and accepted through AfC yesterday, when it was moved to mainspace.

Thariqziyad wrote a chunk of content back in April 2022, hence I shall include them as one of the authors.

Moved to mainspace by Schwede66 (talk), Thariqziyad (talk), and 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C22:2CD8:7276:F08B (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 170 past nominations.

Schwede66 22:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Not only is the Filmography section completely unreferenced, there are two tags that need to be resolved. I don't know if it's an issue with my computer but this reference just shows the subject's name followed by Biography with no details. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As to the refs, I've added them to the tables .. good catch. All were previously in the text, but some had been deleted. As to the tv guide ref .. try googling tvguide.com alex garfin. As to the tags, an editor seems to have thought I was someone I wasn't - who was blocked. And templated and deleted material as a result of that mistaken belief. I expect that will sort out. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B988:8BEF:5DBE:59F6 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the editor above was dissatisfied with the fact that the TV Guide source did not present sufficient WP:SIGCOV of Garfin. About the deletions I've made, I only removed sourced content that were WP:COPYVIOs, which you should watch out for a little more. Also, you indeed are not blocked from Wikipedia, if you are who I think you are. Badbluebus (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the source shows white space minus the title. It works under a Google search for some reason. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Progressive Party

(
)
5x expanded by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 427 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new enough, long enough, and cited to reliable sources throughout. No copyright violations detected. QPQ has been done. Hook fact is verifiable, but is dreadfully dull. Attending a United Nations session/event isn't particularly surprising or interesting. UN events around the world routinely attract a global audience of diplomats, political leaders, activists, educators, academics, and even on occasion celebrities. This is not unusual in any way, or surprising. It would be like saying scientist goes to science conference, and in this case is literally political party attends committee meeting (which is what politicians and political activists routinely do). We need a different and more interesting hook. Please ping me when a new hook is proposed.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing the bigger picture here. The 4th Committee is the UN Committee on decolonization, which oversaw many of the transfers from European colonial powers to independent states. Belize as of 1977-1978 was still a British colony, that was at stake was whether Belize would remain a colony, become an independent state or be annexed by Guatemala. The fact that the Guatemalan government sponsored a proxy group in southern Belize, to legitimize its territorial claims, is interesting. There could be other ways to phrase the hook, but this is the key factoid of relevance here. --Soman (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman Sorry about the delayed response. Please ping me when you respond so I know you have replied. In response to your thoughts, I take your point about context. However, the geopolitical context is not at all clear in the hook fact and isn't likely to become clear to a wider audience within a short hook format. If you have to explain the context to get why something is hooky (which you would in this case) than you have failed the WP:DYKINT criteria. This hook is only interesting if one has specialized knowledge about the British colonial empire's activities in South/Central America, the history of Belize and its relationship to Guatemala as well as knowledge about the UN's 4th Committee, and within the specific time period of international politics in 1977-1978. This is way too complicated for the general reader to interpret, and the average person (ie someone like myself) isn't going to connect those dots outside of the article where it can be contextualized. You've got to pick a hook that's interesting and understandable without someone being familiar with the topic area and its context. I'm not seeing how this idea is workable even with modifications, its way too complicated and requires too much background knowledge to be usable. Find something else, because this isn't going to work.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 "... that in the years leading up to the independence of Belize, the Guatemalan government sponsored a small party to legitimize its territorial claims?" --Soman (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 10

[edit]

Sobrevivendo no Inferno

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The album was a whole was included at this vestibular exam and not a specific track.
5x expanded by Cathodography (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Cattos💭 18:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 12

[edit]

Hebrew Free Loan Society of New York

(
)
5x expanded by Alansohn (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 58 past nominations.

Alansohn (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: not a review, but I notice that the hook is sourced to a medium blog, which in turn cites the HFLS itself? There are a few other cites to the HFLS for content that's not necessarily non-controversial. I'll leave it to the nominator and reviewer to work out whether that's fine or if it needs to be changed, but I thought I'd bring it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. In addition, the hook as currently written even sounds promotional, as if it's promoting the subject like an advertisement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not the nom, but perhaps "...that the Hebrew Free Loan Society of New York was founded to "fight the age old prejudice that all Jews were usurers""? Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani (song)

(
)
  • Source: "On the Billboard Philippines Hot 100, dated July 27, 2024, the multicultural, multilingual P-pop boy group have made a re-entry with their fan-favorite track 'Maharani' taking the No. 95 spot. 'Maharani' first ranked on the same chart at No. 80 during the week of July 6 — the week of the chart’s debut — helping P-pop dominate its rankings alongside the likes of Maki and BINI. To date, Alamat are the only P-pop boy group that have managed to enter the premier music chart’s rankings." Source: https://billboardphilippines.com/market/chart-beat/alamat-re-enter-the-billboard-philippines-hot-100-with-maharani/
  • Reviewed:
Created by Bloomagiliw (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Bloomagiliw (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Bloomagiliw: Long enough, new enough. Earwig is clean and QPQ is unnecessary. I see no reason why this might warrant a maintenance template. The hook is cruising for a pruning per WP:DYKTRIM but the meat of it doesn't check out; the hook puts the claim in wikivoice while the article attributes.--Launchballer 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 13

[edit]

