Template talk:Did you know

For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know...?"
DiscussionWT:DYK
RulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
StatsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk 

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

TOC:    Go to bottom     Go to top
Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 7 1
August 13 1
August 17 1
August 28 1 1
August 31 1
September 5 1
September 6 1
September 12 1
September 15 1 1
September 17 2 2
September 18 2
September 19 1
September 20 2 1
September 22 1
September 23 2 1
September 24 1 1
September 25 2
September 26 1
September 27 4 2
September 28 2 1
September 29 2 1
October 1 2 2
October 2 6 3
October 3 4 2
October 4 4 2
October 5 5 2
October 6 3 2
October 7 6 4
October 8 10 6
October 9 5 2
October 10 6 1
October 11 6 3
October 12 4 3
October 13 3 2
October 14 9 5
October 15 6 3
October 16 13 9
October 17 10 8
October 18 6 2
October 19 6 6
October 20 8 8
October 21 6 3
October 22 12 9
October 23 7 3
October 24 8 5
October 25 11 9
October 26 11 9
October 27 8 4
October 28 8 7
October 29 8 8
October 30 12 10
October 31 10 4
November 1 10 8
November 2 9 6
November 3 11 8
November 4 12 5
November 5 16 8
November 6 8 5
November 7 9 5
November 8 11 2
November 9 11 3
November 10 7 3
November 11 9 3
November 12 3 1
November 13 3 2
November 14 4 1
November 15 8
November 16 2
Total 387 217
Last updated 19:00, 16 November 2018 UTC
Current time is 19:01, 16 November 2018 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 or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

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

To nominate an article[]

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

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

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

How to review a nomination[]

Any or 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 orial 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 s 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:

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[]

Backlogged?[]

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an or reviews it. Since ors 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 ors[]

How to promote an accepted hook[]

How to remove a rejected hook[]

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

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

Nominations[]

Older nominations[]

Articles created/expanded on August 7[]

Lula Mysz-Gmeiner

Lula Mysz-Gmeiner
Lula Mysz-Gmeiner

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, long enough, within policy (the PD copyright templating needed a bit of supplementing at Commons), QPQ done. The red links for two pianists are acceptable for DYK. But the hook should be changed from plural "Lieder" to singular "Lied", since that's what the Meier source says. Also, the redirect from double-s Transsylvania is not so nice. I propose ALT1:
This would be ready with ALT1. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC) OK with ALT1? Boud (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and the changes to the commons! - While ALT1 is correct, it misses that several composers dedicated Lieder (plural) to her which she often premiered, - it sounds like exactly one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
ps: {{ill}} links are no red links, and are accepted on any level of Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
For the plural: "Für ihre Liederabende arbeitete Lula Mysz-Gmeiner untter anderem mit Max Reger, Franz Schreker, Eduard Behm, Emil Mattiesen und Richard Strauss zusammen. Ersterer widmete ihr genau wie Emil Mattiesen mehrere Lieder. Lula Mysz-Gmeiner sang mehrere Uraufführungen ..." - So Reger and Matthiessen dedicated several songs to her, and she sang several premieres. - It happens that a different singer than the dedicatee sings the premiere, but I'd say rarely. To be safe we could say:
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You're right that the red links are inter-language links - I didn't mean to say they're not normally accepted, but rather that DYK, GA, FA require successively higher standards, and I gave a link to WP:DYKNOT which says that red links are fine in DYK - which presumably means that tl:ill, which are a good step better than red links, are even more acceptable. :) Boud (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the assumption that a a dedicatee sings a premiere, or even that she necessarily sings a song dedicated to her: even though this is a reasonable educated guess, odd things do sometimes happen (e.g. a singer might suddenly die before s/he gets a chance to sing the song; might have a personal crisis or political disagreement with the composer and refuse to sing the songs). Maybe you can point to a specific place in Meier that justifies ALT2, but for the moment I propose ALT3. I removed "and others" because this is bit vague - WP:WEASEL doesn't state this particular example, though the WP:WHATPLACE subsection comes close in terms of what rather than who. I don't think putting a tl:ill would look good in the DYK hook, so including Emil Mattiesen there does not seem like a good option to me.
How about ALT3? Adding the reasonable (but AFAIK not strictly sourced as a fact) expectation that she sung all of the Lieder dedicated to her is not really likely to convince more people to read and/or the article... Boud (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Independently, any objections to removing ", before 1904" from the figure caption? It's sourced, but it sounds a bit odd. There's no default expectation to show photos of deceased people as they were in their oldest age prior to dying, even if that seems to be common (e.g. Einstein). Boud (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 is fine with me, I just didn't want to single out Reger as he was "my topic" in 2016. I say it's fine also to receive no more guideline abbreviations ;) - I thought that any date in the caption would be better than no date, but let the style of dress and hair say so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Guideline abbreviations avoid having to re-explain what other people have already explained quite nicely and more carefully :). Anyway, good to go with consensus on ALT3. Boud (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "term lieder". Every now and then, we use "art songs", but "lieder" is more specific for the German ones, as mélodies is for the French. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg I have changed the wording in the article and as long as you are happy with that change, ALT3 can be used. I will leave someone else to promote the hook, and they can choose whether to use the image or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am happy with the change, thank for a constructive solution. If I had more time, I'd do the same for Strauss, and Matthiesen ... - She must have been quite extraordinary to have inspired so many creative minds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the nomination, "She must have been quite extraordinary to have inspired so many creative minds."? Did you see that this was a compromise? A cheap hook for all could be that she was the teacher and mother-in-law of the Nazi dream tenor, another, quirky, that she trained Elisabeth Schwarzkopf wrong, -- but I am here to say something about her singing. Please let me. - On our national holiday, and regular concert day, with company and with a cold, thinking of the amiable dwellings ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What about a hook based on the approved hook, but focusing only on one or the other? Say, instead of mentioning both Alto Rhapsody and the Lieder, why not a hook only focusing on Alto Rhapsody or only focusing on Reger's Lieder for her? But honestly I still have doubts if the first suggestion could work as the importance of Alto Rhapsody isn't immediately clear to non-classical music fans. Or perhaps, as you mentioned, maybe a hook about Mysz-Gmeiner's links to her students might work as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
We need Lieder, and better many composers than only one, which was a compromise. The well-known Alto Rhapsody with the well-known Philharmonic was meant to add something people are more familiar with, but should not be the only thing said about her who was known for Lieder internationally. - Off to singing, which me luck with my slightly damaged alto voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Still with a head full of Brahms, new day. Please help me. I have little problem finding one cute thing about a short composition, but when it comes to the rich life of a creative person, I feel that one cute things is enough. No link to a student, please, it's distracting. I didn't even want a link to a specific composer. She inspired several of her contemporaries to write lieder for her, and to accompany her in performance, and I know no other person about whom that could be said. Can you word it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
ps: if possible, still mentioning Transsylvania and teaching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It's been that long because it was pulled from prep but not returned to the noms page, until I noticed and did it. Last thing was asking YOU for help. I can't look right now. How can we say that she was a great lieder singer who worked with composers such as Max Reger and Richard Strauss - the big names at the time! - who wrote for her and accompanied her, - in 200 chars? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, no help yet, so I try again:
ALT4: ... that Lula Mysz-Gmeiner (pictured), a contralto and influential voice teacher from Transylvania, performed lieder accompanied by composers such as Max Reger and Richard Strauss?
- letting people guess that her contemporaries also wrote for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 17[]

Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Georg Cantor, c. 1870.
Georg Cantor, c. 1870.

Proof is constructive: Dasgupta 2014, p. 107; Sheppard 2014, pp. 131–132. Proof is non-constructive: Jarvis 2014, p. 18; Chowdhary 2015, p. 19; Stewart 2015, p. 285; Stewart & Tall 2015, p. 333.

