Template talk:Did you know

Add topic
Active discussions
Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Nominations
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
DYK AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
List of users...
By nominationsWP:DYKNC
By promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). 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
March 9 1
March 16 1 1
March 22 1
March 24 1 1
April 2 1
April 13 1
April 15 1
April 20 2 1
April 25 2 1
April 26 1
April 27 1
April 30 1
May 3 1
May 5 3
May 6 2
May 7 3
May 9 2
May 10 1
May 11 2
May 12 5
May 14 1 1
May 15 2 1
May 16 1 1
May 17 2
May 19 4 1
May 21 1
May 22 1
May 23 1 1
May 24 1
May 25 2 1
May 26 2 1
May 27 3 2
May 28 1 1
May 31 2 1
June 1 3 1
June 3 5
June 4 3 1
June 5 6 4
June 6 9 3
June 7 2 2
June 8 7 4
June 9 7 5
June 10 4 1
June 11 4 3
June 12 9 8
June 13 9 8
June 14 9 7
June 15 8 3
June 16 9 4
June 17 9 4
June 18 12 7
June 19 8 4
June 20 10 6
June 21 9 2
June 22 6 3
June 23 5 2
June 24 9 5
June 25 5 2
June 26 1
Total 225 104
Last updated 01:55, 26 June 2022 UTC
Current time is 02:10, 26 June 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominatorsEdit

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing.

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questionsEdit

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).

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 reviewersEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for project membersEdit

How to promote an accepted hookEdit

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: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
2) Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
a. Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg 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.
1) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
a. 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.
a. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
b. 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.
a. 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 [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
      To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
      To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
      To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
      To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
      To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
      To [[T: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 [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hookEdit

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

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queueEdit

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

How to move a nomination subpage to a new nameEdit

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

NominationsEdit

Older nominationsEdit

Articles created/expanded on March 9Edit

1917 Minsk City Duma election

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC).

  •   A full review will follow, but right now I have reservations if the currently-proposed hook is interesting to a broad audience. The connections aren't made clear to those unfamiliar with Belarusian politics and history, particularly what the significance of Vaynshteyn becoming a city council chairman is. Can another hook be proposed here, one that would be interesting or at least clearer to those unfamiliar with the history of Belarus? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I get your concern, but at same time the factoid that a Jewish socialist party won the chairmanship in the city seems to be the most DYK-worthy element in the article? --Soman (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The connection is not clear at all and does not meet the broad interest criterion. Readers will not immediately get the socialist or Jewish connection. Please propose a new hook with a completely different hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm - I think the Jewish connection is clear (and the socialist connection implied) from just the name General Jewish Labour Bund. Besides, it's wikilinked! I'm not sure a complete rejection of this hook fact is merited here, though I agree the hook needs some workshopping. How about these:
Pings for Soman and Narutolovehinata5. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly the direction still feels rather niche, but I think ALT1 is the best option among the hooks proposed so far. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT1 looks good for me also. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   I no longer have time to review this nomination so I would request that a new reviewer take over. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   new enough at time of nomination (65 days ago?) and long enough; I'll have to AGF on source quality, neutrality is okay (being mostly a factsheet), no plagiarism detected (AGF on foreign-language sources). I'm... hesitant to approve ALT1, though. Is it all that unusual that two not-too-distant political parties would elect a chairman from one of the parties? I am interested in the fact that the leader was elected from the smaller party in the coalition, though... QPQ has been done, but we still need a viable hook. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging Soman for feedback... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 06:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hows about:
ALT4: ... that a Jewish socialist became chairman of the Minsk city council in July 1917? Dahn (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book and Dahn: I appreciate the suggestions :) i'm hesitant, though. Is there something more notable about the election other than its winners? Were they the first socialists elected in the city? Anyways, my idea was: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that the chairman elected following the 1917 Minsk City Duma election came from the smallest party in the ruling coalition?
@Theleekycauldron:. Since you asked ... As far as I can understand, the various socialist groups which predated the 1917 Revolutions were secret and/or operated outside the countries which became the Soviet bloc, and argued and split all over the place. Regular elections of socialist local government began either legally or without wholesale persecution after the 1917 February and October revolutions. So - broadly speaking - yes it was not only probably the first legal, above-board and safe election of a socialist local government in Minsk, but also that type of event would have been very newsworthy and striking to people in both the Western and Eastern blocs. But because it was all such a mess between the late 1890s and 1917, we can't say that it was the first socialist election in Minsk - not worth the hassle, eh. On the other hand, saying that socialists won the elections in July 1917, almost directly after the February (1917) Revolution, is important. 1917 changed quite a large area of the world, and the 1917 Minsk election was a symptom of that change - a matter far more significant than the identity of the little guy that they chose to be leader of the coalition. Storye book (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: I understand, and that's definitely noteworthy; but without that context somehow worked into the hook, our readers won't put that together. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think a hook should be run if the context is both vital to the hook's quality and unverifiable. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Your question was about it being the first election of socialists in Minsk. We don't yet have a hook that says it was the first. That was your idea. So I was responding that we couldn't support a hook with that idea of yours. However, we can support a hook that says that a socialist local govt was elected, because we have facts and citations for that in the article. Thus my hooks ALT 2 and 3 are permissible. If the consensus doesn't want those hooks, then fine - but they are verifiable. Storye book (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
What about ALT5 - ... that the General Jewish Labour Bund leader Arn Vaynshteyn became the Minsk city council chairman following the first municipal elections the 1917 February Revolution? --Soman (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
As per hook interest, I'd say it is relevant that a leader of a Jewish socialist party led the governance of what is today the capital of Belarus. It's not like Bund (or the other Jewish left-wing groups at the time) led a lot of local governments in mayor cities. And we need to factor in a lot of later developments (civil war, establishment of the USSR, WWII, Holocaust) that has drastically impacted the social and political life since then. --Soman (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
That's definitely true, Soman, but unless that context can be verifiably placed within the article, I don't see a way to restructure the hook to make that context apparent. The hook needs to stem from verifiably relevant context- outside knowledge tends to be hard to work in and make clear. We only have seconds of reader attention for DYK, to try and get them to click; it sucks, but expecting readers to put something like that together is usually not a recipe for a well-performing hook. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 02:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that hook solves the earlier concerns about needing too much inside context to appreciate it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Just how stupid are our US general readers, my friend? What do you suppose they do not understand by garrison, Socialist Revolutionary and election? Those words are all linked anyway. So (in my humble perception of US terminology) it says that lots of soldiers voted for sort of Che Guevara types, and lots and lots of sort of Che Guevara types were elected. Or to put it another way, they might see it as loads of lefty liberals voted for loads of lefty liberals and they ended up with a lefty liberal local government. Simples. As for our Rest of the World readership, well we are better educated, and understand long words. Storye book (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:. Storye book (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
To put it politely: Underestimating the attention span of our readership is a not insignificant task, and that's true across the world. I generally have two criteria in assessing hook interestingness: it should be easy for the reader to work out the information being presented and its significance, and that information should lure the reader into clicking on the article in order to learn more. I know we have different philosophies on that, which is what makes this discussion a little difficult (although I very much appreciate your perception of americaspeak :D). But from my point of view, it's not that readers can't work out why this might be significant – it's just that a significant proportion won't want to expend the thinking to do so, and then we lose them and they click on something less informative.
Plus, take your statement on it: they might see it as loads of lefty liberals voted for loads of lefty liberals and they ended up with a lefty liberal local government. Simples. That makes the hook seem rather self-contained – which is good, if your goal is to inform everyone who might read and understand the hook without clicking, but it's not as good at actually getting people to click. And I know you know this because you're quite good at writing hooky hooks – just look at your work on Giant puppet, or Joseph Luker. You definitely know how to rope people into reading the full stories for all the interesting work you do, and I think that's really what DYK should be about. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, theleekycauldron for coming in to help, and for lightening the atmos. Since there have been calls above for political context of the election to be added to the article, I have created a section for that. Anyone is welcome to extend or adjust it, though I tried to limit it to the events of July, to prevent the section from overwhelming the article.
ALT7: ... that the 1917 Minsk City election was carried out peacefully in spite of the concurrent mass rebellion and near-martial law in Petrograd? Storye book (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
ALT7 is a much better hook than all the previous proposals, and if the nominator agrees to it, I'd suggest striking out all the remaining options and going with just that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, it's quite good :) Storye book, is marxists.org a reliable source? Also, does the source demonstrate its relevance to the topic at hand? (yes, yes, i know, i'm being nitpicky, but i do wanna avoid WP:SYNTH issues). theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they)!
@Theleekycauldron: Yes, it's reliable. Brian Baggins is a Marxist author, interpreter and transcriber from French and German of Marxist literature. He usually appends his sources online, as he has done in the cited article, and I have included those sources in the WP citation. That timeline page is pretty neutral in tone, compared with a lot of films on the subject that we have all seen Those films tend to concentrate on the violence and drama, whereas the timeline is just the bare bones of what happened.
As for fears of synthesis - well, if the article were about e.g. one small skirmish during the Battle of the Somme, it would be relevant for purposes of historical context to include a brief background paragraph about what was going on in the Somme area in general at the time, to put the skirmish in context, and we wouldn't need the source for the general horrors of the greater battlefield to mention the skirmish. Storye book (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging Soman for their thoughts on ALT7. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    • ALT7 all good with me. --Soman (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   ALT7 is ready for a review. Per the discussion, none of the previously-proposed hooks are under consideration. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: Storye book (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
      •   Storye book's assessment of the reliability of the source checks out- I'm still a little shaky on the synthesis, since the source doesn't draw a direct line from itself to the event at hand. That said, I won't stand in the way of someone else offering their tick. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
        • To next reviewer: Please note that the source for the political background in Petrograd does not need to refer to the July 1917 Minsk election, that's the whole point. The point is that the dramatic and violent political background of the country was continuing separately, while Minsk was able to hold a peaceful election. You can assess the extent of that separation, by the fact that Bolsheviks were being arrested just for being Bolsheviks on the orders of Stalin in Petrograd, while in relatively peaceful Minsk, they were able to happily elect Bolsheviks to their duma (local government body), and form a governing coalition which included Bolsheviks. All that info is in the article and cited. Storye book (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  I conducted a copyedit of the article, particularly of the "Contemporary political context" section because I was concerned about wikivoice. I conducted this review under the pretext that ALT7 is the agreed upon hook. I'm not so much concerned about the turmoil in Russia (the "Contemporary political context" section covers that). However, there isn't mention in the article that the election was peaceful. Is there a source that specifies that this election was peaceful, without military conflict, or something similar? This information can be added in a "Legacy" or "Analysis" section at the end that tells the reader how sources have analysed this election. Without a source specifying the peaceful nature of this election, I believe that it would be original research to use ALT7. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It is clear from the sources that we have, and the article, that the Minsk election was conducted in at least comparative peace, since Stalin was arresting Bolsheviks in Petrograd, for just being Bolsheviks (and we may guess what being arrested by Stalin implied), but in Minsk they were electing Bolsheviks and putting them in coalition government of Minsk without challenge. Therefore although there was a counter-revolutionary skirmish going on in Petrograd (then the acting capital), Minsk was at that point untouched by it. If you want to rephrase the article and hook to cover that situation, then please do. Meanwhile I should have thought that pretty well anything counted as peaceful in proto-Soviet Russia if there was no revolutionary stuff going on. Yes, you can see from the article that there was much jostling for position among the factions hoping for leadership, but that's just politics. The fact that Bolsheviks could be elected along with others of widely differing views tells us that people in Minsk were able in June 1917 to conduct political business without killing or jailing each other. I have done no OR in writing that section. The source is clear to see for all readers: in Petrograd Stalin was arresting all Bolsheviks; in Minsk they were electing them. Storye book (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If we are having a context passage, perhaps good to mention the proximity of Minsk to frontline... unfortunately, I'm way to busy with non-wikipedia stuff these days to find a good ref on this. --Soman (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 
summer 1917 frontline}}
@Soman: I have found the ref you are looking for, and have added it with a statement about Minsk not being directly in the theatre of war or revolution during July 1917. You are welcome to improve the statement as you see fit. However we could still just omit the word "peacefully" from the hook if you wish, and it would still work. Storye book (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: Per WP:V, Wikipedia does not publish things based on the conclusions of editors. Rather, it publishes what reliable sources say. I do not see where in the article a reliable source cites that the 1917 Minsk City Duma election was peaceful, as the city being peaceful does not mean that the election was peaceful. I'm suggesting an ALT below:
ALT8: ...that Bolsheviks were elected in the 1917 Minsk City election while Stalin was arresting their supporters in Petrograd?
Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thank you. I'm happy with ALT8. Storye book (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Can you approve ALT8 so we can move this nomination along? Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't approve ALT8... the Bolsheviks didn't win the Minsk vote and there isn't any established third-party source that makes a connection between the Stalin's role in Petrograd events and Minsk municipal election. --Soman (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Soman: can you propose an ALT that would be acceptable? Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm puzzled: the section List "5 - Social Democrats" says that Bolsheviks were elected as part of the social democrats group: "Vasily Vashkevich [ru], Kārlis Landers, I. F. Skuratowicz, V. Golubeva and Nevsky were among the Bolshevik members of the city duma". Sorry - did I misunderstand something? Storye book (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
In an effort to get this nomination rolling, let's try another ALT. I think this new alt makes clear that the Bolsheviks did not win the election. The article mentions the arrest of Bolsheviks at the same time, so the connection is in the article. If this information shouldn't be in the article, then perhaps a discussion can happen on the article's talk page about its inclusion.
ALT8a: ...that some Bolsheviks were elected in the 1917 Minsk City election while Stalin was arresting their supporters in Petrograd?
@Storye book and Soman: Thoughts? If this hook doesn't work, can you propose an ALT? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with ALT8a. Storye book (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 22Edit

Judiciary of Poland

  • ... that in Poland a mean court judge processed almost four cases per day? Source: 14.38 million estimate given by GUS; 10,000 judge estimate can be seen in table, divide this per 365 per WP:CALC, which is in the text
    • ALT1: ... that in Poland the courts processed 14.38 million cases in 2020 while having fewer than 10,000 judges? Source: Same as above, just not divided
    • ALT2: that the ECHR found three of five chambers of the Supreme Court, Poland's top court, not to be properly constituted within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Source: See "Partisan control of the National Council of the Judiciary" part, last para
    • ALT3: ... that the Constitutional Tribunal, Poland's top court, ruled it was not a court? Source: Notes from Poland
    • ALT4: ... that the State Tribunal, the Polish court tasked with trial of the highest politicians, only convened three times in the past 40 years? Source: In text
    • Reviewed: User:Szmenderowiecki/Sort of recognised contributions
    • Comment: Please refer to the (exhaustive AFAIK) list of all of my DYK reviews and submissions for the purposes of QPQ. Feel free to add an entry to the list once the nomination is processed and (hopefully) accepted. 4 cases per day may be substituted by 1,500 per year, as verified here. ALT3 could actually go to April 1 if possible, though the problem might be that the ruling (unfortunately) exists and that the argument relies on the technicality of the Polish Constitution described in the lead (about tribunals in general).

5x expanded by Szmenderowiecki (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  ?
  • Interesting:  ?

QPQ:  N - You need to link the specific review that you're claiming credit for
Overall:   I don't think that ALT0 checks out because you don't have figures for the "average (median?) court judge", but are just dividing the cases by the number of judges. I don't consider ALT4 to be interesting because due to the small number of top politicians, it doesn't make sense for the court to convene a lot. For ALT2, the precise findings were that these courts were not "established by law", mainly because of irregular appointments. See here for an explanation of the exact provision and how it's applied by the ECHR. See below for another version. For ALT3, I think it could be reworded but is confusing as it stands (it would be clearer with "itself", but still confusing). (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As for ALT0/ALT1, the quote being verified is translated from Polish as: "Polish judges (there are about 10,000 of them) process approx. 15 million cases, which means that an average [mean, not median] judge processes about 1,500 cases per year," which was verified using 2018 data. I've used 2020 data and the same methodology. It was fact-checked as true back in 2020. Yes, it is a number of cases divided by judges (with all the problems that appear with measuring mean not median values, but this does not invalidate the hook as such, as I properly state that I calculate an average. I do have that data.
I don't see what's confusing about ALT3. Granted, it is apparently contradictory, but that's the point of DYKs (be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content). Additionally, I don't actually see how I can reword it using "itself". Will you propose the rewording for this one, considering the article to which this is sourced?
ALT2a is OK, but I'd consider other options first. (Modified because the relevant part is not not being established by law but their independence 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC))
ALT4 is at the low end of my priorities, so I'll drop this one to expedite the process.
Re QPQ requirement, that's not my reading of the QPQ rules. It merely says that I must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍ and provide proof of that for examination. The full registry is available there, with my submissions reviewed (6) and my reviews (18). How is that not sufficient? Besides, I don't want to accidentally duplicate the QPQ claims, which AFAIK are not logged anywhere (unlike credits for reviews). If the newest review must be claimed for QPQ and I'm misreading the policy (not you), take my Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin A review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not know about Polish, but in English many people are going to see "average" and think it means "median" in this context. It would be clearer to talk about the mean number of cases handled per judge. Not to mention, each day is unclear whether we're talking about all days or working days...
Looking at ALT3 and not knowing the details of this case, I wouldn't know "what is it". Admittedly, right now I can't think of a good rewrite.
The reason most DYK participants link which DYK hook they are counting for QPQ is because otherwise it's impossible to tell if they claim the same review twice (I've done this by accident). (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, got it. The relevant ruling (summary) for ALT3 is here. In Polish (see full case here). The funny thing is, the English version says that the trial must happen in a tribunal established by law, while the Polish version talks of sąd ustanowiony ustawą. The ruling heavily relies on the technical distinction between what the Constitution calls a "court" and a "tribunal". The ruling basically says that the ECHR did not properly analyse the legal position of the Tribunal, and, since the Constitutional Tribunal is only a judicial organ but does not determine the outcome of cases like most courts do, it does not administer justice and therefore is not a tribunal/court within Article 6, which they argue only applies to the courts which administer justice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Second opinion requested as this review has stalled for a month and there have been some changes by Micga to the article in the meantime, which might impact the new assessment. Consider him as a co-nom to this nomination due to these changes.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In response to the new review request above, I shall review this. I shall do a full review to familiarise myself with the material (it is a long article, anyway). So no disrespect to Buidhe. Storye book (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  N - ?
  • Interesting:  Y
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Some issues:

These points affect DYK
  • Too many paragraphs have no citations at the end. We cannot pass this DYK until that matter is resolved.
  • Earwig is not working for me at the moment, so I am accepting in good faith that it's plagiarism-free.
  • Re ALT1: Please give us a link for the numbers in this hook. I don't believe that I can accept the hook without an actual citation (linked or offline) which gives those particular numbers. (ETA: Citation 118 "Dlaczego sądy są tak bardzo odległe od obywateli i działają przewlekle" covers this)
  • Re ALT2: That is an interesting hook: I would favour that hook if you could please add a citation to the end of the last paragraph in the section, which you refer to. (Update: I have struck ALT2 because the hook is not written out in the above form in the article, making it too difficult for the general reader to check it out).
Points which do not affect DYK
  • I do think that the article would be more readable and comprehensible if it contained more summaries and fewer detailed lists. Readers who really want to know the long lists of details would consult the sources, anyway. However this point does not affect DYK.
  • I have copyedited the first half of the article, but I did not do the rest. It is not in a bad condition language-wise, and I did resolve the disambig links. This does not affect DYK.

