Template talk:Did you know

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

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK.


Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 18 1
November 24 1
December 2 1
December 4 1
December 5 1
December 6 1 1
December 8 1
December 12 1
December 16 1
December 17 1
December 18 1
December 19 1
December 21 1
December 22 1
December 23 1
December 25 1 1
December 28 1
January 1 2
January 2 1
January 6 1 1
January 8 1 1
January 9 1
January 12 1
January 13 2
January 14 1 1
January 23 3
January 24 1
January 25 1
January 26 2
January 27 5 1
January 29 1 1
January 30 1
January 31 3 1
February 2 1
February 3 2 1
February 4 4 3
February 5 6 2
February 6 3 2
February 7 1
February 8 2 2
February 9 4
February 10 5 2
February 11 3 1
February 12 8 6
February 13 4 2
February 14 4 2
February 15 5 1
February 16 6 5
February 17 7 5
February 18 9 7
February 19 20 13
February 20 12 7
February 21 6 4
February 22 12 6
February 23 7 2
February 24 7 5
February 25 8 5
February 26 8 4
February 27 2
Total 200 95
Last updated 22:15, 27 February 2017 UTC
Current time is 23:12, 27 February 2017 UTC refresh

Instructions for nominators

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

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

To nominate an article

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.

For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.

Create the nomination subpage.

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

Write the nomination.

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

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

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination.

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

How to review a nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions


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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions

Instructions for other editors

How to promote an accepted hook

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

How to remove a rejected hook

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

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

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

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

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


Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on November 18

3D Fold Evolution

  • ... that a growing anticline can force a stream to abandon its channel to form wind gaps that are progressively lower? Source: from the Keller reference "Geomorphic criteria to determine direction of lateral propagation of reverse faulting and folding." Hook si from :" Multiple wind gaps can be formed from a single river if there is continuous lateral fold growth and the river keeps being deflected, by abandoning its earlier channel and forming a new one around the outside of the developing fold" in the Wind gaps section.

Moved to mainspace by Jeffreyfung (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 06:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New and long enough. Insufficient in-line citations, with some paragraphs going fully without any cites. This article needs to be wikified a good deal, as it looks extremely unappealing visually due to the placement, size, and frequency of images as well as the unusual formatting for headings, etc. At parts, this reads almost like an essay, especially in the case study portion (which is likely not necessary at all). The hook appears to be accurate, but due to the writing of the article, it's hard to tell where exactly this information appears in the article. After correcting the more general issues, please direct a reviewer to the specific sentence or sentences in the article that support the hook. I have access to the source cited for the hook if anyone needs me to review it. It does seem to support the information, but I'm happy to check again. ~ Rob13Talk 07:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Deflected stream schematic.gif
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am sticking the references on, and will make the hook statement more apparent. I have rewritten the statement that supports the hook. I am also trying an image to see if it looks good at the small size. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Graeme Bartlett: This still needs substantial wikification and editing. The images (of which there are many) are huge and jut into the page awkwardly at weird sizes. Large sections are written like an essay, and there are many technical mistakes with the writing (using 2 instead of two, etc). The little things add up quickly here. Additionally, there's a clean-up tag relating to categories on the page, and we can't run any DYKs with clean-up tags. This is far closer to being a fail than a pass. I won't fail this so as to give you both a chance to fix things and a chance to get a second opinion, but these things must be fixed before putting this up for review again or I imagine the next person will fail it. ~ Rob13Talk 00:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have removed the cleanup tags, as they were useless. Anyone can add better categories if they want, but its not a problem as it stands. Also I have done wikification adding links, and appropriate bolding. I also changed 2 to two etc. I am shrinking and moving images currently. Some of these are WP:MOS complience issues, that are not actually part of WP:DYK rules. The idea is not to set the bar too high for new editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but we do need a minimum level of presentation in order to push this to the main page. ~ Rob13Talk 23:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13, I'm assuming by your comment that you considered the level of presentation to still be problematic after Graeme Bartlett's edits on February 19. Have the subsequent edits on February 21 satisfied your concerns, or is there more work to be done? This is now the oldest extant DYK nomination, and I think we need to decide on it one way or the other before much more time has passed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: They've helped, but I still don't believe this is ready for the main page. For instance, "Here, we re-examine the area and account for growing direction of the anticline" is in the first person, which occurs in three other places as well. The entire case study section seems entirely unnecessary to an encyclopedic article, and it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. The last issue there is really shared with the whole article, which seems to be written as if it were a published scientific paper rather than an encyclopedic summary of a topic. We still have issues with the images. Bold captions, radically mis-matched sizes next to each other. The table in "Mode of linkage" has very unusual proportions and looks like a mess. Not all of these issues directly relate to the DYK criteria, but there are enough of them that we'd embarrass ourselves by putting this on the main page. ~ Rob13Talk 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, BU Rob13. Graeme Bartlett, these are clearly significant issues that need to be addressed prior to promotion, and need to be done soon. Please let us know whether you plan to do so. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 24

James Oakley (politician)

Created by EdChem (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting hooks, but the article has a merge tag on it. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: The shooting of Benjamin Marconi article (the proposed merge target) also has a merge tag on it, and was run at DYK a few days ago. That generate one new !vote on the merge proposal, an oppose. I think that merging a biography into an article on the shooting murder of which he only commented would be a BLP violation. I do recognise that naming Oakley in these hooks might be a problem, and so note that they could be reworded as "an American politician" or "an American County Judge" (which is his title, though it would be controversial to use as his position as County Judge is much more a political role than a judicial one). Added ALT3 in this format, supported by Huffington Post article. Note that next PEC board meeting is on 17 Jan, so more news on the topic of ALT2 and article edits will be likely in the next few days. EdChem (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This may indeed be this individual's principal claim to notoriety but doesn't it run afoul of the same BLP don't-be-negative issues as this review? — LlywelynII 13:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg EdChem, it's been over a month since your last post. In the interim, it appears Oakley was stripped of his Board Vice President post at PEC and issued a warning, and that ended that, so I've struck ALT2 since it's now inaccurate as written. The article merge proposal has bogged down, but I don't see how it could close as a move; either oppose or no consensus seem the only two possibilities. The primary issue with this nomination remains the fact that all the proposed hooks violate BLP to one degree or other, and there almost certainly isn't a way to include the comment without violating BLP. Looking at the article, the only other hook possibilities I see involve the Wirtz Dam bridge or the Burnet County jail, and I'm not sure how strong they could be. It may be that it isn't possible to craft an interesting hook that doesn't run afoul of BLP concerns, in which case the article isn't eligible for DYK. This has been sitting for long enough, though, that we need you to respond now. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 2

Grand Matsu Temple

  • ... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple was built as the palace of a Ming prince fleeing the Qing conquest of China?
    • ALT1:... that five concubines of the Prince of Ningjing hanged themselves in the rear hall of Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple?
    • ALT2:... that Shi Lang convinced the Kangxi Emperor to convert a Ming palace into the Grand Matsu Temple to win support for the Qing conquest of Taiwan?
    • ALT3:... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple honors the deified form of a medieval Chinese shamaness?
    • ALT4:... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple was the first in China to honor Mazu as the Empress of Heaven?
    • ALT5:... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple was almost privatized under Japanese rule but was spared at the last minute?
    • ALT6:... that singles looking for love in the Taiwanese city of Tainan visit the altar of the Old Man under the Moon at the Grand Matsu Temple?
  • Reviewed: Will do Tank steering systems
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to verify the hook(s) you are most interested in. If it's ALT3, I can bring over cites from the Mazu article if necessary to support the point.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 02:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough. It does not seem to have copyright violations. It uses inline citations. I assumed good faith for the offline sources. But the "Tainan City Guide" source does not seem very reliable. According to this page, "This blog is a one-man operation done during my spare time. I have no editors or fact-checkers." The content citing the "Tainan City Guide" source needs to be removed or edited to use citations to reliable sources. The image is freely licensed. The nominator says "Will do", so the QPQ requirement will be met when they do the review. The article needs some more work to be eligible. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg With respect, you have confused WP:RS with WP:BLACKLIST. You're absolutely right that you shouldn't use a hook sourced to something that isn't up to WP:RS standards; that's part of the DYK process. All the same, we don't just blank information because the source isn't perfect. If there's any actual material you find questionable, I'm more than happy to deal with it but it's better to have some source than no source and it's better to have some information than no information.
    You're welcome to find a well-sourced hook or to hand the review off to another reviewer. — LlywelynII 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by "confused WP:RS with WP:BLACKLIST". The blacklist is a list of spammers that prevents external links from being added. While it may sometimes be acceptable to have unreliably sourced material that is not related to living persons, I don't think that is acceptable in articles for DYK. WP:DYKRULES states "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". I did not say that the material must be blanked; I said that they need to be removed or edited so that it is based on reliable sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That rule is to keep us from having nonsense articles on Trump's endorsement by the pope, not to require editors to blank perfectly valid information irrelevant to the hook to process the nomination, followed by adding it back once the process is complete. If the information being cited were germane to a hook or dubious, you'd have a point; but it's not and you really don't. That said, it's an honest mistake and you're more than welcome to stand by your guns and claim it as a QPQ. — LlywelynII 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII: After thinking about it, this is my opinion. It is OK if you don't agree. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires content to be attributable to reliable sources. Even if something is true, if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, it should not be in Wikipedia. The DYK rules force you to prove that the content really is verifiable. Blanking the content is not the only way to adhere to the rules. You can also remove the citations to unreliable sources and add citations to reliable sources. It may be true that English sources on this location are mostly informal, but per WP:NONENG, while English sources are preferred, reliable sources do not necessarily have to be in English. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I got it that it's your opinion that you look down on the source. WP:IAR trumps obnoxious rule thumping and pushes us back to thinking about why the rule exists. It's there to remove bullshit. Howevermuch you dislike the source, none of the items cited to it are actually dubious and noone (at all) is actually well-served by removing the information or cites to where it came from. If other editors come by and think that I'm wrong about that, I'll blank the material for the DYK process and add it back later. In any case, you really don't have to keep repeating yourself. It's a good-faith mistake and you're welcome to use this for QPQ purposes. — LlywelynII 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This conversation continues on my talk page. For the record, I used strongish language above but absolutely understand Gulumeemee's GOODFAITH objections. I happen to think it's not productive here (few English sources, non-dubious information, non-POVy reporting by someone who visited the temple and is presumably repeating on-site information) but am perfectly willing to remove it if editors feel GLMM's objections are well-taken in this case. The article is still long enough, removing all of the material from that source. — LlywelynII 04:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Assuming the admins don't really need me to blank three lines of text of perfectly valid info from a quasi-reliable source—which I can do to process the nomination but consider a disservice to our readers and not an improvement—this still needs a new reviewer. — LlywelynII 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This nomination has been lingering too long. I see the discussion above about the reliability of one of the sources but think the matter not a deal-breaker. I find ALT1 much the most interesting hook, and the hook facts are confirmed by other sources used in the article. The article meets the criteria of newness, length, neutrality and policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg LlywelynII, I'm really surprised by how you berated the first reviewer. I, too, would remove a wordpress source as non-RS. I added a book citation for ALT1, but I don't see anything in the article about the hanging taking place in a rear hall of the temple; you wrote that they hung themselves in the palace bedroom. Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, reread what was written and none of it is terribly surprising on either side, except for how you came to consider respecting the first reviewer's good faith objections "berating". Thanks for your own once-over and the additional citation. As the article clearly states the palace is the temple; its bedroom is its rear hall; but you're right that if that's our hook I should specifically note and source that aspect of it. On it. — LlywelynII 02:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • LlywelynII, it's been over three weeks, and you still haven't edited the article. Please take care of this very soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 4

Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 04:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg These two articles are new enough and long enough. The hook facts are supported by inline citations, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. As the three ministers all resigned on the same day, there was presumably a reason for this. Why did they resign? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There were multiple reasons, but all boil down to the climate of disagreement between Bangla Congress and CPI(M). Bangla Congress had 4 ministers in the Second United Front Cabinet, including the Chief Minister. On Feb 19 these three ministers resigned, on orders from their party. A few days later the Chief Minister resigned as well, a move that brought the end of the cabinet. --Soman (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg It would be helpful to add that information to the articles. All DYK criteria met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This looks like a good candidate for a slot on February 19. @Soman: if you are able to source the part about the party ordering them to resign, and the chief minister resigning too, we could write a more interesting hook:
  • ALT1: ... that on February 19, 1970, the Bangla Congress ordered Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren, and one other minister to resign from the West Bengal cabinet, and a few days later the chief minister resigned too? Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with ALT1. --Soman (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to shorten it to under 200 char:
  • ALT1a: ... that on February 19, 1970, the Bangla Congress ordered Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren, and another minister to resign from the West Bengal cabinet, and then the chief minister resigned too? Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But you haven't added or sourced the last fact in the hook, about the chief minister resigning too. @Soman:. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 5

Han Zhuo

  • ... that China's Xia dynasty was overthrown for a time by the archer Houyi and his advisor Han Zhuo?
    • ALT1:... that, according to Chinese legend, Houyi's wife conspired to overthrow her husband with Han Zhuo, who then tried to feed the archer's body to his sons?
    • ALT2:... that Chinese legends state Houyi's wife pushed his advisor Han Zhuo to overthrow her husband?
    • ALT3:... that Chinese stories hold that Han Zhuo overthrew the archer Houyi only to be overthrown himself by the Xia?
    • ALT4:... that Chinese legend holds that Han Zhuo tried to feed the archer Houyi's body to his sons and killed them when they refused to eat it?
    • ALT5:... that, in Chinese legend, the sons of the archer Houyi were killed for refusing Han Zhuo’s command to eat their father's body?
    • ALT6:... that traditional accounts of the Xia dynasty state that the archer Houyi left day-to-day administration to Han Zhuo, who then seduced his wife and usurped his kingdom?
    • ALT7:... that Han Zhuo was legendary Chinese advisor who usurped his king's throne, seduced his wife, and executed his children when they refused to eat their father's body?
    • ALT8:... that the Chinese usurper Han Zhuo’s son Ao is still worshipped as a culture hero responsible for the invention of the ship?
  • Reviewed: Will do Mapping of Venus
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to check up on the hook(s) you're most interested in seeing promoted.
    I'd kind of like the hook to obliquely note that western scholars don't really think the Xia existed in anything like the way it's presented in traditional Chinese history, but I'm open to using whichever phrasing you like best from any of the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 05:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg A QPQ review appears to be needed before this can move forward. North America1000 20:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, the review can still happen now. I'll get the QPQ in the next day or two. I had a stack to get through. Done. — LlywelynII 06:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. There is a "clarification needed" tag that you seem to have added yourself, and the single sentence lead is sure to attract a "Lead too short" tag unless you expand it. The hooks are much of a muchness; I like ALT4 and ALT5 best. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: If you were to respond to these two points, I could wind up this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Which two points? The clarification tag should stay: If I could clarify the point, I already would have but the source I found didn't use Pinyin or even provide the Chinese character. Assuming it's in Wade, "Kuei" can be either of Gui or Kui, each of which comes in four tones and several hundred separate characters. Just be thankful I was able to find the right Chinese and links for the rest of the names. I expanded the lead a bit more, but it's a few paragraphs on a legendary figure. The lead captures what we realistically do know about the guy in the sources I found.