Created/expanded by RJGray (talk) and Michael Hardy (talk). Nominated by Michael Hardy (talk) at 04:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but you should link and boldface the article in the hook. Catrìona (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Recently promoted GA article, so clearly meets the article criteria. Original hook is rather technical; I provided a substitute. The QPQ check didn't turn up a review by the nominator - please provide a link to a review. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: I did this review. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg On further investigation, it appears that the nominator, despite over 200,000 s, has never nominated a DYK article before. Welcome to DYK, Michael Hardy! RockMagnetist(talk) 19:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I formatted the hook to add "(pictured)". However, there is number confusion between "a transcendental number" and "they" — should the end of the hook be "or merely proves it exists"? Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the submitter of this DYK, but in my opinion the meaning would be conveyed by changing the last two words of the hook. You could change "..they exist" to "..such numbers exist". EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: thanks, I like that. Waiting for the nominator to weigh in... Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: @EdJohnston: The singular in "how to construct a transcendental number" is appropriate since in this context one would construct them one at a time, and the plural is appropriate in "they exist" since the proof shows that many transcendental numbers exist, not just one. Whether it says "they exist" or "such numbers exist" doesn't seem immensely important to me, since the meaning of "they" seems clear from the context. I suppose erring on the side of caution one should be explicit and say "such numbers exist." Michael Hardy (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Restoring tick per RockMagnetist's review. Wait a minute — the review didn't confirm that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Here is a full review: GA approved. New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Images in article and hook are freely licensed. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK crs.
  • Tweaked hook wording:
  • ALT1a: ... that mathematicians do not agree on whether a proof in Georg Cantor's (pictured) first set theory article actually shows how to construct a transcendental number, or merely proves that such numbers exist?
  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: By the "creator" do you mean those who created the page, as opposed to the DYK hook? By "nominator", do you mean the person who nominated it for DYK? (That's me.) By "creator/nominator", do you mean the creator _or_ the nominator? Or do you mean it needs both? An earlier posting to my talk page left me with an impression that the issues had already been addressed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: I think you meant to ping me, rather than Alex. I meant that someone needs to address the sourcing issues I have raised immediately above Alex Shih's comment. The article creator and you are the people best placed to do this, and the people who have an interest in fixing the issue so that the DYK nomination may move forward. This is entirely separate from the message Yoninah left you nine days ago; these are issues I raised two days previously. Vanamonde (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: ok, I think that point is becoming clear. Just to be clear about something else: I am the original article creator, although by now RJGray is to a large extent also the creator. He knows more about the sources and history than I do. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Concerning the sourcing issue about which you state: "Indeed, I'm a little confused about how it passed the GA review, because though it's well written and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy, the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" is completely unreferenced." In the GA Review, the issue of references for derivations and examples did come up with respect to the section "The Proofs". This issue is the same as the one you are raising for the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" (in this half of the section, I am comparing the derivations in two different proofs). Here is how I handled the issue during the GA Review (next 2 paragraphs I wrote for the GA Review):
Concerning "The proofs": My approach was to stay within the guidelines of WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements whose first paragraph states:
"Wikipedia is neither a textbook nor a journal. Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. This is standard practice in journals, and does not make any claim of novelty.[1] In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible – in fact, encouraged – provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred. Furthermore, copying extensively from a source with only minor modifications is not normally permitted by copyright law, unless the source has a free license."
After receiving my response, the GA reviewer dropped this issue from his list of issues. --RJGray (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about that, RJGray. It's fine to simplify a proof, but even so you should cite the original. At this point, a reader who wishes to know where that proof came from has no way to find it, which is the basic purpose of WP:V. I'm not saying you should cite every sentence, but you should cite the proof. You can add explanatory footnotes with the source if required. Vanamonde (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the current status of this thing? Is it in a queue to appear under "Did you know . . . ?" on the main page? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: No, it is not. As I said above, the article needs to have references for all the proofs, to comply with our policy on verifiability. Once the required references have been added, I will place this in a queue. Vanamonde (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:I have supplied the references for the proofs. Because Cantor was writing a research article for researchers, he left out simple proofs. To handle this, I did the same as I had done earlier on the proof of his uncountability theorem. I point out that he did not supply a proof and then provided a proof for Wikipedia readers. Of course, I do supply a reference to where he states the result that he does not bother proving. --RJGray (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: Okay, I've looked at your changes. They are an improvement, but they do not entirely address my concern. My point is fairly simple; Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication. We collate information; we do not provide new information. As such, if we are presenting a proof, it must be based on a proof published in a reliable source elsewhere. We cannot publish our own proofs, even if the or writing said proof is quite capable of doing so without error. It is possible that Wikiproject Mathematics sees this differently, in which case I'd like to see a link to that, but I cannot see how WP:V can be satisfied any other way. Please don't take this personally; this sort of mixup often occurs when content written and reviewed by ors familiar with a specific topic is brought to wider scrutiny. If you disagree with this, please feel free to request further feedback at WT:DYK. Also, since Michael Hardy has been blocked indefinitely, I'm afraid this falls entirely on your shoulders at the moment. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your feedback. Don't worry about me taking it personally. I like to get things right and I don't mind differences of opinion—I've handled them before. In fact, one of the pleasurable things about Wikipedia is that differences of opinion are handled with respect. Unfortunately, there are too many websites where this isn't true.
I hope you are not in a rush to settle this issue. Thanks for mentioning the Wikiproject Mathematics site. I plan to bring up the issue there after researching it a bit. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time last week to devote to studying the relevant Wikipedia policies.
This issue is important for me to because I suspect it will occur in the future. I tend to work in history of mathematics and may be faced again with the fact that research mathematicians tend to leave out simple derivations or proofs when communicating with their fellow research mathematicians via articles and letters. The only reason that I provided my own simple derivations was because Cantor left out two: one in his article and the other in a letter to Dedekind. I could follow Cantor and skip the derivations. However, because Wikipedia appeals to a wide audience, I wanted to make sure readers had a complete proof rather than expecting them to finish it. --RJGray (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: I am not in a hurry, though we should try to keep it to a reasonable schedule to be fair to the DYK process. Thanks for not taking it personally. Your position about wanting readers to have a complete proof is quite reasonable, and I'm certainly not suggesting that your derivation is wrong, only that it wouldn't be acceptable on its own even if it were entirely correct, without backing from a reliable source. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: If I compute 5283 × 6117 and get 32,316,111, it may be that no "reliable source" can be cited for the value of the product of those two numbers. But the technique is taught in elementary school. Something similar applies in many cases to routine algebraic derivations in Wikipedia articles. The is then the question of where to draw the line between that sort of thing and original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: I would not ask for a source for routine arithmetic, per WP:CALC. However, I would draw the line for requiring reliable sources somewhere between a single-step computation that anyone with access to the internet is capable of performing on their device, and Georg Cantor's theorems. I firmly believe those require a source, and that presenting an or's own derivation isn't enough. If you disagree, I suggest you invite comments from other ors at WT:DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your patience. Even though I haven't changed my opinion that sources are not needed in this case, I decided that finding sources would be a good challenge of my knowledge of the literature. It took a bit of work but I suceeded. I have updated the Wikipedia article.
The source I found for my proof of the existence of transcendental numbers is Perron's book, which is in German and has not been translated. However, in my research on Wikipedia policies, I learned how to handle this: I've put the German proof and my translation of it in a note (see WP:V#Quoting). The source I found for my proof of Cantor's uncountability theorem is the article "Georg Cantor and Transcendental Numbers".
I must say that I am happier having the sources than not having them—I like to saturate Wikipedia articles with citations. I regard citations as doorways to deeper knowledge of a subject.
However, I think that Wikipedia's verifiability policy of citations and reliable sources can be characterized as "passive verifiability". By this I mean that the citations mostly sit there passively with few people actively looking many of them up. Consider my article with its 63 references with one reference containing 6 citations. How many citations will the typical reader of an article look up? Probably far fewer than 63. On the positive side, the citations are available if issues come up.
Now consider an article's mathematical proofs. Proofs actively engage readers who think through them and decide if they are correct or not. And if they aren't correct, they can fix them. So proofs are an example of "active verifiability". I always read mathematical proofs carefully and when I find one that is inaccurate or not clear, I rewrite it. So the accuracy of a mathematical proof depends not just on the person who initially writes it. Its verifiability is increased by everyone who reads it, thinks about it, and improves it.
On the other hand, I seldom look up the citations of a Wikipedia article unless I'm interested in reading further on the subject. I know it's hard work checking sources—the last thing I do before posting an article I wrote is to check all my citations for accuracy.
Another weakness of Wikipedia's verifiability policy is that reliable sources may have errors. The section "The disagreement about Cantor's existence proof" gives examples. In fact, the books asserting that Cantor's existence proof is non-constructive outnumber the books asserting asserting his proof is constructive.
I wish to thank you for suggesting your improvement. This article has now benefited from two GA reviews (it failed the first one but that motivated me to do a second rewrite of the article) and one DYK review. —RJGray (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: Thanks for the sources. Unless I'm missing something, though, the "first theorem" still doesn't have citations. Also: I'm understanding, from what you said above, that you're using the same source for all of the second theorem (footnote A). If this is the case, please duplicate it (you can just copy the footnote) at the end of all of the relevant paragraphs; else this is going to run into trouble again when it's in prep. In general, even if you're using the same source for multiple paragraphs, duplicate it at the end of each paragraph. As to your other points, I agree in theory, but the fact is that even though I have more mathematical education than probably 99% of the world's population, I would miss most errors in a proof such as this one; which is why we need the refs, even if they aren't followed up on. Vanamonde (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(GA reviewer here and I've been lurking for a few days.) Per WP:CITEDENSE, there's no "one citation per paragraph" rule on Wikipedia. Repeating a citation every paragraph is an optional stylistic choice. If a user would remove this from the DYK queue for that reason then they would be in the wrong. As for the "first theorem" section, if my memory is correct then I recall that it's a summary of parts of the Cantor article, vacuously sourced to that article, along with a bit of WP:SCG/WP:CALC. (Per WP:MINREF it didn't need an inline citation... but the fact you claim it does counts as a "challenge" and actually means it now does, somewhat bizarrely.) Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Well, in my opinion articles should always have a minimum of one citation per paragraph, but in any case this is actually codified as a DYK rule (supplementary rule D2, if you're interested). In any case, if parts are based on the George Cantor article, then that needs to be fixed. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and if that article is in such good shape, then it should be easy enough to copy references over. Vanamonde (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, when I said "vacuously sourced to that article", I meant "vacuously sourced to the primary source of Cantor's paper", not some other Wikipedia article. Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That's even easier, then: just add that as a source, with an explanatory footnote if necessary, at the end of every paragraphs that's taken from it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Bilorv: I don't want to bother with the question of whether or not I need references in the subsections "First theorem" and "Second theorem". I was surprised that I didn't put them in! I like to encourage my readers to read Cantor's original article. One way I do this is to supply references to his article and to a translation of his article whether they are needed or not. So I added them.
Concerning the DYK supplementary rule D2. This rule states: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." According to Rule of thumb: "The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation." If it was a rigid rule that required one citation per paragraph, I've already came up with two problems such a rigid requirement can create:
(1) Let's say I had an article that I planned to nominate for DYK and one paragraph of my article had no citation but the following paragraph had more than one. Then I might change my paragraphing so the first paragraph would have one citation. Of course, this could negatively affect the writing quality.
(2) Consider the Cantor article. The first paragraph of Georg Cantor's first set theory article#Example of Cantor's construction is a description of a simple example that I made up to illustrate how Cantor's construction works. I am permitted to have such an example by WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements: "Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. … In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible …" Since I'm providing the example it has no reference. So if rule D2 was rigid, I'd have to decide which was most important: A "Did you know" or an example that helped my readers.
By the way, I have 67 references in 49 paragraphs, which is 1.37 refs/paragraph. So my article is averaging 37% more refs per paragraph than an article that only contains one ref per paragraph. ≈—RJGray (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: I'm a bit busy at the moment so please forgive the short response. First off, right now I'm only seeing a citation for theorem two. Second, the problems with writing style and structure are easily addressed by duplicating references. I feel like I am somehow not getting this point across, but it's very simple, and it addresses your concern entirely. If multiple paragraphs are sourced to page 2 of Cantor's paper, then you just cite page 2 of Cantor's paper after each of those paragraphs. Why is this proving so difficult? Vanamonde (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sorry, I'm a bit tired and it appears that I didn't submit my changes, which are done now. On paragraphing, there may be a problem on "Second theorem". I see three options on the structure of the paragraph starting: "Either the number of intervals generated is finite or infinite" Option 1: the ending of case 3 is the end of the paragraph (this is where I put a ref). Option 2: each case is a paragraph, so in this option, I would put a ref after every case. Option 3: the sentence following the cases is the end of the paragraph, so in this option, I would put the ref at the end of this sentence. I chose Option 1 because I think the colon implies that the three cases belong to the same sentence as the colon. Which option do you think is best? Take your time answering, I'm getting off the computer now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJGray (talkcontribs) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: My apologies, I've been inactive for the past few days. Your latest changes look good. My final citation quibble is about the proof provided in "dense sequences", which also appears not to have a source. Since the article does not seem to hinge on this, you could simply temporarily remove the section if you want to move forward with this quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I'm happy that you are pleased with my latest changes. I've made one further change. In my last response, I mentioned the "Example of Cantor's construction" as not needing a citation for an example. I suspect that quite a few examples in math articles won't have a citation available, but it turns out that this particular example does have one. When I was writing it, I must have been concentrating on the math and forgot that nearly the same example appeared in the literature as an exercise. But returning to it now, I remembered that it looked familiar and remembered the probable source. I've added a note about this.
Concerning dense sequences, I have a suggestion. But first the reasons I would like to keep it:
1. In the next section, I use denseness to prove that Cantor's construction generates infinitely many intervals.
2. It identifies what is mathematically special about the second case.
3. It deepens a reader's appreciation of the three cases because they are regarding them from a different angle.
4. It helped me in my reply to Ipsic's question (see next section of Talk).
5. See last sentence in next paragraph.
My suggestion is to bring in Cantor's second proof of the uncountability of the reals, which he published in 1879. This proof is not generally known, at least not in the US. As far as I know, it hasn't been translated into English, but there is a French translation from the 1880s. His second proof only uses 2 cases: The given set of reals is dense or not dense in the interval [ab]. In the second case, there's an open interval (cd) containing no reals from the given set, so any real in this open interval does not belong to the given set (this handles cases 1 and 3 in one step). In ths dense case, he gets a single real number. I think that this addition would add to the comprehensiveness of the article and it's a simple example of a great mathematician viewing his theorem from another angle and developing a new proof.
Of course, it will take me a bit of time to add the new material in a succinct way that meshes nicely with what's there. I hope to keep it down to a short paragraph. The big unknown is his dense case. I didn't have the time today to look at it (I'd like to figure it out on my own before looking at his proof). Also, I will be on vacation from next Wednesday to the following Tuesday and won't be around computers as much, but I will have hours of travel to work on the new material.
Thanks for all your feedback. I do appreciate the work you are doing for this Cantor article and the work you do for Wikipedia. —RJGray (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: If you have a citation available, that's great, and you should add it. About denseness: I recognize that there's good reasons for wanting it in the article, but unless Cantor's 1879 paper is implying it very directly, I don't think that's a good route to go down. We're coming back to a fairly basic problem here. I probably have had more education in math than most Wikipedia readers: yet, I could not tell if there was an error in the mathematical argument you put forth above. Thus in the absence of a reference saying that, it isn't really verifiable. Please understand, I'm not blaming you for this; it's quite possibly common practice in the mathematics Wikiproject. But to an outsider, this is a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid this doesn't accord with the text of WP:SCG. It reads "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline." It then gives three statements which I do not understand at all, and yet they don't need citations because they are uncontroversial among people familiar with the subject. In the case of dense sequences, I can understand the argument easily using only first year undergraduate knowledge (because that's my current level of education), so it's hardly controversial or requiring of esoteric methods. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I'm aware of the guideline, but I'm afraid you're misreading it. The guideline allows some flexibility in where citations need to be placed, and how general they might be. It does not permit completely unsourced content. Some source in the article needs to support the information in it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: My current plan to eliminate the "Dense sequences" subsection and add a new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" following the "Example of Cantor's construction" subsection. I figured out Cantor's 1879 proof and now I've starting reading it. He calls it a simplification of his 1874 proof and it is. It only has 2 cases, the old Case 1 and Case 3 are handled at the same time, and Case 2 is the dense sequence case. This happens because he points out that there are two kinds of sets: those that are dense in the interval [ab] and those that are not. This splits the new proof into two cases at the start. His original proof starts with his construction and the construction divides the proof into three cases. Since I'll be gone for a week, it will take me a minimum of a week and a half, but probably a bit longer since I want the writing to be as good as the rest of the article and this always takes time. So you will have your references and I'll have that Case 2 is the dense set (or sequence) case. Also, readers will learn of Cantor's second proof, which I didn't know about for years. Overall, I think it will improve the article. —RJGray (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: Sounds good, ping me when you are done. Vanamonde (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Vanamonde93: My original time estimate was way off. I have finished the translation of Cantor's second uncountability proof of 1879 and have had it corrected by another or. I am providing interested readers a with wikitable that consists of the English translation of the proof and the German text so they can be read and compared in parallel. However, there seems to be a problem with having a collapsed table in a Notes section, so it appears that I might have to choose between an uncollapsed (large) table or have an ending subsection titled: "Appendix: Cantor's second uncountability theorem with translation". I need to know the Wikipedia guidelines on this. I am now writing a new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" that will have to be cleanly integrated with a couple of the existing sections. Good news for Vanamonde93: I can use Cantor's 1879 proof as a reference for the proof I gave in Case 2 of the subsection "Second Theorem". My proof appears as part of his 1897 proof, which is no surprise since it's the obvious proof. —RJGray (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: The niceties of MOS are not my speciality, but as long as it complies with MOS:TABLE, I think both options could work. I personally have not seen an "appendix" before, so I have a slight preference for the other structure. Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Vanamonde93: I apologize for not keeping you up-to-date. I'm nearly done--mostly polishing and a few other relatively small things to do. I should be done by Sunday or Monday. —RJGray (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Vanamonde93: Thank you for your patience. The big changes are the addition of the new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" and the removal of subsection "Dense sequences". If I had been familiar with Cantor's 1879 article earlier, I would have made it a part of the Wikipedia article earlier because it's a case of Cantor improving his old proof using the topological notion of everywhere dense in an interval. So it sheds light on the key proof of his 1874 article. I wish to thank Vanamonde93 for his DYK work on this article. It was his comments that led me to the changes I have made. Also, wish to thank Jochen Burghardt for his help in getting a collapsed wikitable in a ref note and for his correcting my errors in my translation of Cantor's 1879 proof.