When the issues regarding the missing citations, and the hooks, are resolved, this nominations should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Storye book, thanks for the review. I haven't been editing the article for quite a while, and I see that some substantial changes were made since I tried to make an article in order, but I couldn't. Btw, I will also work on the shortened infographic as National Appeal Chamber's rulings cannot be appealed to administrative courts, but Adobe Illustrator won't let me correct it without major disruption. Micga is pinged as courtesy.
Re ALT1: the source is Rocznik Statystyczny Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej 2021, p. 165 for caseload, p. 164 for number of judges (it is available online). It is also (I hope) very well summarised in the table with the salaries, where the number of judges is given by each category.
Re ALT2: the citation is to three ECHR cases. Now the information might become outdated once the bill demolishing the Disciplinary Chamber becomes law, but that should be clear in a week or two.
Re long lists: I also think that they generally belong in their respective articles, but since we don't have them yet, they will stay in the text for now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki:.
* Thank you for the update. There are still two points to deal with.
* (1) There are still too many citation-needed templates on the article. We need to have all paragraphs and all bulleted points cited before we can pass this nom. (If this were a light-hearted subject, then perhaps we might not need to be so careful about citations, e.g. for every bullet point, but law is a serious matter. We have to have all facts cited, for DYK).
* (2) Re ALT2: This fact occurs in section "Capture of the Constitutional Tribunal", end of first paragraph. The citation for the hook facts at the end of that para ("ETPC: Udział dublera w składzie Trybunału narusza prawo do sądu") is fine, with Google Translate. But you need to write out the hook in the same words in that place, because our readers will not be able to find it using a page-search. You have not even mentioned article 6 in the article's text.
(I am not asking you to summarise chart-lists. But some of the sections contain lists within paragraphs or under bullet points. The important word in the article is "judiciary", so we need focus on and prioritise just the main points about the judiciary, e.g. to know their position and their responsibilities, and summarise within that framework. For example, lists of bulleted responsibilities can be summarised, making the article easier to read Note: this point is not necessary for DYK.) Storye book (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Since I originally intended this as a pre-GA nomination, I will address all these points anyway, to the best I can. I will be working on the article for the next couple of hours. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, re ALT2, the relevant sentence is this one: "The Strasbourg court agreed, declaring the Disciplinary Chamber, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the Civil Chamber not to be independent and impartial tribunals established by law", with three sources given to each chamber (each of the rulings are now final). The sentence you provided is indeed in the text but I don't intend to make a hook based on it. The Constitutional Tribunal hook is in ALT3, but it was struck for whatever reason by buidhe (who said it was confusing). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you . Since you are working on it, please may I suggest creating a clear overall pattern or or overview framework for the article. My experience of reading it so far has been a feeling of drowning in detail, for which there was no overall framework to arrange it all in context. One way to correct this is to imagine that you are writing it for a young, intelligent teenager who can understand explanations but who initially knows nothing at all. You don't need to be patronising to do this - just start with a few simple sentences giving an overview of the situation of the judiciary, e.g. (putting it simply) what is the purpose of their job, how are they supposed to do that job, what difficulties stand in their way, and so on. To maintain this clarity throughout the article, you would need to summarise a lot of the detail, then that detail can be made available in links or citations. I'm not suggesting that you do those things in exactly that way, but the principle is that the article should be clear, concise and to the point, and not bogged down with distracting detail. I am going to the trouble of writing this because I think the article subject is worth the hard work of improving it. It is an important subject. I repeat that this suggestion does not affect DYK. Storye book (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Update: Thank you, Micga and Szmenderowiecki for improvements that you have made on the article in the past few days. Please let me know when you are ready for me to give the article another DYK update. Storye book (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, I have condensed the article, as you've proposed, and split the common court section (the huge one) into a separate article, so the amount of text went from 64K characters to 52K characters. Citation needed tags have been addressed either by adding refs or by making text references to the articles of the Constitution, or the relevant laws, or (in one case) to a dedicated article about a crisis within the Constitutional Tribunal.
There is one hook that you might find interesting, and it is this:
ALT5 ... that while there is little variation in the approval of the Polish court system in general among the Polish electorate, the support for the Constitutional Tribunal is split along partisan lines? (See: newest poll from March 2022)
but I don't insist on it and you can promote the one you consider to be more interesting (particularly since it seems to be about the same thing in the US, where the Supreme Court is politicised while lower courts aren't subject to that much debate). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you Szmenderowiecki for the expansion, the update and the ALT3. I shall have to check all these out later, because this is Platinum Jubilee Week in the UK, and most of us here are somewhat distracted by it, in various ways. I'll try to look at it later today or tomorrow, Monday at the latest. If by Monday you think I've forgotten, please ping me. Thanks for your patience. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I have started to take a fresh look at this, since you revised the article. ALT2 is now redundant, since that hook is not mentioned in the above form in the article, making it impossible for the general reader to check it out. If you still want ALT2 as one of the choices, then please write it out in its above form, in the article, with its citation(s) next to it, and let us know. Until then I shall be considering ALT5. I don't have time to check out ALT5 and read through the article in full today; it will have to be tomorrow, Monday. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. ALT2 sentence (the paragraph that starts with "In addition to that, several judges and lawyers..." is still there and no one did anything to it, so in fact the general reader is able to verify it. The only difference is that I do not name all chambers by name. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem from the viewpoint of DYK is that the general reader will use search terms taken from the hook to find its facts in the article. I don't think there are any phrases that we can take from the hook, which are exactly repeated in that paragraph. After you directed me to that paragraph, I had difficulty matching the exact or full meaning of the hook in that parapgraph, even with the understanding that the hook is rephrased there. This is a long and complex article, so we cannot assume that the reader who has just clicked on the hook has yet read any of the rest of the article. So they are searching "in the dark" for a matching phrase or word from the hook.
  • You, as an expert on the subject, clearly know what it all means, and can easily comprehend that paragraph's implications. I, who have (so far) read the previous incarnation of the article and have a rough idea of the hook facts, still cannot share your deeper understanding. I need the exact hook copied exactly into that paragraph, with its appropriate citation(s) next to it. You don't necessarily have to replace any of the existing wording with the hook wording. You could, for example, say: "in other words" - hook wording - citation. OK, that's repetitious from your point of view, but to a general reader it's clarification. Please be patient with this request. If you want ALT2 to be one of our choices with the text remaining as it is, and it gets promoted, it would be thrown out of prep for sure, and we would then have to put the hook wording in anyway, to get ALT2 passed. Please be patient, I am just trying to get this nomination accepted and passed. Storye book (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am now starting to read through the article. I'll add points here, as I find them, and will let you know when I've finished this task. I shall copyedit as I go (minor copyediting by the reviewer does not affect DYK). Storye book (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • (1) First impressions: a massive improvement in structure and clarity. Congratulations on the bits I've read so far. One issue found: 3rd para of Supreme court section, beginning "Because of the universally". That is actually a correctly-constructed sentence ... I think .. but it is such a gloriously entangled set of over-arched clauses, that it is more of a hindrance to understanding than an aid. I suggest that you split it into several sentences, for clarity's sake. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (2) If you are using a two-word phrase as an adjective, then it is usual practice to join those two words with a hyphen (you will see an example of that in this sentence). I'm correcting all the ones that I find in the article. Just letting you know. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (3) Re para beginning: "The Supreme Court is led by". In formal English, the parenthesis that includes the "etc." at the end of the para would be considered undisciplined, partly because "etc." can perhaps include anything - even innuendo. In formal English, you would normally replace that last bracketed bit with something like: "for example, a lack of independence of judges, or unnecessarily slow decisions on cases". I'll let you correct this one. Storye book (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (4) It's "embroiled in", not "embroiled into". If you imagine substituting the word "entangled", then it's easier to get the syntax right (I have corrected this one). Storye book (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (5) You need a citation at the end of the first para of the Administrative courts section, and at the end of the first para of the State tribunal section. Links to other articles are not sufficient, because we cannot use WP as a citation.Storye book (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (6) I am now looking at the Staff section, and finding more missing citations. Please do a page search for "citation needed", throughout the article (there may be more added later). As previously mentioned, links to WP are not sufficient for a citation. Storye book (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Note to self: I have checked the article as far as and including the Judges sitting in the tribunals section. I shall continue reading through the article later. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Re citation needed tags, I believe that literal translations from the articles of the Constitution do not need additional cites, because otherwise I will be forced to literally put the ref to the Constitution of Poland. I think it is pointless, because I explicitly point to the article of the Constitution, and fortunately the Polish constitution isn't written in the 18th-century poetic language of some out-of-touch intellectuals :). I am not speaking of some interpretations of the Constitution, which do need to be supplied with the citation.
  • Re hook: I also don't agree with this one. So long as the hook is verifiable, mentioned in text and appropriately cited (WP:DYK, point 3), it's all right. It really doesn't have to be literally mentioned, the thing to consider is whether the hook distorts the meaning of the sentence it comes from. I am ready to discuss, I just don't think that not being immediately able to find it using Ctrl+F because of paraphrasing is a valid reason to reject it.
  • Other than that, I tried to implement your remarks and I'm looking forward to further suggestions. Thanks for the corrections you've made. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Thank you for your response. I won't get into discussion about the hook yet, because I still have to finish going through the article, and that is a long job. When I've done that, I'll get back to the matter of the hook. What I will say, now, is that my point about the hook is not about my own opinion or about whether I agree with you. It's about what will get through DYK and what will be thrown out of prep. But I'll discuss that later. Storye book (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Micga and Storye book:, I believe we might have to suspend the nomination because large changes are being introduced to the parts of the article already reviewed. I myself am losing track of them, and some of them introduce unsourced fragments to the article. I'm simply reluctant to revert them (which I've already done on some separate occasions, in different places) so as not to appear to be asserting ownership the article. We need to resolve them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, I agree with you on that. When or if Micga tells us they have stopped editing, at least for the duration of DYK, we can start again here, if that is what you want to do. Storye book (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Update: @ Szmenderowiecki. I have checked the talkpage of the disruptive editor, and it appears that they have a history of disruptive editing, unwarranted page moves, refusing to discuss on the talk page, and not giving edit summaries - and they were temporarily blocked last year. So I don't think we are going to get a resolution in the normal manner. If they don't get blocked again soon, then I suggest that we wait until the current major-editing session ends, then replace the entire article with the last previous version of the article that you approve of. We can then put back any of those edits that you agree with. I don't believe that this recourse would be ownership on your part. It would be salvaging an article from disruptive edits. Storye book (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Admin. Please note that this nomination is temporarily suspended, due to current major changes in the article which are beyond the control of the nominator and reviewer. It is hoped that we may be able to resume this nomination in due course - so please don't close it down yet. Storye book (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, Szmenderowiecki, it looks like the last of the extensive article changes were completed on June 7. How soon will you be ready to resume work here? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe that I'd need a few hours for that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I believe that the only practicable way to resolve the unhelpful edits would be to delete the article and immediately replace it with this last edit by Szmenderowiecki. That way, we will know where we are. Then I can continue my checking through it for DYK, and you can continue to edit it as you were doing. Of course, we can also go through the deleted disruptive edits to see if there is anything valid that we can put back in. Would you agree to this? I would be happy to do the cut and paste bit, while adding a note to the talk page to explain my actions - but I would rather have your opinion first. If we start working on it again, I would also like to put an under construction tag on the article, in the hope of deterring further disruptive edits while the nomination is still processing. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I am basing my editing on my last version, but now that the flurry of editing has stopped, I think I should review the new edits first to see if any of them are helpful. The summary of what I accepted and rejected, and the reasons for that, will be posted here (anyway, the DYK nomination is transcluded on the talk page, so it will be seen). There is also an update about the disciplinary law, so I'll have to incorporate this as well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Excellent - that sounds good. I recommend leaving some sort of tag at the top of the article while this nom template is operative, though, because the existing cleanup tag stopped the disruptive editor immediately. An alternative is the {{Under construction}} tag with the alternative {{In use}} tag, but, since the current tag has had the desired effect ... Storye book (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Changes made to the article were as follows:
  • Updates: a disciplinary reform was signed into law and will become effective on July 15, so appropriate changes were introduced.
  • Reorganisation: 1. partial reorganisation of the "Staff" section, though avoiding the excessive fragmentation of the last version. The main outlines remain those of the last version I edited. 2. moved "Overview" section back to the lede, as the resulting lead (MOS:LEADLENGTH) was too short and it is the lead that is supposed to be the overview, not the dedicated section.
  • Added/removed 1. I did not remove the groups of people who may nominate Constitutional Tribunal judges. 2. I did remove the mention that the Supreme Court adjudicates in cases related to the Tribunal of Arbitration for Sports (Polish Olympic Committee), as I felt that this can be mentioned in the dedicated article, but not in the overview because this is too much detail for an overview. 3. Condensed the sentences about retirement for health reasons or for reasons of inability to adjudicate.
Ultimately, the changes weren't as far-reaching as I thought, but when this is 70-80 edits within two or three hours, you may often indeed feel lost. I feel that the article is ready to be reviewed, again. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic, Szmenderowiecki! Well done. And thank you for your patience. I shall look over it tomorrow - it's a long article and I feel that I should take my time over it. Storye book (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: @Szmenderowiecki: I have just started looking through the article (don't have much time today; will complete the task tomorrow, I hope). Just two immediate points:

  • Two paragraphs need a citation at the end (I added the templates). The one beginning "The title of judge is granted" refers to sections of the Constitution in the paragraph's text, but a linked citation or a citation with a quote would help the reader to prove that it really is in the Constitution. You have mentioned before that you cannot cite the Constitution, but WP's house style requires a citation in each paragraph.
  • The para beginning "Several laws as well" has no citations. If the reason is that it is merely a summary of the following table, you could cover the issue by giving the para a subheading "Summary of table" or similar.
  • Two of the items in the Refs section indicate ref errors. Storye book (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've fixed what you've indicated here. As I said though, I didn't say I can't cite the Constitution itself, rather that it was pointless since it is easily searchable. I pointed to the Wikisource text of the Constitution instead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
* Thank you, Szmenderowiecki, for addressing the above three points. Since the article has been through some changes, I now need to check it again for neutrality, plagiarism, and any typos etc. (I'm expecting it to be fine, though), and I need to revisit the hooks (I'm not sure whether we entirely resolved the hook questions, so I'll have to revisit that also). I shall resume this tomorrow. Storye book (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
* Initial checks: copyediting and neutrality. I'm starting now. So far, I have got as far as the end of the leader. Sorry, this is going to be slow, but I'll keep you updated on how far I've got. Storye book (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
* Structure section done, for ce and neutrality. Storye book (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
* Procedure and Staff sections ditto. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Minimal requirements section ditto. Storye book (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Issues section started. Clarification needed: the second sentence of the para beginning "According to a 2020 survey", is way too long, with an overarching clause that we forget the beginning of, by the time we have read to the end. Please split it up into sentences which are easier to read. Without removing any of your words, the sense of it could be something like: Excessive caseloads cause delays, followed by the details about numbers and reasons for that. Storye book (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Issues section (continued). Clarification needed: At the end of the para beginning "The minister of justice, according": who is doing the deciding? The judges or the president? And is "decide" a strong word there? Would "prefer" be better? Maybe the president is allowed to decide, but can the judges decide where to be appointed to? It's all a bit confusing. Storye book (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Copyediting and neutrality check for the whole article, now completed. I shall now check on the other issues, as promised above. Storye book (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Earwig plagiarism checker is currently too slow and it times out, or maybe it can't handle the size of this article etc. Whatever - I'll accept in good faith for now, that there is no plagiarism in the article. Storye book (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* Revisiting the hooks: re ALT1: page searches could not find the number 14.38 in the article or in either of the given citations next to the bit about over 14 million and 10,000 judges. If you want the number 14.38 in the hook, you need to have it in both the article and citations, or give us another hook, please. Also, if you want to un-strike and start again with ALT2, please could you kindly help me find it in the article (now that it has been re-organised), since I failed to do so before. Sorry to have to go through this again. If you would prefer to start again with a new hook, please could you make sure it is written out clearly in the article, with a citation alongside? Forgive me for insisting on that, but I have seen so many occasions where the promoter can't find it in the article, and throw it out of prep - and I do want to get this nom through DYK. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
* @Szmenderowiecki: I have now checked through everything, and I have no reason to worry about the plagiarism issue. When the above issues of clarification and hooks (see my posts 21-22 June) are resolved, this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 2Edit

Zionism as settler colonialism

  • ... that according to one study, settler colonialism has been successful inside Israel, but not in the territories occupied in 1967? Source: "Israeli/Zionist settler colonialism was remarkably successful before 1967, and was largely unsuccessful thereafter... When we think about settler colonialism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to direct our gaze both towards the West Bank, where it has manifestly failed, and towards Israel proper, where it succeeded." Veracini 2013

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC).