Caccothryptus

(
)
  • ... that the species of the beetle genus Caccothryptus are mainly distinguished by their genitals?
  • Source: Hernando & Ribera 2014, pp. 281, 303–304. Hernando, Carles; Ribera, Ignacio (2014). "Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Caccothryptus Sharp (Coleoptera: Limnichidae)" (PDF). Koleopterologische Rundschau. 84. ISSN 0075-6547.
Improved to Good Article status by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 112 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Long enough, GA-ed recently enough (we'll call it a baker's seven days), QPQ looks fine. No image, only one in the article is CC BY 4.0. Article is neutral, well-sourced, no other glaring issues. I spotchecked against Hernando & Ribera 2014 and 2017, and Sharp for copyvio and source-text integrity. No major issues, though my fact checking turned up a possible misstatement: I'm correct in my reading that Sharp compared Caccothryptus as a whole, not just C. compactus, to Euthryptus? For ease of reference, the book says "This genus has an extreme resemblance in appearance and in most of its characters to the Central American Enthryptus" while the article says "He described the species as the "largest and most remarkable of the Limnichini" and noted their close resemblance to the Central American genus Euthryptus".
    Hook is interesting - though I just want to ask two questions. The paper says "based on external and genital characters" (pg 281) and that the authors justified the classification of new species, despite the limited sample size, due to "differences both in external morphology and the male genitalia" (pg 303). These distinctions obviously appear mostly reliant on differences in the aedeagus and parameres - but in the text, the authors don't call attention to that and, in fact, have gone even further and implied some form of equality between the "external morphology and the male genitalia" with the use of "both". Are you fine defending it if somebody drags that to errors, or would you like to reword? Second question - the discovery of new species means that the 2014 paper is technically outdated. The article shows this with tense and the verb "classify", hook doesn't. Are you okay with rewording it to match the article a bit more, or bringing in a newer source? Feel free to tell me if I'm being too nit-picky. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GreenLipstickLesbian: Oh my goodness, I forgot to respond! Thank you very much for your detailed review. I think. Good point on the Sharp thing; fixed. I think a reword of the hook is in order, since you're correct on that too:
  • ALT1: ... that the classification of species in the beetle genus Caccothryptus was primarily based on their genitals?05:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 15

[edit]

Transgender health care misinformation

(
)
Map of US state laws regarding trans healthcare access for youth as of March 8, 2025 based on data from Movement Advancement Project
Map of US state laws regarding trans healthcare access for youth as of March 8, 2025 based on data from Movement Advancement Project
Improved to Good Article status by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  1. The hook fact is sourced to a press release from the Endocrine Society, which means it is a self-published expert primary source.
  2. A close reading of the press release indicates that the exact wording is slightly different from the hook. It says: "Although the scientific landscape has not changed significantly, misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized. In the United States, 24 states have enacted laws or policies barring adolescents’ access to gender-affirming care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In seven states, the policies also include provisions that would prevent at least some adults over age 18 from accessing gender-affirming care."
  3. The hook fact should adhere as close as possible to the source. I wonder if you can find other secondary sources to support the current wording of the hook or if you can rewrite it for parity. Attribution might also be needed.
  4. I like the hook image, but the caption is too long, and the legend (key) is too small. I wonder if there is a way to convey this info in a brief caption
More later. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Thank you! My apologies for missing your reply, unsure why I never got the notification. Responding to your points
1) which means it is a self-published expert primary source - I think this characterization is innacurate. Self-published refers to things like Twitter and Medium, not statements from international medical organizations. Per WP:MEDORG/WP:MEDASSESS it's a good source and per WP:MEDDEF A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences while A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include ... medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations so this is secondary.
2) The wording was based on discussions with Starship.paint for the last DYK nom - I'm open to changing it but unsure how. The source later says Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment. Banning evidence-based medical care based on misinformation takes away the ability of parents and patients to make informed decisions. The Endocrine Society's been consistent with saying these bans are based on misinfo, in 2023 saying Due to widespread misinformation about medical care for transgender and gender-diverse teens, 18 states have passed laws or instituted policies banning gender-affirming care. ... Some policies are even restricting transgender and gender-diverse adults’ access to care. These policies do not reflect the research landscape.[7] The reason the hook says trans healthcare misinfo is "one factor" is SP argued they were not taking the position these bans are always based on misinfo (I argued they were). I suggested citing the ES to say such bans are based on misinfo and another source to say how many bans exist currently, but SP said this would be SYNTH. Your call how to best reword this!
3) Per 2 I'm down to change the wording and per 1 I don't think attribution is needed. Perhaps something like U.S. states have banned gender-affirming care for minors based on transgender health care misinformation and over 20 states have implemented such bans?
4) Thanks, made it myself! Could the caption be US state laws on trans healthcare access for youth with bans marked in shades of red and shield laws marked in blue or US state laws on trans healthcare access for youth - most restrictive (dark red) to most protected (dark blue)?
Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The Endocrine Society has their clinical practice guidelines posted here and their position statements listed here. The source we are discussing is neither a clinical practice guideline nor a position statement, it is a press release. A press release is "considered a primary source, meaning they are original informants for information". WP:V, footnote 1: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases..." I should note that many position statements are often posted in a journal.[8][9][10][11] To be clear, I agree with the statement in the press release that says "misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized", and I acknowledge that a position statement or clinical practice guideline isn't likely to deal with it, however, this topic did come up during the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in many peer-reviewed articles about misinformation and politicization. Likewise, Meredithe McNamara has studied this closely.[12][13] I'm guessing that ES is referring to the work of McNamara et al. but in the form of a press release, this is all a bit opaque. I should note that most of the MED source guidelines say to avoid press releases, so I'm a bit confused by this. I will pass this on to someone else as I generally avoid press releases for hooks, even if I agree with them, and I think the sourcing should be tightened up a bit. Given that McNamara et al. is so prolific, this seems like it should be easy to do. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: No problem! I don't think the ES was directly referring to McNamara et al but more so the wave of anti-trans laws. However, I did find a better source / hook if you want to consider that instead of dealing with the question of using a press release! that due to transgender health care misinformation, over 20 states in the United States have banned gender-affirming care for transgender minors since 2021? [14] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer requested. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seeing as I have a more in depth knowledge on this article, I will give it a DYK review.