Articles created/expanded on August 31[]

Shannon Evans

Shannon Evans
Shannon Evans

Created by Editorofthewiki (talk). Nominated by Runningibis (talk) at 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article created on 30 August, submitted one day later. Long enough. Neutral & no copyright issues. Fact from hook is included in source but is not immediately followed by an in-line citation. Otherwise sourced appropriately. QPQ completed. Suggest hook has boarderline appeal to a broad audience (who might not understand the significance of playing for a prep school). Fact isn't currently in article but the fact that mother liquidated (cashed out) her 401k might help spice this up and/or make clear why attending prep school was important (to qualify for NCAA scholarships). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion, you could also make note of the prep school being a Christian and Military institution. Flibirigit (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggest as ALT2 ... that Shannon Evans left Buffalo to follow basketball coach Bobby Hurley to Arizona State
This puts the spotlight back on Evans whom the highlighted article is really about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither of the new hooks are that good to be honest as they're dependent on people being familiar with Hurley, which probably even most basketball fans wouldn't know. The original proposal (about the prep school thing) is probably still the best option, though of course the issues regarding it need to be fixed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is, the fact is cited in the article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem is hook interest. Non-basketball fans wouldn't really find it interesting that a basketball player followed a coach to another school, especially if neither person is well-known. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Narutolovehinata5. The proposed hooks are just very pedestrian. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether Alt 0 is catchy or not, if used it would need an in-line citation which it currently lacks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It has an inline citation, not sure what you are talking about. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 5[]

Cecilia García Arocha

  • Reviewed: (4th nom, but have reviewed some)
  • Comment: I'm trying to improve the references on the page. Hopefully by the time this is reviewed.

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg While the article meets length and newness requirements, the DYK nom fails for several reasons:
  • The article currently fails DYK nom guidelines which require "a minimum of one citation per paragraph."
  • The reference used to support the nom is not found in the article.
  • In addition, the domain for the first references is not online and the second is 404. Even if the links were working, I wonder if they might be primary instead of secondary sources.
  • If the article otherwise qualified, the hook is not very interesting -- it could be improved by including mention of the university's history, founding, or prominence in the country.
  • The nominator, despite having added the article to DYK on September 5, has not yet named per QPQ another DYK nom they have reviewed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg @Btphelps: I think this was only the nominator's fourth nomination so no QPQ was needed at the time. With that said, I'll leave a message on their talk page informing them of your comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not aware of the requirement for QPQ not applying to new ors. The other issues still remain however. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • When I saw the fail sign I just assumed that it didn’t warrant response, no question mark means don’t work on the nom, right? I’ve been having trouble with WiFi since mid September and can on mobile but it’s not very easy. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif, you're welcome to work on the article, whether or not it currently qualifies for DYK. If you could add current citations, that would be awesome, thanks. Because if you can fix the citation issue, it might be reappraised for DYK. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on September 6[]

Mufti Nemat

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 08:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Oh, sorry! I did not notice that I had already used that QPQ. I will add a new one tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added a new QPQ. Applodion (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure this hook is acceptable under the content rules, since it focuses primarily on negative aspects of a living person. To be clear, I'm not defending Nemat or his actions, or suggesting that the cited source is not accurate, only noting that the hook as written doesn't appear to confirm to the DYK rules. ♠PMC(talk) 15:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • We could leave out the part about the war crimes, as he denies them. The rest of the hook, namely that he waged an insurgency despite claming be be peaceful, is undisputable, however, and is not necessarily negative. Applodion (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. I've struck the original hook per PMC and am listing an ALT1 that simply removes the final clause of the original, so the sourcing should be the same.BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that Afghan militant Mufti Nemat has claimed that he wants others to accept his ideology "with their hearts, not by force" despite having previously waged a violent insurgency? (same source as above)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg *This would land the guy a visit from the police in the UK. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I have the feeling that this hook is simply not going to work. Perhaps it would be best if I would just withdraw this nomination. Applodion (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any great opinion about the article overall, there is probably another hook you can use. Szzuk (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok. How about this one:
ALT2: ... that Mufti Nemat was the head of a religious school for male and female students before joining the Afghan branch of ISIL? Source: "Mufti Nemat stayed in Sheberghan for almost two years hoping to join the ALP or pro-government militia forces in the province. As a follower of Salafism, he intended to expand the Salafi ideology in the province at the same time. In November 2016, he established a Salafi madrasa called E’ya-ye Sunnat (Rehabilitation of the Sunnah) in the city and where male and female students attended classes." (Non-Pashtun Taleban of the North (4): A case study from Jawzjan)
Applodion (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 "...that Mufti Nemat has been accused of raping women as a commander of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province?" "His surrender came days after a number of women in Darzab district of the province accused him and his fighters of abducting and raping them." -VOA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talkcontribs) 20:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Will review please hold.-RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
ALT4 "... that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province commander Mufti Nemat surrendered to the Afghan government, after a Taliban offensive against ISIL-K in 2018?""Assadullah said that Mawlawi Habib Rahman, Mufti Nematullah, Mullah Suhbatullah and Hussain Qahraman, head of the military unit of the group, along with 200 fighters, were rescued in this way. After surrendering to the government and safely arriving in Sheberghan city, Habib Rahman told media outlets that he was tired of war and had therefore joined the Afghan government’s peace process." -AAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talkcontribs) 22:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article was nominated for QPQ on 6 September, and was created on 6 September. At the time of its creation and nomination, the article was over 5k characters of prose (without spaces). Each paragraph is sourced in line; while several sentences don't have inline citation, that is not required for a DYKN. While some usage of words on the WP:WTW list are present, it appears to be more or less neutral, if not written in a way that is slightly positive of the subject of the artlce. Article only has a 10.7% rating for Earwig's. Some problems with the hooks, see above. Article needs work for it to pass DYKN. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that due to the fact that Nemat is still alive, we cannot use hooks that are overly negative: As result, ALT3 will not be acceptable. In regard to the article title, he is almost universally known as "Mufti Nemat" - per Wikipedia:Article titles that is thus the best choice for the article title. Furthermore, the article subject is probably such a vile individual that any attempt to write neutrally about him does make his article appear more positive than he probably deserves. Applodion (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I struck out ALT3 per above. Aside from the BLP rule, I don't think it's a good idea to mention rape in the DYK box. Its supposed to be a fun gateway to learning, not a place to shock people. --Krelnik (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NCBIO & the related WP:NCCL, regarding the alleged Mufti predominance for the alleged common name reasoning. I see that a search for Nemat is most likely to get Orzala Ashraf Nemat, so a disambig between the two individual's articles is needed; that said this NYT article refers to the subject as Mr. Nemat, and this National Post article refers to the subject of the article as just plain Nemat, and this AFghanistan Times article refers to the subject as Nematullah.
Article other issues have not been addressed. No rush per WP:NOTIMELIMIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: The source for ALT1 is the same as ALT0; I am unsure about rewriting the lead. Birth dates are unknown, his nationality as well as position/rank are stated, and I noted that he has been accused of war crimes. In regard to the title, would you prefer "Mufti Nemat" instead of "Mufti Nemat"? Applodion (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Mufti, a title, shouldn't be included in the article title, I understand the reasoning for including it in the article title, but disagree with the conclusion reached. It should not just be Nemat as the subject of the article is not the primary search result for that particular pronoun. Perhaps Nematullah would be a better article name. As for the birth date, there isn't even an estimated year?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Titles can be part of article titles if the person is best known by that name (see for example various medieval people, such as the Earls of Warwick); Nemat is simply too unspecific. Nematullah is simply his name, Nemat, with the addition of another title ("Mullah"). In regard to the birth year, the answer is no. I think it is very likely that estimates exist about his age, but I could not find a single source which mentioned his age or birth year or anything similar. Applodion (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Nemat (Taliban Commader) would be an alternate then?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: I had thought about that as well, but Nemat was a notable commander both among the Taliban as well as ISIL; not to mention that several other commanders exist(ed) in both groups who were named "Nemat". Furthermore, reducing him to his military activity seems not fitting either, as he was a notable enough cleric that the government banned him from teaching. Applodion (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As this is the case, I think singling out the subject's role as a cleric, thus the title of Mufti, would de-emphasis the subject's military role. There has to be a way to disambiguate the subject from other Nemats without utilizing a title in the article name.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 12[]

Timeline of Cluj-Napoca

1617 engraving of Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg by Joris Hoefnagel.
1617 engraving of Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg by Joris Hoefnagel.

5x expanded by Codrinb (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Not eligible. List articles must have at least 1,500 characters of readable prose in order to qualify for DYK. Catrìona (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg This appears to be only the nominator's fifth nomination, and given that the article itself is long (the problem is that the content is presented as a list while DYK's length requirement only applies to prose), this could still work as a hook. @Codrinb: I would suggest you expand the lede section to be a summary of the whole article, ensuring that it is at least 1,500 characters. Once this is done, this can become DYK eligible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Thank you for the feedback. I put a lot of work into this article and I will be happy to make anything that is necessary to make it eligible. Thank you for giving me a chance, @Narutolovehinata5:. The main reason for not expanding the lead more is to keep it "in sync" and consistent with all the other articles in Category:Timelines of cities in Europe. If you look at Timeline of London or Timeline of Frankfurt, they have a similar lead. If you think that I should deviate from this, in order to achieve DYK, I will do it. I will also ping @M2545: and other users involved with such lists, perhaps there are other examples of DYK or longer leads. Thanks! Codrin.B (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, I have added a new lead as requested. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


Hook eligiblity:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Is this one of your first five DYK noms? Catrìona (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: This is the nominator's fifth nomination so no QPQ is necessary yet; however, their next DYK and beyond will require a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. What is QPQ? ;-) How about this text and new image:
Cluj coat of arms, awarded in 1377.