  •   @Buidhe: Can we get other hook proposals? Reason: colonization (more recently; settler colonization in the past) is a valid frame to look at Zionism as, probably (?) the correct one, but the lead of the nominated article itself says that it is still not the dominant framing as of 2022. Thus, having a hook which states the view as fact is inaccurate to the subject. While the hook does credit itself to "one study", the phrasing at the moment still states the settler colonialism as pure fact and only the perspectives on its success as what the study is claiming. The other question is if the study in question was cherry-picked for the hook fact, as I do note a recent string of anti-Israel hooks. And, like I asked recently with hooks for even Russia, where there is conflict, we should look to neutrality and accuracy (taken in balance to each other). So is there nothing else to say on the topic? Maybe there is a hook to be made about kibbutzim as proto-settlements? I am surprised the article doesn't mention early IDF objectives to destroy and resettle Arab villages, but recognise it is a work in progress. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Kingsif: I disagree that it states as fact, since it's clearly attributed to one study. As far as I can tell from the reading I've done, Zionism is undisputed as a form of settler colonialism by scholars of settler colonialism and was highlighted as such by the main pioneer in establishing the field, Patrick Wolfe. The journal Settler Colonial Studies has published a lot of articles about I/P but as far as I know, none that reject the paradigm. Rejection comes from outside this specific field of study; many scholars of the I/P conflict analyze it as a national or territorial conflict (although this is not mutually exclusive with settler colonialism). If you do a Google Scholar search, it's clear that the virtually all results discussing the topic (settler colonialism in Israel/Palestine) are using this analysis, so focusing on rejection would require cherry-picking. Obviously, the article is not complete and could be expanded a lot from the sources available. No one complained when I came up with a long string of hooks that reflected poorly on Germany, Turkey or Slovakia, so I think the same is true of any other country. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: As I said, the phrasing attributes the views on success to the study, treating the idea of settler colonialism happening there as a given and just something to be assessed. It would be like saying "that, according to one source, Russia's denazification of Ukraine has been successful, but only in the south and east" - this statement is true (Kremlin as the source), and it sounds like the source is just weighing in on the places of success, with "Russia's denazification of Ukraine" basically in wikivoice. I'm not comparing the two situations, but hope this analogy gets across how the "settler colonialism in Israel" statement does not seem to be coming from the study mentioned. I'm also not saying it's bad or wrong or anything, but that the article doesn't, at the moment, seem to support such certainty. Perhaps a little more expansion would make all well. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Otherwise; new enough, long enough, QPQ done. The ref section looks a little unusual, and again concerned about overall coverage. Sectioning also doesn't seem standard for history/ideology article? I presume the article will improve with expanding. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, article has now been expanded and reorganized. If you don't like the original hook, how about:

(t · c) buidhe 04:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the update, I think there are still some article issues, but, you know, better quality than a lot out there. Ideally, hooks shouldn't just be X says "quote", so alt3 is the best from that standpoint, but all of them are a little unwieldy. I acknowledge you're trying to work around my comments of stating as fact, so thanks for that. It is for these issues, though (lack of article quality and a suitable hook), that I would, personally, fail this nom. I don't want you to think that I'm out to stop your noms, though, because I'm not, so I'll offer this up for someone else to review. Sorry about that. Kingsif (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your opinion and pushing me to improve the article. When dealing with an abstract topic, I've found quotes to be a successful way of building hooks. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
From cursory look I have found at least three sources written by academic or printed in academic press that oppose the notion that presnted in the article [1],[2],[3](p46-47) I think important to include them per WP:NPOV . I am willing to send full text version to anyone intersted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't add the first source because it's a news not academic source. Colonialism isn't the same thing as settler colonialism and the second source is about the former rather than the latter, not mentioning settler colonialism at all. The third source is about campus debates on Israel and does not discuss settler colonialism either, only mentioning it in a few quotes from other sources. Of course relevant criticism can be added (in fact it already exists in the article), but in order to avoid cherrypicking, I would only cite sources that are about settler colonialism of which there are many. (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  Buidhe, Kingsif, I am suspending this nomination because of active NPOV challenges (whose merits I do not assess but there is a banner and several largely unresolved talk page discussions) and a merge request which may substantially impact the quality and depth of coverage of this article. When these are resolved in either way, you may resume. (You may request third-party input for the talk discussions so that the NPOV concerns are settled for good). I also ask to start working on it because it's been hanging in the air for quite some time, and we have a backlog here. PS. I will close the talk page RfC and will look into closing other discussions if I think I will be accurate in doing so. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The tags have been removed per Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup#Best_practices_in_heavily_monitored_articles. There is no consensus that there are problems with the article or to institute changes proposed on the talk page. I don't agree that people should be able to block a DYK nomination when they cannot get consensus for their criticism or provide high-quality sources to back up proposed edits. (t · c) buidhe 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   The "X" icon means that the nomination is to be closed as unsuccessful; suspending requires something else entirely, such as what I've used here. In any event, with the extant tags on the Historiography and Criticism sections, the article cannot be approved in its current state. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset The tags were added back still without any consensus that they belong there. How can some editors who don't like it just block a DYK and keep cleanup tags on an article when they cannot get consensus for any of their changes? (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If it's worth anything, I think the article is accurate and, while I would like it to be broader, I would not have personally added orange tags. I don't have much time at the moment for Wikipedia, unfortunately, so I can't offer much more input or try to help work on the article. But if someone wanted to review it, as it is, and they approved it, I would not personally have objections to the approval. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 13Edit

Frequency modulation encoding

  • ... that early floppy disks used FM encoding that used only half the available storage? Source: Wakeman pg 1
    • Comment: I added this with the DYK tool when I uploaded, but it seems it never got posted to the DYK nom page. Trying again...

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

@David Eppstein: FM is a specific implementation of DME in the same fashion that MFM is a different specific implementation of DME. FM referrs to both the encoding of the individual data bits as well as the disk format and the header timing signals. I believe this is well explained in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the article says that it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10, and mentions its usage in multiple applications. If it is intended to be only about the way floppy disks were formatted using this code, and not about the code itself, I think it needs significant rewriting to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: The lead sentence of the article is "Frequency Modulation encoding, or simply FM, is a simple type of run length limited code that saw widespread use in early floppy disk drives and hard disk drives." I see nothing like "it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10" and I think it clearly indicates the field is disk storage. I have added a link to DME in the appropriate location and I assume from the wording of your reply that the merge tag can now be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
"is a simple type of run length limited code". That describes it as a code. It is the same code as the one described in differential Manchester encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
"That describes it as a code" ... in a specific setting. I have added words to this effect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
But it's the same code, used for the same basic purpose (maintaining synch). How is it notable for two articles rather than just one? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
As I am now stating for the third time, this article is not about the code, it is about the entire system of which DFE is used for one part. I have made several changes to the text to make this distinction clear and you haven't commented on any of them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
While we're repeating stuff we've already said, maybe I should repeat that the first sentence of Frequency modulation encoding states that FM encoding "is a type of run length limited code". If you don't want to think the article is about a type of code, maybe you shouldn't say in the first sentence that it is about a type of code? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

By all means, suggest alternative phrasing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a preliminary NPP review and have similar concerns plus others. I'm posting separately at that page. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  The wording has been changed multiple times to address David's concern and I have changed it yet again in an effort to avoid the issue, hopefully successfully. North8000's concerns have been addressed on the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 15Edit

Kasymaly Jantöshev

  • ... that a 1955 satirical comedy play by Kasymaly Jantöshev was one of the first signs of the relaxation of Soviet literary restrictions after the death of Joseph Stalin? Source: "Stylistic and production restrictions began to be lifted in the mid-1950s, after the death of Stalin. [...] One of the first signs of positive change was the appearance of satirical comedies such as [...] The Lasso for the Shrew (1955) by Jantoshev". [4]
    • ALT1: ... that before he became one of Kyrgyzstan's most prominent writers, Kasymaly Jantöshev taught courses preparing the chairmen of collective farms? Source: "Further Dzhantoshev entered the pedagogical technical school in Frunze, and after graduating in 1930, began his teaching career in the same educational institution, preparing future chairmen of the collective farm." [5]
    • ALT2: ... that Kasymaly Jantöshev translated How the Steel Was Tempered into Kyrgyz? Source: "Zhantoshev is also known as a translator. He translated into Kyrgyz Nikolai Ostrovsky's novel "How Steel Was Sharpened," the play "The Silent Girl," and works by a number of children's writers. He also translated works by foreign writers such as Mikhail Lermontov, Hans Christian Andersen, and Lydia Budogorskaya." [6]
    • ALT3: ... that Kasymaly Jantöshev translated works by Hans Christian Andersen into Kyrgyz? Source: "Zhantoshev is also known as a translator. He translated into Kyrgyz Nikolai Ostrovsky's novel "How Steel Was Sharpened," the play "The Silent Girl," and works by a number of children's writers. He also translated works by foreign writers such as Mikhail Lermontov, Hans Christian Andersen, and Lydia Budogorskaya." [7]

Created by Curbon7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC).

  • I dunced while nominating, this was created on April 14, not 15. Curbon7 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • On it. — LlywelynII 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

      @Curbon7: Moved to mainspace just ahead of the submission; long enough (9.8k elig. chars.); no copyvio issues per Earwig; no need for QPQ; not a living person but well sourced overall regardless; all of the category links aren't necessary but very welcome and appreciated; links added or filled from main related pages, also not necessary but very welcome. ALT1, ALT2, ALT3 cut as uninteresting especially given the buried lead that this person seems to have written one of the masterworks of his culture. A translation even Kyrgyz people will ignore in favor of Disney movies pales in comparison.

    (1) The organization is a little silly. The biographical sections should all be under a #Life or similar heading and shouldn't go Early Life, Early Career + 2 Book Titles, Late Career + Death; at some point he should have his actual career. (Maybe that's what the 2 book titles are, but then they shouldn't be organized as part of the #Early_career section.) It's also unclear why the 2 titles are grouped together. They should probably be separate sections on their own, especially if they form the entirety of Jantoeshev's main career. (2) The section on Kanybek especially needs minor reworking. Some of it belongs on a separate page for just the book itself or should be worked into Jantoeshev's later life and #Legacy at the appropriate moments. (3) The article generally shouldn't see-saw back and forth in time as much as it does. (4) There's some unclear phrasing to clean up, like "a class war against deemed oppressors", saying a work from the 1960s "is set contemporaneously", &c. (5) Most importantly, you have a major culturally-defining work from within the Soviet Union that sends its protagonist off to Siberia at the hands of "the oppressors" with no discussion whatsoever about what that means. Within the novel, had the fasco-capitalist powers taken over Russia? or was he really portraying Russia as the oppressor against the Kyrgyz people? If the latter, htf did that fly and htf did he have any later career? Similarly, the most important hook and biographical data besides Kanybek is the bit on his work showing a greater openness within Russian society, without explaining what it said, how it was received at the time, and whether it caused trouble later once Brezhnev & co. swung the pendulum back towards greater repression. — LlywelynII 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    (6) The (correct) Frunze in the running text needs to clarify that it's now Bishkek at least during its first mention. The infobox on the right should similarly use or include the modern names of the locations. (7) There should be some discussion of how the USSR handled his legacy in later years and what difference (if any) occurred with his memory once Kyrgyzstan gained its independence. Finally, (8) less essential, but for anyone primarily known as an author, it would be best if there were a #Works section with at least the start of a list of his output condensed to a single list with a {{incomplete list}} header if needed. My own habit is to do it using the {{citation}} template and using the |display-authors=0 field to avoid repeating his name 20 times. — LlywelynII 22:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping of nominator Curbon7 to address these issues/move the nomination forward. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I have commented out the over-long section on the one work, in preparation for a move to its own article. The rest of the comments above strike me as germaine to a GA discussion but not DKY. Unless you have any DKY vios that need to be addressed, I think its time to promote this, it's been here for two months. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: - sorry, fat-fingered the ping. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  I have largely responded to comments 1-4 and the first part of 5. I think someone else has responded to 6. As Maury Markowitz notes, most of the feedback is not essential for passing the DYK. (Issues related to the hooks might be.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 20Edit

Josh Hudson

Converted from a redirect by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC).

  •   for alt0,   for alt1. Article was nominated within seven days, significantly exceeds the 1500-character minimum, and is policy compliant. Hook checks out (alt0 is based on an offline source). QPQ was done. No image submitted (only images in article are fair use). No other issues detected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    • shame about Claudia Blaise :(   also, Metro is a deprecated source per WP:RSP—I'm quite uncomfortable with how much of the article is sourced to Metro, and don't think this should be promoted just yet. @Soaper1234: can the Metro sources be replaced? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I believe the consensus was that Metro was to be avoided, and I've taken every available opportunity to replace it where possible. However, the Metro has great soaps coverage and this area of the publication is very well-regarded. I do hope this won't be an issue regarding this DYK promotion. Soaper1234 - talk 23:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron and Soaper1234: For what it's worth, WP:RSP has this to say about Metro: Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. If the coverage was also mentioned in print, maybe they could be used? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I don't believe it is covered in print, no. Soaper1234 - talk 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Masem said at the RSN discussion that it probably shouldn't be used for facts – can the factual citations be switched out, then? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 25Edit

John D'Orazio

5x expanded by Steelkamp (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC).

  • This is not a review, but this hook fails DYK criteria 4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals...should be avoided." ♠PMC(talk) 16:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Some new hooks: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 09:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry, I forgot about this. I like ALT1 the best. I have changed it slightly as he was not a minister at the time, but it sounds better than the one I came up with, which I have put below. Steelkamp (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Question Hi Steelkamp, it doesn't look like there has been much progress on the removal of the neutrality tag. Does a solution to this look to be forthcoming? If not, this nomination may need to be rejected. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm working on this now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: Is this ready for a new review? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is. Steelkamp (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26Edit

Yi Jeonggyu

Created by Jirangmoon (talk). Self-nominated at 10:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  Y
  • Interesting:  N - Not particularly interesting or notable.
  • Other problems:  N - The hook is also not grammatically correct and should replace the comma with "was".
QPQ: None required.

Overall:   The article needs some work and a new hook. SounderBruce 22:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I fixed the grammatical error in the hook and in the article (using Grammarly). As for neutrality and the hook, I don't see any problems - aren't those subjective assessments? If you tell me what is non-neutral, I'll take another look. As for interesting or not, I think this hook is interesting. Do we need a third opinion? --Jirangmoon (talk)
Third opinion: Yeah, I don't think it's a particularly interesting hook either. It's also not particularly notable by itself, given that the crossover between Korean anarchism and nationalism are very well documented. On this issue, Yi Jeonggyu was far from unique. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that Yi Jeonggyu was an anarchist in the Korean independence movement? Source: Hwang, Dongyoun (2016). Anarchism in Korea. State University of New York Press. p. 12. ISBN 9781438461694. OCLC 959978940. Undoubtedly, the goal of Korean independence movement was to regain independence from Japanese colonialism, to which Yi had devoted himself with anarchism.
  • ALT2: ... that Yi Jeonggyu was a pioneer of the Korean anarchist movement? Source: Hwang, Dongyoun (2016). Anarchism in Korea. State University of New York Press. p. 23, 27–28 (see below). ISBN 9781438461694. OCLC 959978940.
I've added alts based on items sourced in the lede but they need page numbers for verification. czar 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Czar Thank you very much! For Alt1, the page number is 12 : "Undoubtedly, the goal of Korean independence movement was to regain independence from Japanese colonialism, to which Yi had devoted himself with anarchism."
For Alt2, the page number is 25 : "Yi Jeonggyu (1897–1984), one of the most active Korean anarchists in 1920s China, just like other Korean exiles, began his career as an independence activist and converted later to anarchism." --Jirangmoon (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jirangmoon! Those sources do not quite confirm the language used in the alts and the article, if you can rephrase both to match their sources? I.e., they do not say he was a "pioneer" or "key", unless there is another section that says so. czar 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Czar Thank you. Can you review the following quote which contains the word pioneer? It's from page 11.

Echoes to Sim’s description of his complex life as both an anarchist and a nationalist can be found in Yi Jeonggyu’s recall. Yi, a prominent anarchist active in various educational and rural movements before and after 1945, too poses his life as one with such a tension but, in his case, shifting further toward anarchism that offered him a vision of social revolution, rather than simply a nationalism-driven political revolution that aimed merely at national independence. Yi explains the shift that occurred in his life as follows: The first half of my life had gone through a life for struggle for independence movement, and [then in the second half] turned for a movement for social revolution of an ideological idea [sic] that has been viewed in this world, without any good reason, as too extreme. [The second half has been] a life as one of the pioneers, who has been indulged in anarchism, that is, no-government movement.

Will this be ok for ALT2? --Jirangmoon (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jirangmoon, it looks like that quotes Yi as saying that he himself is a pioneer. Since that is an exceptional claim, it requires an exceptional, secondary source. We could say "Yi thought of himself as a pioneer" for ALT2. I've updated both ALTs to match the source but the article text will need to be corrected for both as well. czar 13:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Czar Sorry for a late reply.
Regarding the ALT2 matter, I am a bit confused in editing things on Wikipedia as a Wiki beginner. I do not remember why I wrote the sentence with the word, “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu because I started the article more than 6 months ago. Anyhow, I have tried not to move or copy source sentences to the Wikipedia articles as they are except for quotations. In that process, even though the source articles does not have the word “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu, I thought that Yi Jeonggyu could be one of the pioneers of Korean anarchist movement because Yi Jeonggyu influenced Yi Hoeyeong who was called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” in the source. So if someone was doing something before the “pioneer”, isn’t he even more of a pioneer?
See the quotations below:
Page 23: In addition, Shin’s friendship with Yi Hoeyeong (1867–1932), often called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism,” must have been a factor as well for his acceptance of anarchism.
Page 27-28: It seems that Yi Hoeyeong surely was impressed with Yi Jeonggyu’s project and anarchist ideas with regard to the proposed ideal farming villages in Hunan. Indeed, it is said that Yi Jeonggyu’s role was decisive in converting Yi Hoeyeong, who was persuaded by the former about the goal of anarchism and thus accepted it in later 1923.38 Discussing with many kinds of independence activists and radicals, including Chinese and Taiwanese, Yi Hoeyeong finally chose anarchism for his own answer. The national goal, of course, was the key that drew him to anarchism.
Page 28: In this sense, to call Yi Hoeyeong “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” is an interesting indication of the coming trajectory and transnational character of Korean anarchism in China in the 1930s and ’40s.
Also, from a Korean article at http://m.kyeongin.com/view.php?key=20190501010000158: “우당 이회영을 아나키즘 사상가로 인도한 이가 바로 이정규다 “ It was Yi Jeonggyu who led Yi Hoeyeong to become an anarchist.
--Jirangmoon (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me! I've updated ALT2. @SounderBruce, want to take another peek? czar 01:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  New review needed czar 21:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I made some additional minor copyedits, with no change to content. As with the original review, the article is new enough, long enough, no copyvio and no QPQ needed. I did not see anything I would consider strongly NPOV. ALT2 seems very strong and is well supported per the discussion above. GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  I reopened this and I'm marking the nomination for closure. There are substantial copyright violations in the article and this nomination has been around since April. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 27Edit