    Between ALT4 & 5? Same basic idea but I suppose ALT4 is worded a bit more cleanly. — LlywelynII 10:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 8


  • ... that Queen Furra executed men for being bald, old and short.

Created by Abeshababe (talk) and Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 01:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is long enough and within policy. Hook is short enough. Two issues:
Article was created 10 days before nomination. Day before nom, expanded from 780 to 3160 characters / 129 words to 556 words. Neither is five fold expansion (4.05 and 4.31 respectively). Notifying @Andrew Davidson: additional expansion is needed.
Per source for the hook, this claim is from legend - two men escaped by "inventing platform shoes" and "inventing wigs". Hook should be rewritten to clarify this is folklore, not documented fact. Argento Surfer (talk)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Additionally, striking ALT0 as unsupported by its source. Even once you change the hook to fix the grammar (done) and to note that this was legend (done), there's nothing in the source mentioning age at all. — LlywelynII 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Ethiopian legend holds that Queen Furra executed men for being bald, old, or short?
  • ALT2 ... that the legendary Queen Furra executed men for being bald, old and short?
  • I have amended LlywelynII's action as it seems better to present alternate hooks separately so that the history of proposals is clear. The issue about age not being in the source is incorrect as the comment above quotes the source directly, "Then she ordered executions, particularly, of all the short and old bald men." LlywelynII's suggested hook is shown as ALT1 and my preferred revision is ALT2 as hooks should be short and succinct. I have done some expansion of the article since the review by Argento Surfer but still have more to do; Christmas has been a distraction. I am keen that we get a result here as the article was started by a new editor during the BBC editathon and it seems good to exhibit the work from such events. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Restoring grammatical corrections. (Seriously, don't remove those.)
Striking ALT0—as amended—as a violation of DONTLIE (she's a legendary figure, not a historical one); striking ALT0, ALT1, ALT2 as still unsupported by the article or source.
I know this isn't your fault; it's mostly a result of bad policy. We should not be listing citations in the templates here at all. It confuses you as to what's actually in the article, which is the only thing that we're actually concerned with. The one you're giving here is not in the article, Wordpress blogs are not actually reliable sources, and your claim (as already discussed) is not supported by the actual source in the article. (This one.) It says she killed bald men and short men; your own source doesn't claim she killed old men who weren't bald, so I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. Drop out the "old" and move on with your life and this nomination. — LlywelynII 15:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to Mssrs Shababe, Davidson, and Igott to let me know when there's a usable hook here. — LlywelynII 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that Queen Furra was reportedly styled the "Queen of the Women" rather than "Queen of Sidama" due to her partisanship? Source: "On this basis of her partisanship approach, she was deemed as mentu biilo {'Queen of the Women') and not the 'Queen of Sidama'" Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New enough (some stretching of guideline is allowable given queue length); long enough; within policy (neutral, cited, no close paraphrasing; acceptable use of cited quotations); QPQ not required for first-time editor; I have proposed two new hooks (above) which are both stated and cited. Someone else will need to re-review to confirm the new hooks. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Mary for picking this up and suggesting some new hooks. ALT3 is too stilted for my taste but ALT4 is more promising. I still reckon that the original hook is quite good though and so will continue to advocate for that. I have edited the article to ensure that there's an inline citation for it, along with the links provided above. Andrew D. (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this should not go ahead with a variation of ALT0. The main source mentions that she ordered the execution of "all the old and short bald men". It's not clear whether being old, short or bald was sufficient in itself, but if that phrase were quoted in the article and hook, it would get over the ambiguity. The other source seems less reliable (the high-heeled shoes and wigs don't impress me). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Mary Mark Ockerbloom was invoking WP:DYKSG#D9, which allows some leeway for late nominations if there isn't a major backlog in the number of hooks; in that case, three days would be allowable, and the article was 2615 prose characters at that point, well over the 1500 minimum. However, as there's been a major backlog for many months, and there were in the neighborhood of 300 active nominations back on December 18, I doubt I'd be lenient for that reason, but you could decide differently, LlywelynII. The article's size prior to Andrew Davidson's expansion, which began on December 11, was 762 prose characters according to DYKcheck, meaning that the article needs to be 3810 prose characters assuming it needs to meet the 5x expansion requirement. It's currently 2971 prose characters by DYKcheck's count, so another 839 prose characters are wanted.
I have taken the liberty of adjusting the credits: adding categories is not enough for a "make" credit, nor is adding wikilinks and a "citation needed" tag, nor supplying said citation. Since Andrew Davidson expanded the article from stub length to nearly four times its original length, I've given him a DYKmake rather than a DYKnom; he's done a great deal more work than the original creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Well, yeah, a months-long backlog so long that the newest nominations aren't even displaying is certainly no reason for a no-backlog exemption.

    It is an interesting topic and everyone appreciates the work that went into it, though, so I think a decent compromise is that if someone out of Mssrs Shababe, Gott, and Davidson (or maybe even Mr Surfer and Ms Ockerbloom) pushes this the rest of the way to a 5× by adding a few sourced paragraphs (Moonset's 837 characters) in the next week or two we do some D13 and WP:IAR handwaving and ignore the timeline. If Mr Davidson really preferred ALT0, it also gives him a chance to rephrase it to reflect the sources, as Cwm and I both proposed. (I think ALT4 is pleasantly enigmatic, myself.) — LlywelynII 02:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added about 100 words and another source: it now counts as 3480 characters (629 words). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Requiring the page to be 5x expanded as well as being new seemed like double jeopardy or a second shift but it is good that the article is still progressing. I have re-established contact with the journalist that I assisted at the editathon. I shan't involve her in this DYK nomination as it's too bureaucratic – rather like the BBC. But, as and when the item reaches the main page, I'll ping her to take a look at the outcome. As she has thousands of followers on Twitter, this may help the number of views we get. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, snip, the entire problem was that it was not new enough. Having someone (else) bring it to 5× despite the blown deadline was a second chance. Thanks for your help, Ms Ockerbloom. — LlywelynII 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been knocking around for a long time. I propose that we accept that this article is eligible for DYK and go ahead with ALT1a. Could you give it a tick @LlywelynII:? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1a ... that Ethiopian legend holds that Queen Furra ordered the execution of men, particularly old and short bald ones?
  • ALT1a is unsatisfactory in a couple of ways. Firstly, the quote isn't the same as that provided originally above so it's not clear what is being quoted. Secondly, Furra was a Sidama queen and that people were not conquered by the Ethiopian empire until later. The main source talks about her as Sidama rather than Ethiopian. I suggest that we duck the issue of nationality as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1b ... that the legendary Queen Furra ordered the execution of men, particularly short and old bald ones?
  • Gimme a minute. — LlywelynII 10:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

    Symbol confirmed.svg ALT4 G2G. See above for the drama over timing but Ms Ockerbloom pitched in and we'll call it 5×; long enough (~3.5k elig. chars.); neutral, sourced, and Earwig finds minimal copyvio; ALT4 terse enough, intriguing, and sourced. ALT 1a/b are both mistaken in saying she ordered executions of some men, particularly including short and old bald ones: the sources state she specifically ordered the execution of the short and bald ones or the short and old bald ones. Both Cwm and Mr Davidson seem to have misunderstood the grammar of the second source. It's fine, though, since both ALT3 and 4 are fine. — LlywelynII 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I don't accept LlywelynII's judgment on the grammatical point. As LlywelynII proposed hooks themself and has now started making personal attacks, they seem too involved to be getting the last word on this. Can we have an independent reviewer, please. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The high-handed rudeness started on your end, but—absolutely—apologies if you take git as a strong term instead of a mild one. I even linked the article discussing its rather mild nature, but everyone's different and I certainly appreciate your work bringing new articles in, even if not the tone you took w/r/t the rest of us. I'm fine with a second reviewer if wanted, though I don't think any of the ALTs were mine and it seems superfluous.

    The grammar issues are straightforward: as already covered, neither source in the article supports the idea she executed old men who were neither bald nor short. Simply use those adjectives instead. Similarly, one source says she ordered the execution of all men who were short or bald. The other says, "Then she ordered executions, particularly, of all the short and old bald men." The second comma makes the "particularly" refer to the entire sentence and limits the executions being discussed to the sorts of men who are listed and not to any other. — LlywelynII 14:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

    As such, restriking the ALTs above (again), but open—as always—to a rephrasing supported by the sources. Don't see the problem with simply using ALT4 instead, though the 2nd reviewer may feel otherwise. — LlywelynII 14:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Calling someone a "rude git" is about a light year removed from a "mild term". Git, as you so conveniently linked, stands for "denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person" That is not a 'mild' insult, but an egregious one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Welp, reread the article, which specifically describes it as a milder term of opprobrium. Again, it may be out of date and I have apologized for it being taken any more harshly than that, despite the lack of apology on the other end. This really isn't the place for an extended discussion of British manners and diction, though. You're welcome to continue to berate me on my talk page. — LlywelynII 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 12

Student Initiative Rahel

Coffee Ceremony (7926066672).jpg

Created by Urmelbeauftragter (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough. The article has a cleanup tag on it for too many primary source citations, and the tag seems reasonable given the sources. This must be addressed before promotion. Partially as a result of the sources, the article focuses quite a bit on how the organization views itself rather than how its covered by reliable secondary sources. Lots of mission statement stuff, etc. That needs to be reduced for this to be neutral. I haven't evaluated close paraphrasing because the sources are likely to change quite a bit before this is acceptable, so it makes more sense to check that in the future. First hook doesn't have a cite after the sentence supporting it. Second hook is sourced to foreign-language sources, so I'm unable to evaluate the sourcing. I noted that the article contradicts itself on the orphan's name (Rahel vs. Rachel). This should be corrected. Still pending a QPQ as well. The image is fine from a licensing standpoint, but it doesn't appear great at a small size and its content isn't connected to any of the hooks, so it probably shouldn't be used. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, the spelling "Rachel" was wrong. Her name is Rahel. Unfortunately there are less sources which are not from current or former members of the student initiative. So it seems to me there's nothing I can do for removing the cleanup tag. Perhaps I can do something in reducing the articles length. What do you mean with "First hook doesn't have a cite after the sentence supporting it."? What is a QPQ? I could only use pictures which were already on WP Commons so I believe I could not find a better one.--Urmelbeauftragter 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not so easy to shorten the text for me. I will have a look on it in the next days.--Urmelbeauftragter 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
For DYK, the sentence supporting your hook needs to have a citation at the end of it (even if a supporting citation appears elsewhere). The sentence supporting the ALT0 hook you proposed is "It was in the context of a research project of the German Bishops' Conference (German: Deutsche Bischofskonferenz) in Adigrat in Tigray Region in northern Ethiopia.", so it needs a citation at the end. A QPQ is a quid-pro-quo; you're required to review one DYK nomination before your own is accepted. I just checked and you're exempt from that requirement because you have less than five DYK credits already, so don't worry about that for now. You don't have to use a picture either in your article or for the DYK, so I'd recommend not using one in this case. ~ Rob13Talk 06:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The same citation was for the whole paragraph. Is there one needed for every sentence. I have added it a second time for this sentence.--Urmelbeauftragter 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a rather silly rule specific to DYK; to make it easier for readers to find the reference supporting the fact appearing on our main page, we require a cite at the end of the sentence that contains the DYK hook's fact. You can remove the extra cite after this has run on the main page. Still pending some other changes, especially related to the cleanup tag. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what I can do relating to the cites. It seems to me I cannot do something relating to the cleanup tag because I cannot find more sources to this theme which are not seen as primary ones.--Urmelbeauftragter 16:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, that means we can't accept this for DYK. Notability may also be questionable if no non-primary sources exist. ~ Rob13Talk 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 16

Petra Hřebíčková

Petra Hřebíčková, Czech actress
Petra Hřebíčková, Czech actress
  • Reviewed: Mike McCray
  • Comment: All sources are in Czech. The 2008 awards were held in 2009, as is typical for acting awards.

Created by Cloudz679 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg I was able to verify the hook and some other randomly-selected elements of the article using Google translate and didn't spot anything which looked like a copyright violation. The hook is reasonably interesting, and the photo is credibly PD. As such, this is good to go - nice work with the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Cloudz679 I'm returning the hook from the prep area. It has an unsourced section and DYK criteria are therefore not met. Also, I suggest that Thalia Awards is unsuitable for homepage exposure. While the sea of red links has already been addressed, it's a stub with just over 300kB of prose (i.e. close to none) and not a single secondary reference. Can you think of a better article to include in the hook? I appreciate that the second issue isn't a show stopper going by current DYK rules, but the first one is. Schwede66 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Schwede66: I have added some secondary references to the linked article, although not sure that this is part of the criteria. Regarding the article itself, I would argue that it's not an unsourced section, as some of her film roles are mentioned and referenced in the prose. The award ceremony is prestigious in a national context as can be seen by three independent references easily found, and qualifies as a "good enough" "article to include in the hook". Could you clarify what needs to be done here, please? C679 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I wasn't thinking that I would review the nomination once it's ready, but I'd rather stay out of that so that I don't have to be careful when promoting preps to queue. I can't do that admin function if I have had a prior reviewer involvement. So could one of the regulars please check this out? Schwede66 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 17

Srikakulam peasant uprising

  • Comment: Article created on 17 December,2016

Created by Maaley (talk). Self-nominated at 02:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting article, length, date and hook checks out. No QPQ needed, new user. But article would need some copy-editing (punctuations, spacings, etc.). Moreover, I think some of the background needs to be reviewed. The AICCCR was founded in 12 Nov 1967, but the Srikakulam uprising was already in motion then. I'll try to look some sources on my side, but some additional clarification would be of interest here. --Soman (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Soman Thanks for your review.I have written as per the timeline and incidences mentioned in the following links. Hope it will help to understand how the two movements are aligned together yet independently initiated.
Yours sincerely,
Maaley (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok. In a few days, I'll regain access to some literature on this topic, I'll try to sort out some details then. --Soman (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
SomanThanks.Looking forward for your feedback. :) Maaley (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Soman, Maaley, I don't see any edits at all in 2017, and it has been nearly two months since material was posted on Maaley's talk page. The further fact that Maaley has not edited on Wikipedia since December 26 is also a major concern. Soman, unless you are prepared to update the article yourself, now that Maaley is not around, I think it's time to close this nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Maaley still hasn't edited Wikipedia and Soman hasn't replied despite having edited Wikipedia in the interim; marking for closure as unsuccessful due to the issues remaining and lack of response. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 18

Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee

Created/expanded by Sdee (talk). Self-nominated at 02:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment only That hook is not "interesting", as it merely states the obvious. Is there nothing better? Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I reviewed and changed. Or please give some suggestion.--TINHO (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The page history shows that Sdee started editing the article on 10 December 2016, eight days before the nomination, but the fivefold expansion seems to have begun on 16 December 2016, so it is probably acceptable. The article is long enough, neutral, and uses inline citations. It does not seem to have copyright violations. I assume good faith for the offline The Times source. The article says that the National Flag Anthem is used because of an agreement signed in 1981, and the lyrics were modified in 1981, but the sources cited seem to say 1983. The source cited does not contain some of the dates in the list of presidents. I did some copy editing and added archive URLs to dead links, but the article needs more cleanup. I am not sure what "recolonize" means. The hook is interesting, but it is a little confusing and needs to be edited. According to the QPQ check tool, the nominator has 6 DYK credits, so QPQ is needed. This will be good to go when the QPQ is done and the article is cleaned up. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Even consider the version before 10 December the prose was about 3300 bytes, and now the prose is about 7200 bytes just twofold of the older version. I don't think it meets the expansion criteria.-- (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You might be right. The version before 10 December presented the history as a list, so the tool I used didn't count the characters in the history section. Thanks for noticing that. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Lists are not counted as prose, so the pre-expansion version on November 22, 2016 was 487 characters. This is indeed a 5x expansion, and the review should continue. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears that the list was converted to prose. Gulumeemee (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Some items were removed, and some content was added. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over two months, and the nominator has still not provided a QPQ. Allowing seven days for the required QPQ to be submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 19

Kucheipadar tribal movement

  • ... that Kucheipadar tribal movement opposed mining to save environment ?
    • ALT1:... mining was put to an hold in the region till 2000 ?
  • Comment: Kucheipadar became famous for its tribal movement, article created on 19 dec,2016.