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I do see the issues that the other reviewer mentioned. I can see where they are coming from but because this hook is not biomedical info it doesn't require as strict of sources. If I remember correctly, press releases can be used as RS If used cautiously. I think using a press release from a reliable society and the fact that is stating things that can be easily verified (as in the policy changes and that misinformation has played a role) makes it appropriate here. I do not think that the image is clear at 100px due to the legend. I would support this hook without the image. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: I appreciate all the time you've devoted to this, but please read WP:DYKRR: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed good article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK)." Since you passed Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA3, we need a new reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I didn't know this and had reviewed DYK hooks for article I reviewed in the past. Good to know this moving forward, thank you! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 00:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the image, could we proclaim "skill issue" and just crop the image to only a map and then make the caption "states with stricter bans are colored more red"? I'd prefer brevity, but we could also add "gender-affirming care" before "bans" and "and stronger shield laws more blue" to the end of that caption if needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 16

[edit]

Barbeque Nation

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Previously nominated in 2012, which was rejected, and the article was eventually deleted due to its promotional tone (which is why there is a 2 in this page).
Moved to mainspace by TNM101 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TNM101 (chat) 17:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a solid and well-sourced article, TNM101. It was created in 13 March and submitted for nomination on 18 March, within the 7-day period. The hook is interesting and backed by source. Earwig shows no copyvio. QPQ not required. I spotchecked sources 6 and 9. Source 9 is fine, but source 6 (the Sydney Morning Herald article) seems to be about a restaurant in Australia, while the article states that the chain only operates in India, the UAE, Malaysia, and Oman, so I am not sure if this source is referring to the same restaurant. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 09:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, that might be my mistake. I made this article in a bit of a hurry (not paid) so I think I just used the source without thinking. I'll fix that tomorrow TNM101 (chat) 18:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sasradilaga rebellion

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Juxlos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 240 past nominations.

Juxlos (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Review:
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - See above RE bojonegorokab.go.id.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: RE plagiarism, I'm assuming good faith RE the Dutch and Indonesian texts. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Voorts: Related to the Saleh Djamhari 2002 source: the author was a lecturer of history at the University of Indonesia; and the source is his PhD dissertation. He later developed it into a reference book although I did not have access to it, hence using the thesis. Carey (2015) cites the source here and there especially as a source for the later phases of the war. On the Bojonegoro source - that's the municipal government's website. Anyways, looking it up some more; I found a Dutch-language journal talking about the name change, so used that instead. Juxlos (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow-class oil tanker

(
)
Arrow-class oil tanker Japan Arrow in 1929
Arrow-class oil tanker Japan Arrow in 1929
  • ... that during World War II, the name of an Arrow-class oil tanker, SS Japan Arrow, was changed by the American government to, "avoid any unfortunate association of ideas"?
  • Source:

"In February 1942, after Pearl Harbor, Japan Arrow was renamed American Arrow, to avoid any unfortunate association of ideas." https://www.aukevisser.nl/mobil/id636.htm
"..as Japan Arrow (later renamed American Arrow).." https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/chotauk.html

    • Reviewed:

Created by PhoenixCaelestis (talk) and GGOTCC (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

PhoenixCaelestis • Talk • Contributions 11:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Nearest two citations are several sentences away, and neither seem to contain this quote. Also, the quote itself isn't in the article, though a close paraphrase is.
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Overall a well-done article, and the hook citation issue can presumably be fixed quickly, but I am seriously concerned about whether "Auke Visser's MOBIL Tankers & Tugs Site" is an WP:RS. A self-published source like would be acceptable if they were a subject matter expert, but I can't find any evidence of that. Rusalkii (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: Japan Arrow has an entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [[17]] that states that it was renamed in February 1942, however it does not specify the reason. Due to the time period and the events, I do not think it is a stretch to say it was due to the fact that America was now at war with Japan. I'd be willing to rephrase the hook to remove the quote. Perhaps as, "that to avoid association with the enemy during World War II, the name of the Arrow-class oil tanker, SS Japan Arrow, was changed by the American government?" Just a thought for a possible reword. Thanks for taking the time to examine the DYK nomination! PhoenixCaelestis • Talk • Contributions 19:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhoenixCaelestis: The issue isn't with just the hook, it's how heavily the article in general relies on this source. Rusalkii (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Men's T20 World Cup

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Vestrian24Bio (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Vestrian24Bio 04:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 17

[edit]

Computer Mah-jong Yakuman

(
)
Created by RickyCourtney (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

RickyCourtney (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 19

[edit]

Carroll E. Stansbury

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Queen of Hearts (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

charlotte 👸♥ 01:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Nice work, looks good. New enough, long enough. I don't have access to Baltimore County Police, 1874–1999 but will AGF you didn't plagiarize from it and that it supports the hook. QPQ is good.
  • The main concern is hook interestingness. This isn't a fact about Stansbury, this is a fact about Some Other Guy, and it's not even directly tied to Stansbury (e.g. the article doesn't say Stansbury undermined Meyer and drove him out or the like). Temporary successors are very common. I would suggest that a hook on assigning officers to combat chicken theft, or him smoking a pipe called "Sherlock Holmes" to solve crimes (not in the article, but it's in the obituary), might be random-reader friendlier facts. Happy to draw up some suggested hooks if you'd like, or can wait on other hook suggestions. SnowFire (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nun danket alle Gott (Pachelbel)

(
)
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 2138 past nominations.

Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I want to review this. I'll swing back here when I have a few extra minutes later today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks to be in order: the article is long enough, profusely sourced with RSs, has no copyright issues, and is written well. The only sticking point I have is that the hook is not what I would consider the most interesting fact. However, there's definitely some stuff to play with here. Perhaps something about its at least 21 editions? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please word a suggestion, or perhaps mentioning that it took until 1954 to even get published. On the jump to travel all weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbritti: How about:
ALT1 ... that Pachebel's motet Nun danket alle Gott has had 21 editions published?
ALT2 ... that although Johann Pachelbel was mainly active in the 17th century, his motet Nun danket alle Gott was only first published in 1954?
ALT3 ... that although Johann Pachelbel served as a church musician in Erfurt between 1678 to 1690, his motet Nun danket alle Gott was only first published in 1954?
ALT3a ... that although Johann Pachelbel served as a church musician in Erfurt, Germany between 1678 to 1690, his motet Nun danket alle Gott was only first published in 1954?
The article also has a typo: it says he was a church musician from 1678 to 1790; the latter is obviously supposed to be 1690. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the typo, and you could have done it. Not in the mood for hook thinking. Please say motet for double choir, that's rare, and he wrote only ten of those (but hundreds of other pieces, mostly keaboard). If anything about Pachelbel, perhaps a reminder of the infamous Canon. My idea of a hook was to inform that Pachelbel wrote more than the canon, and this piece is highly unusual combining a Bible text with a song derived from that same text. Better wording always welcome. Not being published for centuries is a fate this piece has in common with thousand others, nothing special about this piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5, and sorry for the slower response. I'm going to approve all hooks (the alts look good to go) and leave this to the discretion of the promoter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Thanks for the response. However, given your original review, are you still approving ALT0, or are you suggesting not to use that hook anymore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I'm approving ALT0 as my concern about the degree of interest is a subjective one and I think a promoter could reasonably disagree with me. All the hooks, including the initial one, meet the relevant criteria. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! For what it's worth, I would have to agree that the original hook is niche at best and probably too reliant on specialist information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pbritti, what do you think of this:
ALT4: ... that Nun danket alle Gott, one of Johann Pachelbel's ten motets for double choir, sets a Biblical passage of thanks followed by a famous hymn on the same passage?
Help with wording always welcome. None of the ALTs is specific to this piece. Where he worked (not even a well-known place) and when it was published (not even unusual) is nice to know but not essential to this unique composition which shows the creator's interests and way of thinking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I don't understand. You say "help with wording is always welcome," or that you are asking for suggestions and even asking for wordings that involve particular details (for example the 1954 one). However, when such suggestions are given, you reject them even when they include the detail or details you ask for. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for ALT4, it would probably not be the best idea to run it. We've run similar to hooks to it before about other hymns, with similar wordings, and they tended to do poorly among our readership. I cannot imagine ALT4 doing the same. While there's no guarantee ALT1-ALT3 would do spectacularly either, I imagine they would still have a broader appeal and thus better readership. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall a single double choir motet that combines Bible text with a hymn based on the same. - "double choir" was my first wish, and is defining information about this piece, showing its complexity in two words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explicitly struck the original hook and ALT4: it is hard to imagine anything less interesting than a specifically numbered biblical passage, and even less the vague description "of thanks". ALT1 also fails: 21 editions without context is not sufficiently interesting in and of itself. I think the best shot at an interesting hook is that a composer who'd been born in the mid-1600s had a work first published in 1954 that has gone through 21 editions.
    • ALT5: ... that Pachebel's double-choir motet Nun danket alle Gott was first published 301 years after his birth, and has had 21 editions?
    • ALT5a: ... that Pachebel's double-choir motet Nun danket alle Gott was first published 248 years after his death, and was given 21 editions in 54 years?
  • These would require adding Pachelbel's dates to the article, if people like the juxtaposition of long delay and subsequent popularity; I also thought including "double-choir" was worthwhile. There would also have to be an explicit statement that the Bärenreiter edition was the first, which comes from the linked Foreword in ref 5 (Carus-Verlag published their edition in 1967, per the copyright notice on it); strictly speaking, we only know the number of editions as being 21 for the Bärenreiter; the Carus Verlag can't be included in the count because we have no data on it beyond a copyright in 1967 and its renewal in 1992 on the first page of one edition I found online. ALT5 is a modest 127 characters; ALT5a is 141. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for thinking and looking into it. I am sorry to see that we will not be able to say what is specific to this interesting piece, vs. the simple setting of a few verses from a psalm in two other of his double choir motets. (I tried "of thanks" as an indication of the topic which the German title carries. If we'd give the full translation "Now thank we all our God", people halfway informed would think of the hymn, but no: first he set the original Bible text, and only then also the hymn, in a format I have not met elsewhere.) All three motets have in common that we don't even know when they were composed, that they were not published until long after he died, and then became rather popular. Of Pachelbel, we know only when he was baptised and buried, - can we still simply give the years in brackets, knowing that the custom at the time was to baptise children asap? (1653-1706) then? Should we speak of birth or death when we don't know them exactly? - We could avoid the counting problem if we said Bärenreiter specifically. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the issues that BlueMoonset raised will need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I slept over this. It's a spirited piece, of thanks. If all we may say about it is numbers and calculations irrelevant to the work, I believe we fail the composers intentions, and I better withdraw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 21

[edit]

Rika Hayashi

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Miraclepine (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 78 past nominations.

ミラP@Miraclepine 02:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was moved into mainspace within the first 7 days of nomination. Article has more than 1,500 characters in prose. Article is properly sourced. Earwig picked up an unlikely copyright violation of 2.9%, as most of the article's sources are in Japanese. Any similarities picked up are titles of shows Hayashi was in. A QPQ is done. The hook is interesting and sourced. Currently, the article takes on a promotional tone as it talks in depth about how she did not know what Tonbo! was but later read to the latest chapter, which isn't something notable to list as part of career. In addition, her hobbies seem to be promotional and are not notable. lullabying (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying: Just noting that I have acknowledged the issue. I am currently busy on family vacation and can't immediately reach my laptop atm, so I can't reply until tomorrow at the least (and even then I’m not really sure when—afternoon or evening?), but I’ll try to address the issue at my best convenience. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lullabying: And I'm back. Well, I'm pretty sure the "didn't know about Tonbo" part would fit in the work's production page, but yeah I've removed it and the other just to be safe. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Monument (Philadelphia)

(
)
Washington Monument
Washington Monument
Converted from a redirect by Zeete (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 52 past nominations.

Zeete (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - My favorite is the last one, but while I don't think it's so uninteresting to reject I don't find it that engaging. How do you feel about using something like "...that Philadelphia's Washington Monument (pictured) includes a man killing an alligator with a trident?" ? The alligator + trident immediately stood out to me while reading the article, though I'm not sure if "killing" is appropriate since you've got "having killed" and this may need to be rephrased. If you hate this hook or possible variants I'm willing to approve ALT2 as is or review some other ideas.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Rusalkii (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zeete (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Will need another reviewer to approve the hook, since I suggested it. Rusalkii (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribati at the 2024 Summer Paralympics, Ongiou Timeon

( Comment or view )
5x expanded by Arconning (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

Arconning (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 22

[edit]