List of United States Military Academy First Captains

 
Holland Pratt

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

  • ALT1 ... that West Point's Corps of Cadets First Captain Holland Pratt (pictured) is a Rhodes Scholar who will pursue two master of science degrees at the University of Oxford?
    Suggesting ALT 1. — Maile (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Source: Allen, Jim (November 23, 2021). "West Point cadet from Washington state named Rhodes Scholar". Stars and Stripes.
    Altered ALT1 slightly; Pratt is still at West Point. American academic years end in June, so she doesn't go to Oxford until later this year. She'll have company; three of her classmates will also be Rhodes Scholars. [10] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye7, Maile66, any updates? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Szmenderowiecki: From my end, this is ready for DYK. My input was to add sourcing and some wording in the Comments column, in order to help the reader understand that those who held this position were on a path to substantive careers. Whether or not Hawkeye7 fills in the handful of blank spots in the Comments section, is really only relevant if this progresses to Feature List candidacy. — Maile (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    FYI, what will kick up as a copyvio is the FirstCaptains.pdf - that is nothing but the list of names found here, and there is nothing else on that PDF except the list of names. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Szmenderowiecki: I'll get around to adding some more to the comments, but I think that is only relevant to its FLC, and not DYK. It should be fine for DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    So I understand that everyone will be all right if I promote this right now (personally I don't see much problems with this nomination at this point)? If so, which of the two hooks you prefer? Put a tick next to the one you prefer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: - your call. Whichever one you prefer, I will go along with. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sure. Go with ALT1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I am one of the nominators and cannot be the reviewer. The only reviewer has been @Szmenderowiecki: Someone else needs to Tick ALT1. And then a different person needs to promote it. — Maile (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Just under the nomination, it says that the article was created by Hawkeye and self-nominated. The history does indeed say that Maile66 created the majority of the article, but this also means that they must be explicitly mentioned as a co-nom. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 added me in the credits after I started doing so much work on this. Even if I were not the nominator, I am a major contributor to the article, so I cannot possibly be the reviewer. I've left you a message at the DYK talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed, since no DYK review has been made that I can see. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. Although Earwig's detects a match with [11], it's only because of the "[year] [name]" listings and thus it's not really a copyvio. QPQ has been done. The hooks are technically accurate (I do not have a particular preference at this time), but it may be worth specifying the year since the hooks will become outdated next year. Alternatively, another possible option could be a more generalist hook that omits mentioning Pratt but mentions Pershing and MacArthur could be proposed, though this does have the disadvantage of having to drop the image for that hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions)
    ALT2 ... that Holland Pratt (pictured) was the 2021–22 First Captain of the Corps of Cadets at West Point, a position formerly held by John J. Pershing and Douglas MacArthur?
    ALT3 ... that the 2021–22 West Point's Corps of Cadets First Captain Holland Pratt is a Rhodes Scholar who will pursue two master of science degrees at the University of Oxford?
@Narutolovehinata5 and Hawkeye7: The image is of such good quality, it would be a shame to eliminate it. Struck first two hooks, offering Alts 2-3 above. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
ALT2's wording is a bit weird. The wording could sort of be interpreted to mean that Pershing or MacArthur was a First Captain in 2021-22 (which obviously isn't the case). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, is there an issue with ALT3? With the article itself? I'm trying to figure out what's keeping this nomination from an approval at this point. Originally, ALT1, which is ALT3 without the dates, seemed to be the preferred hook by the article's authors. I've struck ALT2 because I agree it didn't transition well with the date added. (I've changed the hyphen to an en dash in the date range per MOS.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
There wasn't anything wrong with the article myself. It's just that when an article has multiple hooks proposed and all are suitable, I just want to make sure all of them are ready at the same time so that the promoter can have a choice. In any case, as ALT2 is now struck and the problem-free ALT3 is the only option remaining,   I'm approving the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7, Maile66, and Narutolovehinata5: Per the discussion at WT:DYK, I have removed this from the queue for now and reopened the nom page here. My original issue was that the hook might not meet criterion 3a, "interesting to a broad audience", especially as it was unclear if Holland herself was a notable individual. Now she has an article, and the discussion also touched on possibly expanding this into a double hook. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There still seem to be some concerns if Pratt is notable enough to have her own article in the first place. If that's the case I would suggest doing an AFD to test consensus, then if the article is kept this nomination can proceed as a double nom. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
IMO, doing an AFD at this point, is counter productive, and seems to me like one more effort to derail this DYK nomination. People who contribute at AFD, and I am often one of them, may or may not know what they are looking at. There are no requirements to participating at AFD, and certainly no knowledge of DYK required to be a drive-by commentator at AFD. Brand new editors who have very little knowledge of any Wikipedia policies carry as much weight as editors who have taken articles to Feature List and Featured Content. It's also a place where nominations stagnate for long periods without anyone participating. And it is not a sideline requirement for nominating a DYK. — Maile (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Need a review of the new double hook. I have supplied a second QPQ. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  • @Hawkeye7, Szmenderowiecki, Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, and Amakuru: moving along. I like Holland Pratt, but how about a new hook, good image and appropriate for a lead hook, if reviewers see it that way. We'd have to mention this in this nomination article's lead, but that would work.
*ALT5 ... that the first Asian cadet at West Point to be named First Captain of the cadets was John Tien (pictured), currently serving as United States Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security?
John Tien's image is in the above linked article - we'd have to insert it in this article, it's freely licensed as a government photo, and would look good on the main page. Thoughts, anyone? — Maile (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess that could work if the Pratt angle doesn't work out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: AfD has been closed. Nomination is good to go with approved ALT3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: do you still want to promote this? — Maile (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this has received full approval yet. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes it has. It was already promoted. [12] We pulled it to add a second article to the hook, but that article has been deleted, so this nomination can be restored to the prep area. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  That would not be possible. There is some rough consensus (based on the WT:DYK discussion) that the hooks that mention Pratt could not run if she didn't have an article, and that objections were raised to ALT3 specifically. Given the circumstances, this will need a new review (I see that Hawkeye7 struck ALT5; however, as it didn't have the Pratt mention issues, I am re-suggesting it below for re-review). For the next reviewer, two hooks will be on offer here: one is a revised version of ALT0 but without Pratt being mentioned, and the other is ALT5 (I have struck ALT3 per the WT:DYK discussion).
ALT5 ... that the first Asian American cadet at West Point to be named First Captain of the cadets was John Tien (pictured), currently serving as United States Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security? (if there's a desire to include Tien's picture, that's fine)
ALT6 ... that previous First Captains of the Corps of Cadets at West Point include John J. Pershing and Douglas MacArthur?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's Tien's image, but both the image and blurb about him need to be inserted into the lead. — Maile (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 
John Tien
@Hawkeye7 and Narutolovehinata5: I stuck Tien and his image in the lead, leaving Pratt there also. It looks bad. But then the other question comes to mind: OK, he was the first Asian. Who was the first African American? Who was the first non-American (possibly Daine Van de Wall). And as attractive as Pratt is, by the time this is on the main page, she'll be off to Oxford and there will be a new First Captain. — Maile (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and Narutolovehinata5: I have the images in the lead, in a way that I think might work with ALT5. Please have a look and see if we can go with this. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Because I proposed a hook above (even if it was just a shortening of an original hook) I'm not really comfortable doing another review so I'd like to ask for a new reviewer to take a look at this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh, Drmies, and Victuallers: we seem to be temporarily bogged down on this. Would it be possible for one of you to review ALTs 5 and 6? — Maile (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I have to note that, in the article, the caption for Tien is missing a comma after "Tien". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Caption fixed. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  New reviewer needed for ALTs 5 and 6. I've put the Tien image in proper DYK format, and added "(pictured)" to ALT5. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, This article had a hook and it was approved. I'm here to help the DYK project. The hook was knocked back because someone didn't like it.... being bogged down was predictable and I thank those who indulged this misjudgement. I don't want to encourage disregard of DYKs consensus process. Apologies to Hawkeye7, but this process needs fixing. Victuallers (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The issue here is that there's a long-standing guideline that hooks cannot mention red-linked people by name unless there was good reason to do so. With Pratt no longer having an article, the hooks mentioning her could simply not run at all regardless of the merits of whether or not the original hook was appropriate in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  And we moved past that a long time ago. Right now, we just need a reviewer to check ALTs 5 and 6, so we can hopefully finally approve this nomination. — Maile (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 30Edit

William George Carlile Kent

 
Commander Kent

Created by Knightmare 3112 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  N - explained below
  • Interesting:  Y
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ:  ?
Overall:   The article is lacking inline citations with the entirety of the "Later life" section uncited. I am not sure the hook reflects what is said in the source. The source says Bligh later said at trial that Kent 'should have blown down the town of Sydney about the ears of the Inhabitants' and that Kent was tried for "various actions contrary to or without Bligh's orders". To say that he was arrested for failing to blow up Sydney seems like a big jump from this. QPQ not done but I am not sure if this editor is under the 5 DYK credits to get away with this. The article is also in need of a good copy edit including tidying commas and tenses although this is not part of the DYK criteria. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic added inline citations to the uncited sections. What you recommend would be a better hook? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
There still seems to be big uncited sections in the text including an entire paragraph at the beginning of the "New South Wales" section. In terms of the hook, I just think that Kent was arrested, for failing to follow Bligh's order to "blow down the town of Sydney about the ears of the inhabitants" is not a true statement or at least is not reflected in the source. I suppose a more accurate hook would be something like:
ALT1 ... that New South Wales Governor William Bligh condemned William George Carlile Kent (pictured) for failing to destroy Sydney?
I might let another reviewer take a run at this as at the moment I don't think my concerns with the article have been alleviated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir.copic all paragraphs have citations, as long as you've no more concerns can this be approved with ALT1

  New reviewer requested for ALT1. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, driving by. I think ALT1 has some issues that make it a poor hook. It centers on the names of two men that most people unfamiliar with Australian history are unlikely to know the names of. I think the interesting part about the hook is that the subject cared so much about doing the right thing that instead of destroying Sydney as ordered, he worked to restore order, even to the point of getting arrested. So I would suggest something like this:

...that William George Carlile Kent was arrested for restoring government relationships in postcoup Sydney, Australia, because he didn't follow his boss's orders to destroy the town?

I'm not allowed to approve my own hook, so if something like that looks good to you, you can propose it and request another reviewer. Ruthgrace (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  Y
  • Interesting:  N - explained above
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ:  ?
Overall:   Looks like the issue with the citations pointed out by the previous reviewer have been fixed. Please mention a specific article for the QPQ requirement if you've fulfilled that. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I was in the process of reviewing the article and nomination and while Ruthgrace beat me to replying, I generally agree with their assessment (however I would note that Knightmare 3112 only appears to have two prior DYKs and would thus be exempt from QPQ). In an effort to address the concerns about the hook I have also drafted the below ALT2 (please feel free to wordsmith/rework to improve if helpful). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that at William George Carlile Kent's (pictured) court-martial for disobeying deposed New South Wales Governor William Bligh's orders, Bligh stated Kent should have destroyed Sydney to restore his government?

Articles created/expanded on May 3Edit

Serenidus of Saulges, Oratory of Saint Cénéré, Saint Serenicus

 
Serenidus and his spring in the Oratory of Saint Cénéré

Created by Evrik (talk) and Rei Momo (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC).

  • On it.

    Wow, that was the easiest review ever. @Evrik: you forgot to source the one thing you find most interesting about the article. Since it's also the most scurrilous part, it would need the cite even if you come up with other ALTs. — LlywelynII 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII: The source was accidentally removed. I have added it back. --evrik (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed of all three nominated articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 5Edit

Mark Lettieri

Created by Bammesk (talk). Nominated by Bammesk (talk) at 01:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  Y
  • Interesting:  N - This hook is not interesting at all.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   I'm accepting of the explanation regarding the newness of the article. I think the sourcing could probably be improved as things like the podcasts are not especially reliable. The article also needs a good copy edit. The biggest issue however is that the hook is not remotely interesting. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @Vladimir.copic: About the hook, I agree. I struggled with the hook. I am open to your suggestions or alternative hook proposals. How about something that says he graduated with a degree in marketing but then decided to become a pro musician (an unrelated field)? About the use of podcasts and better sources: He doesn't have many print sources, and in the ones he does have the coverage isn't diverse. He is primarily notable for his solo Grammy nomination and the Billboard charting of his solo albums, and not so much for coverage in multiple sources. I took what I could from print sources, and then used the podcasts to fill in the gaps and some of the details. The two podcasts are direct interviews with him, and the info taken from (i.e. sourced to) the two podcasts are non-controversial facts about his life, not promotional tidbits. I can include the exact timestamp(s) of each podcast citation (minute:seconds) in the citation templates. That will help any reader (and you) to verify the sourced content. Would that work? (On a sidenote: ref. 8 is Part 2, a continuation of ref. 4) About the article needing a good copy edit: please elaborate?, and/or feel free to copy edit as you see fit. Thanks for the feedback. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Here is an alternate hook, feel free to modify it and/or propose other hooks, I am open to any hook. Bammesk (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Mark Lettieri graduated with a degree in marketing and then decided to pursue music professionally? Sources: "He (...) attend Texas Christian University, where he studied advertising and public relations. After graduating, he began taking part in the gospel and R&B scene of the Dallas-Fort Worth area." Source Link 1 "At Texas Christian University, he chose not to be a music major, but rather to head into the family business of public relations and advertising. 'The music thing (…) was a hobby that I was really passionate about, but the idea of doing it as a career wasn't my focus.' After college, PR and advertising jobs were scarce, so Lettieri joined up with a locally based touring country band." Source Link 2
ALT3 ... that jazz fusion and funk musician Mark Lettieri graduated with a degree in marketing?
Would this work as a possible ALT? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I added the podcast timestamps. I am Ok with any ALT. Also, I introduced the ALT4 below. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
ALT4 ... that guitarist Mark Lettieri is a member of three different bands? Sources: "Mark Lettieri is a (…) member of projects including Snarky Puppy and (…) the Fearless Flyers" Source Link 1, "and fronting his own trio" Source Link 2
What about this one:
ALT5 ... that Mark Lettieri has collaborated with both David Crosby and Dave Chapelle? Source: Roberts, Samuel (22 May 2019). "Snarky Puppy's Mark Lettieri is making instrumental guitar cool again". Guitar.com. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
It's a bit more fun and doesn't give you what you expect. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir.copic, I think ALT5 is great. I am fine with it. I had a hard time coming up with anything interesting. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   New reviewer needed to check ALT5, and whether the article still needs a copyedit. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   I'm kinda mixed on ALT5. I think it's a good hook if you're familiar with the names or are well-versed in music, but it's less meaningful to those unfamiliar with either Crosby and Chapelle. I would have gone with either ALT2 or ALT3 instead, but as I proposed ALT3 and added new hook content I'm not allowed to approve ALT3 anyway. As for the article itself, it's mostly fine, but the "Equipment" section reads weirdly. It has words such as "Guitars:" (in italics), and I don't think such wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I rewrote the "Equipment" section [13]. I think ALT3, ALT4 and ALT5 are all viable options (maybe even ALT2, although I prefer ALT3 over ALT2). In general I am open to the wording of hooks, because it's hard to weigh the interest of main-page readers, they are a diverse group. Bammesk (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: how about an ALT6 similar to ALT5 but with the word "musician" added in front of "David Crosby" and the word "comedian" added in front of "Dave Chapelle", would that work? How about deleting the word "both" as well? Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who isn't that in the know regarding comedians and only heard of Chapelle recently (mainly because the internet was talking about him), I think your proposed ALT6 is better, albeit it still doesn't really solve the "who are these people?" issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: how about ALT4? Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a decent hook, but I'm hesitant to approve it because I already proposed a hook above and ideally I'd want a third party to choose between my hook or ALT4. I do suggest dropping ALT5/ALT6 however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   New reviewer needed to check ALT3 and ALT4. (For sourcing of ALT3 see the small print right above ALT3, or see the article itself.) Per comments above, all other hooks are withdrawn at this time. Many thanks to all participants. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ernest Muir (doctor)

  • ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Indian cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Source: Macpherson, Hamish (11 January 2021), "Dr Isabel Kerr", The National, High Wycombe: Newsquest Media Group. "A fellow Scot, Dr Ernest Muir, was researching the use of the oil of the chaulmoogra tree to treat leprosy... [Kerr's] writings on the treatment impressed Muir and Rogers and soon chaulmoogra oil was a standard treatment for leprosy across India and beyond."
    • ALT1: ... that the Scottish missionary leprologist Ernest Muir worked in the Ottoman Empire, British India, and Trinidad and served as secretary of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association, now LEPRA? Source: Browne, Stanley George (1974), "Ernest Muir, C.M.G., C.I.E., M.D. (Edin.), F.R.C.S., LL.D. 1880–1974" (PDF), International Journal of Leprosy, Bauru: International Leprosy Association, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 457–458. "Dr Ernest Muir", History of Leprosy: Database, Tokyo: Sasakawa Memorial Health Foundation, 2022.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Omnia sunt communia
    • Comment: Kindly don't add extraneous links to the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  N - ?
  • Interesting:  Y
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   As I usually do, I have made a minor copyedit to the article. I have also removed the links in the article to various years - see WP:YEARLINK. This is a dry article about a dry subject. I prefer the first of the hooks, because it is less dry than the second one. However, it's not clear to me whether chaulmoogra oil really is a "traditional Indian cure" as claimed in the first hook. Neither the article nor the quoted passage in the hook reference actually says so. Additionally, and notwithstanding the apparent views of the nominator, I think the first hook should also be linked to chaulmoogra oil and leprosy. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: Thank you for your work! but it's unclear if you're holding up the nomination over the desire to include links in the hooks (no don't & that has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval) or you didn't click the link in the article to chaulmoogra oil (do and cf. WP:BLUE regarding considering herbal cures traditional) or for something else from the comment you left. All copy edits undone, since the grammar 'correction' was mistaken and WP:YEARLINK allows that readers might need to know more about the context of events.

Edit: Judging the real problem from the template to be a citation issue, added "...the traditional Ayurvedic treatment[4]..." to the running text and a link to Parascandola's article, the relevant part of which runs "Whatever we think of this mythical explanation of the origin of the drug, it appears clear that Chaulmoogra oil has a long history in Asia. The oil was long used in traditional Ayurvedic medicine in India for the treatment of leprosy and various skin conditions. It seems to also have been used for the treatment of leprosy in other Asian countries such as China and Burma.6". Ayurvedic is the article and name for traditional Indian medicine so hopefully that can be left as is. In the alternative if it isn't,
ALT2: ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Ayurvedic cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Cite in the paragraph above.
although that's obviously less clear. Again, no needless links to nonpromoted articles. The point is to increase exposure to the articles worked on, not completely unrelated ones. Interested readers can click through. Thanks again for your time on such a dry article on such a dry topic, all the same! — LlywelynII 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
[edit] As my edits have been inappropriately reverted, I am not willing to approve this nomination. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  @Bahnfrend: (a) That's certainly your prerogative but (b) while your attention is appreciated the edits were indeed wrong (or unnecessary) as noted and (c) this is the icon to use to request a new reviewer, when there actually isn't a reason to declare an article ineligible. In the future, if you don't like an article's topic, you can always look at any of the hundred or so other ones and try to be clearer in your comments and own reasoning as to what's actually necessary under the rules versus things you'd personally like to see. Thanks again for your time, all the same! — LlywelynII 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Other reviewers: I know long notes are offputting, but Bahnfrend has already shown the article is within policy aside from wanting more direct sourcing for the specific wording, which has been provided. The argument above is only over unhappiness on unrelated topics. — LlywelynII 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Huh? Saying that a disagreement over the hook - whether to link articles that people aren't likely to understand on their own - is expressing "unhappiness on unrelated topics" or "has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval" is strange. I would review this, but since I think that the article has basic readability problems and that the hook should link to these terms, I expect I'd be treated with this weird aggressive behavior (compare). Urve (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @Urve: You're entitled to your opinion but, no, links in hooks have nothing whatsoever to do with their eligibility. That said, if there really are readability issues or even some particular passages you could point to that should be rewritten for better clarity, I'm all ears. The whole point of this is to drive attention to new articles and improve them. — LlywelynII 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: There's been no movement here for three weeks. Question: do you want to continue this DYK or close it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

LlywelynII hasn't edited since June 13th. I've left them a message on their talk page but if they don't return within a week or so it may be time to close this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Omnia sunt communia

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC).