Created by Maaley (talk). Self-nominated at 04:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough. It is neutral and cites sources inline. However, ref #4 is not accessible to me and the sentence with the phrase "attended by 6,000 villagers from three panchayats" is not supported by ref #6. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports only one match with ref #1, which can not be considered as copyvio. Hook is interesting and its length is within limit. The phrase "environment" of original hook does not appear in the article. ALT1 is not a complete hook. I will re-review after above mentioned issues are resolved. CeeGee 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg No response in nearly twelve days, and Maaley hasn't edited on Wikipedia since December 26. If no response is forthcoming, this will have to be marked for closure soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 21

Charmian Gooch

  • Comment: Article 5X expanded by User:Sasha.sov Apologies for nominating slightly late.

5x expanded by Sasha.sov (talk). Nominated by Jaobar (talk) at 04:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Note: I have struck ALT1, since at 221 characters it was well above the 200 character maximum for a hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Response: Dear BlueMoonset, thank you for pointing this out. I have reduced the character count for the hook and created a second alternate. I hope this is acceptable. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Or consider ALT3, which is even tighter, with an important wiki link restored and the relevant countries named. —Patrug (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Patrug, thank you for providing an alternate hook. I agree that ALT3 is an improvement over ALT2. We'll see what happens! Best, --Jaobar (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT3 hook is sourced inline and the article is neutral. Earwig produced rather high percentages, but many of these were quotations and others were the names of organizations and much used phrases and I think the article passes the close paraphrasing test. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I disagree. Much has been put in quotes, but there are still instances of close paraphrasing which really can and should be rewritten in your own words:
  • Source: after lobbying G-8 members to embrace transparency
  • Article: After lobbying G8 members to embrace transparency
  • Source: Since 2010, Global Witness has worked with a coalition of NGOs lobbying political leaders in London, Brussels and Washington to force companies to identify their ultimate, or beneficial, owners.
  • Article: Beginning in 2010, Gooch and Global Witness started working with a union of non-governmental organizations aimed at lobbying political leaders in major cities such as London, Brussels, and Washington to force companies to identify their ultimate owners.
  • Source: Through tactics such as undercover investigations and high-level lobby meetings,
  • Article: Through the deployment of various tactics such as undercover investigations and high-level lobby meetings
  • Source: has run pioneering investigations and campaigns uncovering the links between natural resources, corruption and conflict.
  • Article: It has become a pioneer in investigations and campaigns related to uncovering the links between natural resources, corruption, and conflict.
  • In general, the article quotes snippets from the sources far too much; sentences should be rewritten and rephrased in your own words. Wikipedia articles are often used by college students and all these quotes are going to look strange in a term paper. The article has a strong tone of self-promotion as well. Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg There has been no response in three weeks, and close paraphrasing is a serious issue. Marking for closure, though if the issues raised are responded to here before the nomination closes and addressed on the article, the review can resume. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear BlueMoonset, Yoninah and others, thank you for your note and for your patience. Let me contact the editor and give this another try. I'll email as soon as I complete this note. Best, Jaobar (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Yoninah and BlueMoonset, all noted examples of close paraphrasing have been addressed. I will take another look through tonight and see if the quoting issues can be addressed. Thanks for your patience. --Jaobar (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Yoninah and BlueMoonset, a variety of quotes are now paraphrased. I hope this addresses your concerns and that we can move this process forward. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Best, Jaobar (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 22

Yu Zigao

  • Reviewed: Will do Goofus and Gallant
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. Everything's covered but you only need to verify the hook(s) you're most interested in.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 13:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough when nominated, long enough, QPQ done.
  • Thank you for the review. Since you split up the separate issues into bullet points, I'll just reply in the same format.
  • Running Away with the Circus is published by Lulu.com. Definitely not a reliable source.
  • It's published by Friendlysong Books (as shown in the article and verifiable at the linked work); it's sourcing minor information based on a personal visit to the site, which is fine if not scholarly; the cited information is unrelated to any of the hooks (and thus completely irrelevant to this DYK review though a very legitimate concern prior to GA status). Leaving the cite and the non-dubious information is better than removing either, but you're welcome to find a better source or note the objection on the article's talk page if you like. — LlywelynII 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SPS is part of policy. I can't even link to the page on lulu.com where the book is listed because the domain lulu.com is blacklisted. Now, if we can show that the author is an expert, then using a self-published book is okay, but I don't agree that leaving the cite to a self-published book in is better than removing it. I'm happy to get a third-opinion on this, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's tool shows no violations and random googling of three phrases turned up no evidence of plagiarism.
  • Can we standardize the way the subject is referred to in the article - we have Zigao, Yu, and Yu Zigao. Normally I'd have fixed this myself but I'm not sure which is the convention and/or complies with the MOS.
  • Of course not. Now that I've looked up your name, I'm pretty sure you already know this. When he's being distinguished from his father or other members of his family, you use his first name. Elsewhere in the article it's perfectly standard to alternate between using the last name by itself and the full name. See literally any biography article on this or any other encyclopedia. That said, I had forgotten to add the {{chinese name}} template, so thanks for that reminder.
  • The relevant guideline is WP:SURNAME, and I was just trying to spare you someone coming along and complaining that it's wrong for our MOS. If you prefer to not comply with the MOS, I'm certainly not going to hold up the DYK nom on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer the first hook, but it isn't clear in the article that Yu Zigao was actually in command of the forces that forced the Dutch off the islands. ALT2 is directly supported by a citation. Likewise ALT4. [—User:Ealdgyth.]
  • He was the military governor (i.e., supreme commander) for the region, he assembled the forces, and he was the one who personally forced the Dutch to remove themselves. There's a linked cite if any of that is unclear. If that doesn't meet your idea of "command", well, there are the other hooks.
    Also, kindly remember to sign your name to your posts. — LlywelynII 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the recent number of pulled hooks over similar wording issues, let's err on the safe side. Yes, normally I would assume that "commanded" fit in this situation, but you know what they say ... "assume makes an ass out of me". As for the forgetting to sign, I apologize. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 23

Monument to Women Memorial Garden

Created by FallingGravity (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Not a review of the full nomination but we cannot use the image (at least on the main page) as, being a copyrighted three-dimensional artwork, it is exempt from freedom of panorama under U.S. copyright law and thus any photograph of it is legally a derivative work. In fact, it cannot be hosted on Commons, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I've removed the photo from hook. If the image is deleted from Commons then I will remove it from the article, too. FallingGravity 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you could actually host it here under fair use; we do have a template allowing for that exemption (If you want to do this let me know; I'm very good at writing the rationale to satisfy the free-use zealots). Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. FallingGravity 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Symbol possible vote.svg New, long enough. Neutral and properly cites sources. I detected some rather close paraphrasing in my spot checking, which I did primarily on the "1933 Relief Society monument" section. A lot of the wording is directly ripped from the article being cited, with some minor wording changes. This will need to be substantially rewritten, as it currently constitutes a copyright violation. The hook is an appropriate length, interesting, and cited (AGF on offline source). After the identified close paraphrasing issue is addressed, this will need a thorough review for additional close paraphrasing issues, preferably from someone with access to the offline source. ~ Rob13Talk 11:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done some copyediting of the article. FallingGravity 18:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've altered some of the phrasing as well to avoid close paraphrasing of Susan Black's book (I was able to access the print source). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 25

Articles created/expanded on December 28

Revolutionary Communist Party of India

5x expanded by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article needs a lot of clean-up, but that doesn't disqualify it from DYK. I'm more concerned about the hook citation - it seems to be a primary source that is, at least ideologically, involved with the subject. For a statement like the hook statement, an independent source is needed. Other than that, I don't see any copyvios/close paraphrasing after running Earwig's tool, and the article was expanded within the timeframe of nomination. The content is neutral and is well-cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In what sense is it a primary source?? --Soman (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was a journal issued by CPI. --Soman (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Then it is affiliated with the subject. For a statement such as "the first," we really need some kind of outside source. It's probably true, but the organization could benefit from making claims to fame.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
How would a CPI journal be related to RCPI? --Soman (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
RCPI did break away from CPI, true, but I'm concerned about how reputable CPI is a source for historical analysis. Ideology doesn't inherently disqualify a source, but is CPI's Party Life known for presenting information from a neutral perspective, or at least one independent of the publisher? I also would be skeptical of a right-wing source, for similar reasons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, if CPI stated that RCPI predated it in Assam, wouldn't that be a reliable claim? --Soman (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That statement would be a reliable claim - but was there an organization prior to RCPI in Assam? I don't know if CPI is reliable for that claim. I don't have access to the source, so I can't look at it and consult it to get a feel for its reliability, which is why I'm unsure.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 1

Why (Taeyeon song)

  • ... that the song "Why", from K-pop artist Taeyeon, was noted for its "powerhouse vocals" with "precise harmonies and an emotional punch", deemed unusual for a typical EDM song?

Improved to Good Article status by (talk). Nominated by TerryAlex (talk) at 20:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not really. The hook consists of a quote from a critic. I've suggested alts below.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nominator is exempt from QPQ requirements. I'm not a fan of DYKs on art consisting solely of reiterating what critics had to say about the art. For this article I'd prefer something like:

Alt 1 ... that despite reaching number 6 on the Billboard World Digital Songs chart, "Why" was Kim Tae-yeon's least successful single in her solo career?

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Hi ONUnicorn, I've modified your suggestion a little. Is this good to go? Thanks for your review.---TerryAlex (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned it's good to go; but I think a second reviewer needs to approve the alternate hook since I suggested it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg - Length, Date, and Copyvio all check. Nom is exempt from QPQ however the cited sources do not directly verify the hook. I went through and verified that this was this musician's first song not to enter the top five of the Gaon Digital Chart however to do so I had to follow the cites of every other song she has released. Further, the cites do not verify that it was her least successful song though it could be inferred from context. I've proposed ALT 2 below. If you were to copy the citations concerning the chart position on the Gaon Digital Chart from the other articles ALT2 would in my estimation be verifiable and good to go. Mifter (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alt 2 ... that despite reaching number 6 on the Billboard World Digital Songs chart, "Why" was Kim Tae-yeon's first single not to enter the top five of the Gaon Chart?

Hi Mifter, sorry for the late reply, Alt 2 is fine, please help to see if this would be good to go. Thank you.TerryAlex (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lalchand Fulamali‎

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) A QPQ review appears to be needed before this can move forward. North America1000 10:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • QPQ added. --Soman (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 2

Violin Sonata (Poulenc)

  • Reviewed: Nkosi's Haven
  • Comment: probably pointless to ask for the composer's birthday, because the prep for the day is already full ...

Created by LouisAlain (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough and I have added Gerda's name to the "make" credits. The article is neutral and the sources not available to me. I would have passed the nomination, but really the hook is too awkward, trying to include too many details. I also prefer the bit of the quotation where Poulenc states "The monster is finished". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, we had several Poulenc good pieces with wind instruments, can be short for this one:
ALT1: ... that when Francis Poulenc completed his only surviving violin sonata he commented: "The monster is finished."? Source: [5] "Le monstre de ma Sonate est au point."
While I am sure that "not bad" is a good translation of "pas mal", I am less convinced of the other one, "sonate" certainly missing, and "au point" saying more than merely "finished". What do you think, LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
C'est au point actually means: there's no more to add to it; it's just OK the way it is, don't spoil it by trying to "perfect" it. (like a dish which is perfect)
Is there a term in English? "Finished" seems to be too harmless, - leave "au point"? In German, some use the French term for steaks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How about dropping "finished" or whatever?
ALT2: ... that Francis Poulenc called his Violin Sonata a monster of a sonata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Francis Poulenc described his Violin Sonata as a monster? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Catchy, but is "described" the right term? Serious question, it may be just my lack of English, - I would expect a description then, Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)--
He apparently said "The monster is finished", and that was describing the sonata as a monster. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If that is what "describe" means, fine. The German "beschreiben" would not be used for one funny label attached to it ;) - a Beschreibung" is a lengthy detailed description. Learning --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps "au point" => "done"? DS (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that's even more boring than "not bad", imho, on top of being unsourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 12

Layover (novel)

  • ... that unlike Doris Lessing, Margaret Atwood and Fay Weldon's "would-be female nut cases", Layover's heroine "doesn't set off on her journey needing to shuck her good-wife persona"? Source: "With '"Layover," Zeidner joins the ranks of Doris Lessing, Margaret Atwood and Fay Weldon, all of whom have written in the women-spiraling-into-madness genre. But Claire is something new. Unlike would-be female nut cases from an earlier time, she doesn't set off on her journey needing to shuck her good-wife persona" [6]
  • Reviewed: Susan Dynarski
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace on 12 January 2017; I haven't created an article for Zeidner as I'm not sure whether she meets the relevant guideline.