Fred Verity

(
)
Fred Verity
Fred Verity
  • ... that the ironmonger and inventor Fred Verity and his brother won first prize for machinery at Long Sutton Agricultural Show?
  • ALT1: ... that the ironmonger and inventor Fred Verity and his brother won the "highest prize for building appliances" at the International Inventions Exhibition? Source: Verity, Fred (1897). Fred Verity & Son, builders' catalogue (5 ed.). Leeds: Whitehead & Miller Ltd. See Wikimedia Commons: Category:Fred Verity for pictures of the medals.
  • ALT2: ... that Fred Verity and colleagues invented an automatic pivot or bearing for looking glasses? Source: "English patents". Burnley Express. 13 December 1884. p. 6 col.4. Retrieved 26 February 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.: "English Patents ... Edwin Verity and Joshua Marland Verity and Benjamin Banks, all of Leeds, for an automatic pivot or bearing, for looking glasses and other similarly pivoted articles; dated 17th July 1884".
  • Reviewed: Found manuscript
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace on 22 March 2025
Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 112 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 23

[edit]

2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado

(
)
Damaged homes after the 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado
Damaged homes after the 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado
Improved to Good Article status by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm guessing you're new to DYK, but for the record, you should probably inform the creator / improving editor that got the article eligible for DYK - in this case, @EF5:. We could extend this a few hours past the 7-day limit for DYK, given the GA nomination on March 23, but neither of the hooks seem to me to pass WP:DYKINT - tornado damage is quite often compared to "like a war zone" - and I don't think having only two hooks, one referencing Palestine and another referencing destruction is the best taste. I'm nearly certain the original hook meant to say "formed near" instead of dissipated - Palestine is, yes, both a relatively common place name and a literal geographic place, but the tornado dissipated near Sullivan. Both sources are inadequate to my liking - the first was likely an April 1 hook and the ship has sailed on that, and the second is a primary source and should be attributed as such. I'll ask you to come up with some better hooks before I consider doing a full review. Departure– (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tolarian Community College

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Note: This is the total of all the years fundraisers, not just one year that this source covers. All fundraiser totals have a source in the article.
Created by John Cummings (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

John Cummings (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

" If the question is how to find nominations to review, you can go to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Current_nominations and scroll to the bottom, where the newest nominations are mostly not reviewed yet. Rusalkii (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rusalkii, I've now reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/St Peter's Cathedral, Likoma. John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Byzantine churches in Amman

(
)
Ruins of a Byzantine church in Amman
Ruins of a Byzantine church in Amman
Created by Makeandtoss (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 52 past nominations.

Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The hook is probably indeed not that interesting, so would go with ALT1: "... that some of the Byzantine churches in Philadelphia, modern-day Amman, were repurposed from earlier Roman temples?" Makeandtoss (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. O'Brien

(
)
  • ... that despite owning a saloon and being elected as alderman by a district containing over 250 bars, Robert J. O'Brien said he did not drink alcohol?
Created by Maximilian775 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

Maximilian775 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 24

[edit]

Wyatt Hendrickson

(
)
  • ... that American wrestler Wyatt Hendrickson's defeat of an Olympic gold medalist at the 2025 national championship was described as the "biggest upset in NCAA history"?
  • Reviewed: to do
  • Comment: To complete QPQ within 24 hours.
Created by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 324 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs Opening Day starting pitchers

(
)
  • ... that the IronPigs have not lost a opening day start since 2017?
Created by TBJ10RH (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TBJ10RH (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers

(
)
  • ... that Bryce Elder is the third Gwinnett Stripers pitcher to start Opening Day multiple times for the franchise?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I think the title is somewhat okay
Created by TBJ10RH (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TBJ10RH (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Soumen Mitra

(
)
  • ... that whilst acting as a police superintendent under the West Bengal Police, Soumen Mitra developed a reputation for starting welfare and development projects in areas where he was posted?
Improved to Good Article status by Sohom Datta (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Pinsir

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Kung Fu Man (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @7kk: Nomination fails WP:DYKFICTION: Given the fact that this is just describing a design detail with no real world context, it cannot feasibly be stated as having any. The article has several viable hooks that can be used that tie to the real world (Such as the bits about how its concept relates to real world entomology, the bits from the Mainichi source, or even some of the developmental information on the species, among other parts of the article).
Also, just a minor note: The plural of a Pokémon species is just the species name, so in this case, the plural of Pinsir would just be "Pinsir". Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Riley1012 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Carl Vincenti

(
)
Young Maasai man
Young Maasai man
Created by Munfarid1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 29 past nominations.

Munfarid1 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Wang Huning

(
)
Wang Huning
Wang Huning
Improved to Good Article status by The Account 2 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

The Account 2 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Richmond Landon, Alice Lord (diver)

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Richmond and Alice Landon in 1921
Richmond and Alice Landon in 1921
"On the ship going to Antwerp, Alice Lord met Dick Landon, and the high-jumper and the diver were married two years later in a burst of publicity over their Olympic romance."
    • Reviewed:
5x expanded by 1ctinus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

-1ctinus📝🗨 18:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Both articles:

General eligibility:

  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: No - The Alice Lord article went from 535 to 2806 characters, just barely over a fivefold expansion. The Richmond Landon article was previously 448 characters and is now 2237 characters, just short of the 5x threshold (literally three characters). I'm not going to nitpick over this, but I just want to confirm that these meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE and aren't just being expanded to the bare minimum required.
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @1ctinus: Nice work on the articles. I have a question about the completeness of the articles, however, given how both pages just barely seem to meet the fivefold expansion threshold. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I will try to scrap by any relevant biographical information for Landon. I am unfornutately busy and will not be able to edit for the next few hours. I believe that the articles are complete to my abilities for relevant biographical information. What do you believe is missing in either articles? Lots of the contempory information is primarily fluff peices on their marriage. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there were any other details about Alice's personal life or Richmond's career, since these sections are short relative to the rest of these respective articles. If not, that's fine, but I wanted to confirm that there aren't any pertinent details missing. You can take your time - I will be busy for the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Operations Command (Japan)

(
)
Created by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Downstate (play)

(
)
  • ... that Ted Cruz accused the play Downstate of celebrating pedophilia? Source: "After the Washington Post critic Peter Marks posted a link on Twitter to his favorable review, conservatives, including Senator Ted Cruz, attacked him. They claimed that the play and by extension the review were sympathetic to pedophiles." The New York Times
    • ALT1: ... that the theatre which premiered a play about sex offenders had to hire additional security for its run? Source: "So inflammatory are its themes that Steppenwolf, having received threats, had to hire additional security for the show’s run." The New York Times
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nawala Al-Mutawalli
    • Comment: I think ALT0 is stronger, but including ALT1 in case others disagree. The expansion tag in the synopsis section is just since it's been a few months since I've seen it and I don't trust myself to remember the full plot, but it's "reasonably complete" for the DYK standard, and if you find it an issue we could reasonably just remove it.
5x expanded by Sdkb (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 45 past nominations.