  • On it. @Ezlev: I can tell you right now that ALT0 needs to be reworded if you prefer it to the others. It's a Christinian communist slogan/maxim/what have you and it's accurate enough to say it's a Biblical principle but it isn't a slogan within the Bible. It's just a Latin translation of something someone said in the Bible that is used a slogan outside it. (I do know what you mean, but something like "biblically derived" would be clearer and better here.) Biblical should be lowercase in ALT0 and ALT3. The article should also include the original Greek form of the expression (I know where to go for that and can add it for you) and the specific Latin translation where this exact expression appears. We'd definitely need to see if it's the version in Jerome's Vulgate (I assume it is but that should be sourced) and it'd be nice if you could look to see if it appears in any Latin translations before Jerome, if any of those survive. — LlywelynII 00:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    • LlywelynII, thank you so much for the feedback! Always nice to have experienced eyes on articles in which I've gone out of my typical topic areas. Hook tweaks made as suggested. It'd be lovely if you could add the Greek and the translation details you're talking about, or at least point me in the right direction – I'm not super familiar with the New Testament. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Ezlev Well, this sucks for you. I've added the Greek and Vulgate text, but Omnia sunt communia isn't the form that either uses. (1) You'll need to spend a little time seeing where the exact construction came from, whether it was B. Papiensis or someone even earlier who paraphrased the Bible that way. (2) That first use should be added to the new #Origin section. (3) If this began as a legal doctrine, that should come after the #Origin section and the #Historical use section should come 3rd. It might even be treated as a #Legacy section instead if it just represents different cults using the legal doctrine to justify their own beliefs instead of being separately developed uses of the Biblical text. (4) This isn't 100% necessary just to process the nomination but, if this is a slogan central to Christian communism as opposed to being primarily a legal doctrine responsible for eminent domain and expropriation, you should be able to find at least 2 other examples of groups trying to emulate the apostolic fellowship and early church under its aegis. — LlywelynII 03:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
        • That does suck, LlywelynII, because I don't think I can do all you've asked. What's in the article now, after the edit I just made, is all I've been able to find and interpret. There are more sources out there but they're deep enough in subject areas I have basically no knowledge of that I can't understand them with enough confidence to cite or describe them in the article. Of your points, 1 is not done (although Papiensis remains the oldest use of the exact translation I can find), 2 is therefore not done, 3 is done (sections are now "Origin", "Legal doctrine", "Other historical use" in that order), 4 is not done. I still think the article meets DYK standards, so where do we go from here? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
        • LlywelynII, any thoughts, or should we tag this for a new reviewer? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 6Edit

Yosef Shenberger

Created by Havradim (talk). Self-nominated at 22:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Apologies for unlearned contribution (I've very little DYK experience) the first option doesn't work, as synagogues don't belong to architects ("his") and more fundamentally the proposed hook suggests that until he came along synagogues didn't have stained glass windows, when the idea has been around for centuries. The alt hook doesn't seem very interesting to me - a bridge instead of a ramp? Meh. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this comment Dweller. All I found regarding the Hurva so far is this quote: Today, a 16-meter-high stone arch erected by two architects in 1978 spans the space where the Hurva once stood, serving, together with the in situ remains and explanatory plaques, as a stark reminder of what was destroyed. [14] The "two architects" likely being a reference to the partners Shenberger and Katz (the former died in 1982 and the latter in 2016). While it is clear this reference cannot be used as a source, my research tools are currently limited, although I might be able to improve them soon. In regards to ALT0, the language I chose was due to brevity. Also, the article makes clear that while stained glass might not be a new idea, Shenberger encountered some opposition to the idea of including decorative elements in synagogues, due to some conservative leaders (rabbis?) believing they were a distraction to prayer. Please review the revised hook below; and because you said you are relatively unfamiliar with DYK, I am providing a link to the DYK reviewing guide for your convenience.
  • ALT0a ... that architect Yosef Shenberger overcame opposition to adding stained glass and other decorative elements to synagogues through his study of ancient ruins? Havradim leaf a message 00:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Willem Thomas de Vogel

 
New Candi in 1917
 
W. Th. de Vogel in 1921
  • ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel put his money where his mouth was and bought land for Dutch Semarang to improve living conditions for its poor, only to see the city use the area for luxury villas instead?
Source:
  • Snijders, Emilius Paulus (10 March 1953), "Hoofdartikelen: Dr. W. Th. de Vogel 90 Jaar Terugblik op een Rijk Leven", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 715. "heuvelland te zoeken, waar de gezondheidstoestand veel beter bleek te zijn. Hoe logisch en vanzelfsprekend het nu lijkt, DE VOGEL heeft jarenlang met taaie volharding moeten strijden om deze eenvoudige inzichten tot gemeengoed te maken. Gesteund un voorgelicht door zijn vriend SOENARIO, later door TILLEMA en WESTERVELD, zette hij door, en risqueerde zelfs geheel belangeloos eigen kapitaal, door ten behoeve der gemeent, die nog weifelde, de vookeursrechten op de onbebouwde grond in deze heuvels van de bevolking te kopen, ten einde grondspeculatie te voorkomen. Hij legde de toegang tot Nieuw Tjandi open; de "de Vogelweg" symboliseert dit op zinvolle wijze."
  • Van Roosmalen, Pauline Katherina Maria (2017), "Modern Indisch Town Planning", The Life and Work of Thomas Karsten, Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, pp. 270–274. "Together with his Semarang council colleague, the medical practitioner Willem Thomas de Vogel (1863-1955), Tillema had appealed to the municipality to develop the hills south of the city for the indigenous inhabitants of Semarang... The plan never passed its preliminary stage. Although the Semarang municipality had already purchased the land, it did not perceive the hills as a suitable residential location. De Bazel's plan and, consequently, Tillema and De Vogel's ambition to develop the area, thus remained in limbo... Karsten revised the plan in 1919, in collaboration with Semarang's new Director of Municipal Housing Service, Johannes Jacobus Gerardus Everwijn Riickert. The outcome was a plan reminiscent of contemporary European town plans... Karsten's final plan incorporated the hill site south of Semarang. While earlier allocated for a new kampong, it was now allotted to an upscale and exclusive residential area."
    • ALT1: ... that the founder of Indonesia's public health service, Willem Thomas de Vogel, was only able to finish med school thanks to his brother-in-law and cousin Dr. Einthoven, the father of electrocardiography? Source: Snellen, Hermann Adrianus (1995), Willem Einthoven (1860–1927) Father of Electrocardiography, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 22 & 70.
    • ALT2: ... that, when Willem Thomas de Vogel began sailing, his family forced him to take up the more respectable career of managing a cinchona plantation instead? Source: Snijders, Emilius Paulus (10 March 1953), "Hoofdartikelen: Dr. W. Th. de Vogel 90 Jaar Terugblik op een Rijk Leven", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 97, no. 12, p. 714.
    • ALT3: ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel blocked any official use of traditional Indonesian medicine after he saw how poorly it handled the 1908 cholera outbreak? Source: Murakami, Saki (2015), "Call for Doctors! Uneven Medical Provision and the Modernization of State Health Care during the Decolonization of Indonesia, 1930s–1950s", Cars, Conduits, and Kampongs: The Modernization of the Indonesian City, 1920–1960, Leiden: Brill, p. 34.
    • ALT4: ... that the founder of Indonesia's public health service, Willem Thomas de Vogel, fought against providing actual health care, preferring to work on improving sanitation and hygiene instead? Source: Winckel, Charles Willem Frederik (19 March 1955), "Personalia: In Memoriam Dr. W. Th. de Vogel", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 99, no. 12, p. 899.
    • ALT5: ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel spent his life fighting malaria, cholera, and bubonic plague in the Dutch East Indies but lived to the age of 92? Source: Eh... See the article xD
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Kindly avoid adding extraneous links to the hooks. — LlywelynII 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   @LlywelynII: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. AGF on the Dutch hooks and offline, with ALT3 checking out. ALT1 is too long (201 characters). No textual issues.
  • Can Find a Grave be replaced in re: source for burial location?
  • I really think Semarang, Willem Einthoven, and cinchona should be linked — I know I needed that context.
  • I'd change "the" to "a" before "1908" in ALT3, in part because we don't have an article about this outbreak.
  • Preference for hooks in order: ALT0, 4, 3, 2, 5
Once the Find a Grave source is replaced, I will approve. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 7Edit

Ekaterina Novitskaya

Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  Y
  • Interesting:  Y
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   The only issue is that Discogs isn't a reliable source due to being user edited. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Empirical limits in science

  • ... that scientists don't all agree on the gene concept and this is one of the empirical limits in science? Source: Arabatzis, Theodore (2019-06-11), "What Are Scientific Concepts?", What Is Scientific Knowledge?, Routledge, pp. 85–99, doi:10.4324/9780203703809-6, ISBN 978-0-203-70380-9, S2CID 197990250, retrieved 2022-04-30

5x expanded by Airstarfish (talk). Self-nominated at 11:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

  •   @Airstarfish: The 5x expansion occurred in mainspace over the course of around 2–3 weeks. According the the letter of the rules, this would be permissible had the expansion occurred in a draft or sandbox. Since this is a student I'm going to count this as a technicality and say it follows the spirit of being new and long enough. It is within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, and a QPQ review is not needed for a new user.
The hook uses vague language and needs to be reworked or replaced: "scientists don't all agree on the gene concept" doesn't capture the article's discussion of the genotype/phenotype distinction. I'd also double-check that paragraph against the source (which I don't have access to at the moment); my instinct is that evolutionary biologists would emphasize phenotype while molecular biologists would emphasize genotype, which is the reverse of what the article says. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) would it be better if it read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene and this is one of the empirical limits in science"? as this is more consistent with the main point and wording in that section of the article. Also the article has the same order as written in the source in the genotype/phenotype discussion. I've found and cited an additional source [1], which is more explicit (and should preferably be used instead for the DYK nomination), in which the Author of the source also suspected it would be the other way around but upon investigation found it to be the way that it is written in the article. Airstarfish (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): alternatively to be even more specific it could read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene whereby some scientists think of the gene at a cellular level while others think in terms of its apparent effect and this is one of the empirical limits in science", but this hook might be giving too much away Airstarfish (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): The nominator hasn't edited since late May. Have your issues been addressed yet or do they still remain? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: The nominator responded on the article talk page instead of here; I just moved their response above. @Airstarfish: Does the source explicitly say that this difference in conceptualization is an empirical limit of science? Conceptualization would seem to me to be a theoretical rather than empirical limit. It would be easier if I could see the source myself, but I don't have access to it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   The nominator hasn't edited since May and the issues raised above remain unaddressed. Unless another editor adopts this I don't see a path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it just needs a different hook. I can take a look and suggest one over the weekend. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Will you be willing to adopt the nomination and propose a new hook? We'll probably need a new reviewer at that point, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Rafflesia lawangensis

Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 03:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Starting review--Kevmin § 15:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Article new enough and long enough. Article is cited and sources, with the hook verified to the sources. Can we get a little more clarity/information on how the warts and spots are different from the other species? The sentance as it is feels like a fragment lacking completion. Also apologies for the delay in the review.--Kevmin § 20:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ornithoptera:, any thoughts.--Kevmin § 18:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
As I have not heard anything from @Ornithoptera:, I will give this one more week and then decline the nom.--Kevmin § 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Kevmin, I can't find anything about in what way the warts/spots are visually different, but I added a small detail about their distribution on the plant (distinctively missing on this species on some parts), and made the sentence end less like a fragment. Urve (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 9Edit

Tenta, Cyprus

 
View of Tenta
  • ... that Tenta (pictured) is an archaeological settlement in Cyprus? Source: Todd, Ian (1978). "Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta, Cyprus". Archaeology. 31(4): 58–59 – via JSTOR

Created by Cstylus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

  • @Cstylus: The hook isn’t interesting I think. What about...
    • ALT1: ... that Tenta’s architectural remains, artefacts, human burials, flora and fauna have been “virtually unchanged for two millennia"?
    • ALT2: ... that Tenta’s excavations suggests that there was considerable continuity in social organisation as well as technological and economic practices for two millennia?

Check these two hook and let me know if one of two works. Mehedi Abedin 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   I took a quick look at the article and there are a few issues. Firstly, the article was created way back in 2008, so it is not eligible as a new article. On the other hand, the article did receive a 5x expansion starting on May 9th. The article was nominated on May 17th, which is just a day late; however, as the nominator is a new student editor, that one-day lateness may be forgiven. Finally, the article has a "citation needed" tag that needs fixing. I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and most of the sources (including those for the hooks) are cited to sources I can't access so AGF. I think ALT1 is the best option here. This article is somewhat outside my expertise so I'd like a second opinion from a subject expert as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1982 World's Fair

 
Fairgoers walking at the base of the Sunsphere, June 3, 1982

5x expanded by AppalachianCentrist (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC).

  •   I suppose this is your first DYK entry, AppalachianCentrist. Welcome to DYK. I hope you enjoy it here. Unfortunately, the article that you put forward does not meet the DYK criteria. Please have a close look at the WP:DYKRULES. Under the eligibility criteria, you fall short of 1b and 2b. The former because your expansion started on 13 April, i.e. way outside the 7-day requirement. The latter because the expansion is just under a factor of two and not anywhere near the required factor of five. Under rule 2, you can also find links that work out article prose size for you. I hope this isn't too off-putting and we hope to see you nominate your next article soon. Maybe write a new one? Pro-tip: write articles (or expansions) in user space and once it's done, then publish it and nominate at DYK at the same time. That way you never get in trouble with the "new" requirement. Schwede66 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Schwede66: it does seem a little funky that we incentivize users to develop positive changes out of articlespace so that it can be done in less than a week... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
      •  : And I would say we should put this nomination on hold. The article was nominated for GAN minutes before making the DYK nomination. If GAN passes, it would be eligible. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Fine by me but I note that it was nominated as 5-times expanded, not GAN. Schwede66 10:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Given that it's been a month without any progress on the GAN front (the article hasn't even been reviewed yet), the article can't be passed because it didn't meet expansion requirements. There is no prejudice against renominating for DYK if/when the GAN passes and I highly suggest to AppalachianCentrist to try again when that time comes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    •   The GA review was opened on June 16. Let's hold off to see what kind of progress is made. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   The GA review passed so this is ready for a new review. For DYK purposes this is now treated as a recently promoted GA rather than a 5x expansion, so if there are no remaining issues this should probably be ready. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Note that a complete DYK review needs to be done, since a full review was not done previously. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 10Edit

Mike Chen

  • ... that food YouTuber Mike Chen also runs a YouTube channel documenting strange phenomena? Source: CNBC (article): "Chen, who started making YouTube food videos six years ago, actually runs six different YouTube channels, with more than 5 million followers overall, including “Beyond Science,” where he explores “food, news, Chinese culture and mysterious phenomenons.”"

Created by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

  •   My first impression is that this article seems kind of "peacocky" or promotionally toned. The cites contain long quotations from the subject's YT videos; possible copyvio there. Finally, Reddit is not a reliable source. Please see WP:USERG. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I can shorten the quotations to the point of the message, but I only listed them because there is no other coverage on them. Even if the Reddit thread is an AMA, that doesn't count? lullabying (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Just Another Cringy Username: Quotations on videos have been shortened, and the Reddit thread being a Reddit AMA is noted on this article. The AMA was also created in cooperation with Insider, so it's not completely user-generated. lullabying (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:NOYT and WP:USERG. Neither YouTube nor Reddit are reliable sources, as they contain user-generated content. This speaks to the IMO greater problem of this article being essentially a promotional piece for Chen and his content channels. Depending on who created/contributed to this article, there may be WP:COI issues as well. As it stands, this article is at risk of being nominated for deletion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
        • @Just Another Cringy Username: I am the original creator of this article and also the only person who has contributed (see the edit history). I can assure you I have no affiliation with him nor any organization he represents. I can remove YouTube and Reddit AMA citations if necessary but I need you to give me examples of how it's promotional so I can rewrite it. I have seen Reddit AMAs be used as sources before, and the YouTube videos are primary sources that were made by him -- they were also used to cite lines that currently do not have secondary sources. If you read WP:NOYT, there's a caveat that says However, official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed. He owns the channels, so they can count as primary sources. lullabying (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I guess part of the problem is the very lack of secondary sources. If you take out the parts of this article that are sourced from Chen's own channel or from the Reddit AMA, there won't be much left, which is what makes it seem like a promotional piece. To be notable per WP:GNG, a subject needs to have received significant attention in secondary sources independent of the subject. This just makes it seem like there isn't a whole lot on this guy, so you have to fill that gap w/ primary sourced, user-generated content, which in turn weakens your case for his notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC
          • @Just Another Cringy Username: The only coverage that wasn't provided and I had to cover with primary sources were his original channels from when he worked with NTD Television. There is, however, plenty of coverage on his main channel, Strictly Dumpling, as shown in the article, and Strictly Dumpling was even nominated for a Shorty Award. lullabying (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • His main channel is a self-published primary source, which we've already discussed. Another editor is free to disagree w/ me, but I would argue this article has notability issues and is not suitable for DYK in its present state. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Just Another Cringy Username: As previously stated, coverage on his Strictly Dumpling channel is noted in secondary and independent sources, so he passes WP:GNG. Primary sources are used to supplement other info if a secondary source isn't available. The Reddit thread is an AMA that was created and moderated by Insider Inc. Anyways, DYK is not the place to be discussing notability. lullabying (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually DYK can be a place to raise concerns about notability. If reviewers or other editors are unconvinced that the subject of the nomination is notable, they can request an AFD to test consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The channel passes WP:GNG due to its coverage and it was nominated for a Streamy award. I feel that shows notability. lullabying (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 11Edit