Moved to mainspace by Espresso Addict (talk). Self-nominated at 02:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 50.7% copyvios confidence. I would recommend cutting down a bit on the direct quotations of reviews, or use paraphrasing. The article is easily long enough and there are otherwise no problems. feminist (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like a second opinion on this. I don't feel the length of the cited quotations is either a copyright problem or a problem in terms of an article about a novel, where most of the content should be what reviewers say about it. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Stylistically, about 50% of the article consists of quotations, including multiple blockquotes, which I would say is excessive. In terms of copyright problems, for Austin Chronicle, Booklist, Publishers Weekly the quotes all exceed 10% of the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Requested second opinion confirms that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 13

Holman Rule

Source: "The Holman Rule... empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program." [7]

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Review – Note: I have done some copyedits and clean-up, and though I added the reference of exceptions from Deschler's, I do not consider myself to have done enough to be unable to evaluate this nomination.
  • Article is new enough and long enough, and cited. It does not lack neutrality, but it is incomplete.
  • I am concerned about inconsistencies in the content and between the article and the hook and the sources. The sources speak of reducing the salary of targeted employees to $1, but the articles speak of firing. Though the former may have the effect of forcing a resignation and thus have the effect of the latter, they are not the same. This needs to be clarified and resolved. The source cited above also says "any member of Congress" but the United States Congress includes the Senate and the article and other sources speak of a House of Representatives rule. It may be that the hook needs to speak of reducing salary to $1.
  • On the hook, I'm also not keen on "newly reinstated", I would say when - either January 2017 or at the start of the XXth Congress or something like that. "Propose firing" also needs clarification, because it is a proposal to the House which, if passed as part of an appropriations bill, becomes a mandate. After all, a Member of Congress can write a letter to someone's boss proposing that s/he be fired, but the boss can ignore it. We are talking here about something much more draconian, where federal employees are potentially threatened. The hook needs to be neutral, but also to accurately portray the facts.
  • Earwig raises only the quotation from Deschler's, which is appropriately identified and supported, so no copyvio issues, and no problematic paraphrasing of the sources noted. The commentary in the articles could be expanded, too, and also some recognition that the quotations from Deschler's were published in 1994, and so is the version as was eliminated in 1983... is the 2017 version the same? Certainly the sources provided do not establish that, nor does the article address the issue. Also, should the dissent from Republicans and the unanimous opposition from Democrats in passing the new rules package is due some notice. Covering these issues in a policy-compliant manner is a challenge and is not (technically) an expansion required under DYK rules. However, in presenting an article like this on the main page at a period of time when the topic of the rule and politics in general is highly contentious, I think it behoves us to avoid highlighting an article where obvious questions can be raised and yet go unaddressed.
  • QPQ done as required.
  • Symbol question.svg The inconsistencies noted need to be resolved, and a new hook wording proposed. The areas not covered should be addressed, and I hope that Antony-22 as the article creator will choose to take on that challenge. EdChem (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review. First off, upon doing the research for this article I discovered that there's nothing significant about the amount of $1; the rule allows salaries to be cut to any amount or for a position st be eliminated completely. This source says that there is no evidence that the rule has ever been historically used to cut a salary to an inappropriate level, and I haven't seen any comments from any lawmakers advocating to use it in this way. My guess is that some PR person came up with the $1 line to draw attention to it, and I think we have a responsibility on Wikipedia to avoid repeating clickbait.
Good catch on checking the new wording; it is slightly different so I have included both in the article. Also, it's specifically a House rule and so doesn't directly affect the Senate, so the source may be using the informal use of "Congresspeople" to refer only to House members. The final paragraph of the article already briefly states the Republican and Democratic viewpoints on the rule. The following hook is more specific as you requested, but the original hook is more succinct and still accurate. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Calling for a second opinion. The updated text from the 2017 version is clear on reducing salary of "any person" and reducing numbers, but not (to me) clear on the ability to fire individuals, and "proposing firing" is something anyone can do any time, and be ignored. This is including in legislation a mandate that a person's salary must be reduced, or the number of people reduced. I am not comfortable that the hook is accurate. I will post at WT:DYK for another opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The effective text is "the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States"; the "number" part is where the proposals of firing come from. It might help if it can be demonstrated that both (contemporary) liberal and conservative sources say that the rule allows firing of individuals. The Deschler's Precidents source seems to be neutral and reliable, being published long before the current controversy, and it give specific examples of amendments firing individuals in the past. Here's a more specific and wordier hook. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 05:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 23

Susanna Elm

Created by Jwslubbock (talk) and Haylesley (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs checkout. Mifter (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep. Sorry, this is not a hook. I've also written things. If you're trying to emphasize the bawdy title, please put it into a better setting. Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with Yoninah's complaint. The hook is deliberately "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in" as recommended at WP:DYKHOOK. Let's see what the reviewer Mifter says. So that we may have more choice, here's a more verbose version. My fear is that, if we make it longer like this, it will attract more nitpicking. KISS. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Susanna Elm wrote Virgins of God, reviewed as a stimulating exposition and exploitation of little-known virginity literature?
  • No, you don't have to go from snappy to verbose. If you had a cite for this, you could write:
  • ALT2: ... that Susanna Elm expanded her doctoral thesis on female asceticism into the book Virgins of God? Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not unusual for a thesis to be turned into a book and so ALT2 tends to dilute the hook's impact. It also explains too much about the work and this will tend to lessen interest in clicking through. I still prefer the original which gets the reader wondering what Virgins of God is about rather than telling them at the outset. We're writing a hook here, not a summary. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree with those who've noted problems in the hooks so far. Here's another suggestion (and it's already cited):
  • Ooh, I like it. @Andrew Davidson:? Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT3 dilutes the impact of the hook by introducing another work by another author. It provides a second blue link which will tend to divert the click-throughs. It would be better if truncated to
  • ALT3b ... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources?

Hervé Pierre

  • Reviewed: To come soon

Created by Iselilja (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Long enough, well-sourced, neutral and free from apparent copyvio. Hook is interesting, appropriate and the source checks out (WWD is a reputable fashion journal). Regarding newness - technically you nominated in on the 8th day - I won't fail the nomination because of this technicality, but next time please be sure to be punctual. QPQ remains to be done. HaEr48 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Adding icon to indicate that this is lacking QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Miriam T. Griffin

  • ... that Miriam Griffin hosted the first Women in Classics dinner at Oxford?
    • ALT1:... that Miriam Griffin analysed the reasons for the fall of the Emperor Nero?

Created by DonPantalone (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 16:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) Sorry, a minor matter, but the article is presently ineligible because the single-sentence paragraph in the "Personal life" section of the article has no inline citations, which is required per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines. North America1000 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That section has been updated and a citation added to support it. Andrew D. (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough; the lead does not strike me as too short now given the article's overall size, and it obeys WP:LEADLENGTH. QPQ has been done. Earwig found no likely copyvio — the biggest hits it found were book title and editor listings. I have to admit that I'm not too excited by either hook: the first is "woman organizes dinner party" and the second is "scholar analyzes some historical detail that nobody cares about any more". (Actually, I think people should care about the reasons for the fall of Nero, as history tends to repeat, but that doesn't mean they do.) Also, although the article as a whole is adequately sourced, the dinner party hook is not: one source mentions her and the dinner but doesn't say she was the host, while the other is written by her rather than being about her. Some of the article also looks like filler: "The Oxford University library catalogue (SOLO) shows that she frequently donates academic books"? It's not needed as the article would be long enough and punchier without it. But that's not really a DYK rules issue. We just need a better and better-sourced hook and we can be good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The Women in Classics dinner was a big deal to the women who are trying to establish themselves in this male-dominated field and this aspect was the point of the editathon. But I grant that this will be of limited interest to others. Nero and his downfall, on the other hand, is quite topical, because Nero was a populist leader who was reviled by the patrician class. Here's a selection of headlines which demonstrate that people do still care about this historical detail:
  1. "Donald Trump: the modern-day Nero ready to burn down America" (Guardian)
  2. "To understand Trump, we should look to the tyrants of ancient Rome" (Guardian)
  3. "Donald Trump could be America's Nero — if we're lucky" (Spectator)
  4. "Trump as Nero - Europe Must Defend Itself Against A Dangerous President" (Der Speigel)
  5. "Bring Your Own Applause - What Donald Trump and Roman Emperor Nero Have in Common" (JSTOR Daily)
  6. "Caligula, Nero, Donald Trump?" (PennLive)
  7. "Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington" (Financial Times)
  8. "Dealing with Emperor Trump: Field Notes from Ancient Rome" (Common Dreams)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg So, given these parallels, please reconsider ALT1. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • A DYK hook should be attention-catching. These are not, regardless of how significant what they describe is. If you want to include Nero, can you at least briefly describe something surprising that she concluded about Nero (and include it with appropriate sourcing in the article so that we can use it as a hook)? We leave the hook and the article knowing no more about Nero than we did before. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a line of contextual information to the page to make clearer why it is not of only very minor interest or untopical why such a celebration was held - women were debarred from entering Oxford University as full entrants until 1920, and the numbers of women entrants were limited until 1957. Recognition of a change to the "male-dominated" field is therefore noteworthy in and of itself. —Claire 75(talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 24

Hari Bhimaraju

  • ... that Hari Bhimaraju was 11 years old when she developed a teaching aid to help blind and visually impaired students to learn the periodic table? Source:"First place: Manasa (Hari) Bhimaraju, 11, Kennedy Middle School, Cupertino, Calif. Hari designed and built a computer system to help students learn the periodic table of the elements. She also incorporated sound to aid people who are visually impaired." https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/cooking-broadcom-win “Cooking up a Broadcom win" from Science News for Students.
  • Reviewed: William Hoapili Kaauwai
  • Comment: I'd like to promote young females in science as they are under-represented on Wikipedia

Created by Mramoeba (talk). Self-nominated at 00:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I was going to review this hook since the subject was fascinating. Unfortunately @Mramoeba:, it is listed for Deletion. Putting the review on hold, I will pick it up if the article is kept.  MPJ-DK  01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for stopping by @MPJ-DK:. You can of course comment on the deletion if you have an opinion. Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment only Update, the discussion has ended and the (overwhelming?) decision was keep. @MPJ-DK:. As I added a photo i'm going to suggest
  • ALT1 ... that Hari Bhimaraju (pictured) was 11 years old when she developed a teaching aid to help blind and visually impaired students to learn the periodic table? Source:"First place: Manasa (Hari) Bhimaraju, 11, Kennedy Middle School, Cupertino, Calif. Hari designed and built a computer system to help students learn the periodic table of the elements. She also incorporated sound to aid people who are visually impaired." https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/cooking-broadcom-win “Cooking up a Broadcom win" from Science News for Students.

Mramoeba (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 25

Hail, America

  • ... that, after Jimmy Carter abolished the performance of "Hail, America" at White House events, a "very confused" cat named Misty Malarkey Yin Yang (pictured) stood-in for the president's ceremonial military escort?
*ALT1 ... that this year is the 100th anniversary of the composition of "Hail, America"?

Created/expanded by DarjeelingTea (talk). Self-nominated at 09:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg You got me interested in the topic, but before I can review, I need to understand a few things. The piece is a march, right, to be played by brass, not a song, to be sung by a human voice? Why do you use {{infobox song}}? We have {{infobox musical composition}}. I'd say it doesn't even belong in any song category. - Images: I am trained old style, no image left under a header, person should look "in", chronology, no images on both sides squeezing text. - Links: do we need US government? (especially when the ceremony should be the focus). - Refs: I don't appreciate four for one fact. Pick the most relevant 1 or 2 for it, and place the others somewhere else. - Finally: the whole story about the cat (which is hard to see on the image) belongs in an article about the cat ;) - I'd prefer a hook about the music and its use to what happened when it was not used. - What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much for this thorough review, Gerda Arendt. I think I've incorporated all your edits, as well as proposed an Alt hook, but let me know if I missed something. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for listening, - the greatest gift, as I said on my talk page ;) - The ALT is more to my liking. How about dropping the link to the year, because we don't want readers to go there and stay because it's interesting reading. I suggest plain "... that 2017 is". Now the title doesn't tell that it's more than some American patriotic song, which might leave foreigners like myself cold. Say a bit more but after the title. Use as Presidential Entrance March should somehow go to the infobox, best with years. If there's no good parameter yet, we should make one. Or how about the second (neutral) image there, with a caption that mentions the music not the man (who is not seen), but perhaps a date? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt - I think I've incorporated all these changes, but let me know if I missed something. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I made one more change to image placement, and changed a fixed image size to an upright, which reflects users' preferences. Sorry, I have another concern: "Presidential Entrance March", says the article, is the name of the ceremony. Who says so? I'd think "Presidential Entrance" might be the name of a ceremony, and the march played for it. Any source for the ceremony known as march? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, thanks very much - I've made this change. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for changing march to entrance. Now please just one source naming it so. You gave an offline one that I can't see, but if it's really known as such, there must be something online, no? Please link the ambiguous term trio and mention in the caption for the second image that only the trio (Trio?) was played then. I moved it from its position in Entrance section. Getting closer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 26


  • ... that the dinosaur Paludititan lived on Hațeg Island, which is now part of Romania? Source: [8]
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by MWAK (talk) and Robin Liesens. Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC).

  • starting review--Kevmin § 13:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg*Article expansion new enough and long enough. hook is cited and confirmed by the source, and no policy violations or copyvio issues are seen in the article. The first paragraph of the Description section needs a citation, and i would suggest a hook based on Paludititan being considered a island dwarf (with image) as a very hooky alternative.--Kevmin § 13:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes it would be great....but Paludititan isn't mentioned in that article...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You can work this reference in to complete the island dwarfism portion. Plos 1--Kevmin § 18:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
How do you like-
ALT3: "... that Paludititan is a Romanian island dwarf?
As a catchy hook that follows the sourcing--Kevmin § 23:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Aha yes, clever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to review ALT3, which was proposed by the previous reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Byzantine (video game)

  • ... that Discovery Communications' Byzantine allowed players to explore Turkish tourist attractions?
  • ... that the team of edutainment title Byzantine received permission from the Turkish government to capture photography and footage within the country?

Created by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 27

Hanover Lodge

Hanover Lodge
Hanover Lodge
  • ... that London's Hanover Lodge (pictured) became the UK’s most expensive home in 2012, when it sold for £120 million? Source: "Andrey Goncharenko shelled out a massive £120 million ($205 million) for Britain’s most expensive home, it has been revealed. The oligarch has since filled for planning permission to extend the Grade-2 listed London property. " (and [9] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough. Long enough. Neutral tone. Reliable citations throughout. Citations check out. Hook is interesting enough. Wish the article was written in a less list-like manner but clearly written nonetheless. GTG. Hybernator (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been pulled from prep because it has been templated for not having a lead section, and because the hook doesn't seem to account for homes that are typically not for sale, such as Buckingham Palace or the like. Highest price paid for a home/residence, perhaps? (And is this a purchase or a take over of the 150-year lease mentioned earlier? In any event, the article needs reorganization, including dealing with the high number of single-sentence paragraphs, and a better attempt at a chronology of ownership. There's also a disagreement between two of the major sources as to the architect that should be addressed. (I would also suggest that starting five consecutive paragraphs with the word "From" should be addressed as well.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It also transpires that it isn't the most expensive house in the UK, per RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Herbert Reiner Jr.