Codrin.B: I would accept that if the caption were significantly shorter. 8 lines is too many. Catrìona (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Catrìona:. I removed less important aspects from the lead and kept the core ideas. The lead is now around 1800 characters. I hope this is acceptable. Thanks.Codrin.B (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you were talking about the image caption... I never intended it to be so long. I just added the image previously with the caption I used elsewhere. To goal was to check if this image is better. I trimmed down the caption as well now. Codrin.B (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg I recommend the wording "throughout its long history" rather than "throughout its long timeline". Catrìona (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The reason I used "timeline" is to differentiate from the History of Cluj-Napoca article, which I might also work on to get it to a DYK, and also to be inline with the article title: "Timeline of Cluj-Napoca". But certainly "history" sounds better. I am fine if it has to be changed for the DYK. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svgI'm a little concerned at the amount of unsourced content here. An entry about Hadrian becoming Emperor may not need a source, but an entry about a redlinked individual such as Flavius Italicus does, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually all governors of province Dacia come out of the List of Roman governors of Dacia Traiana which in turn uses this reference: Petolescu, Constantin C. (2014). Dacia: un mileniu de istorie [Dacia: a millennium of history] (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. ISBN 978-973-27-2450-7.. I expected that this could be an issue so I started to add individual references for each governor. Thanks for bringing it up. Codrin.B (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, @Catrìona:, @Narutolovehinata5: - I finalized adding references to all legates, procurators and other leaders from 2nd and 3rd century. From my perspective, while it could be further improved, the article is quite well sourced for all the centuries and from a wide variety of sources. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make this better and get it approved. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 18[]

Ed McCulloch

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 05:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

  • As this is your 7th nomination at WP:DYKN, please provide a QPQ. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at a couple. And if I'd known there were so many hoops to jump through, I'd never have bothered nominating anything to begin with. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge (writer)

Created by E.M.Gregory (talk) and Sagecandor (talk). Nominated by Sagecandor (talk) at 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been nominated by a topic-banned and blocked user. Pending discussion here. --Pudeo (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That discussion ended days, possibly weeks, ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg This is a well-written interesting article, meticulously sources, and I think It's good for DYK. The original hook is a bit boring to readers who don't already know the writer, also it's not clearly stated that way in the article, or did I miss something? The ALT would be better if it also said that he wrote a book about that grandfather. E.M.Gregory, are you willing to work on hooks and article? Or anybody else? - In the article, I think the court incident has too much weight in both lead and article. More lead about other things, please, or less about the incident. His articles: they are formatted with template citation, which expects them to be used as references. Please find a way to avoid the ugly error messages that they are not used. Please never use "Selected" without giving the criteria. I just removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Second thought, catchy title:
ALT2: ... that Mark Judge wrote the book A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism, and Rock 'n' Roll, published in 2010? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT3: ...that Mark Judge wrote a book about how dancing helped him stop drinking? E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Invited to look again, E.M.Gregory, thank you improvements. Still too concerns: too little in the lead about his work, and still ugly errror messages such as "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJudge1995" which I think would go away if you used "cite book" instead of "citation". I like ALT3, but of course like ALT2 better, which would ned someone else to approve. If nobody does that, I'll eventually approve ALT3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 19[]

Carol Cox

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 00:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

Review

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Andrew D. (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"The first hook fact doesn't seem to be stated clearly in the main source." It is: "Just a year before Cox’s breakthrough, women weren’t even allowed to compete at NHRA national events." The second is a bit less clear, since AFAIK, there wasn't an actual trophy awarded in the class, but: "first woman to ever win a trophy of any kind at an NHRA national event" & "Cox won her class, S/SA". Both are cited to the NHRA.com link; all 3 quotes are from there. Clearer? (Personally, I prefer the first hook: it's a bigger deal, & it's less ambiguous. The second has a cool factor, tho: she drove the winning car to the track.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:26 & 02:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg As this is your 8th nomination at WP:DYKN, please provide a QPQ. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I've offered comment on 2 already. If that doesn't meet a formal standard, you can do what you want with the 8 noms. I won't miss it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: As I was scrolling down the WP:DYKN page, I noticed you had started some reviews. Please list the template of one of them here and one of them on another of your nominations. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This whole process is so complicated, the nominations begin not to be worth it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: it's true, DYK does have too many rules. But we instituted the QPQ rule so nominations like yours would be reviewed in a timely manner. Please just note here the template that you started to review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 20[]

Exhibition of Australian Art in London

‘The purple noon's transparent might’
‘The purple noon's transparent might’

Created by HappyWaldo (talk). Self-nominated at 02:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

  • HappyWaldo, I corrected the painting title to remove apostrophes and be in uppercase—can you confirm that is correct? Also, is there a reason for "might" vs "light" there? Did the newspaper run a typo? (I want to confirm that there's not a second similarly named painting before we all get egg on our faces!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The correct title is ‘The purple noon's transparent might’, with the apostrophes, as the painting takes its title from Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Stanzas Written in Dejection, Near Naples". See the National Gallery of Victoria's page for the painting. It is certainly an error on the part of the newspaper. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@HappyWaldo: Fascinating! Thanks for the confirmation, and I've re-re-corrected the painting title above. One more query: would you consider this alternate hook? "... that no other "major survey" of Australian art in London has come close to reaching the level of female representation achieved by the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London?" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I did consider going with a hook about the level of female representation, but since it's an art page, it seemed fitting to have an accompanying image. I went with the Streeton because many critics called it a highlight of the show. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@HappyWaldo: Gotcha—I totally get that motivation. Although I don't think it's necessarily the best hook in the article, I'm happy to Symbol confirmed.svg approve this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg None of the main points of WP:DYKR have been addressed in the review above: I checked and the article is new and long enough, A lone, standalone sentence was not sourced, which technically qualifies as its own paragraph. I corrected this by adding a source to verify the content (diff), so this is okay now. Is the content of the hook properly verified in the article by the source in the article? Does the article contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing? Also it appears that the nominator needs to perform a QPQ review before this can move forward, as per the results of QPQ check. North America1000 05:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
While it would be better to cite The Studio directly, I can't access any online British newspaper archive (from what I can tell, they all require a paid membership). The Argus was "considered to be the general Australian newspaper" of the time, so I think it's reliable and gives an accurate assessment of The Studio's review. I will review another DYK shortly. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 22[]

Disappearing World (TV series)

Created by Rigadoun (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough, plenty long enough, and nominated timely. QPQ was done No copyvios were found (AGF since a major source is not online). The hook is sourced but IMO is not very interesting - not "grabby" or curiosity-provoking as a hook should be. What would you think about something like

Rigadoun, if you prefer to stick with the original hook I will still approve this, but I thought I would make the suggestion. MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. (By the way, the Loizos article is available in a free PDF from AnthroSource here; I just added it to the citation.) Rigadoun (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Good to go with alt1. MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @MelanieN: Per Rule H2, you cannot approve your own hook. Could another reviewer take a look at ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Second review: Personally, I find the first hook cute, and appropriate for a quirky slot, which is always desirable. But if you prefer ALT1, that hook ref is offline and AGF, and cited inline. However, all the charts under Episodes are not cited. Where did you get this information from? Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rigadoun: I think the above question, about the charts not being cited, is addressed to you. Also, you and Yoninah should decide what hook to use. MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: it seems the nominator hasn't ed since October 16. I am inclined to give it a few more days and then close it as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with that. But what about footnote 3? Does anyone have access to the full article to check if these episodes are listed there? Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've been too busy to reply or update the refs in the article. The list was a combination of footnote 3 (which is complete, but only to 1980) and IMDb (IIRC, that was the only list that gave the air dates), and information from the blurbs at the RAI Film Festival (to confirm what they were about). Rigadoun (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rigadoun: please add the sources before or after the box. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 23[]

Conquest Brigade

Foundation of the Conquest Brigade in 2013
Foundation of the Conquest Brigade in 2013

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg You need to include (pictured) somewhere in the hook to attach a picture. Catrìona (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Added "pictured" and QPQ. Applodion (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg This was pulled from the main page by Stephen due to sourcing issues raised at WP:ERRORS. As the article was up for less than an hour, it probably deserves a second chance, but right now a lot of work needs to be done if this is to return to DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Frankly, I do not understand the problem. The source is reliable and clear about the issue, and it is inline-sourced. Further sources for the hook are given in the article, for example the Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism clearly states that the group's members were "aligning themselves with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for a time". Applodion (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
As the main criticism was about the hook being too broad, how about: ALT1: ... that the Conquest Brigade (pictured) was described by one writer as "moderate Islamist" group, despite closely cooperating with ISIL and supporting the extermination of a religious minority in Syria? (same source) Applodion (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on September 25[]

Wilhelm Kempf (bishop)

Relief bust of Wilhelm Kempf
Relief bust of Wilhelm Kempf

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Good article that reads well. I've only made a couple of minor style tweaks. Checklist: hook validated directly from www.limburg.de source, ☑Y, length ☑Y, timescale ☑Y, sufficiently referenced, albeit some taken in good faith ☑Y, structure and style ☑Y. As far as I'm concerned this is good to go. Bermicourt (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Hello, I came to promote this, but perhaps the hook could be rewritten to make it snappier? It doesn't seem that clear right now, particularly the part that says "introduced the changes of the Second Vatican Council in which he took part". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, - could you make a suggestion? My try (and sorry that I am not gifted with snappyness):
ALT1: ... that Wilhelm Kempf (pictured), Bishop of Limburg from 1949 to 1981, took part in the Second Vatican Council, and introduced its changes in his diocese?
The council changed the church's view on/of itself dramatically, but tough to say that in few words. Or could you? Or someone watching? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The hook seems to imply that it was Kempf who proposed the changes done in Vatican II (as in during the council itself), which is contrary to what the article says (which merely says that he introduced the Vatican II changes in Limburg). As for ALT1, I don't think it works since Vatican II was implemented throughout the Catholic world and thus being the one to introduce it in a diocese is not uncommon (disclosure: I'm Catholic so I'm actually familiar with Vatican II and the changes implemented because of it). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Wilhelm Kempf (pictured), Bishop of Limburg from 1949 to 1981, took part in the Second Vatican Council?
No room to say that he enthusiastically introduced the changes, and was criticised for it, while others may have done only what they had to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Thoughts on ALT1 and ALT2? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I like the source which says: "Bishop Wilhelm Kempf carried the ethos [from the end] of the Second Vatican Council, of which he was one of five sub-secretaries, to his Diocese, which - although small in area and numbers - soon set an outstanding example [in terms of the reforms]." I wonder if part of that could be woven into a hook? Just trying to help. Bermicourt (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

Created by Pharos (talk) and Piotrus (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 11:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new enough and long enough. So many sources are offline or in different languages that I will blanket AGF on them. It looks like everything is sourced inline. QPQ is done. Hook seems reasonably supported by the article and interesting. Didn't find any plagiarism or copyvio in a few searches. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed for ALT1, which was suggested after the discussion at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. ALT1 is not correct. The controversy is about whether the time period can be called a Golden Age for Jews in Poland, or if that exaggerates the situation of the Jews. The controversy is not settled so don't go for one option in Wikipedia's voice. It might be better to go with something like the lead sentence at the Polish version of the page: "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is a proverb sarcastically describing the society of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." That sticks to the facts. Please read about the multiple meanings of the proverb here. Then consider whether, with the current worries about anti-semitism in Poland, you want to put this proverb on the main page. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am totally ok with ALT2 as proposed by StarryGradnma, I just hope it's not too long. It should contain no controversial facts, nor be in inappropriate tone. For referencing purposes, it is described as a proverb here: [4], and as satirical, here: [5], and neither of those two terms have been disputed on talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 To spell this out more clearly: This Polish proverb comes from the period of increasing feudalism in Poland, with the nobility taking over control of towns and land, worsening conditions for everyone else. It was not meant kindly for either the nobility or the Jews. The proverb links the Jews with the oppressors of the Polish people. At a time of increasing Polish antisemitism I suggest we NOT put this on the main page. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @StarryGrandma: Please note that WP:NOTCENSORED. If an article is neutral, and the hook is neutral, and the article is eligible, there are no reasons not to put this on the front page. The article is now doing a better job explaining some controversies and issues about this proverb, which should help educate the readers about some aspects of antisemitism. Talking about such issues is better than ignoring them. In fact, I am surprised that my ALT1 hook proposal has not been endorsed by those wary of antisemitic POV, as it explicitly draws attention to this very issue, by pointing out that the proverb is not exactly neutral. ==Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If we are to place a highly antisemtic Polish saying on the main page - quoted in full - it is not sufficient to say it is "exaggerated" or "sarcastic" - we should explicitly spell out that this was an antisemitic polemic saying.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • With the note that you are the only person in the world calling this 'a highly antisemitic Polish saying', I am open to reviewing your proposed hook. Just please make sure any claims you make in it are sourced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, Wikipedia is not censored, which is exactly why there are whole categories of articles that never appear on the main page and of images that will never be chosen as featured picture of the day. In this case it is because the topic is currently sensitive and will remain so. And, while in the queue, an American gunman murdered 11 people in a synagogue. The timing would have been unfortunate if the DYK had appeared on Nov 8, so soon afterward. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @StarryGrandma: I lived in Pittsburgh, I know people who knew people who died there, and I still see no connection between publishing a hook related to Jews and this. There are limits to political correctness, and again, fortunately, Wikipedia is not censored. That said, it is likely this hook won't be on Main Page till December. And in either case, I doubt anyone would really make associations like that, particularly as the anti-semitism in this proverb is very slight. It is a simple exaggeration, and that's a far cry from hate. (Of course, anything can be abused, but this is not our fault). The proverb has been used much more in bening contest than in hate speech; in fact nobody has even shown an example of it being used in modern times in hate speech. You yourself just found a reference I quote above where this proverb is used in a positive context, as reference to vitality of the Jewish culture of the Golden Age of Jews in Poland period. It is exactly this positive association that we should focus on. Instead of worrying about sending a wrong message, we should focus on sending the right one. Something like with an alt that would say that "one of the meanings of the proverb is to reference the Golden Age of Jews in the Middle Ages".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @StarryGrandma: I like to think that the article that I started is not such toxic antisemitism bait. I think quality articles on Polish-Jewish history are a good thing for the world still, and this is not one of the tropes that has been exploited by the current wave of hate.--Pharos (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with any suggestion this topic is not legible for a DYK. We should of course wait for RM to finish, as well as to make sure that there is no warring and that the article is stable. Unless the topic is deleted, there is no reason for it not to be DYKed, after suitable delay that ensured the article and hook are free of problems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If the RM is not successful, and the article continues to be on this full phrase which is lacking viable sources (as opposed to the narrower "Paradisus Judeorum" concept which is covered in a secondary manner) - I intend to take this to AfD as a NOTDICTIONARY and GNG fail. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Shrug. There's no deadline, so if you want to waste the community's time with an AfD on that (which is likely, given the RM doesn't have much support), sure. This DYK can wait a few weeks for those issues to be resolved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 26[]