Shireen Abu Akleh

 
Nakba Day protestor holding photos of Abu Akleh
  • ... that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank? Source: "Samodi, working for the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper, told Haaretz that he and Abu Akleh were clearly identified as reporters, wearing their press vests, when they were shot at. In video footage of the incident, Abu Akleh can be seen wearing a blue flak jacket clearly marked with the word 'PRESS.' [...] Israeli forces were operating in the Jenin refugee camp and several other areas of the West Bank to apprehend 'terror suspects,' the military said." Haaretz

Created by Ezlev (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Reviewing. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   As far as this nomination goes, it is a really good effort and close to closure. New article nominated on time and long enough. The article was linked in Wikipedia:In the news as a recent death between 11 May-14 May; as per DYK eligibility criteria (1.d.) it is still eligible as it has not "appeared on the main page as bold link".
  • With regard to the hooks
    • ALT1- I have some reservations over ALT1. I do not think that ALT1 is "interesting to a broad audience" (3.a.). The article does not go into length about the Nakba rallies; it can be considered as a passing mention. With regard to usage of the word "internationally", the article does not clarify this; going into the reference in question about 20-25 countries are mentioned. Further, the reference does not make it clear if all of these countries had the protests on Nakba Day. On the basis of this, I do not consider the image and coinciding caption suitable. Further a crop of the image to focus on the poster in the ladies left hand may result in a case of derived work.
    • ALT0 - While the article intro mentions "the Jenin refugee camp", the article body does not. I am pointing this out since the ALT0 is giving some emphasis to where she was killed. If you wish to keep the detail, please try and mention this point in the body as well. [Preceeding information has been added. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)] Otherwise ALT0 can be shortened without losing the "interest" (3.a.) value that I think the nominator is intending. Also, along with the mention of IDF, "Palestinian militants" could find there way into ALT0. Since the article covers the multiple narratives with regard to the death, the hook should not convey, or seem to convey a certainty. Point 3 of the eligibility criteria uses the word "fact".
  • With regard to citations, plagiarism and close paraphrasing etc; earwigs seems to catch some similarities however most of this seems to be quotes and names. A quick spot check throws up some points. The intro mentions "she inspired many other Palestinians and Arabs, particularly women, to pursue careers in journalism" however it does not have a citation, the body does not carry this particular point as well, only mentioning "Abu Akleh's career inspired many other Palestinians and Arabs to become journalists" with no mention of women thus rendering it unreferenced.[Now cited.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)] Another reviewer may want to look at the "Within policy" point more closely, however in good faith I think it meets DYK standards.
  • FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    If you wish that I continue this review following changes/comments, I wouldn't mind, DYK rules permitting. If you wish for a new review/reviewer please just mention that below. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2 that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces at a refugee camp in the West Bank? Maybe this is better than the ALT0? The Nakba day hook seems fine to me. Thriley (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
It's too long. The hook should not be longer than 200 characters. --Mhhossein talk 17:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ezlev: Any ideas? I think the Nakba Day hook is fine. Thriley (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
What about the ALT4:
Thriley: Do you have any responses for the objections raised against the Nakba day hook? I think if you can omit the Nakba day and just mention the international protests (which is well supported by the sources), then you may have the chance of having the picture along with the hook on the main page. --Mhhossein talk 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is not crucial to include Nakba, the picture has it anyway, its enough.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to run the ALT4 hook with the picture of the protest? Thriley (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I would go with a more relevant hook if the protest picture is to be featured, too. Though we may consider sth like:
@Thriley and Selfstudier: Your thoughts? --Mhhossein talk 13:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we should just get this done, it's been a while now. Personally, if it was me looking for a hook today it would be that subsequent to her death, multiple reliable sources (NYT, CNN, WAPO, AP, BELLINGCAT) have concluded she died as a result of Israeli fire.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Selfstudier: Could I ask you suggest a hook based on the recent developments? --Mhhossein talk 18:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

From the same para of the lead as ALT 4, the most recent development (ALT 5?) "Separate investigations by Associated Press, CNN, Washington Post, The New York Times and Bellingcat independently concluded that fire from Israeli forces was the likely cause of Akleh’s death." ? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ashuanipi

 
A map of the territory of Ashuanipi in 1900

Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 10:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Note from the author of the Newfoundland and Labrador-Quebec border - I don't think this one can go as presented (that is to say, change the hook). For starters, Ashuanipi was not a self-governing part, only an internal administrative unit without any hint at sovereignty whatsoever, so we can't write that "Ashuanipi claims" (or claimed). The correct phrasing would be "Quebec claimed that Ashuanipi was..." (or is, with the caveat that the province has relinquished its claim over the area). Another problem is that we should clarify the quote in the place where it refers to the "all other" part (relative to what? the federally/NL-recognised border in the area? The QC claimed border, today or in 1909?). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Great points @Szmenderowiecki:! It really means a lot that you have reached out, your thoughts are definitely helpful. I was already aware of the first point, I was not under any impression that Ashuanipi was governing itself, and that is expressed in the article, it was simply an error of my wording. According to the source, it sets out the boundaries (Quebec and the county of Saguenay), and then claims all other waters that flow into the Atlantic. I'll try and reword the hook with that in mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... Quebec claimed that Ashuanipi (map pictured) included "all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic" in the poorly-defined borders set out for the region?
I don't think this fixes the problems. Basically the divide here is "rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence vs. rivers flowing directly towards the Atlantic". It still isn't clear for a person not interested in Canadian geography what the "all other part" means. Yeah, in Quebec, all rivers flow into the Atlantic, either via the St. Lawrence or to the Hudson Bay, but among the 150M+ visitors every month of the main page, how many people would know that? Which leads me to the second, I don't feel this would be an interesting hook to begin with. I'd suggest going along the lines of the Quebec law still featuring Ashuanipi despite having relinquished its claim over the area, choosing from the text you already have. If you are able to find more info to expand the article with the content not already in the French article, we can consider the info from there, though I don't think much will be found because mining, on which almost all of the population relies, wasn't a thing there in 1900s and the terrain is (still) mostly unpopulated as the climate is harsh. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Frankly the article kind of does find more info from reliable sources given that the original French article has some portions that remain unsourced. I do get what you mean, and if you have more information that you had come across while writing the Newfoundland and Labrador-Quebec border article you are welcome to send it my way. I'll propose an alternative hook as per your suggestion.
  • ALT2 ... that, according to the Territorial Division Act, Ashuanipi (pictured) is still recognized as one of four territories of Quebec?
  • Comment: The map or the text of the article is wrong or misleading. The article tries to say that Quebec still recognizes the territory while the map is labelled as showing it is not in any way claimed by Quebec. Choose one or the other, rephrasing or adding qualifiers as necessary. — LlywelynII 16:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII: To the best of my knowledge Ashuanipi technically exists in that weird grey zone of Quebec not making an active claim over the area after the ruling, but simultaneously recognizing it in legislation as a territory. There are territories that Quebec actively makes claims over (portions above the 52nd parallel), but Ashuanipi isn't included in that. We have instances of official maps that are required to illustrate Quebec's interpretation of the territory it controls, but this does not include Ashuanipi. However, that is complicated by the fact Quebec does still recognize it in some legislation (namely the Territorial Division Act), so I'm not sure myself how to word it. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 
Stronk Kebbek c. 1912
 
Current disputely disputed territory, none of which falls under Ashuanipi apparently
  • I guess the important bits are here:

    "The territory of Ashuanipi was defined under the terms of the An Act respecting the territories of Abittibi, Mistassini and Ashuanipi[1] (French: Loi concernant les territoires d'Abittibi, de Mistassini et d'Ashuanipi) of 1899. Article 2.3 of the act read: "The territory of Ashuanipi is bounded to the north, to the east and to the west by the limits of the province; and to the south and southwest by the county of Saguenay".[2] The Revised statutes of the province of Quebec, 1909 would recognize the same description of the territory.[3] The Territorial Division Act's description remains largely the same, but alters the south and southwest portion's boundaries by the "electoral districts of Duplessis and Saguenay".[4]
    "The territory, as defined by the provisions of the former act, directly included the river basins of the Ashuanipi River, Hamilton River, and Esquimaux River. It additionally included "all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic".[3]"

    1. If you're using title case, the letters marked in bold should be capitalized in English if not French, and you should delete the "the" before "An".
    2. If you're using sentence case, the underlined letters should be in lower case, although Act should probably stay capitalized and you should replace the "the An" that precedes it with a simple "the".
    3. 1909 either needs to be be followed by a comma, not be preceded by a comma, or surrounded with parentheses without any commas. "Would" is the wrong verb tense for something that happened 111 years ago, given that you're not setting a story in the year 1908 or sth here.
    4. There have been numerous "Territorial Division Acts". Google brings up several by Ontario and several by Quebec. You presumably mean the Quebecker act inclusive of all its modifications through the years (as linked), but you should clarify that—as opposed to 2 specifically dated acts that you've just mentioned—this act is the present form of the law inclusive of all of the amendments since its initial enactment in YYYY.
    5. It's completely opaque what "the former act" means here, given you've referred to 3. Grammatically, ignoring that it's meant to distinguish 2 options, it should mean that you're giving the territory's boundaries as provided by the ARTAMA (1899), which can't possibly be true since you just gave that definition. Presumably, you mean something else. It can't possibly mean the second of the two, since you say that's the same as the first. Possibly you wrote "former" and meant "last", which still can't be true since you just gave that definition. Presumably, then, you wrote "territory" (=Ashuanipi) and meant "province" (=Quebec). It's still unclear whether you meant the first or last of the 3 acts by saying "former", but presumably you mean to define "the limits of the province" that the first act included in its definition of Ashuanipi, which was supposedly repeated in the next 2 acts as well. Of course, the limits of the province aren't defined by any of this legislation. They're defined by some other more important federal act that you've omitted here.
    6. Similarly, the description you've provided here would mean that Ashuanipi's western border was on Hudson Bay and made a wide band across the entire province. That's obviously not the case, although the reason that's not the case is relevant parts of the legislation that you omitted here, explaining that the territories consist only of areas of the province of Quebec not otherwise organized as judicial districts (i.e. organized counties) or registration divisions (cf. §§1, 2, & 13 of the TDA).

    That probably ends up answering your confusion, although it requires a complete rewrite of the current article. Ashuanipi Territory includes all the land in the province of Quebec in watersheds flowing south to the Atlantic or its inlets which is not otherwise organized into counties. Correspondingly, it includes no land, since there are no lands within the province of Quebec which meet that definition. It may have always been a dead letter or it may at some point in the past have included land that was notionally Quebec's but, once whatever legislation occurred that established the present provincial border between Quebec and the Newfies, its size went to exactly nothing. Revise the map to show the dates of the valid claim or remove it there were never any valid claims to any of Newfoundland's part of the relevant watersheds.

    Of course, if this is a papal situation where you have the Quebec government still naming and paying titular administrators of its entirely notional "territory", that would be interesting and maybe even involve some newspaper stories and corruption trials. — LlywelynII 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

    Edit: Ok, now I'm even more confused.

    Apparently, Labrador has a good section on the Quebec boundary dispute, some of which should be included into your article; you should also link your article from there and the 52nd parallel north article. There's also the Newfoundland and Labrador–Quebec border article that you're already linked from. As near as I can understand: i. René-Lévesque is apparently the present name of Saguenay. You can leave Saguenay in historical legislation but you should clarify what its present name is at least once. The borders of the district seem to have changed over time to the point that it's completely irrelevant to Ashuanipi. That Ashuanipi's entire southern border would be with Duplessis, it looks like. That should be mentioned and ideally shown on a map of Quebec's local divisions if possible. ii. Your map appears to be based on the idea that René-Lévesque and Duplessis have northern borders defined by watersheds, which seems to be right although that isn't explained or sourced. It should be. iii. Your map appears to be based on the idea that the western and northern boundaries of Ashuanipi are determined by the course of the Ashuanipi and Hamilton Rivers, which doesn't appear to be correct at all, isn't explained, and isn't sourced. It should be, if it has any basis other than the map you found. iv. Historically, Quebec's claims against Labrador would have made Ashuanipi take up the entire continental part of Newfoundland outside a strip one mile deep from the ocean and its inlets, right? That should be explained and shown. v. The legal issue isn't resolved because Quebec never fully accepted the 1927 ruling after all. Parizeau had been willing to concede it in 1995 but that doesn't seem to have been made official and other Quebec pols since have continued to complain about the line. Quebec nationalism makes this all actually kind of important. vi. On the other hand, Quebec does seem to have fully conceded Ashuanipi. Its extraterritorial claims (see EQ's Cote-Nord map) only include the bits of Duplessis's watershed claims that inch north of 52°N. I don't know when Quebec stopped claiming everything except the Newfies' coastal strip but they seem to have, meaning that even if they got independence and threatened war to reclaim "their" land, it wouldn't include anything from "Ashuanipi" even though they continue to use the name. It might be a dead letter or might not, depending on how maximal their rejection of Labrador's expansion has been. — LlywelynII 23:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
i. Yep.
ii. If we assume the Quebec's claimed border since 1927, that's correct.
iii. Well, the only map we have is the one already provided in the article. There's also a description contained within this opus of a document, which says on p. 4790 that Ashuanipi is defined as being "the territory so bounded [that] comprises the basin of the River Ashuanipi, Hamilton or Esquimaux, as well as all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic." So not the course itself, but the basins. The northern and eastern boundaries definition are on page 5142-3. Ashuanipi, Hamilton and Esquimaux appear to be alternative names for the same river (not to be confused with Hamilton/Churchill Falls, which is a constant generator of electricity and Newfie butthurt).
iv. Yes, though a. it was Canada's claim, b. I don't know to which extent the part of Quebec's Labrador would belong to Ungava/Nouveau-Québec. The map is certainly valid for 1898-1912, but I see no newer map for 1912-1927, and I can't really access it. BAnQ doesn't seem to have a map of Ashuanipi (what would they plot there anyway?), and most maps of Quebec of the time ignore the region we know now as Côte-Nord for about the same reason.
v-vi. I removed the Parizeau statement as nothing seems to support it (maybe it's in the 2010 book by Dorion? but I have no access to it). The legal issue is in general considered to be resolved, but just like Newfies have butthurt about the Churchill Falls, Quebeckers have butthurt about the strip of land no one lives in. To be short, Canada stopped claiming the majority of Labrador following the 1927 ruling. Quebec insists, as is written in the article on the border, that it was wronged and the strip of land between the watershed and the federally/NL-recognised border should belong to Quebec, but no one seems to buy it (except for these guys, but even that video was botched because the map appearing in 0:37 has a straight border :)). Quebec tried to claim the whole of Labrador in the 1960s (as I've just got to know) when the Churchill Falls deal was being negotiated, but their maps no longer indicate the claim, so it most likely suggests they've learned to live with it. So yes, Ashuanipi is a relic of the books, just like the portions in the US Constitution about counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.
As an interesting side note, Ashuanipi has a lot of literature in the geological topics. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Since I assume that I have now scared away anyone else with that text wall, I guess I'm on the hook for doing the full review now.
i. seems settled.
ii. No, given that it forms part of Ashuanipi's putative southern border, you should find out where they claimed that watershed line or (at least) figure out and mention by name which specific watersheds are clearly being used by the Quebeckinese. If it already is there and I didn't notice, apologies, but go ahead and work it into the territorial description instead of leaving things off at the "northern border" mentioned in the legislation.
iii. & iv. The p. 4790 definition ("as well as all other...") would seem to repeat the maximalist claim that Quebec wanted everything in continental Terre-Neuve except the one mile beachhead, unless there's something specifically around that setting a northern boundary. Certainly the Hamilton isn't only watered from the south. I'm getting unsafe address and other errors when I try to access the pdf, though. What does pp. 5142–5143 say? Anything about the midpoint of the Hamilton? or the map is wrong? or based on something else?
v. & vi. It really doesn't seem like it. We had a series of terrorist campaigns, massive war, and a series of nationally-involved amendments to fix that slavery business. It seems just the opposite here. Quebec drops the subject when there's no hay to be made and then immediately "remembers" this enduring "injustice" when it suits its purposes. It sounds like if anything valuable (nickel, lithium, oil, &c.) were discovered or they finally did go independent that this would be a major thing again, pending any formal renunciation of the claims.
 — LlywelynII 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   New enough at time of submission; long enough (3.9k elig. chars.); neutral and well cited; no likely copyvio per Earwig; I'm always leery of AGF avoidance of source checking given how easy autotranslation is becoming, but if the promoter didn't have an issue with it then it's fine for QPQ; the image can't be used without additional assurance that it's in the US public domain (I assume it is but it still needs the confirmation and template); more importantly, it seems to be off. We're still working through issues with the article regarding the core of the subject above. Maybe once we have, there will be more interesting hooks, but there's nothing wrong with the current ALT2. — LlywelynII 04:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Frankly with how a deep of a dive you have taken on the subject, I do appreciate the time you have taken to look into the topic. All of this is quite frankly overwhelming, so I have taken some time off the review. I don't have any way of verifying whether the images are appropriate, and they were not uploaded by me in the first place. If I was better acquainted with US copyright law I would give a more concrete assertion, but you are welcome to remove the image if it is in violation. If there is more that needs to be addressed, other than the minor grammar issues you have brought up earlier that need to be addressed, please do let me know. I do wish you avoid what seems to appear to be slighting my previous reviews, as we do need to remember that this community tends most often to do work in good faith. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ornithoptera: Apologies for any personal offense caused. It's more of a general thing and not at all a slight on your decency. You're right that it's more appropriately addressed in the category talk as far as amending the rules given that foreign autotranslation is so generally possible that we as reviewers should at least show a good faith effort to have tried. That is admittedly hard in the case of nonhighlightable images of (eg) Chinese, Thai, Indian language, or even German Franktur books. If you're at all interested, see my review of the German Tarok article for how to go about addressing that. (The reviewer should obviously have a command of the language involved, so they should be able to transcribe the relevant quote for confirmation of existence and autotranslation.) No, that's not in the current rules so, no, there's nothing untoward in your not having done it. — LlywelynII 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 12Edit

Erik Johansson (artist)

  • ... that Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? Source: Kerr, Euan (25 January 2019). "Johansson's surreal images delight, provoke thoughts". MPR News.

5x expanded by Jane6592 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC).