Created by Fowler&fowler (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. However, several paragraphs lack at least one citation, per Rule D2. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I tweaked the hooks, and like the shorter, snappier ALT1. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gladiolus Amicitia

Source: [10]Created by PanagiotisZois (talk). Self-nominated at 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Hook is cited and very interesting. Page is new enough and long enough. One eyeball issue, that I might take a crack at myself, is that some paragraphs on the article lack inline-citations. If someone wants to address that before me, by all means do. Other than that, the article is well-written and has no policy issues. The creator has not completed a QPQ but I have a ton of those credits and am willing to do away with one on their behalf. No CopyVio issues. I guess inline citations is the only issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess I would also consider the alternate hook of "that Gladiolus was redesigned during the development of Final Fantasy XV to look more intelligent?". DaltonCastle (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. First of all, thank you :) . Second of all, maybe an alternative could be "that Final Fantasy XV party member Gladiolus was redesigned during development of the game to look more intelligent?" --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I also added an inline citation. It's not much but it's a start. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, great! Looking at the page now it looks a lot better. The one reason I have to await a more experienced editor to review is that, while I think sourcing is all good for an article about a fictional video game character, I don't know that all of it is. Hopefully somebody can clear this up. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing the fact I haven't reviewed another nomination is the reason this DYK wasn't accepted? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @PanagiotisZois: Don't worry, it can take a while to get through the process -- there's often a backlog of a month or two. You just need to be patient, and help resolve any issues that are brought up. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second opinion about sourcing needed, and also a check of the hooks, since it's unclear which have been approved and which not. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 30

Romanian Senate election, 1868

  • ... that the Romanian Senate election of 1868, which consolidated the "reddish" liberal legislature, was held in July, when many conservative voters had left on vacation? Source: Ghimpele, 8/1868, p. 1: Dupe părerea mai multora, Senatulŭ celŭ noŭ se d̦ice a fi, daca nu roșu, celŭ puținŭ roșatecŭ saŭ pembe. Toțĭ se mirŭ de una ca acésta, numaĭ noĭ nu ne mirămŭ. Se înțelege de sine că a trebuitŭ să se 'ntêmple, pe câtŭ timpŭ guvernulŭ a pusŭ alegerile tocmaĭ în timpulŭ cândŭ boieriĭ [...] aŭ tabietŭ a merge în streinătate ca să maĭ resufle din plictiséla d'aicĭ ("By many accounts, the new Senate is said to be, if not scarlet red, then at least reddish or pink. Everyone is stunned by this, but not us. It is self-evident that this should have occurred, for as long as government called elections just when the boyars [...] have this comfort of traveling abroad to relieve themselves of the boredom in these here parts").

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 13:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 31

Executive Order 13767

Trump signing the order.
Trump signing the order.
  • ... that President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration (pictured)? Source: [11]
    • ALT1:... that President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to "secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration" (pictured)? Source: [12]

Created by Junosoon (talk) and Gamebuster19901 (talk). Nominated by Gamebuster19901 (talk) at 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Gamebuster19901: There are a few problems with this. Aside of the hook link not being bold (which I have fixed), the article is only 1,366 characters long and thus is below the threshold. There is also a citation needed tag which would need to be replaced with an inline source. Also, I'm not too comfortable with the tag on the white house link because it appears to imply close paraphrasing, which would need to reword certain parts of the article. Once these are fixed, ping me and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing out some of the issues with the article, I'll get them fixed asap!
However, According to section 2.b. of the eligibility criteria, public domain material is allowed in articles, it just can't be counted towards the total character count. I'll expand the sections some more to help it meet the criteria. Thanks Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: I believe the issues you have shown have been addressed as of now. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 16:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Side point Is it too late to sic Dicklyon on Trump for his idiotic capitalization of Southern Border? Now that would be a useful outlet for Dick's crusading zeal! EEng 17:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want, you can uncapitalize it, I just quoted it from the source. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 18:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Actually, that was a mistake on my part, I have corrected it. 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, good. Now then... ALT0 is untenable because it's inappropriate to state, in WP's voice, why Trump signed the thing -- there are too many other possibilities (stupidity, perfidy, racism, personal profit, and just plain meanness) that history will have to sort out. Even ALT1 uses a primary source for this key assertion of purpose, which is marginal (thought the quotations help). If you agree I suggest you strike them. Let me suggest:
ALT2:... that Donald Trump's Executive Order 13767 stated purpose is "construction of a physical wall on the southern border ... to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism (pictured)"?
EEng 18:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you're right, it's better to stick to the facts. How does this sound:
Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Ready for a review of ALT3 since all previous concerns are adressed. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't get the along the southern border of the US (pictured) bit. The picture doesn't show the southern border of the US, though it might reasonably be said to show an act of terrorism. That's why I'd suggest ALT2 over ALT3. EEng 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
When it's taken out of context like that, I could see the confusion. However, the (pictured) is applying to the whole sentence, and the caption of the image clearly states what it's showing. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How does ALT4 look? Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, now that we come down to it, I don't think the picture's worth much at all -- some guy at a desk signing something. And when you think about it, pretty much only people on Jupiter would be able to answer the question posed in all these hooks with anything other than "Of course I know!" Can't we have a hook on something actually new and interesting, like that the former commissioner says that the current system of patrol is better than a wall? EEng 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well first off, the President isn't just "some guy", secondly, If the phrase "signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration" isn't suitable for Wikipedia's voice, then there is no way that the former commissioner saying that the current system is better would be suitable either, as that's even more subjective.
Also, DYK isn't about answering the question, it's about exposing new and improved content, and to encourage more editors to edit the article. see WP:DYKAIM Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not the subjectivity, it's the voice. It would be OK for Wikipedia to report that Trump says he signed it for such-and-such a reason (as opposed to reporting that he did it for those reasons), and similarly it would be OK to report that Mr. Ex-Commissioner says that the current approach is better. My point is that the latter will be news to most readers, while the former will be news to no one. EEng 15:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg for Alt 4 or Alt 1 Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC).

Is Alt 1 or Alt 4 good for DYK, if not, how should it be improved? What are some appropriate hooks for this DYK about Executive Order 13767? 14:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment An RfC for a DYK hook? Whatever next? And suddenly opening an RfC posing a choice between the two particular hooks you happen to be interested in, when other ideas are on the table, isn't appropriate. How about:
ALT5 ... a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to a wall?
There are a few issues with that one, it doesn't have a way to link to the article. It's also just stating the opinion of just one person, and the article isn't specifically about that, even though it's within the scope of the article. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
EEng 14:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, the RFC was not neutral enough, sorry I have corrected it. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not mentioning the article in ALT5 -- got distracted by some spilled oatmeal. As to the hook vs. what the article is "specifically about", hooks often (even usually) highlight some peripheral, little-known fact rather than obvious things like, "Did you know that Picasso was an artist?" or "Did you know that the order to build a wall is meant to prevent illegal immigration?" And it's fine to express the opinion of just one person, as long as it's ascribed to that person. Anyway:
ALT6 ... a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767?
EEng 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I see, I think I'm willing to go with something similar to Alt 6 if Alt 4 or Alt 1 cannot be used, though. I would also like to have a link to Gil Kerlikowske and a source if we're going that route, without making it too wordy.
perhaps ALT7 or ALT 8
ALT7 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [15]
ALT8 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [16]
Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying this just because you've warmed up to ALTs 6-8, but now that we're moving along here may I suggest you withdraw the RfC (though I don't know how that's done, actually). Do we really want to wait 30 days and have everyone and his brother chiming in on something which is typically left to the privileged few? EEng 18:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought the bot was screwing up when it summoned me here, but we really do seem to have an RFC for a DYK hook. Whatever will we come up with next. Since you both seem to be moving towards consensus, I would suggest closing the RFC (which should be as simple as placing the archive top and archive bottom templates, together with a note saying that you've come to an agreement). For what it's worth I'd agree with EEng that presenting new information is likely to be hookier than what Trump's been promising for a long long time. Vanamonde (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"To end an RfC that is on the active RfC list, remove the RfC template. The RfC bot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run." WP:RFC. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 2

Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan

Nordhausen hymnal of 1695
Nordhausen hymnal of 1695
  • Reviewed: The Tank (theater)
  • Comment: The article began as an AfC by and was expanded by Mathsci. - Many sources say "deathbed", but then he recovered. - Please with image, even if it is hard to see, or we need a year in the already long hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

5x expanded by (talk) and Mathsci (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough. Neutral, cited to offline sources, AGF on close paraphrasing/copyvios since I can't access the offline sources. Hook is interesting, especially if you click through and note the recovery, and short enough. It's not quite supported by the article text. Gerda Arendt, could you double-check the source (or ask Mathsci to do so) and ensure that the "for his friend" bit is supported? If that can't specifically be verified, we could reword this along the lines of so-and-so wrote the text of blank to accompany a melody composed by so-and-so-2 on his deathbed. I'll leave the specifics of that wording to you so I'm still able to approve an alt hook, if you have to re-word. As for the image, I really can't approve it. It's so impossible to see at small sizes that it would be fairly useless on the main page. Sheet music might be a decent compromise, since the sheet music images will at least be recognizable at low resolutions. ~ Rob13Talk 00:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The source is here.[17] The authorship of the melody has been an issue since the hymn was written. Taking into account BU Rob13's comments above, perhaps the DYK hook could be changed to
"that according to a hymnal (account pictured), Samuel Rodigast wrote the text of "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" for his seriously ill friend Severus Gastorius, who after he recovered had it sung at his door each week."
Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci: I was more concerned with the "for his friend" bit. (Although authorship is also possibly an issue, now that I've seen the source.) That's attributing a reason for writing the text that isn't explicitly stated in the source. ~ Rob13Talk 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Gerda Arendt made this DYK request and devised the hook, not me. Another possibility might be ""that according to a hymnal (account pictured), Samuel Rodigast wrote the text of "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" during the serious illness of his friend Severus Gastorius, who after he recovered had it sung at his door each week." Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We could say it completely differently, because we will never be able to know reasons behind an action as a fact, ever. Fact is that the two were friends at school and university, and that Rodigast - if he was at the bed - must have traveled.
ALT2: ... that a "deathbed story" printed in 1695 (pictured) narrates the creation of the hymn "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan"?
Please, Rob, even if you don't agree with showing an image, don't change a hook. It will be up to the prep builders to use it or not. Most suggested images will not be shown. This one supports the hook. The current Gotteslob simply states below the hymn: T: Samuel Rodigast [1674/75] 1775, M: (Severus Gastorius [1675] 1679. No question about the authors, just the dates are not certain.
I don't think ALT2 is an improvement. Also I think Gerda should base what she what wants to include in the hook or her statements about the subject to what is in the article. Mathsci (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci, it doesn't have to be word by word in the article, - this a suggestion to use a summary, which doesn't distract attention by links to the authors' articles. If you don't like it, it's your turn to suggest something better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I already made two suggestions further up the page. Why not read them and then comment? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 3

Sark during the German occupation of the Channel Islands

Aerial view of Sark
Aerial view of Sark
  • Comment: part of a series of articles about the Channel Islands during World War II
  • Comment: this nomination was not originally transcluded at time of nomination, but is being reactivated now.BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Created by Ânes-pur-sàng (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC). Transcluded at 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy. Hook's format and content are fine. No apparent close-paraphrasing. Img license is ok. QPQ not required. Thanks for noticing the snafu and getting this aerticle to the review page; better late than never. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article has acquired a template indicating that it needs more referencing, and indeed a number of paragraphs have no inline citations at all. This has been discussed on Ânes-pur-sàng's talk page, but unfortunately there hasn't yet been any work done to rectify the issue. I have pulled it from prep. I've also replaced the original image here with the one that was used on the main page, and added the "pictured" version of the hook as ALT1; I hope it can be promoted with the picture once the referencing has been improved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 4

LAbyrinth (2017 film)

Johnny Depp
Johnny Depp

Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 12:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Captain Assassin!: Nominated two days after being moved to main namespace, and is about 2300 bytes, satisfying length and date criteria. The plot section is remarkably similar to a paragraph in this ref and needs to be changed, as it's essentially a copyright violation right now. The fragment "...to the Randall Sullivan's..." is odd; perhaps delete "the". Moreover, it also uses text similar to the source, as "bought the film rights to the Randall Sullivan's Los Angeles police corruption book LAbyrinth" in the article is quite similar to "bought the rights to Randall Sullivan’s L.A. cop corruption book LAbyrinth" in the source. The date "September 7, 2016" is the date it was reported in the media, not necessarily the date he signed a contract. (There are a number of these.) The fragment "who investigated the murders of rappers" makes it appear he only investigated such murders; perhaps insert "the" before "rappers". The "a" in "...Anderson playing a corrupt LAPD officer..." is superfluous, since we know he is playing the specific officer named. The fragment "joined the film" is overly colloquial; please change it. The second paragraph in "Production" is a bit droning and seems like filler, though I'm not sure how this can be changed given the nature of the data it presents. The article would benefit from a one or two paragraph "Background" section explaining the murders and ensuing investigation. The hook needs modification, as it is not Depp who will perform the investigation, but the character he portrays. Mindmatrix 19:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention: QPQ completed, and image is freely licenced with an associated OTRS ticket. The image is suitable at the size needed for DYK. Mindmatrix 19:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mindmatrix: Done some copy-editing on the article. No need to rewrite the hook, actually it's interesting way to attract more readers to the article. QPQ will be here soon. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg @Captain Assassin!: QPQ still required, as previous QPQ was applied to another DYK nomination. Changes appear to be OK, and I've made a phrasing tweak to the article. I'd still strongly suggest a background section briefly discussing the history of the murders, but it's not necessary for DYK. Mindmatrix 17:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 5

Periclimenes rathbunae

  • ... that if the sun anemone shrimp is separated from its host for twenty-four hours, it loses its immunity to the sea anemone's stinging cells? Source: "shrimps which had been out of contact with the anemones for as long as 24 hours were no longer protected from the nematocysts"

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Hanberke (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

  • starting review--Kevmin § 17:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article new enough and long enough. Article hook is well referenced and the hook conforms to article and source. If i'm understanding the sources correctly Condylactis gigantea is the usual host, with Stichodactyla helianthus being an alternate, rather then the reverse as the article currently states. Also only the first instance of a wikilinked term needs the link the rest of the links for the anemones can be de-linked per wp:overlink.--Kevmin § 18:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hanberke and Cwmhiraeth:
@Kevmin: The pinging didn't work. The full article is available to download and states that In the Turks and Caicos Islands, Stichodactyla helianthus is the usual host, with Condylactis gigantea acceptable in the absence of the other. It might be different in other parts of its range. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I reread the sources and you are correct. now all we need to do it clear up the over-linking and I think we will be good to go.--Kevmin § 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Removed one, I think one in the lead and one in the main text is permissible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Where in Europe Is Carmen Sandiego?

  • Reviewed: Note: I will do the QPQ asap. For now, please review the rest of the nom.

5x expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

Jessica Curry

  • ... that Jessica Curry has won a BAFTA for her video game scores, and has worked with the Poet Laureate?