Lee Brian Schrager

  • Reviewed: Don't have to do this in my first one

Created by Fabdoull (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

  • User:BlueMoonset, can you see if someone can have a look at this? Someone who owes you a favor? Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Fabdoull: This nomination meets the DYK criteria of newness and length. The article is sufficiently neutral and I detected no copyright issues or close paraphrasing. The hook is interesting and probably true, but there is no cited sentence in the article stating that SOBEWFF is one of the biggest food and wine festivals in the world. If you can find a source to back up the claim, please add the fact and cite it in the article. If you can't find a (reliable, independent) source, then perhaps you could suggest a new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dr Aaij and Fabdoull: Neither of the quotes given above states that it is one of the biggest food and wine festivals in the US, and nor does the article make this claim. The hook must have backing from the article and source, so please suggest a better hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 3: Fried chicken. Besides the hook fact not appearing in the article, ALT1 smacks of self-promotion. Please note that I added a few "citation needed" tags for info that must be cited. Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 27[]

Dennis Albaugh

1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Convertible
1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Convertible

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Added Alt - he made his money from a generic version of the pesticide Roundup. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • New article that's long enough, decently written, and sourced. Hooks are cited and I prefer Alt1 because of the pun. Image is public domain. Symbol question.svg Will be good to go after Edwardx adds his QPQ. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The QPQ has been done. But I don't like putting "probably" in quotes; it looks like it's implying it's not the best collection. Also, the pun is totally lost on the casual hook reader, and clicking on the link to get to a herbacide page looks like an error. Could you submit another alt? If you want to use the "probably" quote, maybe use more of the quote. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Vorombe

fossil femurs of Vorombe
fossil femurs of Vorombe

Created by Extrapolaris (talk) and Achat1999 (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 09:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. The image is appropriately licensed but I don't think it adds much to the nomination. A QPQ has been done. @Casliber, Achat1999, and Extrapolaris: I think the hook, which deals with average, estimated weights, could be improved, how about:
A good suggestion, but it reads as the weight of the specimen. cygnis insignis 04:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Good point. How about:
Even better, I would have arrived from a different perspective and suggested, "ALT3...that the heaviest bird, known from a specimen of the extinct Madagascan species Vorombe titan, was estimated to have weighed 860 kg (1,900 lb)?cygnis insignis 11:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I have labelled your suggestion as ALT3, but I don't think it will do because this individual bird is estimated to have been larger than any other known specimen. I think it may be better to look at a different aspect such as
I think that is what it says, but now I like this one … punchier, and more likely to get the reader to click through. 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 28[]

Ignaz Kirchner

Ignaz Kirchner acting in 2015
Ignaz Kirchner acting in 2015
  • Reviewed: Maya Krishna Roa
  • Comment: recent death, please handle soon

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 08:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg @Gerda Arendt: I'm not sure the proposed hook is interesting. Catrìona (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

We have only 200 chars. They played more pairs (Jago and Othelle, and those in Waiting for Godot), and they won a prize for doing so, twice. (I don't know if any other male couple did, even once.) Perhaps we should first have an article on the Tabori play in which he is crucified? [19] But I would hesitate to bring that wording to the Main page, same as for "sadomasochistisches Männerpaar". - We could say that his speaking role became the sensation in an opera at the Salzburg Festival, but it's so far off what he normally does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt, Catrìona, to get this moving again, I'd like to suggest a hook that makes use of that twice-awarded prize, though the article would need to be amended so it specifies the plays that Kirchner and Voss won the awards for (the information is in the already cited wein.orf.at source, FN9):
There are probably ways to modify this, if it isn't sufficiently interesting: Shakespeare and Neil Simon (who also recently died) could be used to establish range and give touchstones, though Beckett seems pretty strong to me. We're already at 183 characters, so there isn't much room for change without losing something else. (I don't think we need to give the name of the actual award in German, "Schauspielerpaar des Jahres", and I don't think a link to the magazine that awards it is useful, since the article makes no mention of the award and when I clicked on it from the article I was puzzled as to why I was even sent to that page. Also, there's no room for it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I specified the plays in the awards section, and added the 1998 award to the prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg ALT1 does seem to be interesting and cited inline. However, to conform with the rules, I'd suggest moving the reference to the end of the sentence, as right now it's in the middle without any punctuation mark. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. When you see me making silly mistakes like that, feel free to correct yourself ;) - e will hopefully get to an article about the play before it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 29[]

Ecclesia Athletic Association

Created by Barkeep49 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

  • I'll defer the DYK review to another user, but I think a new hook may need to be proposed here Barkeep49, as it seems a bit obtuse and the relationship between the second and third clauses is not intuitive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I would welcome alternatives. I think the jumping jacks thing is the most "wow" fact in the article but it was also a cult who abused children and think that the group shouldn't be glorified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I have references to it being a cult and a child athletic training organization if that helps. The MOS:FIRST where you took that from does not have inline citations at this time. Would this work using the original two sources and cites? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: don't you think ALT1 is hookier? It will probably get a lot more hits than ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I do. It might be the best sentence I've written on Wikipedia. But you tell me if it follows the rules. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It does, if you source the "cult masquerading as a child athletic training organization" part. Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am currently using it as a summary, or in the phrasing of the MOS as a generality. Their being a cult is well sourced, as is their being an athletic training organization, as is criticism of them. In general I try to avoid writing statements that need ih-line sourcing in the LEAD let alone MOS:FIRST. I think adding an inline source for that sentence makes the article worse for the sake of making a better DYK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, if it's only in the lead and not anywhere else, it must be sourced. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Which is why I didn't use it as a hook in the first place :). How about:
ALT3: ... four members of the Ecclesia Athletic Association were charged with enslaving children under the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    1. Please source the statement in the lead that the cult was "masquerading" as an athletic organization, or change the wording.
    2. You're going to lose a lot of pageviews by taking out "cult". And the 5,000 jumping jacks added a lot.
    3. ALT3 is too U.S.-centric if you're trying to attract a broad readership.
  • Have you ever heard of the journalistic maxim "Show me, don't tell me"? "Showing" is using descriptive language to draw images in the reader's mind. "Telling" is straight facts. Being charged with enslaving children is "tell me". Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2018
  • Ok we're now discussing two separate things: the appropriateness of lead sentence, which I think is a content dispute and would like to handle it as such as a talk page discussion, and what would make an effective DYK which we should obviously do here. I agree that jumping jacks is good stuff, I think it being a cult (which is cited as such in headlines in sources used) is an essential piece of context for the organization. So I'm all for using it. I went to the 13th amendment since I thought you were suggesting that the cult and jumping jacks weren't interesting enough. It now appears you're saying something different. Is it merely that it was worded in a show don't tell way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Is it just as simple as ALT4:...that the Ecclesia Athletic Association cult claimed its children were able to do 1,000 to 5,000 continuous jumping jacks? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes that works for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I spent some time ing the article. Regarding its cult status, I see Broussard denying it and the neighbors claiming it. Can you add some sourced text stating that it actually was a cult? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It is sourced in the body beyond the neighbors asking The parents of these children were all members of the cult... which is then sourced to an article describing it as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You are not understanding me. Those sentences assume it's a cult. If it's written in a source, please state it in our article. We need a sentence that says something like "According to authorities, Ecclesia was a cult." I am not able to access the Washington Post source to do it myself. Yoninah (talk)
So you want me to write a sentence that says "Ecclesia was described in the media as a cult" and then source it? This is easy enough to do but perhaps I am indeed not understanding you when there is clear evidence that it was described as a cult just by looking at the headlines of the citations present in the article now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't make it a cult if the media calls it that. We need some authoritative source to say it was a cult. If you have no authoritative source, it's an "alleged cult". Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no objections to ALT4b: ... that the Ecclesia Athletic Association, which claimed its children were able to do 1,000 to 5,000 continuous jumping jacks was an alleged cult? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. We do not propagate allegations based on what the media thinks. Why don't you just leave it at:
  • Because that seems to give cr to an organization that did abuse children and so we're back to my original proposal, or some variant of it; if that's the direction to go I am obviously fine with that. We (as in Wikipedia) follow what reliable sources tell us. Reliable sources tell us it's a cult. It was referred to as such at the time. It has been referred to as such in academic papers since then. I'm fine leaving it out of the DYK, and hadn't originally proposed it as such, but this isn't some word I am applying based on my personal opinions; I am instead attempting to be responsibly apply NPOV by applying appropriate weight to what RS tell us. What I am insisting on, out of personal opinion, is that we not glorify an organization that abused children and whose abuse led to the death of one. The extreme athletic training is interesting I think to a wide audience, but needs the context that it was achieved through abuse. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────*@Barkeep49: If you feel that way, it's time for a new hook suggestion.

My position has been, and remains, that the content of the article beyond the DYK belongs at the talk page for the article as a content dispute beyond the scope of DYK. I appreciate your jumping in there and will respond to what you wrote about cults there. We have gone through multiple distinct ideas here (jumping jacks + abuse, slavery, jumping jacks + cult) and so I admit that we've exhausted the topline grabbers, in my opinion. You are the experienced person here and so I defer to your judgement whether it makes sense to fail this DYK, go to what I think of as a less interesting tier of events (death of Dayna, shoorting of Brinson, one of the members growing up to the Portland Timberwolves DJ (this fact isn't present but the source is), or have a different reviewer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you should propose a few more hook ideas, and I'll try to verify them. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2018
ALT 3a ... four members of the Ecclesia Athletic Association were charged with enslaving children in 1991. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The four members were charged with manslaughter. The founder and six others were charged with child slavery. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry you are of course correct. Seven were charged with slavery. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • So how about:
  • ALT5: ... that in 1991, the founder of Ecclesia Athletic Association and seven other members were indicted for what a federal prosecutor termed "the largest child slavery ring in the history of the United States"? Yoninah (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Great except I get to be the one to point out this time that it's founder plus six who were indicted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why? Federal prosecutors indicted Broussard, his brother, Chambers, Jackson, and four others for child slavery. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT5. Yoninah (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • As I am not an expert on this subject matter, I can only say that I can approve ALT5 as interesting and being cited inline. However, I have concerns about the article itself. One minor issue is with the sentence "Eldridge has been in Los Angeles at the time of his daughter's death"; "has been" should be in past tense. But more importantly, the article seems to be incomplete in some aspects: does information exist on details on exactly how the children were abused? Also, the article describes the group as a cult, but this direct claim is unreferenced; it might be better to instead say that the group was "described as a cult"; I know the nominator has expressed reservations with that wording, but I feel it may be the best option here. As I am uncomfortable actually doing a full review this time, I will leave the rest to another reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 2[]

EXAI

Created by Lihaas (talk). Self-nominated at 23:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Personally, I do not consider this sufficiently interesting for DYK. Catrìona (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggest an altu blurb?Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A drive by comment, and not wishing to give offense, although I probably will: I am not convinced that the grammar and use of English in this article is up to being in Wikipedia's "shop window". I stopped by to see if I could come up with a hookier hook, but in several places I was honestly unsure what was being communicated.
Could I suggest a thorough copy . A possibility re this is a GOCE Request. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: What part, by example, can you suggest is deficient?Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:In what way do you think it needs a change?Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Well for one, I'm not sure if the "novel" should be used here: it sounds like a peacock term to me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