  A quick look shows this artist is well known internationally, to the point of being mentioned by the V&A which I think is a bar few can cross. I didn't think the article was too promotional outside the glamor shot. The primary author appears entirely unconnected. @Jane6592: My only concern: the statement about hundreds of images being combined is exactly what the ref states, but the article itself has images that appear to be made of perhaps as few as three elements. A more accurate hook might add "... that some of" but that is not what the cite states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  • @Maury Markowitz:   hmm, I wonder why you don't find any? I had an issue with the article calling his creations "witty and striking" in wikivoice, as well as "well known" with no citation. The lead claims that he "captures ideas" and combines images "in innovative ways", and the first line of "artworks and projects" claims in wikivoice that he "create[s] a new narrative and express[es] freely the 'dream world'". In addition, the "Creative process" section feels oddly personal (although that's shakier). theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In addition, the 5x expansion appears to have taken over a month, beginning with this edit on 2022 April 4 at 1572B. By a week before the nomination, the article stood at 6989B, and stood at only 9285B at the time of nomination. A 5x expansion needs to take, in general, a week or less to count as new (eligible) content – it's generally helpful to use your sandbox to incubate these kinds of changes so that you can make real 5x expansion in one fell swoop. You can IAR if you wish, but I did want to alert you of that rule. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Promoting with reviewers addition

  • ... that some of Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? —Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Undoing promotion, since the article's tick had been superseded by theleekycauldron's "query" icon, which hadn't been addressed. It is highly significant that the nomination took place 53 days after the expansion began: I can't recall any prior article that was given that much expansion time. I could see an IAR if this were taken from the 5/12 expansion—an extra week for new nominators is not uncommon, and this is an extra eight days only. However, 5/12 isn't a 5x expansion yet: the article was 2393 prose characters prior to 5/12, and would need to be 11965, while it's currently 9017 prose characters; another 2948 would be needed. Jane6592, do you think adding that much material would be feasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Before promotion I posed the question about this issue on DYK Talk. Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton, I'm afraid I disagree with the response there. (In addition, promotions should simply never happen unless a tick is the latest icon.) I also think the original review by Maury Markowitz was inadequate: in addition to failing to mention the 5x issue, there are three paragraphs in Biography that are unsourced and should have been taken care of prior to approval. SL93 has dealt with the wikivoice and other textual issues that theleekycauldron brought up. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: All three are from the same cite, combined for clarity. Is there anything else remaining? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Maury Markowitz: Yes there are a variety of cite styles - I have that learned from studying the NPP guides. I am unsure if the proposal above is to close this as unsuccessful or we should discuss it further on talk? Bruxton (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Maury Markowitz, Theleekycauldron, Victuallers, and Jane6592: Hi all, I am wondering what we should do with this nomination. On a personal note, I found the article interesting. But if the article does not qualify and we are not making an exception - what should we do with the nomination? Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I still see some textual issues – I'll write them up later today. Once they're fixed, I'd be happy to IAR and provide a tick. The low-profile nature of the work, combined with the new status of the editor and the effort they put in, suggests to me that we shouldn't deny this because we expect faster work / a draft space incubation. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Tricky article. Amazing images ... and they all infringe copyright IMO Victuallers (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Victuallers: Interesting, we should probably remove the images. And thanks Leeky. I do not know if we should get more opinions about approving it because of the objection. Cheers! Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton, theleekycauldron, I think that before anyone approves this citing IAR they should first bring the matter up at WT:DYK. We've had lots of articles that were interesting but nominated over a week or over a month late—new or expanded, school-based or not—that have been failed due to the lateness; I don't see why this should be the exception. The article could at some future date become a GA and become eligible then, or it could still be expanded to 11965 prose characters at present and qualify that way, if someone wants to take this on; it seems pretty clear that the nominator posted this as their last act on Wikipedia at the end of the school term and is very unlikely to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, while I do agree that this needs further discussion at WT:DYK on whether or not it should be granted an IAR exemption, it's arguable that this being the nominator's "last act" may actually be a point in favor of granting in this case. The nominator is a student editor and appears to have ceased editing and is unlikely to return, so it's not like they'll get another shot at DYK. It can be argued that the article being featured on DYK could serve as a sort of parting gift. I would have been much less inclined to favor IAR here if the editor was either a veteran or a new editor who is still editing and thus still has other chances to nominate articles for DYK. On the other hand, I understand where the concerns about the "other similar nominations were rejected, why should this be accepted?" point, which is why I'd suggest this get a wider hearing before deciding what to do with it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
As I said at WT:DYK, I agree with Narutolovehinata5, we should just run this.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Full BASIC

  • ... that it took 13 years to ratify the standard for Full BASIC and it still had "intolerable" problems? Source: Guntheroth for intolerable, the ECMA spec doc for timing

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Article is long enough. It was created on May 12, but the nomination is dated May 26. This is longer than the allowed 7-day window, but the nomination states that a technical failure of the DYK tool is responsible for the late listing so I recommend that this requirement be waived per WP:IAR.
  • Earwig flags some potential copyright violations, mostly in the example program listing ("Program CRAPS"). It is properly attributed, but I'm concerned that the length of the copied material exceeds any fair use. It doesn't really add anything important to the article, so my suggestion is to delete that entire section.
  • I did not exhaustively examine every reference, but overall the bibliography looks to be all WP:RS and the article text appears to be adequately cited to those sources.
  • There are no WP:BLP issues.
  • QPQ is satisfied.
  • Regarding the hook, I don't see where in the article is says that it took 13 years to ratify. This needs to be clarified.
  • Overall,   -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Group formed Jan 1974, ratified by ANSI Jan 1987 = 13 years. Those dates are reffed, I don't think we need a ref for math. Source code is widely found in most language articles, I've never seen an issue with CQ being raised before, but I'm not sure the rules here, I can't find any comment on it. I can say it was not raised during Minimal BASIC which has a similar example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
1974 is when the ratification of Minimal BASIC was started. The ratification of Full BASIC didn't start until 1977 (at least according to the article), so that's 10 years. It's a bit confusing. I'll leave the fair use question about the source code to somebody better versed in copyright/fair use than I am. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: No, they are both the same effort, the split happened during the effort. It's like you want to build a car to go to the store, but then you realize that it's going to take longer than you like so you quickly put together a gocart and then return to building the car. The effort is and always was to build a car, and in this case, the effort is and always was to make a standard BASIC. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Mixed cities

 
The mixed city of Nof HaGalil
  • ... that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing? Source: Hawari, 2019, p.177: This rejection of the "mixed city" notion by Johnny and others reflects the spatial reality on ground and the political and social marginalisation faced by the Palestinian community everywhere inside Israel… The narrative of continuous historical coexistence and a mixed present-day reality in Haifa serves to support Israel's self-image as a pluralist and democratic society. In addition to giving the settler-colonial reality legitimacy, the existence of mixed urban spaces leads many to assume that under the current structures of power, a shared life is possible. The reality, however, is a space in which both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews live mostly separately and with vastly different experiences.
    Tzfadia 2011, p. 160: "Israeli mixed cities, particularly after 1948, cannot be perceived as multi-cultural cities, a point poignantly reflected in the absence of this term in the indexes of the reviewed books. Although localities were divided between the culturally distinctive Jews and Arabs, the cities still did not bear the potential to become multicultural. This absence of a multi-cultural vision in Israeli mixed cities impinges on the concept of "right to the city." For example, Yacobi maintains that the Arab community in Lod does not enjoy freedom in the city--it lacks the legitimacy to maintain individual and collective identities and lifestyles, to take part in decision-making, and not to be excluded. Thus, Holston's (1999) project to oppose and undermine dominant narratives of the state within the urban framework and to create alternative local narratives that do not necessarily reflect the rationale of the nation, has failed in mixed cities in Israel."
    Yacobi 2009, p. 1: "However, a critical examination forces us to question the term "mixed city," which might originally suggests the integration of society, while instead the reality is controversial. As in other cases of ethnonationalism, a clear spatial and mental division exists between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and hence the occurrence of "mixed" spaces is both exceptional and involuntary. Rather than occurring naturally, it has resulted from a historical process during which the Israeli territory, including cities that were previously Palestinian, has been Judaized. This book attempts to discursivelv undermine the term "mixed city," which raises images of mutual membership while ignoring questions of power, control and resistance."

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment: I get that Google pushes the Israeli use to the fore but, no, this term has been in common use since the mid-1800s. The fact so many cites are "sneer quoting" the term suggests they're just calquing some Hebrew term and don't really consider it the main and proper meaning of mixed city in English. This article shouldn't be parked at the main namespace here, and fwiw the plural form is also wrong. It should be at something like Mixed city (Israel). — LlywelynII 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The use of the title Mixed cities without any form of disambiguation is supported by peer-reviewed scholarly research in the Journal of Urban History: Karlinsky, Nahum (2021-08-09). "Revisiting Israel's Mixed Cities Trope". Journal of Urban History. SAGE Publications. 47 (5): 1103–1129. doi:10.1177/00961442211029835. ISSN 0096-1442. A search for the phrase mixed cities in English, conducted on Google on June 14, 2020, unequivocally showed the significantly frequent usage of the term in its exceptional Israeli interpretation even if English is used. Of the first forty results, twenty-eight (70%) were about Jewish Arab cities in Israel. Most of these entries referred to quotidian matters and much less so to scholarly studies. Six (15%) denoted articles about the “Most Diverse Cities in America” and in the world. Four (10%) dealt with the notion of mixed use in city planning and various functions; one (2.5%) addressed Apartheid South Africa’s so-called “grey” inner cities areas. The last reference (2.5%) was to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian, written by the influential urban scholar Saskia Sassen, in which she enthusiastically characterized the “mixed city” as a social, ethnic, and cultural barricade to the ills of globalization. A search for the term mixed cities in English as an exact phrase (set within quotation marks) produced similar results: thirty-six entries out of the first forty (90%) concerned Israel’s multi-ethnic/multi-national urban space.10 These entries comprised many daily reports along with some references to scholarly studies, underlying the fact that this concept is widely used not only in research literature but mainly in discussing daily life in Israel. Similar searches in leading journals of Urban Studies and in Google Scholar produced comparable results to the searches cited above. Thus, a search on Google Scholar on February 17, 2021, for the term mixed cities, found that fifteen of the first twenty results (75%) were about scholarly publications that discussed Jewish Arab urban space in Israel or in British Palestine. An exact search, set in quotation marks, produced even more significant results, as eighteen of the first twenty entries (90%) led to scholarly publications on Palestine/Israel’s Arab Jewish urban spaces. Moreover, the above-mentioned searches unequivocally show that an overwhelming majority of scholars who employed the terms mixed cities or mixed towns in their studies of the Arab Jewish urban scene in Israel went through some of Israel’s formal and informal socialization systems. These include mainstream Israeli Jewish scholars as well as Arab scholars who were educated in Israel and critical Israeli Jewish scholars. Since most research on this urban space is conducted by these scholars, the unique employment of this term inadvertently creates an exceptional interpretative framework. As mentioned above, as a graduate of that hegemonic discursive regime myself, I have also used that term in a previous publication. Hence, the current critical look is also a self-critical examination of the power of hegemonic discourse on one’s own identity construction and scholarly work.
As to the origin of the term, Karlinsky writes: "scholars concluded that the term was coined by the British authorities during the time Britain controlled Palestine as a League of Nations’ Mandatory Power (1918-1948)." He goes on to argue the British borrowed it from Zionist discourse (which was written in many languages including English).
This is also underpinned by the fact that in 20 years of Wikipedia each of the terms "Mixed cities", "Mixed city", "Mixed towns" or "Mixed town" have remained unused and never even been a redirect.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure I just said that Google wasn't a reliable source for this. Finding a printed work using an unreliable methodology doesn't validate the same unreliable methodology. It just means you found a shoddy source and still need to fix the namespace. Even within Google, the 2nd highest scoring 'mixed city' is Kirkuk, which (last time I checked) still wasn't within Israel even under the widest territorial claims. See also here for the JUH’s general provincialism and shoddiness, not that it matters given the obviousness of the problem. As far as needing to see broader use of the term, cf various standard phrasings like "mixed cities of the" ~ (ranks just below "mixed cities of Haifa...") and the results range from the ancient Near East to imperial Germany. More generally, "mixed cities of" pulls up modern Israel, ancient Israel, modern Israel, Central Europe, London & Westminster, modern Israel but *not* talking about the formal designation you mean, ancient Israel, ancient Israel, North Africa, modern Israel, ancient Israel, ancient Israel, modern Israel, central Iraq, modern Israel, North Africa, early modern Israel (not the formal designation you mean), British India, modern Israel, the towns of the European Diaspora of Jews, modern Israel, the Ancient Middle East, &c. You're batting about 30-40%, which is a lot but doesn't make this the PRIMARYTOPIC for the lower-case words. Alternatively, if you truly hate dabbing, just capitalize it as a formal class designation instead of a general use of "mixed" + "city", which isn't Israeli focused in the English language.
As far as their previously having been left unused, sure. It's a general term that Wikipedia would leave to Wiktionary to take care of. Even Wiktionary probably considers it mostly SOP. That doesn't make the Israeli sense the PRIMARYTOPIC by default.
It's great that you're helping discuss this topic. Fix the mistaken pluralization, dab the title as a specific use of a general term, and move on. — LlywelynII 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
No need to be aggressive. You are criticizing the methodology used by a peer-reviewed journal article. If you wish, you can share your opinion on this with the editor of the Journal of Urban History (contact details here). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Proving further proof that you're mistaken isn't aggression. You took the time to find a (single) source buttressing your point; I respected your work and interest enough to provide a more thorough rebuttal and to remind you that (like I already discussed) the methodology your source used isn't trustworthy, regardless of having been allowed to be published. — LlywelynII 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The aggressive areas of your response were: (1) emphasizing "just"; (2) calling a peer-reviewed article "shoddy"; and (3) implying that your side of this debate is "right". I respect your argument and hope you respect mine. I suggest we cordially agree to disagree and open an WP:RM discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Those aren't aggressive. It's accurate and important to point out that your "rebuttal" had already been addressed. The journal has problems (sourced) but isn't shoddy. The methodology used by the article you quoted is shoddy, again for the reasons already addressed before you posted it. I didn't use the word 'right', but that part of your comment seems nonsensical. If people didn't believe they were correct they wouldn't need to disagree with one another, with all the attendant unpleasantness when the other person takes it personally, as you currently are.
I can't respect yours at the moment because you're just appealing to authority. Normally that's fine (WP:RS and all that) but here you can specifically see their reasoning for their point and it's slapdash vanilla Google results which, as already discussed, is problematic. If you had some actual rebuttal to the points I'm making besides "where's your peer review huh?" that would be more helpful. It's very clear that the peer review involved was about the article's actual research and not nit-picking about their term or the mistaken argument they made about it. On the other hand, since it means your current article violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SINGULAR, it does mean we need to hold up the nomination over this until it gets fixed. You're welcome to do a WP:RM and/or WP:RFC to pull in more voices though. 30-40% certainly is debatable (not entirely wrong like you seem to think I'm saying) but it does seem unhelpful to tie such a basic term to just 8 or so towns in Israel.
As far as research that helps buttress your case a little, "mixed cities like..." does pull in more Israeli results: modern Israel x2, "Boston and San Francisco", prepartition Israel, modern Israel x2, Kurdistan, "Yonkers, New York, or Hayward, California", "Jakarta or Medan", modern Israel, Kurdistan, modern Israel, Kurdistan x2, modern Israel x4, Kurdistan... At least there, you're over 50% on something besides trusting Google's vanilla algorithm. It still seems too mixed to me to hold up the lower-case form of the words, but maybe other editors would think it rises to PRIMARYTOPIC. In any case, you still need to fix the singular issue regardless. — LlywelynII 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Here is an eye-opener. Put "the term mixed cities" (using the quotation marks) into google or google books. I believe 100% of the results relate to Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That isn't an eye opener. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The entire problem is that "mixed city" is used as a generic descriptor rather than a term. Yes, as a specific term to a specific class of cities, the Israeli use would be the primary topic. The problem is all the generic use. That's why I was suggesting Mixed City might be more appropriate, although of course you can't force the capitalization onto scholarship or the Israeli government if they don't already use it. — LlywelynII 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi LlywelynII, thanks for your last two posts. To address this first, I see this as a common situation across our project. See for example: cold ironing, stomach division, dog watch or free company. Each of these articles have uncapitalized names which are frequently used generically, but the articles are focused on a specific technical use of the terminology. None of those articles have disambiguating brackets because the first sentence of each article makes it abundantly clear what the article is about. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem with those is that there aren't common uses of other senses of those words. I guess "cold ironing" could be using an unheated iron or "dog watch" could be a canine timepiece, but I can't imagine many people would ever actually use either. With "mixed cities" you're looking at somewhere between 30-70% of people using it in printed works to talk about other topics. Anyway, I've raised my point and made my case. I'll shut up already before I scare off your genuine reviewers and they can weigh in on which of us they agree with. Thanks for coming back around to seeing that it's nothing personal at all, just a difference of opinion about the primarytopic here. (Plus, use the singular form as the article title but I'll let other people nag you about that xD.) — LlywelynII 22:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Full review needed now that initial discussion has run its course. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm working on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Article is long enough and new enough.
  • The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph The eighth city is Jerusalem ... is not recognized as such under international law needs a citation to a WP:RS.
  •   a clear spatial and mental division exists between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and hence the occurrence of "mixed" spaces is both exceptional and involuntary is a direct quote, so it needs to be quoted and referenced. Other than that, I'm not seeing any copyvio/paraphrasing problems.
  • This isn't a DKY issue per-se, but replace several uses of "c." with {{Circa}}.
  •   I'm not totally following the history here, but the article was tagged with {{NPOV}} in Special:Diff/1091862473 which was removed by RMCD bot in Special:Diff/1091864638. I suspect the bot mis-parsed things because of an unclosed <noinclude> tag. @Tombah: is this still an issue, or has the NPOV been resolved to your satisfaction?
  • No WP:BLP or other policy issues except as noted above.
  • QPQ has been satisfied.
  • The hook is OK, but a pithier verion might be:
  • -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @RoySmith: many thanks for your review. I have added the source for the Jerusalem sentence. The "clear spatial and mental division" sentence is in quotation marks in a footnote sourced to Yacobi 2009. I have replaced the occurances of c. with {{Circa}}. The three questions raised by Tombah were addressed by (1) the RM discussion, and (2+3) their and others' edits to the article which have remained in place, together with the talk page discussion. I like your ALT1 a lot - much more "hooky". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tombah: can you confirm (or not) that the issues you raised when you added the NPOV tag have been resolved to your satisfaction? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @RoySmith:, I think not. Leaving aside the terminology, which still prefers in many case one term over the other, more accepted one, this article is still missing other views on the subject. I am still not sure this article adds something to Wikipedia that cannot be expanded in the respective city articles or the article about demography in Israel. Generally, I am not entirely convinced the Israeli case of mixed cities justifies its own article at all. Tombah (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Based on the previous comment, I've restored the {{NPOV}} and marking this as requiring additional work. If the issues raised by Tombah can't be resolved, then this submission will need to be declined, but I'll leave the final decision on that up to the DYK regulars. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith, I was hoping it wouldn’t come to this and so chose to avoid complicating the discussion. But now I am left with no other choice. The history is as follows:
Note: the Khirbet el Ormeh article has nothing to do with the article we are discussing here
Apart from the obvious “tit for tat” behavior, Tombah’s comments at this article are unsupported by sources, and have been opposed by other editors, both in the RM discussion and in the specific comment thread Tombah created. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
One way or another, this has to be resolved. DYK can't accept an article with a NPOV template on it. As far as I can tell (see upthread for details), the original template was removed by a bot which misfunctioned due to incorrect markup causing the page to be mis-parsed. That's not a valid resolution to the dispute. I can't take sides in a content dispute. It's something the editors of this article need to resolve among themselves, and a DYK nomination is not the right place to be doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith, correct. There is no ongoing content dispute, irrespective of whether one editor with provably questionable motives wants to repeat their points. The editor's points failed to gain consensus, after being discussed by other uninvolved editors. The dispute has thus already been resolved, per wp:consensus – we must not expect unanimity. To be clear, the editor made three points:[15]
(1) the scope of the article. Per this RM discussion, three editors (including me) disagree with the editor's concern. Above, the editor did not repeat the point, presumably for this reason.
(2) terminology for Palestinians in Israel / Israeli Arabs. The editor made a number of edits to this effect,[16] removing the word Palestinian in multiple places. I don't agree but left the changes, in order to minimize the dispute. A third editor stated we should just follow the sources, which is what the article does.[17] Above, the editor says "Leaving aside the terminology", which I assume to be a silent acknowledgement of this.
(3) other opinions; this is the point the editor repeats above. The problem is the editor has not provided any new sources, so this is impossible to resolve. A third editor made a suggestion to address the concern, which I have implemented.[18]
New point above: the editor's final two points in the comment above suggest proposed article deletion. That is obviously nonsense, given the huge scholarly coverage of this topic. But the editor is welcome to open an AfD
There is no consensus for that NPOV template, which is why it has stayed out of the article until you re-added it. The editor has had three weeks to gain consensus for his concerns, and has found multiple editors opposing all his points. WP:consensus tells us we can move on.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Giuseppe Mariani (doctor)