Created/expanded by TheBigJagielka (talk) and Danno uk (talk). Nominated by Danno uk (talk) at 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Newi-ish, hook is nice and short and pretty interesting. Could say more about Jessica Curry, as in "music composer Jessica Curry" or something. You'll also want to wikilink a thing or two in the hook, like BAFTA and Poet Laureate. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Very happy to incorporate your suggestions. How about "... that composer Jessica Curry has won a BAFTA award for her video game scores, and has also worked with the Poet Laureate?"
Linking video game scores is probably sensible in case readers think that she's some kind of champion player! danno_uk 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Added danno's edit as ALT1 above. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg The article has some [citation needed] tags please either source the information or remove it. Mifter (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The sections without citations have been removed or adjusted to reflect available refs. danno_uk 21:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Partnership for Civil Justice Fund

5x expanded by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 01:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 6

Fulham Refuge

Fulham Refuge, 1858
Fulham Refuge, 1858
  • ... that Fulham Refuge (pictured) was the "most distinctively feminine of the early convict prisons"? Source: [18] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Edwardx (talk), Paul W (talk), and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Red XN - to be done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Looks like a pleasant place and so it's a shame it was closed. Thanks for getting it started. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Andrew D. I've copyedited the offending sentence. QPQ review now done. Added (pictured) to the hook. I took some photos today of what is left (what I understand to be the prison laundry, long since converted to flats), and will add one or two to the article, but this will not affect your review! Edwardx (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 7

Robert E. Finnigan

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, QPQ done, Earwig detects no copyvios. I'm having trouble verifying some of the statements from the cited sources.
  • "Finnigan Instrument Corporation's GC/MS was the technical underpining that made it possible for the EPA to carry out its regulatory efforts in the 1970s." This is a bit too much on the side of WP:SYNTHESIS, since it is implied but not explicitly stated in the source, which also mentions systems from Hewlett–Packard and others.
  • added better 1979 citation to support this. Hopefully avoids WP:SYNTHESIS. See below.
  • "In 1979, the EPA listed the Finnigan GC/MS as its standard instrument for the analysis of environmental pollutants in water and wastewater." This is cited to an alumni award biography, but it's unclear whether they were "listed" or just widely used. The other source for that citation merely mentions that EPA's standard manual was generally based on the Finnigan instrument.
  • I've rephrased to avoid the word "listing" and added a better citation from 1979, which should support ALT2 cleanly and possibly, if you feel WP:SYNTHESIS is now avoided, ALT or ALT1 as well. For the Wikipedia article's sentence "By 1979, the the Finnigan GC/MS was the standard instrument at the EPA for the analysis of environmental pollutants in water and wastewater", See this reference: Middleditch, Brian S., ed. (1979). Practical Mass Spectrometry: A Contemporary Introduction. Boston, MA: Springer US. p. 220. ISBN 978-1461329848. Retrieved 23 February 2017. It states: "The EPA has made a major commitment to GC-MS instruments... Most of the GC-MS instruments in the EPA are Finnigan quadrupoles with DEC PDP-8 minicomputer data systems... The many needs for firm qualitative organic identifications include ...{i) the causes of taste or odor in drinking water, (ii) the distribution of toxic compounds in surface or wasterwater..." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "By 1984, all public water was to be tested by using a Finnigan GC/MS or accepted equivalent." I don't see this in the referenced source.
  • Charalambous, George (1984). Analysis of foods and beverages : modern techniques. Orlando: Academic Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-12-169160-8. Retrieved 6 February 2017. "In 1971, the EPA, already concerned with this problem, selected a computerized GC/MS system as its principle tool for the analysis of drinking water and of industrial and municipal effluents that are returned to the public water supply. [Finnigan was the only system available from 1968 to 1971.] ... by mid-1984, all public water in the United States must be controlled using these or equivalent methods."
These points need clarification or revision, but once fixed this article should pass. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 9

Exercise TROPEX

A MiG 29K takes off from INS Vikramaditya during TROPEX 2017
A MiG 29K takes off from INS Vikramaditya during TROPEX 2017

Created by MBlaze Lightning (talk). Self-nominated at 05:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @MBlaze Lightning: The proposed hook is 278 characters long and needs to be reduced to below the DYK limit of 200 characters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. The hook would be better without the jargon "strategic assets" and some of the article is a little close to the sources as you can see here and here. Having said that, many of the phrases are the names of units and there is a quote on the objectives of the 2015 event which is permissible. The worst bit is:
  • Source:"During this exercise, the Navy had deployed two Carrier Task Forces simultaneously at sea, with both Viraat and Vikramaditya operating with their integral flights in an operational scenario. This assumes significance as it makes the Indian Navy, besides the US Navy, capable of deploying more than one Carrier Task Force at sea, at present."
  • Article:"During TROPEX 2015, the Indian Navy deployed two Carrier Task Forces at the same time at sea, with both INS Viraat and INS Vikramaditya operating with their integral flights in an operational scenario, thus demonstrating its capability of deploying more than one Carrier Task Force at sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment — Added ALT1 and ALT2. —MBlaze Lightning T 17:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • That's much better. The only concern I have now is in relation to the hook and article claims of "largest". The source for this states "the country’s biggest inter-service ‘Tropex’ exercise along the western seaboard", so either we need to include the "western seaboard" bit in the hook and article or remove the "biggest" claim from the hook, because on the face of it, there could have been larger inter-service exercises in other sea areas. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

LaMelo Ball

Created by TempleM (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Image in article is freely licensed. QPQ done. I'm confused by the sourcing for the hook, however. Is this the sentence that the hook fact rests on: In late summer of his freshman season, Ball verbally committed to play college basketball for UCLA? If so, it doesn't accord with the source, which says, It's not often that a prospect commits to a college prior to his freshman year in high school, but despite that rarity LaMelo Ball's pledge to UCLA hardly arrived as a surprise. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Planar transmission line


Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 10

Wallachian legislative election, 1857

Allegory of the United Principalities, 1857
Allegory of the United Principalities, 1857
  • ... that two former Princes of Wallachia ran for deputy seats in 1857, both of them losing at Buzău and recovering to win at Dolj? Source: Preda, p. 74 — Gheorghe Bibescu și Barbu Știrbei au fost depășiți, la Buzău, de mai puțin cunoscuții N. N. Pieleanu și S. Voinescu, care adunaseră 49, respectiv 44 de voturi, față de trei voturi, respectiv 11, pentru foștii domni. Cei doi au fost totuși aleși la Dolj, pentru că, fiind incluși în categoria marilor boieri, puteau candida în mai multe locuri. ("Gheorghe Bibescu and Barbu Știrbei were outrun, at Buzău, but the lesser known N. N. Pieleanu and S. Voinescu, who gathered 49 and 44 votes, respectively, as compared to three and 11 votes, respectively, for the former rulers. The two [princes] were nonetheless elected at Dolj, since, as members of the grand boyars' category, they could run in multiple precincts.")
    • ALT1:... that, ahead of the 1857 election in Wallachia, conservatives supported union with Moldavia (allegory pictured), later claiming that liberal unionists had plagiarized their program? Source: Demetriescu, pp. 25–26: Un comitet compus din 9 membri se formă de timpuriu între conservatori. El făcu un apel către alegători [care] cuprindea următoarele opt puncte capitale: [...] 2. Unirea principatelor moldo-române într'un singur Stat [...]. La 30 Martie, adică la 11 zile după publicarea manifestului boierilor, apărù în Concordia manifestul liberalilor, [care] erà o copie a celui de mai sus [...]. Aci, ca în multe alte privințe 'liberalii surprinseseră pe conservatori, pe când aceștia se scăldau în gârlă și le le furaseră hainele de pe mal', ca să ne slujim de figura lui Disraeli aplicată lui Robert Peel. Deaceea avea mare dreptate B. Katargiu, când, adresându-se în ședința Camerei dela 23 Mai 1861 către capii partidului liberal, le zicea: 'Ați zis că d-voastră ați luat inițiativa celor patru puncte din Divanul ad-hoc și că dreapta le-a combătut. La aceasta nu vă voiu răspunde decât numai cu fapte, arătându-vă că acele patru puncte [...] s'au cerut de noi aristocrații, încă pe când d-voastră erați în străinătate'. ("A 9-member committee was formed very early on by the conservatives. It produced an appeal to the voters, [which] carried the following 8 points of agenda: [...] 2. The unification of the Moldavian-Romanian principalities as one State [...]. On March 30, that is to say 11 days after the publication of the boyar manifesto, Concordia put up the liberals' manifesto, [which] was a copy of the above [...]. Here, as in many other instances, 'the liberals caught the caught the conservatives bathing in the ravine, and walked away with their clothes', as per the figure [of speech] used by Disraeli against Robert Peel. And this is why B. Katargiu was entirely justified when, in his address to the liberal party chiefs on May 23, 1861, he was telling them: 'Gentlemen, you have claimed that the initiative for the four points of the ad-hoc Divan was yours, and that the right-wing fought against them. I shall resort only to facts in responding to this, by showing you that the four points [...] were demanded by us aristocrats, back when you were still [in exile] abroad'.")

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 11:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

Litanies à la Vierge Noire

Mary at Rocamadour
Mary at Rocamadour

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Articles is new enough, long enough, and neutrally written. No issues with copyvios that I can find. It is neutral, and well cited. The hook is interesting, the image checks out, and the hook is supported by an inline source. Minor quibble: the sentence "In 1947 Poulenc the instrumentation to string orchestra and timpani." Doesn't really mean anything: Gerda, if you will just fix that, I can pass this nomination. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, and catching that a word got lost. I hope for the image to appear, because so far it's not shown in the composer's article nor for the pilgrimage site, - it should be something new to readers. I was surprised myself, because I had expected - after reading about it - a painting, not a sculpture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 11

Qandala campaign

  • ... that when the Islamic State in Somalia captured Qandala in 2016, the group hoisted its flag on the same building where Somali folk hero Ali Fahiye Gedi had been imprisoned for burning the Italian flag in 1914? Source: "Video taken by the militants purported to show a fighter hoisting a black flag on top of a historic building erected by Italian colonial rulers early in the last century. The same building served as a prison for a Somali rebel who was arrested by Italian soldiers in 1914 for lowering the Italian flag and burning it. That freedom fighter of the last century, Ali Fahiye Gedi, became known as “the flag-burner” and a symbol for other Somalis who fought against Italian colonial rule." ([20])

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 09:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 12

Licence laundering

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 02:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 13

John William Elliott Maikai, Francis Funk

Created/expanded by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Roger P. Minert

  • ... that in the U.S., local church records are more likely than naturalization records to have information about a German immigrant's birthplace, according to research by Roger P. Minert? Source: The familysearch article has a frequency table, along with this explanation: "A striking observation is that “local church vital records” are most likely to tell the hometown. By that phrase, Dr. Minert means items such as burial entries in Lutheran parishes here in the United States. They reveal where the immigrant was born. Naturalization records, which most people think will tell the birthplace, is way down the list. Only 1 out of 10 times will a pre-1900 naturalization record identify an exact overseas origin."
    • ALT1:... that in the U.S., local church records are most likely to have a record of a German immigrant's birthplace, according to research by genealogist Roger P. Minert?Source: same as previous hook
    • ALT2:... that when writing In Harm's Way: East German Latter-day Saints in World War II, Roger P. Minert interviewed over 500 German members of the LDS Church? Source: Contemporary church history quarterly's review: "Out of some thirteen thousand German members in 1939, he obtained interviews with five hundred survivors, who in turn also supplied first-person narratives or written stories of their own lives or those of deceased relatives."

Created/expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 14

Avraam Zak

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Kayu ura Futurist110 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am reviewing this nom.
    • The article was created within 7 days of the nom and the prose is over 1500 characters.
    • Article has a "violation likely" on copyvio report - all from Yivo Encyclopedia. Please consider revising some passages in your own words to avoid accusations of copyright violations down the track.
    • Hook is a little confusing. I ori8ginally read it as "He would only reject the offer if he was also allowed to convert to Christianity". Please consider revising for increased clarity. Content of hook is fine and interesting.
    • QPQ has been completed.

Symbol question.svg Waiting for hook to be revised, and potentntial copyright violations to be addressed. Good luck. :)--Coin945 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Two Worlds (song)

  • The article was expanded 5 times.
  • Reviewed: I will do my QPQ asap. In the meantime, please review the rest of my nomination.--Coin945 (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 15

1891 State Normal School at Cheney fire

  • ... that the 1891 State Normal School at Cheney fire destroyed the school's only building? Attested to by the Spokane Chronicle and Spokane Review, publishing articles about the fire the day it burned down.
    • ALT1:... that a fire in 1891 forced the State Normal School at Cheney to hold classes in a local office building for two years? The two years spent in the Pomeroy office block are described in J. Orin Oliphant's History of the State Normal School at Cheney. I'll note that there's a public domain photograph of the Pomeroy block, which could be used as a picture accompanying this hook, although I'm not sure it's super compelling.
    • ALT2:... that, after a fire in 1891, it took six years for the state government to rebuild the State Normal School at Cheney? Also a citation from Oliphant's history of the institution, published in 1924.

Created by Jwrosenzweig (on behalf of the students/staff who worked on the recent EWU edit-a-thon) (talk). Nominated by Jwrosenzweig (talk) at 05:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutral and well-written. The hook is short and eye-catching. Article is well-cited. I think it's ready, just waiting for QPQ review? Citobun (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Angolan African dormouse

  • ... that the Angolan African dormouse has been assessed as "data deficient" by the IUCN because so little is known about it? Source: "Justification: Listed as Data Deficient in view of continuing uncertainty as to its taxonomic status, extent of occurrence, natural history, threats and conservation status."