The Nature of Prejudice

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg -- there is work to do here. For starters, it would be nice to have sections. And the book cover. Second, it needs a copy ; I made a few obvious ones, but I note that the third paragraph starts with a grammatical error. In the second note the book title needs to be italicized; etc. Oh, the claim in the last sentence needs to be ascribed to someone; we can't be saying it I suppose a summary of the book isn't mandatory, but it would be nice--it's what we expect from a book article. Now, the hook is verified, the article is new enough and long enough and I smell no plagiarism, but it needs serious cleanup. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why I don't disagree with you, the issues you are raising are IMHO irrelevant to the DYK (now, if this was a WP:GAN, you'd be dead right). Quality issues like this are not part of the DYK requirements. I am of course happy if people would like to expand things, but I don't believe it is necessary. Btw, I don't see the grammar error. Also, I don't see the need for attribution (the sentence is cited, after all). Lastly, academic books don't have plot summary sections, the content of the book is already summarized. I guess we could add a chapter list? PS. I did add an infobox (through again, it is not required for a DYK; it's not like I am self-assessing this article any higher than start, maybe C-class...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, we've danced this dance before. I'm happy you wrote this up, it's important, but if we're putting it on the front page it should be representative of our quality. The grammar error is in "Describing the book significance"--needs to have a genitive for "book". I didn't say "plot summary", I said summary, and the only thing the article says about the book is the one sentence about some scale. The rest is all caught up inside reviewers' remarks. Having a summary is a Good Thing. I don't care about the infobox, BTW, though lots of people do. And the attribution, that is necessary. That it's cited is beside the point: what matters is that an opinion is cited ("One of the reasons for its success"), and it may be a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, but it's not a fact. Thus, attribution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies Yes, we danced this indeed, and as I am sure I said it before, your standards are too high for DYK. If you see a grammar error, please fix it. I am not a native speaker and occasionally I don't see them. I stand by what I said - all your other requests, while all beneficial to the article (except the attribution, which I say is not needed through harmless) are not required for this to be on the front page. If you have a problem with that, try changing DYK requirements/guidelines. Ping User:BlueMoonset for 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Well, I am not a native speaker either, and I'm not your copyor. Yngvadottir, thank you so much for looking over the article, and for the attribution--which of course is necessary, given NPOV. Good day Piotrus. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 National League Central tie-breaker game, 2018 National League West tie-breaker game

Created by Muboshgu (talk), Spanneraol (talk), Mdumas43073 (talk), and Eposty (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 03:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

Both articles are long enough and new enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the ALT2 that I have nominated to the other noms and consider this an interesting, well-formed hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Content is within policy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There are still no QPQ reviews presented.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Although I am not sure why, there are no images. It would seem to me that some biographical photos could be included, but I realize there are probably no photos from the game to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Can we get a citation for "This game was also in fact the first National League divisional tiebreaker ever to not involve the Dodgers."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who added that sentence, and can't find a source saying that, so I deleted it. I'll do qpq shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Isn't there a page somewhere on the internet that lists all NL tie-breaker results historically?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The best appears to be this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Which points out to me that the statement I removed was false, because the Dodgers were not involved in 1998 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought divisional tie-breakers and Wild Card tie-breakers were different things. Why would a Wild Card tie-breaker invalidate the prior statement?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: I had forgotten about this nom. You're right, it doesn't invalidate it, because of the "divisional" qualifier. But that's too trivial anyway. A tiebreaker is a tiebreaker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: we are not really tasked with determining what is trivial. We summarize the secondary sources. If they are mentioning it, we should mention it. I consider it significant (but I am a lifelong Dodger fan).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: Agreed, but it was a Wikipedia or who added it and I couldn't find it in secondary sources, which is the reason I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 3[]

Lapa do Santo

View from the rockshelter entrance
View from the rockshelter entrance
  • ALT1 that Lapa do Santo, in Minas Gerais, Brazil, has evidence of human occupation around 12,000 years ago, as well as the oldest recorded case of decapitation in the Americas? Source: [23] [24]
Reviewed The Sensorites

Created by Strauss MAE-USP (talk). Nominated by Mike Peel (talk) at 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC).


Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. Can you have another look? I've proposed a longer hook, ALT1, above. @Strauss MAE-USP: has added references. The similar phrases look minimal to me, are there particular ones you think need rewriting? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Strauss MAE-USP and Mike Peel: ALT1 looks much better. I definitely might be interested by the first recorded decapitation in the Americas. So you have my thumbs up for that one. I really only have three concerns with copyvios, and here they are:
  • "the reduction of the body by means of mutilation, defleshing, tooth removal, exposure to fire and possibly cannibalism, followed by the secondary burial of the remains according to strict rules" - possibly unattributed direct quote
  • "the oldest case of decapitation in the New World" and "were filled with disarticulated bones of a single" - these phrases are too close to the quoted text, even a paraphrase would be good.
  • "three distinct periods of human occupation" - same as above from this source.
That's all of the phrases I was concerned about. Now for the sourcing:
  • "The rockshelter and the archaeological site" doesn't have any sources. A general rule of thumb is to aim for at least one source per paragraph.
  • "Mobility" still doesn't have any sources.
  • The ends of many paragraphs don't have sources. In some cases only the first sentence has a source. On the other hand, all of the references look reliable and authoritative. My issue is with the placement of the sources. Could you move them to the end of the paragraph?
That's all of the outstanding DYK issues. Now going off on a few personal style nitpicks:
  • Although not necessary, I'd also suggest cleaning up this article to comply with some MOS guidelines. For instance, putting the periods before the references.
  • I'm concerned that there are way too many images in this article (there are 231 in total, but only about 4 thumbnail images, the rest are in galleries). WP:NOTGALLERY. Have you considered creating a gallery on Commons?
Sorry to bother you with all these issues. I know it sounds like a lot, but from the looks of it, this article probably does not need that many modifications to get it into good shape for DYK. On a personal note, I am impressed by Strauss MAE-USP's work on this article with over 25 kB of prose size. Maybe this can be nominated as a good article later. epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: sorry for the delay in following this up. I've sorted out the copyvio issues, and quickly checked through the style formatting. I don't think that a gallery on commons would be useful (they fell out of style on Commons quite a while back now), although I'd agree that there are too many pictures here right now. I started this nom after seeing @Strauss MAE-USP's work here, I don't know the subject myself, so I can't help with improving the referencing so much. Maybe @Joalpe: can help there? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: It's OK. I'm still monitoring this nomination. So far it doesn't look like there has been much activity on the page since I last commented. I'll give it a few more weeks before I ask someone else to look at this. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, Strauss MAE-USP, and Joalpe: Has there been any progress on this article? I know that the comments above might seem like a lot, but there are really only three or four outstanding issues. Otherwise I'm going to ask for another reviewer's opinion. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke

Source: "Oswald Boelcke did not invent air-to-air tactics, the squadron organizational system, or the German Air Force. Still, his contributions to air warfare are so profound, he is considered the father of all three." The title of the major source for this article is "Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat", and the entirety of the book is devoted toward proving this point.

Improved to Good Article status by Georgejdorner (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk). Nominated by Georgejdorner (talk) at 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The source provided does not actually include the quote "the father of air combat". Catrìona (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The title of the major source for this article is "Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat", and the entirety of the book is devoted toward proving this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 4[]

Memoriale della Shoah

Source: A Wall of Indifference: Italy's Shoah Memorial" & "'We could not remain indifferent': Milan's Holocaust Museum now a shelter for African refugees"
  • Comment: The option also exists to hold this until 6 December, the 75th anniversary of the first train from Milan to Auschwitz, and use the below, rather sombre, hook, as long as people don't feel putting it on the main page like this trivialises the events.
Source: Timeline – from 1922 to 1945 (in Italian, mostly)

Created by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg I was about to create this page and suggest ALT2 (below). However, I really like ALT1 or its variation, ALT3, below—some might take exception to the fact that some deportees might have been removed from Auschwitz and died in other concentration camps. I recommend that the hook is held until 6 December. You have a very minor close paraphrasing issue according to Earwig.

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg for ALT2 and ALT3. Catrìona (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I have rephrased that sentence, the Earwig score has now come down to 2.9%. In regards to Auschwitz you do have a point there. The translation of the source states The first convoy of Jewish deportees to Auschwitz-Birkenau departs from an underground railway of the Milan Central Station. It includes 169 people, of which 5 will survive, which doesn't quite support that they were actually killed there. I think your Alt 3 addresses that issue of uncertainty. Turismond (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 5[]

Muhammad Tapar's anti-Nizari campaign

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg - article needs expansion. Still too short. And another source or two are needed as well. If that gets fixed please ping me. And I will give a final review.BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the article currently has 888 prose characters and needs to be at least 1500 prose characters, so it needs to add over two-thirds to its present size in order to qualify for DYK. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Shahdiz

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 6[]

Sheng Zhongguo

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, well written, and properly sourced. QPQ done. But Earwig found what looks to me like too much close paraphrasing from https://www.thestrad.com/chinese-violinist-zhongguo-sheng-dies-aged-77/8174.article (e.g. source for the hook claim "In 1980 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation listed him as one of ‘the world’s greatest artists" vs our article changed only from active to passive "In 1980, he was listed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as one of the world's greatest artists.") and from http://en.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/11/content_43033.htm (source: "His father, Sheng Xue, was a famous violinist and professor who taught at the Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute. His mother, Zhu Bing, majored in vocal music."; our article, "His father, Sheng Xue, was a well known violinist and professor of Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute. His mother Zhu Bing was a vocalist.") And the incredibly boring hook conveys no useful information about the subject and probably violates WP:PEACOCK. Can't we find something more distinctive to say about him than "he played really well"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Thanks for your review. The close paraphrasing is mainly of proper names and set phrases. I've put "one of the world's greatest artists" in quotation marks and ed the other sentence as well, please check again. I disagree with your "peacock" comment. WP:PEACOCK refers to "Words such as these are often used without attribution" while the hook is clearly attributed. In fact, WP:PEACOCK uses the sentence "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century" as an example of factual statements. And there's a huge difference between playing well and being named by a major broadcaster as one of the world's greatest artists, an honour that is prominently mentioned by most of his obituaries. I can't imagine how you can treat them as the same. -Zanhe (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So you disagree that the close paraphrasing that I specifically identified is a problem and that the bad hook is bad. I suppose that's a response, but it's not one that's going to lead me to pass your hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought I addressed the close paraphrasing issue with s including putting the set phrase in quotes. I disagreed with your assessment of the hook as uninteresting/peacock. Please read my reasoning and reconsider. -Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not the set phrase, it is that you are constructing the article by taking sentences from the source and making minor changes to individual words while repeating the same concepts in the same order. That is close paraphrasing and it is not ok. You need to internalize the concepts involved and then present them in your own order, in your own language, not merely by making cosmetic changes to someone else's writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentences highlighted by Earwig were made of long proper names and phrases strung together with simple words. I've further ed the article and deleted some info ("professor of Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute") which I don't think I can paraphrase further without making it sound unnatural. Earwig now reports 5.7%. Please check again. Thanks. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I've ed the article to address your concerns. Did you see my message from a week ago? -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It still seems very similar to the sources to me and you still haven't proposed an interesting-enough hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It appears we're in disagreement. Requesting third opinion. -Zanhe (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: An article may be passed by Earwig and still be full of close paraphrasing/copyvio. Otherwise we'd rely on the tool and have no need for time-consuming checks by human ors. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 7[]

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter

Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 8[]

Tawasa people

Created/expanded by Amay1355 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Amay1355, the moment you work on that particular section a bit, you'll be able to write something more exciting. This hook generates no interest, since there is no reason to think it unusual that a man named X made a document named "the account of X". You have to start thinking about what is interesting or exciting about this--for other readers. Dr Aaij (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Slovak Three

Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Well written, well over required length, excellent DYK material. Catrìona (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppe H, Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions, Kremnička and Nemecká massacres