Sdkb talk 06:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm pretty certain that WP:PLOTCITE only applies to published works such as films and there's no indication this has made it out of the theatre, so the Synopsis and Characters need sourcing.--Launchballer 12:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Launchballer, thanks for taking a look! My understanding of WP:PLOTCITE is that it applies to all published works of fiction, and I would consider this a published work in that the script is available for purchase (ISBN: 978-1-63852-403-8). I haven't found a plot summary published online, so I wouldn't have anything to cite beyond the play itself (which is what PLOTCITE says doesn't need to be cited), and looking to precedents like Wicked_(musical)#Synopsis (a GA) I'm not seeing plots cited there either. For the character descriptions, though, because describing their personalities is a form of inference, I can see more of a need for citations, and they're available in the reviews so I've added them. I hope that helps address your note; please let me know if you need anything else to complete the review! Cheers, Sdkb talk 00:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was doing a review, and wouldn't anyway while that tag was still deserved. (I have a firm policy of doing my QPQs oldest first.)--Launchballer 04:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries (the use of the reviewer slash icon was what gave me the impression you were).
Per above, this is open for anyone who wants to take it up. Sdkb talk 05:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current nominations

[edit]

Articles created/expanded on March 25

[edit]

Re-Logic

(
)
Logo of American independent video game developer Re-Logic
Logo of American independent video game developer Re-Logic
Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was promoted to GA on March 25, 2025. It has a readable prose size of 3953 characters. Every passage in the body of the article is sourced. The article does not use promotional or overly negative language. WP:EARWIG shows no copyvios. The hook is cited and interesting. The picture is free, used in the article, and clear. QPQ was done. A few minor points:

  • The article uses the pronouns they/their/them and it/its for Re-Logic as a company. I suggest using only the pronouns it/its for the company and leaving the pronouns they/their/them only when explicitly referring to employees.
  • Google reached out to Re-Logic about the account shutdown and provided transparency around the situation and restored their accounts the two "and"s sound odd. I suggest replacing the first "and" with a comma.
  • I'm not sure that the image adds much to the nomination. Have you considered a nomination without the image? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States government group chat leak

(
)
Group chat excerpt
Group chat excerpt
  • ... that Trump's vice president, defense secretary, state secretary, intelligence director, and security advisor leaked military plans to a journalist after accidentally adding him to their group chat (pictured)?
    • ALT1: ... that Trump's national security advisor, Michael Waltz, accidentally added a journalist to a group chat (pictured) in which he and other US national security leaders shared military attack plans?
    • Reviewed: Thin mouse shrew
    • Comment: I only named the top contributor as the author. The rest of the hard-working editors appear to have all contributed an equal amount, and it would not have been practical to name them all.
Created by Noble Attempt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 220 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The addition of the journalist to the group still seems unexplained. Various theories have been expressed and Musk has been asked to make a technical investigation. So, the suggested hooks (orig and ALT1) are premature in stating a definitive explanation in Wikipedia's voice. We need more ALTs. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific, Andrew? The lead of the article unequivocally states that Goldberg was erroneously added by Waltz. Is that not an indisputable fact? What are the other 'theories'? Should the article mention them? Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The lead of the article does not provide a citation for its statement. WP:V is Wikipedia 101 and providing a clearly cited statement is a fundamental requirement per WP:DYKHOOK. For some theories, see Was Signal-gate a mistake, hack or knife in the back?. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not citing Wikipedia as a source. The article cites its sources, obviously not in the lead. The 'analysis' you linked rests solely on the assumption that Waltz could not have been incompetent enough to do this, and that assumption is not shared by any significant portion of reliable sources. The 'theories' seem to be fringe. If you disagree and think they should be included in the article, I suggest starting a thread at the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the theories are not fringe; they all seem reasonably plausible and there's no solid evidence yet for any particular scenario. And pointing to an uncited portion of the lead is not the way that DYK works, "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plausibility is not what determines whether a theory is fringe or not. The fact of the hook is indeed cited at the end of the sentence in which it appears. Should the citation be repeated in the lead section? DYK does not say, and if that is the issue you have with the nomination, it is very easily fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like the answer in both these cases is, yes, I did know that. I feel like we ought to be able to find a hook that would actually be something most folks don't know. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people in the US probably, but Wikipedia is written for a wider audience. Of course you may suggest alternative hooks. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Burgess

(
)
  • ... that the vandalism of Martha Burgess's sculpture of kissing lesbian military personnel was "indicative of how contentious gay-straight relations remained on Staten Island in the 1990s"? Source: https://www.nyclgbtsites.org/site/sailors-snug-harbor/ The most critically acclaimed work of the Newhouse Center’s 1993 outdoor sculpture show, a commentary on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by Martha Burgess, “On Leave,” depicted a WAVE kissing a civilian woman, inspired by the famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman in Times Square celebrating the end of the war. It is indicative of how contentious gay-straight relations remained on Staten Island in the 1990s that the work was vandalized and had to be withdrawn from exhibition.]
Moved to mainspace by Miraclepine (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 79 past nominations.

ミラP@Miraclepine 02:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Marguerite McDonald

(
)
  • ... that Marguerite McDonald performed the world's first laser correction surgery on the normal eye of a living human patient?
5x expanded by Cielquiparle (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

Cielquiparle (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Timoteo, "El Charro Negro"

(
)
Created by Chat-qui-Aboie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 288 past nominations.