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

  • I reviewed this one. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay, 5x expansion verified by DYKcheck, and it's long enough (2300+ characters of prose), but I have some concerns about citations.  :**There aren't any citations in the lead paragraph, where a number of facts are related. And the citations in the rest of the piece all rely on a single source, and generally come at the end of a long paragraph. Can any other sources be found -- even one or two more would help. If not, how can the footnotes appear more frequently (and with more precision?) to make sure it's clear where assertions are coming from?
Thank you for reviewing this article. The MoS guidelines do not advocate having citations in the lead, because this section should be a summary of the text in the body of the article, where the information should be cited. Similarly, a citation at the end of a paragraph is meant to cover all the information before it, which in the paragraph without other sources, means the whole paragraph. There is no need for intermediate citations. I have added another source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, Cwmhiraeth -- I think I read WP:LEADCITE a little differently than you, in that I don't think "do not advocate having citations in the lead" is exactly the summary I'd give. But in looking back at it, I'll acknowledge that almost all the claims in the lead are in fact cited directly later in the article, and I'll defer to that practice as being clearly in line with LEADCITE. I would ask, though, that you provide a citation for the very last claim in the lead -- that it is "thought to be generally uncommon", since I don't see that exact claim clearly cited in the body of the article. As far as one citation per paragraph, while I'll agree that it's within the bounds of acceptability, I'm concerned that it isn't ideally conforming to WP:INTEGRITY -- someone who wanted to add material to any of those paragraphs would either have to write it totally separately, or else do a lot of work to copy your citation multiple times if they added sentences and information into the middle of paragraphs. If I look at the example at WP:CITEDENSE, I think it might be a useful guide here -- placing a citation at the end of the description paragraph covers information about coloring, hair features, and closely related species. Do you disagree? If so, is this a case where I'm expected to decide if my interpretation is right, or should we invite other folks' commentary? I'm trying to both be respectful of your own contributions as an author (and they're clearly valuable!) and of what I believe to be our standards for a DYK article. If you think I'm misreading INTEGRITY or CITEDENSE, help me understand what I'm missing. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • At times, too, there are sentences that feel excessively casual - for example, in reference to the animal's tail, one sentence reads "It is basically the same colour as the back but some white hairs are mixed with the darker ones and the tip is white." Especially the phrase "basically the same" just strikes me as a little chatty in tone, rather than being a more clinical description.
I have altered this wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome -- I'm not concerned about this at this point, thanks to your change. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • And I hate to be tough about this, but the text in this article is just much too similar to the text in another article that Cwmhiraeth has been expanding, Rock dormouse. A sentence like "The fur on the back is soft, smooth and rather long" might be accurate of both animals, which are presumably very similar, but the two physical descriptions are so similar that I think there must either be a copy-and-paste error here, or just over-reliance on a sort of "template" approach to writing these descriptions. I'm not sure how we handle this kind of challenge -- it's not the same to me as an excessively close paraphrase or borrowing of language from some other site online -- but I feel like this is something Cwmhiraeth can fix and ought to.
Rock dormouse was written within 7 days before this article, and copying some of the text of one newly expanded article into another is generally viewed as permissible. However, any copied text should not count towards the required character count for the five-fold expansion. You can ask about this on the DYK discussion page if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jwrosenzweig: Actually Rock dormouse was written after rather than before this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the clarification, but I wasn't concerned about the required character count for expansion -- I think you've clearly done enough work to warrant consideration! I just wonder if there's a way to avoid exact duplication of phrasing between articles, but maybe there are only so many ways to say this? In any case, I guess I'll go with this -- since this article was written first, if any article's wording ought to be changed to avoid precise duplication, it would be Rock dormouse, I'll withdraw this concern also. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the hook is clear, and clearly cited -- it might be of interest, but I'm just slightly hesitant, since that exact same hook could be used by any of the mammals on this list, not to mention all the non-mammalian species also listed as "data deficient". I don't necessarily see a better hook in the article, though (the beehive story is interesting but it's not cited at the end of the sentence), and I don't want to be churlish about the hook. If Cwmhiraeth can come up with another hook, though, I'd be pleased to see it.
What you say is correct. I wondered about use of the beehive, how about
I prefer this hook, and think it's what I'd recommend. I'll withdraw the hook concern as well -- thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For now, it's a Symbol possible vote.svg but I'm hoping Cwmhiraeth can pretty easily resolve the issues I've noted. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: at this point, it's a Symbol question.svg while we sort out my last remaining concern about citations. I hope you can see that I'm not at all inflexible on this (I can see, personally, that you're open to dialogue too, which I appreciate), and I'm confident we can arrive at some agreement -- and I'm also perfectly open to someone coming along and helping me see that I'm misinterpreting the documents I'm working from. Anyway, thanks for your initial responses, and I look forward to resolving these last little issues soon. My best to you, and thanks again for your work: Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added and cited mention of it being an uncommon species. As for the rest of the points you raise, I would ask @BlueMoonset: for a response. I have written and submitted to DYK large numbers of species articles of a similar type to this one, and the citing of these has generally been deemed acceptable. BlueMoonset is our expert on DYK matters and interpreting guidelines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig, Cwmhiraeth, the accepted guideline at DYK for citations is D2, which reads, in part: A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. If there's a particular fact that seems controversial or otherwise needs support, or an uncited quote, the reviewer can certainly ask for an inline source citation to be supplied. Regarding WP:CITEDENSE, it specifically states that it is the subsequent editor's job to organize the citations to make their relationship between the text and the sources clear, so that we maintain text-source integrity. In other words, it is not our concern that a text might be added to later such that new sourcing may need to be added and the original source may need to be given additional citations around it; that is the sole responsibility of the editor adding the new material. It is clear in WP:INTEGRITY that whole paragraphs may have a single citation (i.e., If a sentence or paragraph is footnoted with a source), so that should not be an issue here so long as the given source supports the paragraph in question. Finally, because DYK articles are typically new and not necessarily fully fleshed out, there can be some material that is uncited. The hook, however, must have inline source citations supporting its fact(s) placed no later than the end of the article sentence in which the fact appears. I think I've covered everything here, but if I've missed anything or am not clear, please feel free to ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jamaica–179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line), IND Queens Boulevard Line

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk), Kew Gardens 613 (talk), and Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 02:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC).

Creswell Eastman

Eastman examining Tibetan women for eye disorders in Tibet Autonomous Region May 2000
Eastman examining Tibetan women for eye disorders in Tibet Autonomous Region May 2000
  • ... that Creswell Eastman is known as "the man that saved a million brains" for his work treating iodine deficiency in the Republic of China? Source: ABC Radio National (2 December 2015)"You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that Creswell Eastman is concerned that Australian children's IQ is declining as a result of maternal iodine deficiency? Source: Sydney Morning Herald (6 December 2016) "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: This is my first DYK nomination so I am exempt from the QPQ
  • Comment: Article created in my userspace on February 2017, moved to mainspace on February 15.

Created/expanded by Harald Berents (talk). Nominated by HaraldW1954 (talk) at 05:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Just a comment Don't mean to get political here but why would you refer to post-1949 China as the Republic of China?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought all had Peoples Republic of China, but will make sure that all comments reflect this. Thanks for the comment.HaraldW1954 (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 16

Liza Ferschtman

Ferschtman in concert, 2004
Ferschtman in concert, 2004
  • ... that Liza Ferschtman (pictured in concert) played all Beethoven violin sonatas? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: 1000 Second Avenue
  • Comment: I will add to the article and hook, but may not get to it today

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Meneerke bloem (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough. The first paragraph in Chamber music needs a cite, including the sentence supporting the hook. I'm a bit put off by how much cite 1 is used throughout the text. It's a clearly promotional cite from a site associated with one of her performances. Could some of this information be cited to more neutral sources to ensure a neutral article? AGF on close paraphrasing due to foreign language sources. Hook is fine, but needs the cite as mentioned above. QPQ completed. Waiting on verifiability/neutrality. ~ Rob13Talk 02:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I promised to add to article and hook, hope be able today or tomorrow, - sorry that so far I couldn't do much yet, when I translated, there was no source. Take me as an unreliable source that she is notable, I heard it/her ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I added more about her recordings, with reviews, and the concert I heard. More to come, need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried to find a reference for the first paragraph on chamber music, but wasn't successful. It's translated from NL, it's probably true. Should we drop it until after DYK?
ALT1: ... that Liza Ferschtman (pictured in concert), recipient of the Nederlandse Muziekprijs in 2006, played Alban Berg's Violin Concerto "To the memory of an angel" in 2017? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 17



ALT1 ... that Licancabur volcano (pictured), despite being smaller than many neighbouring volcanoes, stands out among them? "This is lower than the height of many other peaks in the vicinity, yet Licancabur dominates the landscape. Its lone, perfect cone commands respect"

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 10:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC).

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The hook needs to be changed a little bit. It needs some commas added and it also needs the word "the" added before "Licancabur". The "(pictured)" also needs to be moved to after "volcano". After you make these changes, I'll give the article a full review. PhilrocMy contribs 17:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg Good to go. PhilrocMy contribs 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, @Philroc: The source text is not part of the citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry. Please keep in mind that I am a new reviewer. PhilrocMy contribs 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Not sure if this is a possibility, but since the hook was pulled at WP:ERRORS for being inaccurate (outdated information in the source) there may be two subsitute hooks:
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to do a full re-review. This ran for two hours and four minutes on the main page before being pulled; under the circumstances of having been done by a novice reviewer, when a more experienced one might well have picked up on the discrepancy that caused it to be pulled, I'm calling for a complete new review. There was also a question as to why Licancabur "stands out" in the WP:ERRORS discussion, so ALT2 may have issues. I have struck the original hooks, since the issue was that while Licancabur may be somewhat shorter than other peaks in the vicinity, it is not shorter than nearby volcanoes. I have also replaced the image here with the one that was initially promoted. (If the hook had run significantly longer, I'd be closing this instead.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Eileen Riley Siegel

  • ... that American actress Alice Hirson played fictional character Eileen Riley Siegel, an Irish Catholic married to a Jew, on the ABC soap opera One Life to Live? Source: "Victor's other daughter, Victoria, the longest lasting and most central character in the show, also marries across class (against her father's wishes), at first resisting, but giving into the charms of Irish-Catholic reporter at The Banner, Joe Riley. Jewish David Siegel also crosses boundaries, marrying Joe's sister Eileen Riley." ([21])
  • Reviewed: WCHV (AM)
  • Comment: 5x expanded from redirect and sourced

Created/expanded by FrickFrack (talk). Self-nominated at 12:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

I feel like removing a few of the words towards the beginning would be more beneficial. FrickFrack, what do you think? Regards, Carbrera (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 18

Loch Ewe Distillery

Loch Ewe Distillery, Drumchork

Created by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self-nominated at 09:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, QPQ, Cite, and Earwigs all checkout. Image is freely licensed. Mifter (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed from the prep, too many contentious issues, please see the discussion at DYK talkpage. Primary sources should never be used, and when claiming "biggest", "smallest" etc, always worth a check. Add to that a grammatically incorrect hook and you have a lemon. Removed from the prep set so it can be worked on in slow time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Adding necessary icon to superseded previous (and still active) tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What is that in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Next time, The Rambling Man, start your removal comment with an icon reflecting its current status. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Next time, the project shouldn't promote such error-prone articles. That you feel the need to tell me to "use the right icon" is utterly symptomatic of the complete waste of time and arcane processes used here. The hook was wrong, the article was badly written, the review was inadequate, the promotion was wrong. I don't need to "add an icon" to make it better. Sort it out, and stop asking for stupid things when actually what's required is better quality control. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine. You do whatever you want, and please stop commenting when I clean up after you. We'll all be happier. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It would better that if you didn't need to clean up at all, and got it right first time. This nomination had bad grammar, a primary source, a dubious hook, yet it made it almost to the main page. Stop blaming me for getting it away from the main page, and start looking at those who got it that far. I'll be much happier if you stop enabling this kind of garbage. Please stop commenting when we all pick up all these multiple issues with multiple hooks in multiple sets, many times a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so it's now my fault. Tell you what: you take care of what you want to take care of, and I'll take care what I want to take care of, and we'll both be happier. I've long since given up hoping that you'll actually bother to use icons or do anything involving the background processes here. Perhaps you should do the same with me, since you're busy accusing me of blaming you for getting the hook away from the main page, when nothing could be further from the truth. (Don't bother replying here; I shan't answer you further.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You've given up hoping I'll "actually bother to use icons"?!! Seriously?? I would honestly reconsider what's important here, if that ever was.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's two alts (below). Further, if I recall correctly if we don't put some sort of problem symbol after an approval one, the bot will automatically move the page back to the approved queue once it sees it.
  • ALT2: ... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) was the smallest legally operated distillery in Scotland when it opened in 2006? - source here and here.
  • ALT3: ... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) was the allowed to open in 2006 with stills over 90% smaller than the legal minimum due to a loophole in the 1786 Wash Act? Source here and here and dividing 120L (their still) by the legal minimum of 1800L.
Both these books from 2012 mention it as the smallest and as there is conflicting information afterwords backing the claim to its opening helps side-step the issue as we are not sure if it is still the smallest in Scotland. Alternatively we could use the second book and just mention it sidestepping a very old law (still hooky in my estimate). We still have to add these book cites to the article and update the info but here is a start. Mifter (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) was allowed to open in 2006 with stills 15 times smaller than the legal minimum due to a loophole in the 1786 Wash Act? (references as in ALT 3) --NearEMPTiness (talk)
  • ALT5: ... that Loch Ewe Distillery in Drumchork (pictured) was licenced to use stills 15 times smaller than those of most other Scottish whiskey makers? (references as in ALT 3)

Kick Your Game

Created by Beyoncetan (talk). Self-nominated at 07:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 19

Home Kidston

Bugatti Type 37A
Bugatti Type 37A
  • ... that Home Kidston owned a Bugatti Type 37A (pictured) while still a schoolboy at Eton? Source: "Lt Cdr Home Kidston, younger brother of Bentley Boy Glen Kidston, has died at the age of 85. His interest in cars began early, acquiring a Morgan three-wheeler at 14 and a Type 37A Bugatti while still at Eton" (and [22]

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Dawkeye (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

  • New, long & neutral enough. Good hook. QPQ before I complete. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon Kidston

a Lamborghini Miura P400SV
a Lamborghini Miura P400SV
  • ... that Simon Kidston's car collection includes the last ever Lamborghini Miura SV (pictured)? Source: "Simon Kidston ... Lamborghini Miura ... and 12 years ago he acquired the last-built SV (Spinto Veloce or “fast-tuned”) version to leave the factory" (and [23] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: Tomahawk chop (2-article DYK nom, 2nd QPQ use)
  • Comment: NOT the exact same Lamborghini Miura SV

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Norma McCorvey

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Kurtis (talk) and Bluesphere (talk). Nominated by Bluesphere (talk) at 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg - Unfortunately prior to expansion the article was 7654 B of prose and post expansion it is 7786 B. Further, to qualify for the 2x BLP expansion the BLP must have had zero prior sources (this article had multiple sources) the 5x threshold would be nearly 40000 B of prose. Mifter (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Shaw (footballer)

Created by Мне отмщение, и аз воздам (talk), The C of E (talk), and Sussexpeople (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 09:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Subramanian Kalyanaraman

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 12:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment

  • Comment: It's a pretty giant article. I've been working on it for years. I figure the player strike is probably the most interesting part of the article though.

Created by Torsodog (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Torsodog: Date and length fine. However the hook claim isn't sourced inline directly and the source used further along for the claim in the article body only details the events at the time, it doesn't clarify that this hasn't happened since then which a later source would. QPQ is not needed as nominator only has 1 credit. No close paraphrasing, no pictures used. If the sourcing can be fixed, then I can pass it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to check this out. I was worried someone would say that. How about this source? "The contraction was only temporary, as the NPB added a new team, the Rakuten Golden Eagles, after a 2-day strike by players, the first and only strike in NPB’s history." --TorsodogTalk 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on February 20

Beethoven Orchester Bonn

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Islamophobia in Canada

5x expanded by Vice regent (talk). Self-nominated at 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Private Practice (season 1)

KaDee Strickland
KaDee Strickland
  • Reviewed: Billy Douglas (One Life to Live)
  • Comment: Image can be changed/removed if either ALT1 or ALT2 is preferred over my original proposal. I am open for comments as I would like to feature this on DYK, but I had trouble finding a strong hook for this list.