* ... that Einsatzkommando 14 and local collaborators committed the two most notorious massacres in the history of Slovakia? 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 Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment I'm fairly sure for three bolded links you need 3 reviews, or am I wrong? Juxlos (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Where are the source texts for hooks requested in the nomination form?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Juxlos: You're correct, that's in the supplementary rules and I wasn't aware of it. plus Added. @Georgejdorner: It is not actually a requirement to quote sources, as long as they are cited in the article (which these are, see then end of Kremnička and Nemecká massacres). The reason why I commented on your hook is that it was odd to include a quote that did not actually support the proposed hook. There is actually no source describing the massacres as "notorious" simply because almost all sources are non-English, but being described as the "Slovak Katyn" and similar means that it's reasonable to conclude that this is the general view on the massacres in Slovakia. Catrìona (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment on my nom. It aided me in writing an improved hook.
I made the comments above about sourcing so you might correct the problems before you are reviewed. As your own nomination form states above (where you failed to give a source), "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)" Hooks ALT1 and ALT2b have no sourcing whatsoever. A lenient reviewer might let you slide on ALT2a.
And, yes, I recall when mentioning your cite without a link or quote was acceptable here in DYK, but times have changed.
Best regards.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@Georgejdorner: I don't understand your emphasis on putting the sources in the hook nomination. The most important thing is that the hook facts are cited in the article, per WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria 3. Cited hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't seen a link to somewhere in the middle of a bolded article, and think it's not a good idea, - found it confusing. - And yes, 3 qpq reviews please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your comment. There are 3 qpqs listed above. How about:
@TonyTheTiger: Thanks for taking on this review. Your proposed hook is factually correct, except as far as I know "crimes against humanity" as a legal matter was not used to charge any of the perpetrators. It would be more accurate to say that Einsatzgruppe H sponsored the massacre, and the Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions was drafted into helping them. However, after writing this I decided that trying to shoehorn the three articles into one hook wasn't as effective as separating them into two hooks; see above. The special occasion date (for the hook mentioning the Kremnicka/Nemecka massacres) doesn't have to be 5 November; it would be equally appropriate to have it on 20 November, 12 or 19 December, 4, 5, 11, or 20 January, or 19 February (the massacres took place on multiple days). Catrìona (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. @TonyTheTiger: I don't think that ALT4 is a good hook. So what if the two units were involved in a massacre? It doesn't give the reader any reason to click any of the links. Whereas, that Slovak collaborators were involved in the largest massacres on Slovak soil, that is noteworthy and interesting, and so is the fact that Einsatzgruppe H also targeted their own men.
  2. They're separate articles on the Czech and Slovak wikis, but I thought it made more sense to keep them in the same article since most sources discuss them together. The massacres involved the same perpetrators and victims, took place at the same location and with the same motivation. The victims had even been arrested in the same way and were taken from the same prison. According to one source, the perpetrators decided to switch the site of killings from Kremnicka to Nemecka because they ran out of space in the anti-tank ditches. (The Katyn massacre also took place in multiple locations.) Catrìona (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger, I don't see that you've yet given this review an icon. Even if there is still more to do, in a review this long, it's important to let the nominator and others to know its current status. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: Personally, I think it's odd that you would consider the Czech and Slovak wikis as definitive, given that the articles you are talking about (both Czech and Slovak) have no citations at all. Also, you haven't advanced a proposal or much of any argument why separating the articles would be beneficial. Currently, the article is independently rated B-class but it would probably be stub- or start-class if split. As for interlanguage links, a specific template exists for this purpose, and is widely used all over Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you should nominate the template for deletion. Catrìona (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know what interlanguage link templates are suppose to be used for. I have met with great resistance in my orial experience. I have also never chanced upon one in article space, to my recollection. That being said, my calling in to question whether they meet core policies and guidelines is one of the few things I am suppose to check according to the review criteria here at DYK and has nothing to do with whether an article should be at WP:AFD, which is a notability judgement. Without digging through policy, I thought we might jointly determine that it was something that needed to be rectified. I may have to dig through interwiki link policy. In regard to the split/merge, I don't judge foreign wikis for verifiability. En Wiki did not start enforcing verifiability until it got well past 1 million articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 9[]

Super League XXIV

Created by L1amw90 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @The C of E: I don't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. It's not that uncommon for sports teams to play games in smaller-than-normal stadiums (like DC United's occasional home games in Maryland, Seattle Sounders FC sometimes playing in its training ground, or the Los Angeles Chargers playing at a soccer-specific stadium). In addition, I feel that the hook is not interesting to non-rugby fans, and as far as I am aware, it's not uncommon for stadiums to host both union and league, and in any case the hook feels rambling. How about something simply something like "the London Broncos will play their rugby league game at a rugby union stadium?" or something to that effect? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid your proposed hook is not interesting to a broad audience. Like audiences wouldn't really care about stadium sizes and the like; I'm pretty sure we've discussed something similar to this before. And in many parts of the world, smaller stadiums are the norm, not the exception. Perhaps if the RFL was a well-known league worldwide like the NFL, the Premiere League, or the IPL, but the RFL is much more niche. As such, I've gone ahead and struck the hook. Also, I'd also like to ask the opinions of fellow sports article contributor Hawkeye7 on their thoughts on both the article and the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the hook is fine as it is and as I mentioned above your proposal is exactly the same as the original (less the reference to size) so what is the difference. I'm not prepared to change it at this so have unstruck it for another reviewer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Once a hook has been struck, it can't normally be unstruck by the nominator, only by a reviewer; I have re-struck the hook, please do not unstrike unless me, Hawkeye7, or another or says so. I'd wait for a second opinion here on whether or not it's appropriate, but for now, a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you'll find that under WP:DYKRULES, there is no such rule that says that. As such, I am unstriking and prepared to wait for a new reviewer. It is certainly appropriate as it is accurate and sourced inline in the article. Subjective opinions on if it is interesting are irrelevant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You may wish to read the comment left by BlueMoonset on Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, specifically the quote he certainly should not be unstriking any hook struck by a reviewer. With that said, I will request a second review over a WT:DYK on hook interest and will leave the hook unstruck for now while waiting for other opinions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Boring hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Adding an icon reflective of a nomination without an unstruck hook. If The C of E doesn't wish to provide a new hook, then they can always withdraw the nomination. No one gets to insist on keeping their hook in the face of reviewer agreement that there are problems with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue here is that it is going to be very difficult to find an interesting hook when there is so little information in the article other than the utterly routine stuff such as the format of the league and the teams in it - hardly surprising as the season hasn’t even started yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Pawnkingthree: Per discussions on Discord and reading through the article again, would this work?
ALT1 ... that rugby league's Super League XXIV will feature a top five play-offs system?" Apparently such systems aren't actually unusual in rugby (given that the format has an article), but as a non-rugby fan, I kind of found that fact interesting since most playoff formats involve an even number of teams. Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's go with ALT1. Top five playoffs are fairly common in Australia, but unusual elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Hawkeye7, source 3 appears to be talking about the top five playoffs system being reintroduced for promotion of one Championship League team to the Super League at the end of a season (taking the place of the Super League team with the worst record, which is relegated to the Championship League). So ALT1 is not properly sourced. The Championship League had an eight-team playoff through 2018; Super League abandoned their eight-team playoff in 2015 for a four-team playoff system if one is to believe the Super League play-offs article. That same article notes that the top five system was used from 1998 through 2001, and that fact, if it can be supported (no sourcing in the article), might make a good hook:
Reading between the lines of the Super League play-offs article, 1998 was the year of Super League III, the first year there were playoffs in Super League, and it was the top-five version that's being used anew in 2019. Again, if sourcing can be found (the only source used for Super League III is behind a paywall, and I can't check it), an even more interesting hook would be possible:
Would someone know where to find the necessary sourcing and be able to make the necessary additions to the article for these hooks to be supported, assuming they're deemed interesting enough? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So the playing in another club's ground with permission is more boring than the playoff format? I'd have thought that would have had even less of a "broad" reach plus I find them boring therefore I do not accept these proposals so I am striking them. I am prepared to amend my hook by adding a geographical indicator to make it more "interesting":
ALT4 ... that the London Broncos will play in rugby league's predominately Northern England based Super League XXIV in a rugby union stadium smaller than RFL standards? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That does not make the hook any more interesting in my opinion. The ALT2 and ALT3 are marginally better. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, I am very aware that you really want to stick with your proposal on stadium size, but multiple reviewers here have already stated that it is not a good option. ALT4 is just as bland as the original and arguably even more inaccessible, because let's face it, the average reader is unlikely to be one that cares about RFL standards or Northern England. I am unstriking ALT2 and ALT3 and have struck ALT4 as not addressing reviewer concerns; please do not revert unless told to by a reviewer, as this is considered going against reviewer consensus. Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I will also make a request at WT:DYK for an uninvolved or to make the full review here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT5 ... that London Broncos defeated Toronto Wolfpack to earn promotion to the mostly Northern England based Super League XXIV? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not really a good hook either, although it's probably a better option than ALT0 and ALT4. The problem is that promotion and relegation isn't unusual at all and most readers would be unfamiliar with either team. With that said, the opinions of previous reviewers @Pawnkingthree, BlueMoonset, Hawkeye7, and The Rambling Man: would still be appreciated here, since this is a new proposal. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: I disagree. Just because something is new doesn't mean that it can't be suitable for DYK. Yes the league has yet to begin, that doesn't mean something can't be said about it. For example, I actually like the part about that Top 5 playoffs; as mentioned above, it appears to be common in Australia but not elsewhere, and as a sports fan I found it unusual that their playoffs system had an odd number of teams. With that said, I'd like to hear your thoughts on ALT2 and ALT3; if you don't like them, I'd like to hear The C of E's thoughts one more time, and if we can't get into an agreement, I'm willing to fail this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sigh* I see I have little choice, I for the life of me cannot see how a hook about a playoff format is more interesting than the fact we had a London team fighting it out with a Canadian team for a place in a mostly Northern competition. I'd still prefer one of my hooks but I regrettably won't object if they use one of the others. It's this sort of thing that made me take a brief hiatus from DYK because I used to enjoy doing it; it relaxed me not stressed me out as it does with this sort of thing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I'm not thrilled about a format-based hook but If you like the playoff suggestions and C of E won't object, it does seem to be the best we have. I would say that ALT 3 is the marginally better one. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, as I pointed out when I suggested the ALT2 and ALT3 hooks, reliable sourcing will need to be found for these facts; some facts and sourcing are not in the article now, nor are the sourced in the various league season articles here on Wikipedia where I found said facts. There hasn't been any attempt to source them in the nominated article, so unless that attempt is made, this could all be moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Please address the sourcing issues so that this can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The C of E, it's been a week. Last call to address the sourcing issues for those hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added a source to it, I still object to this hijacking of the nomination and still feel that one of my original proposed hooks are better because I still do not believe the playoff hook is more interesting than either the stadium or team hooks I proposed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

LeCompte maneuver

5x expanded by Keilana (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

  • General eligiblity:
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I'm afraid it's a bit too short for a DYK nomination, but should be salvageable with some more work.

Content-wise, the sentence "cutting the main pulmonary artery and moving it anterior to the aorta before continuing the reconstruction of the great vessels" is not clear. Firstly, the verb "moving" is confusing - does the procedure involve simply pushing the cut end of the main pulmonary artery around or attaching it anterior to the aorta? I'm assuming it's the latter, but the mental image persists. Secondly, this sentence mentions reconstruction of the great vessels, while the next one talks about reconstruction of the right ventricular outflow tract (part of the heart itself, not the vessels). Might be good to clarify.

Other aspects ok. — Yerpo Eh? 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: My apologies for taking so long to take care of this - I just finished my inpatient month and am slowly getting around to my real life. Just to clarify, the right ventricular outflow tract must be reconstructed when the PA is reattached to it during an ASO, or any kind of vessel reconstruction that's proximal enough to need a LeCompte configuration. Does that need to be explicitly explained? (I have spent I think I made the rest clear -- and the article is now 1532kb thanks to these clarifications. I'll try to check in asap, I take a massive exam on Friday so I may be less accessible than I would like. Keilana (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Karel František Koch

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 10[]

Martin Hellinger

Martin Hellinger
Martin Hellinger

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

Edgecliff (Winnetka, Illinois)

  • Comment: I realize that this is not yet 1500 characters. There is a book coming from the Chicago Public Library. I will pick up "North Shore Chicago: Houses of the Lakefront Suburbs, 1890-1940" on the 18th.

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 05:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

Tribulation 99: Alien Anomalies Under America, Spectres of the Spectrum, Mock Up on Mu

Craig Baldwin with his collection of films
Craig Baldwin with his collection of films

Created by Hinnk (talk). Self-nominated at 03:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

Pachara Chirathivat

Pachara Chirathivat
Pachara Chirathivat

5x expanded by 001Jrm (talk). Self-nominated at 21:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

  • ALT1: ... that Pachara Chirathivat (pictured) was actually suffocating during a strangling scene in the 2012 film Countdown, but the film crew thought he was just acting? Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Saphir-class submarine (1928)

Scale model of Saphir
Scale model of Saphir

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 11[]

Wolfgang Rennert

  • Reviewed: to come Black-collared starling
  • Comment: Confession: we are late, I forgot that LouisAlain created this already on 11 October. There would be enough material for more expansion, but it seems a bit unfair to other great conductors. IRA, please?