  • ... that Italian dermatologist Giuseppe Mariani protected the Jews of Genoa during the Holocaust by hiding them in the city's leprosarium? Source: Barabino, Gianfranco; et al. (June 2020), "Genoa and Leprosy from the Middle Ages to the Present", Giornale Italiano Dermatologia e Venereologia, vol. 155, no. 3, Turin: Minerva Medica, pp. 346–348. "In the early 1900’s, Radaeli promoted the construction of a leprosarium behind the San Martino hospital. In 1936 Giuseppe Mariani was known for using the leprosarium to hide Italian Jews during deportation to the extermination camps."
    • ALT1: ... that dermosyphilopathologist Giuseppe Mariani received a silver medal for his bravery under fire at the Third Battle of the Isonzo? Source: Farnetani, Francesca (2008), "Mariani, Giuseppe", Dizionario Biografio degli Italiani, vol. 70. "Chiamato alle armi allo scoppio del conflitto mondiale, il M. fu assegnato a un ospedale da campo in prima linea: nel corso delle azioni svoltesi sulle pendici del monte S. Michele (altopiano carsico) tra il 21 e il 23 ott. 1915 fu ferito nel tentativo di soccorrere i militari colpiti giacenti allo scoperto, e per questo fu in seguito insignito con la medaglia d’argento al valor militare."
    • ALT2: ... that Italian veneral disease experts like Giuseppe Mariani are traditionally known as doctors of dermosyphilopathy? Source: Gibson, Mary (1999), Prostitution and the State in Italy: 1860–1915, History of Crime and Criminal Justice (2nd ed.), Columbus: Ohio State University Press. The history of medicine, however, belies his words, for at midcentury knowledge about veneral disease was rudimentary. As the denomination of this branch of medicine as "dermosifilopatia" shows, these diseases were traditionally diagnosed and treated like skin infections.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/German Tarok
    • Comment: Kindly don't add extraneous links to the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC).

ALT1a: ... that dermatologist Giuseppe Mariani received a silver medal for his bravery under fire at the Third Battle of the Isonzo?

@LlywelynII: I changed one word and added inlinks to the hook. I would prefer ALT0 for pure eye-catching capacity, but I'm also concerned about the cite - and for some reason its DOI doesn't work for me so I can't get the original. ALT1 is also pretty good though. I expanded the lede in the article and unlinked the years per MOS (ping me if you question this). If you are good with this version of the hook I'll review it ASAP. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Suspecting it to be a misprint, I tried to find an email for the primary author without luck. I have written to one of his colleagues in Genoa so hopefully he can forward it on or answer directly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
And if you're looking for suggestions on your list, it seems an article on San Martino Hospital is long overdue! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

White-nosed saki

 
White-nosed saki
  • ... that the white-nosed saki monkey (pictured) is the only species in the genus Chiropotes which has a brightly coloured nose? Source: Emmons, L. H. (1997). Neotropical Rainforest Mammals (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-20719-6.
    • Comment: I have added a lot of information to this article for an educational course and would love to have wiki editors/viewers check out the revised article.

5x expanded by Vikster28 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Hey there, I am unsure if the source provided is able to be checked without purchasing the book. This information was already included in the article prior to my expansion so assumed it would be correct. Only after submitting my DYK did I see that those revising the posts needed free access to the source. I attempted to make a new DYK entry but couldn't as I had submitted this one. Hoping this can still be accepted but let me know what I am able to do if not. I would love to have this newly updated article published on the main wiki page for everyone to check out as I am a new wiki creator and have worked hard on this article! Vikster28 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Vikster28, welcome to Wikipedia!
First thing: I moved your comment above for technical reasons, as you are supposed to use the "review or comment" button directly above your hook to reply to it (it's a technical thing and only applies in DYK, and it confused me as a newcomer as well). So yeah, click that thing and you'll be replying in the proper way, and the comment won't get lost accidentally ;)
Second: Nope, sources don't actually need to be available only for a hook to pass review. I can't find the actual rule atm, but there's a special little icon reviewers can use to indicate that they can't access the source themselves, but trust the article editor enough to pass it. So for example, if you'd try to convince me that the book by Emmons ("Neotropical Rainforest Mammals") proves that spaghetti was discovered in Antarctica, I'd strongly doubt that and request you to procure the book. However, with a claim that sounds very reasonable and an otherwise splendid article, we Wikipedians trust in one another to not actively lie to hurt the project ^^
Okay, so much for that. I'll be reviewing shortly, but one more thing: Please hang in there! A lot of student editors leave/disappear before the DYK can be approved, which is a shame especially with good articles. Just check back every few days if there's something to do still, it won't take that long :) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  Y - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting:  N - There might be a better one
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall:   Greatly expanded, went from Stub to B-Class, earwigs finds nothing. The claim in the lead section about the "pink nose", although somewhat obvious from looking at the picture, is actually not supported by the source cited – this needs to be rectified. And that also begs the question: Wouldn't this be an even better hook? Something about the white nose being in fact reddish. I'll check the article body in more detail still, but it looks solid. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

A few more observations about the article: Solid quality, you definitely spent some time digging up sources and expanding. But I'd still like to see some small adjustments, because anything appearing on the front page should be as polished as possible:
  1. The species is listed as vulnerable, but there's currently no explanation why, or whether there are protection efforts. This is no must-have, but a short section would be nice and could be easily compiled from e.g. this source, which has the interesting note that their tails are used as dusters.
  2. The main issue is the confusion on white nose (hair!) vs reddish-pink nose (skin!), which this source doesn't explain properly. There's an explanation in the lead section that dead specimens had lost the reddish hue and retained only their white facial hair, hence the ill-fitting name. But in the "Physical characteristics" this explanation is not given, and the claim that their nose might be white or red now confuses readers. This needs to be re-phrased to be crystal-clear (and sourced!) for the article to pass DYK.
  3. There are some instances of needless repetition, which isn't terrible and won't disqualify the article, but it reads clumsy. For example, "terra firma" (which sadly doesn't have its own article) is repeated thrice in a row. Likewise, "very few [means of] communication" is repeated needlessly.
  4. Statements that are poorly worded:
  • "Both the female and male are considered a “medium-sized” species." The male and female are probably not different species, right? ;)
  • "The two body parts which they require for feeding and movement is their tail and teeth." This reads weird, as they certainly use their legs to move as well (again, this source points out their quadrupedal movement); and on the other hand it is quite commonplace to use teeth for feeding. Don't get me wrong: Canine teeth are certainly extraordinary, and a tail that changes flexibility with age also. But I think you could change the sentence quoted above to better reflect why these two body parts are important.
  • "... and possibly a small area east of Bolivia." Should that read "in eastern Bolivia"? Because to the east of Bolivia there's Brazil, which seems weird as it's already mentioned above. And in any case, to the east of some country is a very vague statement. I know it was in the article before you started, but with your knowledge you can probably tell what it's supposed to mean.
Apart from that, splendid! The structure is solid, the amount of footnotes is commendable, and I love that you even made a pie chart for their diet. That's how a Wikipedia article should look like! I'm sure you'll easily fix what I nitpicked above, and this nomination will get approved :)
--LordPeterII (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your extensive feedback and advice. Also, thank you for moving my initial comment. I wasn't sure where to add the comment since I initially pressed on "review or comment" and it didn't allow me to. Luckily now its working! (or at least i'm hoping i've now responded in the correct place, please let me know if not). I am planning to add some more to the article (e.g., on conservation which you have mentioned) so will definitely look into fixing up the article where required based on your suggestions. It really does help to have someone look over the article so I can improve on it where needed :) Once I manage to get this all done, should I be re-nominating the article or will this nomination remain active? Once again, Thanks for your help!
Vikster28 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Vikster28: Yep, your reply was done in the intended way now :)
The nomination will stay in effect. I'll approve it once you've rectified the remaining issues.
Oh, and as stated above, I encourage you to explore some other hook. I'd approve the first one if need be, but the white/red nose thing sounds way catchier to me. I'd give an alternate hook myself, but then I'd be barred from approving the nom. If you can come up with one, just add it in a comment and call it ALT1. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Great, that makes it easier. I will just let you know that (like i've stated in my previous comment) I will be adding a fair bit more information by the end of this month. This is the point at which I would also make the adjustments you have suggested. I wasn't sure if this would cause issues with the nomination considering I am further expanding the article and this may therefore create a need for more editing upon suggestion. Sorry about this, I hadn't previously considered waiting until I added everything. The only reason I haven't yet uploaded the extra information is because I am still working on completing it/editing it. And I'm not able to wait before doing this as I need to have it uploaded by a certain date as part of my education course. Do you know if this will affect my nomination at all? If I do need to resubmit because of this I completely understand as it was my error in getting too ahead of myself with the DYK nomination. Sorry for all the questions. I'm a new wiki editor so am still learning the ropes of how everything works. Truly do appreciate your help though! :)
Vikster28 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yeah ordinarily you'd submit after you're finished with major editing. But dw, I can wait. DYK is one of the few areas where time is of any importance in Wikipedia; but even here we are just volunteers. Your real-life education course deadline is probably more critical ^^ If it's happening within the next month or two, just add the rest when you're ready. Then once you're actually satisfied, best ping me with this {{ping|LordPeterII}} in a comment here, so I get notified and don't miss it. Then I'll check the article again. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, that was my bad getting too carried away. Will ping you when the article has been updated. Thanks! Vikster28 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Vikster28, just checking in since it's now almost a month since we last spoke. What's the status of your editing? It's fine if you still need time, but I wanted to make sure you didn't forget about the nomination. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright Vikster28, an update:

Improved:

  • A Conservation Section! Now their status as vulnerable is explained.

Remainign Issues:

  • Lead Section: In living individuals, it is actually bright pink (though with fine barely visible white hairs), and the pelage is black. – This sentence needs a citation that supports its statement. The currently provided source (Wisconsin National Primate Research Center) does NOT talk about a pink nose with white hairs. There are, however, sources that do... (hint hint) (It's actually sourced correctly in the article body, just not the lead)
  • Lead Section: This species are considered to be “medium-sized” – Now the sentence makes more sense, but we need are->is (minor, but easy fix).

... and that's it! Other parts of the article have been expanded nicely as well, and nothing seems off there. Basically two easy fixes to do, and then I'll approve the DYK nomination. Do it once uni lets you, and ping me back so I can add a green checkmark :) --LordPeterII (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 15Edit

West Bank Wall graffiti art

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 22:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC).

  • @Onceinawhile:   Gasp! I remember fondly my AP lit final essay on A Window on the West Bank. Article is new enough and long enough, but I'd still technically assess it as a stub because it seems to be mostly a lead and a gallery instead of a summarizing lead and well-defined body. Also, I don't see why "Wall" should be capitalized in the title. Hook is cited and in the article, and the QPQ checks out. I'm concerned that the image isn't freely licensed, as Banksy has successfully sued for unauthorized use of his art. Nearly there; nice work! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 05:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron: I'm glad to hear you like it. Sadly the Window on the West Bank has not survived well – this is the photo I managed to take of it a few years ago.
On the title, I just moved it to lowercase wall, but I wonder if uppercase might be better. It currently looks like it refers to "wall graffiti" rather than "West Bank wall", and also it is inconsistent with Berlin Wall graffiti art. What do you think?
On licensing, it is definitely a free image. The Banksy case you refer to was about trademark infringement, not copyright, and on the latter Israel has a very wide freedom of panorama (WikiCommons is clear on this - see Commons:COM:FOP Israel).
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: might i suggest West Bank barrier graffiti art, then? I will point out that the constituent articles there are Berlin Wall and Israeli West Bank barrier. FOP rationale checks out. I unlinked Palestinian in the hook- the article will need to be destubified and a title settled on, and then we're good to go! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi theleekycauldron, the wall title is used because the graffiti is only on the walled section. Wall is the common name but is not used for the article you linked to because the barrier as a whole is mostly fence, and that article is about the whole barrier. This article is only about the wall (there is no graffiti on the fence) so per WP:AT we use the more precise (and common) term.
I will try to address your destubify point.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
On further reflection I have moved it back to the capital W wall, as ngrams is clear. I have also made clear at Israeli West Bank barrier that the West Bank Wall is a part of the barrier, not a synonym for it, and have added two sources at both articles which confirm this (Leuenberger and Eidelman). Onceinawhile (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 17Edit

Gothic double

  • ... that the doppelgänger motif in Gothic literature was inspired by supernatural figures in Celtic folklore such as the "fetch"? Source: Yeats, W. B. (2016). Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry. In Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry. Newburyport: Open Road Integrated Media, Inc, pp. 108

5x expanded by Snowdrop Fairy (talk). Self-nominated at 08:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

  • This is a very impressive expansion which makes for an interesting read. One minor quibble, you wrote "[t]he period from 1750 to 1830 is known as a “Gothic and Celtic revival” in which Irish, Scottish, and Welsh folklore became absorbed into British literature as a result of colonial expansion into these territories." This sounds a bit strange to my ears as the expansion (at least into Wales and Ireland) predates the revival by many centuries. I haven't checked how it's described in the source but maybe there is a way to make the connection clearer? Alaexis¿question? 06:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, does the quote come from a review of the book Irish Folk Stories and Fairy Tales or from the book itself? Right now the review published in the Western Folklore journal is indicated as the source but I don't see any mention of fetches there. Alaexis¿question? 06:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your review! And thank you for the feedback, I'll edit that sentence to make it clearer. The quote does come from the actual book itself, I'll edit the reference to make it correct. Thank you again! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  ?
  • Interesting:  Y
QPQ: None required.

Overall:   Alaexis¿question? 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Alaexis, Snowdrop Fairy, where does this nomination stand? There appear to have been issues with the hook citation, and many images have been added since the review that will have to be checked. What's left to be done? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    Snowdrop Fairy, could you update the citation? I really want to support the nomination and this is the only stumbling block. Alaexis¿question? 19:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Alaexis Apologies for the delay! I have edited the citation and made the section on the Gothic and Celtic revival clearer. Let me know if there are any other issues, and thank you for supporting my nomination, I really appreciate it. Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I'm a bit confused now. In the article itself the fact is sourced to Gothic: an illustrated history whereas in the hook the citation is to Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry. Which one is right? Which work makes the connection between fetches and the gothic double motif? Alaexis¿question? 05:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Enkeli-Elisa

Created by JIP (talk). Self-nominated at 01:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Alt0a ... that the Enkeli-Elisa story about a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide because she had been bullied at school was investigated as a fraud by the police? Source: Enkeli-Elisan kirjoittajaa epäillään petoksesta, Turun Sanomat 24 July 2012. Accessed on 26 July 2012. TSventon (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @JIP: do any of the sources definitively call the story a hoax? Given that fraud charges wouldn't stick, we should be careful how we use that about a BLP... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 05:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    • None of the sources definitively call the story a hoax. However, it is clear that neither Elisa or her parents really existed as actual people, instead the story seems to be more like a dramatised novel. It might be based on real experiences but still the specific person called Elisa never existed, neither did her parents. Minttu Vettenterä was under investigation from the police suspected of fraud, but she was never actually convicted. It was apparently not her motive to gain financial profit by deceiving people. As the article says, the media should have been more critical of the sources. JIP | Talk 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @JIP: Hmmm. Could you walk me through how we can call it a hoax without any sources after the fact calling it one while staying afoul of WP:OR? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
        • We don't necessarily have to call it a hoax if a better term can be found. The point here seems to be that Elisa's story was first presented as a story about a real person but it later became known that she never really existed but was a dramatised character invented by Vettenterä. JIP | Talk 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm not seeing clear source support that she didn't exist? That could just be me, though... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
            • I have added an alternative that is supported by the reference and the article. Google translate says fraud rather than hoax. TSventon (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
            • Here is a link to Minttu Vettenterä's own blog page, latest updated in 2014, which plainly says: "Elisa, Miksu ja Riikka ovat Minttu Vettenterän luomia hahmoja, mutta jokainen saa itse määritellä miten todellisilta tapahtumat ja tunteet tuntuvat.", "Elisa, Miksu and Riikka are characters created by Minttu Vettenterä, but everyone is free to define for themselves how real the events and feelings feel." Also I have seen numerous online newspaper articles saying Elisa was fictional. JIP | Talk 19:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @JIP and Theleekycauldron: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know. I have supplied evidence that Elisa and her parents were fictional and have just waited for User:Theleekycauldron to comment on it. JIP | Talk 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I do understand they are fictional, but if we could just not call it a hoax, due to the word's negative connotation, we'd be on our way. If a source uses "fraud", that's fine too. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 04:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 19Edit

Climate change in Italy

Created by Belindapr (talk), Manongouraud (talk), and Muninnkorp (talk). Nominated by Belindapr (talk) at 18:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but do note you must link the article in question in the hook. This has not been done at present. And bold text should only be used for the article (or rarely, articles) nominated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I've sorta taken care of the linking/bolding (without any rewording), but anyone should feel free to do it differently.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  18:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)