Created/expanded by Aoba47 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Weixin Shengjiao

Weixin Shengjiao headquarters at Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan
Weixin Shengjiao headquarters at Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan
  • ... that a Taiwanese religious movement teaching Feng Shui and I Ching since 1984 now has around 300,000 members ...? Source: "The global core membership of the movement grew to about 300,000, with a larger audience estimated by Taiwan's Ministry of Internal Affairs at 1,000,000"; "1993: Grand Master Hun Yuan held the 99 Days Chanting Ceremony and the first research classes on I Ching and Feng Shui." (Introvigne)
    • ALT1:... that ceremonies honoring Taiwanese ancestors held annually on January 1 in a stadium by a religious movement attract over 30,000 people, including the island's top politicians ...? Source: "Since January 2004, honoring the Great Ancestors and bringing peace to the victims of violence come together in the Unified Ancestor Worship Ceremony for Chinese in the twenty-first century. It is held each year on January 1 in Taipei's Linkou Stadium and attracts great crowds. Taiwanese political dignitaries, including presidents of the Republic, have also participated in the event." (Introvigne); "Weixinshengjiao holds large ancestor worship ceremonies to recognize the historical status of Chiyou as the national ancestor, and began holding the “21st Century Chinese Joint Ancestor Worship Ceremony (中華民族聯合祭祖大典)” in Linkou Stadium since 2004. This is a major event for ancestral worship and is also a carnival that mobilizes over 30 thousand members of the religious group, inviting politicians and businessmen from around the world, as well as representatives of Chinese religious groups." (Chang)

Created by Aidayoung (talk). Nominated by Fences and windows (talk) at 21:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

Printer's Devilry

  • ... that Printer's Devilry crossword puzzles were among Ximenes' most popular, even though they break Ximenes' rules of cryptic crossword setting?
    Source for "among most popular": "I was glad to read that the P.D. was so popular [...] I'll continue to keep the appearances of P.D. more frequent than those of other non-plain types. source. Source for "break Ximenes' rules": "This month we have a Printer’s Devilry puzzle, set by Chalicea. Instead of normal definition-and-wordplay clues, the solution has been removed from a certain sentence" source. See Derrick Somerset Macnutt#Influence for the definition of Ximenes rules as "wordplay + definition"

Created by Smurrayinchester (talk). Self-nominated at 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 21

52 chorale preludes, Op. 67

Reger at the Welte organ
Reger at the Welte organ

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Mathsci (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017)

  • ... that Lincoln City's win over Burnley meant that Lincoln City became the first non-league football club to reach the quarter-finals of the FA Cup in 103 years? Source: BBC
  • Reviewed: Jesse Root Grant
  • Comment: Currently undergoing AFD so could we hold off reviewing until that has been concluded?

Converted from a redirect by Grondemar (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 22

RapidRide G Line

  • ... that the RapidRide G Line in Seattle plans to use buses with doors on both sides for boarding? Source: "The buses will have a total of five doors, three on the right and two on the left, for boarding at stations in the center and side of the roadway" (Madison BRT Report, p. 14)

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. Article itself would benefit from mention in the lead of it being a bus service, and perhaps a photo of a RapidRide bus, as in the RapidRide article. NPOV. All paragraphs cited. Earwig and spot checking found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Hook is just about interesting enough, but I'm not sure if it is correct. When I look at p14 of the pdf, I find "three doors on the right side of the vehicle and two on the left, allowing for loading and unloading using either side of the vehicle", not the quoted phrase, which rather seems to be that in the WP article. The trouble is that "using either side of the vehicle" suggests either, not both sides at the same time, which is what the hook implies. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've added a mention of buses to the lead, but I don't think a photo would be appropriate until a bus manufacturer is selected. Perhaps a photo of Madison Street instead (which I can upload soon). As for the hook, does this proposal look good? SounderBruce 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • ALT1: ... that the RapidRide G Line in Seattle plans to use buses with five doors, on the left and right sides of the vehicle?


  • ... that a tiny embryonic skeleton found inside the fossil dinosaur egg Continuoolithus may have been only 8-10 days into development at death, making it the youngest fossil vertebrate ever discovered? Horner, 1997 "the embryo may have died between its eighth and tenth days of embryogenesis [...] it constitutes not only the smallest, but the youngest skeleton of any fossil vertebrate embryo reported to date"
    • ALT1:... that a tiny embryonic skeleton found inside the fossil dinosaur egg Continuoolithus died approximately 8-10 days into development, making it the youngest fossil vertebrate ever discovered?
    • ALT2:... that the parents of the dinosaur egg Continuoolithus buried their nests in mud and vegetation to incubate their eggs?

5x expanded by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Abu Omar al-Turkistani

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Nuggehalli Raghuveer Moudgal

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 06:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Greifenstein Castle

  • ... that the first recorded owner of Greifenstein Castle joined the Crusades as penance for assassinating a bishop?1233 wird Rudolf von Greifenstein erwähnt, der an der Ermordung von Bischof Berthold beteiligt gewesen war und als Busse auf einen Kreuzzug geschickt wurde/In 1233, Rudolf von Greifenstein, who had been involved in the assassination of Bishop Berthold, was sent to a crusade as a fine;Source: [31]

5x expanded by Tobyc75 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion confirmed. This will be the user's third DYK so QPQ review is not required, though encouraged. As far as the hook is concerned, the source nor the article text mention Rudolf von Greifenstein being the "first owner" of the castle, but it does support the rest of the hook. Can you propose a change to the hook that matches the source? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Modified to "first recorded"Tobyc75 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg The article is good but it relies only on a small number of sources and no printed literature. A few more different sources would be nice. Also, the hook is interesting but you should propose an alternative that has more to do with the architectural aspect of the castle (instead of the historical aspect). Edelseider (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Light That Failed

Cover of the first edition
Cover of the first edition
  • Comment: This is my 2nd DYK nomination. I've expanded the novel 5x times its previous size (initially created in my userspace sandbox on 18 February 2017). We can go with ALT1 if the image is not up to the mark.

5x expanded by Ciridae (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting book, on good sources, offline source accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Don't you think that a hook about reception would be more attractive than about publishing? - Article: in an article about literature, "The story begins with Dick and Maisie as orphan children" doesn't win my praise ;) - Do we know if they are 10 or 15 then? It would make a difference. - We have "Art" and Art, why not simply art? - I don't think "masculinity" etc need a link. - Please get multiple refs for one fact in ascending order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 23

A Man with a Quilted Sleeve


Source: This: "This portrait was eloquently described by Giorgio Vasari in his 1568 biography of Titian. He identified the man as a member of the Barbarigo, an aristocratic Venetian family. The most likely candidate is Gerolamo, who was 30 years old in 1509. He had numerous political and literary contacts and would have helped the young Titian on his path to success." and this: "It was believed to be a portrait of Lodovico Ariosto, court poet of Ferrara and author of Orlando Furioso, who was an older contemporary of the painter. The identification is no longer accepted and it is now called ‘Portrait of a Man’ or ‘Man with a Quilted Sleeve’. It is generally dated around 1512, when the painter was in his early twenties, and it may be a self-portrait." - cover it all.

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Cão de Gado Transmontano

5x expanded by IQ125 (talk), 7&6=thirteen () 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () at 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Zygogramma suturalis

  • ... that the leaf beetle Zygogramma suturalis was introduced into Russia in 1978 in an attempt to control the invasive plant Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed)? "Common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., is one of the most noxious invasive weeds in Russia...In an attempt to control this weed, the ragweed leaf beetle, Zygogramma suturalis F., was introduced to Russia from the United States and Canada."source.
    • ALT1:... that in the ten years following the introduction of the leaf beetle Zygogramma suturalis into Russia in 1978 to control the invasive plant Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed), it's numbers grew from 1,500 to over 100,000,000? "In 1978, about 1500 specimens were released in the vicinity of Stavropol...the initial phase of this introduction was a population explosion with more than a 30-fold yearly increase in number,up to 100,000,000 adults per square kilometer in fields" source.
    • ALT2:... that the population of the leaf beetle Zygogramma suturalis in Russia grew from 1,500 to over 100,000,000 in the ten years following its introduction? As ALT1
    • ALT3:... that the population of the leaf beetle Zygogramma suturalis in Russia grew from 1,500 to over 100,000,000 in the ten years following its introduction in 1978? As ALT1

Created by Zakhx150 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Perdur Radhakantha Adiga

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Tomahawk chop, Foam tomahawk

A foam tomahawk used for the tomahawk chop
A foam tomahawk used for the tomahawk chop
  • ... that the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), was adopted by the Atlanta Braves following the signing of former FSU Seminoles cornerback Deion Sanders? Source: New York Times
    • ALT1:... that the Atlanta Braves' adoption of the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), once led to them being called "Negroes", "Klansmen" and "Nazis" by Native American groups? Sun Sentinel

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Both new enough. Both long enough. Double QPQ done. NPOV. The article can't decide if it is Tomahawk Chop or tomahawk chop. The latter strikes me as better. I'm also sceptical about the concept of it being "invented". Perhaps devised or created would make more sense. Earwig and spot checking found no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism in either article. ALT1 does not tally with the source, " Call them the Atlanta Negroes, Atlanta Klansmen or Atlanta Nazis, said Clyde Bellecourt, the protest organizer and national director of the American Indian Movement." I will add an ALT2. Otherwise, both articles are well-cited, and ALT0 tallies with the sources. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT2:... that the Atlanta Braves' adoption of the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), led to them being called "Negroes", "Klansmen" and "Nazis" by Clyde Bellecourt, national director of the American Indian Movement?

Articles created/expanded on February 24

Thrips tabaci

  • ... that though the onion thrips is tiny, it is the most serious insect pest attacking onion crops in the tropics? Source: "Pale yellow to brown, 1.0-1.3 mm long" and "Thrips are the most damaging insect pest of onions in the tropics."
    • ALT1:... that although the onion thrips is under 1.3 millimetres (0.05 in) long, it is the most serious insect pest of onions growing in the tropics?

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Donald L. Cunningham

  • ... that Donald L. Cunningham, one of the original Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona, once lost everything in a fire except for a single office chair?
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by ErieSwiftByrd (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Every paragraph (except for the intro) has to be cited. The hook is not cited by a source. Please cite "Early life and education" and "Career" sections. Also, please make sure the information on the intro is cited elsewhere in the article per WP:LEAD. The information in the intro is standing alone without a single mention elsewhere. Same thing goes for the infobox (it states he is a Democrat but that isn't cited in the body paragraphs). Please fix this and let me know so I can take a second look. ComputerJA () 01:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @User:ErieSwiftByrd: Much better. Source #2 doesn't seem to back up what it attributes. I saw no mention of Cunningham and some other stuff (there are two pages, so make sure the source format reflects that – let me know if you need help). There is also no mention of Ross and McAlister in the body paragraphs per WP:INFOBOXREF. Should be good after that! ComputerJA () 13:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 25

Operation Jupiter (Norway)

Created by Alansplodge (talk). Self-nominated at 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Mary Hogarth

Portrait of Mary Hogarth aged 16
Portrait of Mary Hogarth aged 16
  • Reviewed: To be done
  • Comment: Partially translated from French article, but still eligible for DYK under 1f of the eligibility criteria

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. Well-cited, including all three interesting hooks, which check out with the sources. Apart from the quotes, Earwig found no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. NPOV. Just the QPQ review awaited. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's hearse

Abraham Lincoln's hearse drives through New York
Abraham Lincoln's hearse drives through New York
  • ... that Abraham Lincoln's immense hearse (pictured) "paralyzed all beholders" when it drove through New York City? source, cited in article is Twenty Days, A Narrative in Text and Pictures of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (offline)

Created/expanded by DarjeelingTea (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, having been created yesterday. Long enough, all ¶ with citations. Unable to perform copyvio check as most sources offline, but appears to be unlikely from the number of sources compared with the size of the article, assuming good faith. QPQ review done. I find the hook problematic:
  • the part that says the hearse was "immense" is not cited to "Twenty Days" - it is in a different paragraph. Is that from one of the sources in the prior paragraph?
  • the hearse was a horse-drawn carriage, so it did not "drive" thorough NYC - it was pulled through. this may seem a little too literal, but encyclopedic prose should be accurate and factual. I recommend changing the article also on this point.
  • the rest of the hook says "paralyzed all beholders". Since it is in quotes, it is clearly not meant to be taken literally. But I still find it too strong. The article tempers this with "According to one source..." which gives context.
  • the image is used in the article and is public domain, but the caption has the same "drives through" language. More importantly, at 100x100 it is unclear and I don't think it will work for DYK. At the size in the infobox of the article, I am barely able to make it out.
In summary, I think it needs a new hook addressing the above issues. MB 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
MB - Thanks for this thorough review. I'll make these changes shortly. However, I believe, technically, a carriage or wagon is "driven"/"drove" instead of "pulled"? Though perhaps it needs a linking verb like "was" (as in "was driven" or "was drove") since "driven / drove" absent the verb would imply self-propulsion? DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 26

Théophile Schuler

The Time Demon Pittonaccio, from Jules Verne's Master Zacharius
The Time Demon Pittonaccio, from Jules Verne's Master Zacharius

Created by Edelseider (talk). Self-nominated at 10:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Reviewed (QPQ): Greifenstein Castle
  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, and meets policy on verifiable citations, plagiarism and neutrality. The ALT1 hook is interesting, referenced in-line and short. QPQ has been started, but not yet completed. SounderBruce 20:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: –- what do I have to do to complete the QPQ? Serious question. Regards, Edelseider (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The QPQ review didn't address whether the article was within policy. SounderBruce 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Mark Kilroy

5x expanded by ComputerJA (talk). Self-nominated at 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

History of retirement

Created by Rabbabodrool (talk). Self-nominated at 22:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Oli Shaw

Created by Deiz (talk). Self-nominated at 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 27

Phillip Gillespie

  • ... that during Phillip Gillespie's Sheffield Shield debut as an cricket umpire, Doug Bollinger took a hat-trick from his end...? Source: "He made his first-class debut in February this year in a match between New South Wales and Victoria in which NSW quick Doug Bollinger took a hat-trick from Gillespie’s end." [33]
  • Reviewed: TBD
  • Comment: Open to suggestions for rephrasing of the hook, if necessary.

5x expanded by Ianblair23 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

M2M (band)

  • ... that M2M were going to call themselves M&M until they found out that name was already used by a type of candy? (Offline source)
    • ALT1:... that that the members of M2M met when they five years old? (Offline source)

Improved to Good Article status by Freikorp (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Wrigley Field ivy

Wrigley Field ivy
Wrigley Field ivy
  • ... that any baseballs that get hit and lodged in the Wrigley Field ivy (pictured) score the batter a double? ESPN
    • ALT1:... that the Wrigley Field ivy (pictured) causes the Chicago Cubs to lose around $30 million a year? ESPN

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Special occasion holding area

The holding area has moved to its new location at the bottom of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.