Launchballer 20:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Chat-qui-Aboie: You don't have to do anything but wait for a reviewer to pick this up, though I recommend installing User:SD0001/DYK-helper (the instructions are there).--Launchballer 16:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a review, but I have concerns about both hooks. The first hook seems to be more about mariachi music than the subject himself. This is also a "first" hook, so the sourcing for the claim has to be exceptional to prevent challenges. Otherwise, it might be safer to go with a different angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to who reviews this: Although the page claims that the nominator is Launchballer, their role was just to convert an attempted nomination. The actual nominator is Chat-qui-Aboie, who does not have any prior nominations. As such, a QPQ is not required here. I may take a look at this within the next few days if no one else reviews this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 26

[edit]

George R. Dale

(
)
George R. Dale (center) in 1926
George R. Dale (center) in 1926
  • Source: [23] He took to wearing a hat with a bullet hole, presumably to demonstrate the poor aim of a trigger-happy Klansman.
    [24] A showman not always committed to fact, Dale wore a hat with a hole he said had been made by a Klan bullet.
5x expanded by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 36 past nominations.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Symphony No. 2 (Brian)

(
)
Engraving of Götz von Berlichingen
Engraving of Götz von Berlichingen
  • Source: "the four movements are associated in the composer's mind with various aspects of the character of Götz. The first, his resolution; the second, his domestic piety and love of his children; the third, the smell of battle; and the fourth, his death".

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.60219/page/n145/mode/2up

"While denying that Symphony No. 2 had any detailed programme, Brian at first drew attention to the earliest of Goethe's dramas, Götz von Berlichingen (1771-73), as a primary inspiration."

https://www.naxos.com/MainSite/BlurbsReviews/?itemcode=8.570506&catnum=570506&filetype=AboutThisRecording&language=English

"According to musicologist Malcolm MacDonald, Brian’s reasons for denying this connection and for wishing his work to be viewed as 'pure music' were based on 'his anxiety lest those works with a known inspiration in literature be vulnerable to facile misinterpretation from people who look no further in music than for a programme. Brian never wrote programme music in that sense'.

MacDonald, Malcolm (1974). The Symphonies of Havergal Brian: Symphonies 1-12. Vol. 1. London: Kahn and Averill. ISBN 9780900707285.
Improved to Good Article status by NeoGaze (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NeoGaze (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Yeshivish613: The image is used in the article, but I can see your point, so I substituted it with an engraving of the knight (also used in the article). It probably fits better with the first and third hooks. For the second hook no picture would be really necessary. NeoGaze (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Alchemist Code

(
)
Created by Miminity (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Launchballer: Should I move this to WP:DYKAPRIL or should I just let it get approved here first and move it? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move it there. Even if it isn't selected, it will at least get extra eyes on it.--Launchballer 08:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't see this as a good April Fools Day hook, though it could work as a quirky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 27

[edit]

2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization, Administration for a Healthy America

( Comment or view )
  • Source: "HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again... The restructuring results in a total downsizing from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees... The restructuring plan will... includ[e] a new Administration for a Healthy America." [25]
Created by Antony-22 (talk) (both articles) and GeekInParadise (talk). (2025 reorganization article) Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 108 past nominations.

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

William Jenkins Wilcox Jr.

(
)
  • ... that William Jenkins Wilcox Jr. was given a Citizen Archivist award at a symposium titled "Secret City in the Tennessee Hills: From Dogpatch to Nuclear Power"?
  • Source: "At the September 2012 National Archives of Atlanta symposium titled¨”Secret City in the Tennessee Hills: From Dogpatch to Nuclear Power,” Bill received a Citizen Archivist award."[26]
Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 443 past nominations.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Maendeleo horseshoe bat

(
)
  • ... that the name of the Maendeleo horseshoe bat refers to its discovery representing progress in understanding Tanzanian bats?
5x expanded by Rusalkii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

Rusalkii (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 28

[edit]

Kyai Maja

(
)
Kyai Maja's grave
Kyai Maja's grave
Created by Juxlos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 243 past nominations.

Juxlos (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Tandon v. Newsom

(
)
  • Source: SCOTUSblog article ("Tandon steals Fulton's thunder: The most important free exercise decision since 1990")
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is a joint nomination from SilverLocust and myself. (He wrote ALT0, and I love it.) We both have fewer than 5 previous nominations, but I'm using my own "freebie".
Created by HouseBlaster (talk) and SilverLocust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

William Baxter (American politician)

(
)
Created by Jon698 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 86 past nominations.

Jon698 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Funding-by-lottery

(
)
  • ... that several research grants worldwide are now awarded randomly via funding-by-lottery?
  • Source: The source text from the article reads "As of early 2025, about a dozen funders worldwide have implemented funding-by-lottery via partial lotteries in their funding calls.[11]" It is the last sentence of the introduction section, and reference [11] points to an academic article on the subject (https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae025), listing all known research funding organizations that use a lottery.
    Then, a later section of this Wikipedia article (#"Existing funding lotteries") lists all funders that use fudning-by-lottery, providing additional references for each of them.
  • ALT1: ... that several research funding organizations are now running funding-by-lottery programs, leading to ongoing discussions about the benefits and risks of funding science by lottery?
  • Source: This hook states the same fact as above, that some science today is funded via lotteries. In addition, it also states that there is a controversy around this.
    The controversy is summarized in the introduction section of this article, reading: "There is no scholarly consensus on the benefits and drawbacks of funding-by-lottery.[6][7][8] Proponents argue that it can help mitigate biases in funding allocation and minimize the high costs associated with grant writing and peer review.[2][5] Critics, however, express concerns that diminishing the role of peer review panels in funding decisions could lead to a decline in the quality of funded projects and undermine public trust in funders, in scientific peer review, and ultimately in science at large.[9][10]". All references that appear in this paragraph are to academic articles voicing the stated opinion. Arguments in favor and against funding-by-lottery are then fleshed out in full in a dedicated section of this Wikipedia article (#"Scholarly debate"), where all reported opinion statements are supported by one or multiple academic references.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: In academic circles the topic is quite hot. Over 2/3 of all peer-reviewed papers on the subject have been published in the last 5 years, and opinion pieces on the subject have appeared in top-tier academic journals such as Science, Nature, The Lancet, PNAS (see reference list within the article). It was a surprise to me when I learned that a Wikipedia article on this was only a stub, so I decided to do something about it.
I am a new Wikipedia editor, and a more experienced editor, "Piotrus", was kind enough to lend a hand by giving me feedback as I was working on a draft of this article in my user namespace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pulcis/Funding-by-lottery). I reached out to Piotrus for help because he was the author of the article stub that I expanded, and I figured he might be willing to help me out fill in his stub.
For context, I am an academic myself, and I do research on science funding -- hence my knowledge on the subject and my interest in improving this article. However, to be clear, I did not use this article to promote my own work, nor the work of colleagues/friends.
5x expanded by Pulcis (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Pulcis (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Good job on the article and an interesting topic. I have just a few items. A few of the paragraphs are missing citations. It's implied that full lotteries are not currently used, but it would be more clear to state this explicitly if true. I believe that it's grammatically correct for the term to be "funding by lottery" without hyphens, since in English this usage of hyphens is usually reserved for compound adjectives; it looks like both variations are used in sources, so unless hyphens are used overwhelmingly I'd prefer the grammatically standard spelling.
I don't think that the original hook is precise enough, since all existing funding by lottery schemes are not entirely random but still include peer review. Neither hook is particularly interesting; generally hooks that focus on a more specific interesting fact rather than being a generic description are better. Other than these, it is new and long enough, QPQ is not needed, Earwig shows no copyvios, so it should be ready to go with these minor changes. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Jumahaliah Hanifa

(
)
Siti Jumahaliah Hanifa
Siti Jumahaliah Hanifa
Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 71 past nominations.

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is new enough and long enough and adequately sourced. I did not find any close paraphrasing. All but one source is in Indonesian and offline so AGF. The picture is okay and properly licensed. However, while a QPQ has been provided, it is an incomplete review (it only checked for interestingness and length but not all of the criteria, whether explicitly or implicitly). The article does not mention her date of death, but apparently the obituary does give a date in 2008? My Indonesian is very basic and rusty, and the Google Translate translation is ambiguous: was the 2008 date her date of death, or when they learned the news of her death? Finally, I'm not really that big of a fan of the hook: is there nothing else about her that can be said? If there are no other options, we can probably go with it, but I just want to know if you have any other options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Whew! Thank you for the very extensive and thorough review. I think I have to adress some of your points: regarding the QPQ, I've checked all references given, the shortness of the hook, and there aren't much to comment about other aspects of the article other than its interestingness and length. Regarding the obituary, it wasn't her obituary; it was another law professor's obituary. In the second-to-last page of the obituary, there is this statement: Sebagai seorang Guru Besar, Prof. Gautama memiliki sejumlah asisten. Di antara mereka adalah almh. Ny. S. J. Hanifah Wiknjosastro, S.H., yang menjadi dekan wanita pertama di FHUI periode 1978-1984 (As a Professor, Prof. Gautama had a number of assistants. Among them was the late Mrs. S. J. Hanifah Wiknjosastro, S.H., who became the first female dean at FHUI for the period 1978-1984.) Lastly, regarding the hook, I don't think there's any other options, since the article's size barely passes the DYK threshold. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the QPQ review, please make the checks explicit in the nomination as a promoter or other editor could reject the QPQ as being insufficiently complete. I'm also not sure if the "- ?" thing in the lede is how we treat people with known dates of birth but no known dates of death, so I found that weird. If that's standard practice then I'll let it slide, and it's not really a DYK issue anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 29

[edit]

Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by Remember (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Remember (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Más Notícias

(
)
Más Notícias
Más Notícias
  • ... that a 1895 painting (pictured), depicting a woman clutching a crumpled letter, was described by a critic as "a list of disasters"?
Created by Cathodography (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Cattos💭 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Eileen Quinn

(
)
Created by Moondragon21 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Moondragon21 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on March 30

[edit]

RNLB Sir William Hillary (ON 725)

(
)
  • Source: Wake-Walker (2007) The Lifeboats Story: 'Although the Sir William Hillary saw ten year's service at Dover, ironically, she was never called to a ditched aircraft'.
Created by Geof Sheppard (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Desert musk shrew

(
)
Desert musk shrew distribution
Desert musk shrew distribution
  • ... that the two known populations of the desert musk shrew (distribution pictured) are found on opposite ends of Africa?

lowland Ethiopia and Senegal, but not recorded from any locality

between these countries", and then for "opposite ends" you can see the attached image, though I can try to pull a source for it that isn't "look at the map" if this is insufficient. The hook source calls it a "widespread disjunct distribution" and includes a very similar map. (Not sure if it makes sense to run the map with the hook, but I've included it in case there's interest).
5x expanded by Rusalkii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Confirmed that the hooks used are backed up by the cited sources. Nominator expanded this article 5x from a four-sentence stub yesterday. Both hooks are interesting, but the first is preferred since it's something actually describing the animal. There are plenty of witticisms to be found in Oldfield Thomas' work but we don't need every one of them to be a DYK. QPQ confirmed. While everything here checks out, I don't want to approve this with the image, as while it's illustrative of the first hook it is not particularly great to look at. A quick look through the archives finds no uses of distribution maps for DYK images. Other DYKs that mention distribution ({{Did you know nominations/Beck's tree frog}}, {{Did you know nominations/Glutinoglossum heptaseptatum}}) do not include maps or have photos of the subject to better represent it. Reconrabbit 14:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to run the first hook without the image, I wasn't sure about it either. I also prefer it to ALT1, I just like to give reviewers options if I can. Rusalkii (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klingenheben's law

(
)
Created by ThaesOfereode (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 31

[edit]

Gordon House (Silverton, Oregon)

(
)
The Gordon House
The Gordon House
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 714 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Laurie Schipper

(
)
Created by SL93 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 432 past nominations.

SL93 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 1

[edit]

Rosal Column

(
)
5x expanded by Grnrchst (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 51 past nominations.

Grnrchst (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Kampung Jawa, Minahasa

(
)
Created by Juxlos (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 244 past nominations.

Juxlos (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Special occasion holding area

[edit]
See also: WP:SOHA

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creations from the start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1283462779"