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

  • I think this could be accepted per IAR, but the hook doesn't really seem interesting to a broad audience. Non-opera fans probably can't appreciate how conducting at the Frankfurt Opera is a big deal. Perhaps another hook can be suggested here, more about his actual work? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
They can nonetheless be astonished that someone was working in both West and East then, and conducted several premieres, and on the side learn about the Franfurt Opera, which has been named Opera house of the year just as often as the three operas in Berlin together, including 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Helen Hays (ornithologist)

Helen Hays on Great Gull Island
Helen Hays on Great Gull Island

Created by The lorax (talk) and Innisfree987 (talk). Nominated by Innisfree987 (talk) at 05:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed, but a little "restless" in small size, it also shows no island but interior. I'd prefer ALT1 (not just living somewhere but results!), but please reword it in a way without possessive followed by the pictured-clause, best no possessive at all but her active ;) - Also waiting for qpq. - Suggestions for the article: find a way to have the link to Island before the committee, and mention what ALT1 says in the lead. Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs, and merge the Manhattan sence to somewhere else, - doesn't deserve its own para ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all the feedback, Gerda Arendt. I've revised the hook, see if it seems better? I'm fine leaving off the picture if folks think it's not up to snuff, just wanted to note it's available. Next to turn to your suggestions for the entry, thanks again. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to say, article now revised per suggestions as well. Thanks again for the input, I really think it improved the entry (I hope you'll think so too--please feel free to change anything you think could be done better, of course!) Innisfree987 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please do not include the word "extinct" when describing historical population statuses of either common terns or roseate terns. Terms such as "near-extinct" and "verge of extinction" are factually incorrect and result only from hyperbole/misunderstanding by the CBS journalist. North American roseate tern populations were indeed devastated by the millinery trade in the nineteenth century and were saved only by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. North-eastern US populations rebounded until 1930, when the rising presence of humans increased predation by racoons and other animals. While regionally the terns were certainly threatened with extirpation, as a species with a global distribution, their survival has never been threatened. The IUCN Red List assessments only date back to 1988, where roseate terns were listed as "near threatened". Common terns are much more abundant and have never been at risk. Loopy30 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Could we simply drop the term? A tenfold increase seems impressive enough to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly! I had already corrected the article text to remove the term and did not want the DYK to be published with the same error. A tenfold increase (locally though, not globally!) is especially impressive because it occurred at a time when other regional breeding pair populations were still in decline. Loopy30 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the hook as well as the sources refer to the risk of extinction of this colony, not the worldwide species. But I'm fine with not using the word extinction if some prefer. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The article looks good in its present state and Hays is an interesting subject for a DYK. The objection to the term "locally extinct" is that it is an oxymoron and similar to saying that someone is "half-pregnant". A species cannot be both locally extant (elsewhere) and extinct, the correct term for this would be "extirpated". The most reliable (specialized) sources are clear on this, even if a (generally) reliable popular press source gets it confused. Loopy30 (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Miluj blížneho svojho

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 12[]

Fernando Albán Salazar

Created by Jamez42 (talk) and Kingsif (talk). Nominated by Kingsif (talk) at 22:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: I have to mention that the main description is half true since there are other reasons given for not believing suicide as the cause of death, including the differences of the versions given between the Attorney General and the Interior Minister, the fact that there weren't open windows in the tenth floor of the building, that Fernando was likely handcuffed at the moment, among others. I support the alternative nomination.

Articles created/expanded on October 13[]

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

Building of the Supreme Court of India
Building of the Supreme Court of India
  • Reviewed: I don't think it's needed now; less than five DYK crs (four three).
  • Comment: Created in userspace on 26 September 2018 and moved to mainspace on 13 October 2018.

Created by SshibumXZ (talk). Self-nominated at 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 14[]

Sophie Koch

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Claiming this for review. The full review will be to follow. The proposed hook I suppose is somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure if non-opera fans will like it. I note that the article states she began performing opera at the age of 11; is that unusual in opera? Because personally I think that performing opera at such a young age is interesting to a broad audience. Secondly, the sentence "Sophie Koch is a patron of the Coline Opera Endowment Fund." and much of the Discography section is unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for looking. Beginning young is not unusual, and nothing about her. - Becoming internationally known, without what follows, should be enough for the not so operatic ;) - LouisAlain, can you take care of the facts for which I couldn't find a reference? Reference or remove, that is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, if you couldn't get refs as pertains the discography, there's no way I could, so my suggestion is to mask the whole discography section unless someone is ready to search through the different record labels catalogues. Is it worth the pain for a DYK article?
I was in a rush and only saw the endowment fund. I will take care of the discopgraphy, but don't know when. Am on vacation. just returned after a day out, and after dinner will today's article. Patience please. - I will never understand why published books and recordings - which are in authority control (in national libraries, among others) - also need a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Same here. But 'never' say "never" nor "always" Face-wink.svg LouisAlain (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, I forgot over vacation. Later today, or tomorrow, or ping me again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I referenced the recordings, and dropped the one line without ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that mezzo-soprano Sophie Koch made her Metropolitan Opera debut as Charlotte in Massenet's Werther?
The Met is probably better known, but the ROH is the better article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I'm not sure about ALT1, as it assumes familiarity with Werther, which most of our audiences are not. I still think the fact she debuted as an opera actress at such a young age is a more interesting fact to a wide audience. It may probably be common knowledge for opera fans, but probably less so for the layman. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I hear you but am unconvinced. Many artists start young, that's nothing personal. DYK is for things the readers don't yet know, including Werther. A headline in a review said "is a Charlotte to die for", - that is personal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I suppose if you don't want to talk about her debuting as a child, we probably should stick to the original hook. ALT1 just isn't very interesting, in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Theresienstadt (1944 film)

5x expanded by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

Edgemere Landfill

Created by Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC).

Review

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I am interested in the topic, having written the article dirt which highlighted some other landfills. A lot of work has gone into this page and the authors' efforts are appreciated, Andrew D. (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Thanks for the review. For ALT0 and ALT1, how about this?
  • ALT0A: ... that when it closed in 1991, the Edgemere Landfill in New York City was claimed to be "the longest continuously operating dump in the United States", having accepted waste since 1938?
  • ALT1A: ... that officials proposed shredding and poisoning food waste at New York City's Edgemere Landfill to prevent birds from interfering with operations from nearby JFK Airport?
For ALT2, Moses is mentioned in a later source. I think it's this one, where Moses remarks, "... lies the new Edgemere Park, the newest and largest park on the Rockaway peninsula. [...] When this area is filled and covered with manufactured topsoil, this park will be done. Eventually there will be an 18-hole golf course and marina together with passive a n d active play areas to care for the recreational needs of all ages in the housing and surrounding neighborhoods." There are other hooks I wanted to put in the article, but I forgot about them. I will do that tomorrow.
As for quotes, all of them are cited. The "toxic landfill" quote, for example, is reference 6, two sentences up. I guess the source was placed at the end of the three sentences so it wouldn't be repeated. Other controversial quotes also have references, but they're just at the end of the sentences. I can fix them tomorrow (put the sources at the end of actual quotes) when I have access to an actual computer. I'd like to have an image in the hook. Maybe this might work? epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, no rush. Just ping me when it's ready for another look, please. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: I've addressed the quote problem. How about the hooks above, or another hook: epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • ALT3: ...that New York City's Edgemere Landfill was declared a Superfund environmental cleanup site after nearly three thousand 55-gallon metal drums of waste were discovered during a routine excavation? Source: NY Daily News, 1987
    • ALT4: ...that Edgemere Landfill has been proposed for conversion to parkland since the 1950s, though a permanent structure on the site cannot be developed until 2021? Sources: (1) Rockaway Wave, 1958, Moses speech. (2) Rockaway Wave, 2000. "The site is reportedly being monitored and it will be only 21 more years (July, 2021) before a permanent structure can be erected on the site or before it can really be used for the Rockaway public park that has been marked on maps of the area for decades."
Just my two cents, I like ALT3. Tdorante10 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I've been quite busy with other matters but will take another look now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 15[]

Rhythm Inside (Loïc Nottet song)

Improved to Good Article status by Cartoon network freak (talk). Self-nominated at 14:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

Enclave law

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment:This clearly not true as it applies to Palestinians as well for example minimum wage. --Shrike (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Your statement is incorrect. Per the source provided by Icewhiz below, "a 2008 high court ruling that Israeli labor laws apply to relations between Palestinian workers and Israeli employers in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem". So Palestinians are not covered by these laws unless they are within the Israeli settlement enclaves. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) Hook issues - there are three issues with the hook. The first is that "Enclave law" is an informal term always or almost always scare-quoted in sources (including the source cited above) - there is no single "enclave law" - it is a very large amalgamation of legislation (that applies Israeli code, e.g. the income tax, on Israeli residents of the Area) and military orders (that extends Israeli legislation to areas under the military commander). Second - saying this "applies only to Israeli settlers" is incorrect - even per the simplistic source cited this also applies to Israeli settlements. For instance, Israeli labour law applies to Palestinian workers in settlements and industrial zones - e.g. And for the roughly 3,300 Palestinians who work in Barkan, the appeal is clear. They are treated equally in the workplace, earning the same salaries and benefits as their Israeli counterparts under Israeli law.NYT or Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011. Third - not all Israeli civil law applies - but large portions - see this source, for examples see - this and this for examples of legislation that do not apply. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
See amended version below, reflecting Icewhiz’s points. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest -
The stmt of "only within Israeli settlements" is incorrect - e.g. Amira Hass who resides in Ramallah is liable for Israeli income tax (as well as other legislation (usually - obligations) applied to Israeli citizens in the area) as it applies to any income of an Israeli citizen in the Area (is also explicitly includes area A) - income tax code, clause 3A. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a good improvement, thanks. Two points:
(1) Under your revised formulation of both Israeli residents and settlements, the word “only” can now be correctly added back.
(2) I haven’t seen a source for the word “process” here, unless applied to the “pipelining” method discussed in the article. So we could say “through a process of pipelining of Enclave law...”
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Point 1 - I would avoid "only", as it may be imprecise in other regards (e.g. some possible aspects of roads in area C come to mind) and I don't think it would clear with such wording that portions of Israeli law applies to Palestinians when they are in israeli settlements/zones. As for point 2 - I am not married to "process" (which is also somewhat imprecise) - however I do take issue with "Enclave laws" or "Enclave law" as an entity - there is no such entity at present and hasn't been - what there is (and one of the sources used "pipelining" for only one aspect of this - the military ordinances) is a hodgepodge of Israeli legislation applying obligations to Israeli citizens/residents in the area as well as military ordinances ("pipelines") applying copies of the Israeli law to areas under the authority of the military commander. Rubenstein (who is the original for this quote) described the resulting situation as "enclave law". "enclave law" refers to the situation created by the amalgamation of legislation - but not to the legislation itself (e.g. see the example I linked to from the tax law [26] - at a random point in 1978 the Knesset applied this specific bill to Israeli residents/citizens in the Area by adding a very small clause to bill (they then fixed this in 1994 to clarify the situation due to Oslo, and also updated following unrelated tax changes (e.g. the move from territorial taxation to worldwide personal taxation in 2002). On the VAT bill - [27] - they added a similar clause - but at a different random point in 1986 (and again, updated in 1994 due to Oslo). We could perhaps refer to a resulted in a situation of "Enclave Law" ? Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Lest I be accused of OR above - per Israeli police traffic enforcement guide (page 3 in the PDF) - enforcement in Area C vs. Palestinian citizens is exactly the same as in Israel with the exception of changing the law/ordinance name (פקודת התעבורה turns into צו בדבר התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון) - and "תקנות התעבורה" turns into "תקנות התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון)" - however clause numbering is the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. Your “resulted in” formulation would require a restructuring of the sentence - do you have something in mind? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
How about -
ALT1 ... that Amnon Rubinstein coined the term "Enclave law" to describe the application of large portions of Israeli civil law to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian territories?
ALT2 ... that the term "Enclave law" has heen used to describe the application of large portions of Israeli civil law to Israelis and Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
The first follows the description in ACRI of what Rubenstein wrote in 87. The second is more contemporary.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Either fine with me. It would be nice to end ALT1 with "in place of the word apartheid", using the two sources at the bottom of the article, but something tells me you might object to that!
A DYK reviewer is best placed to decide between the two options. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Tying in Jeff Halper's or Jonathan Cook's opinions onto Rubenstein would be a BLP issue vs. Rubenstein. Both are probably undue in the article regardless. But I'm happy we're at agreement regarding the hook.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Currently, there is an outstanding merge proposal and multiple cleanup tags in the article. Given the sensitivity of the topic, strongly recommend resolving them before asking for another review. Catrìona (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Hi Catriona, the clean up is now complete. The merge proposal did not gain consensus, and the tags have been resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
General eligiblity:
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Striking rejected hooks. Strongly recommend against the word "apartheid" which is highly/unecessarily controversial, even in terms of an analogy. Should it be "Enclave law" or "enclave law"? Catrìona (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Catrìona. I think lower case is better. Per readable prose, I will lengthen it from the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Please note the ongoing discussion at Talk:Enclave_law#Concept_vs_terminology_-_source_dispute. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bar-Steward Sons of Val Doonican

  • Reviewed: N/A (<5 noms)
  • Comment: New Article

Created by Black Kite (talk). Self-nominated at 23:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting band, on good sources, no copyvio obvious, quotations clearly marked and sourced. I don't know much about the topic, so may ask silly questions ;) - Is it right that the players use stage names? When such a name is pipe-linked to a real one, shouldn't the other article contain this stage name? Or should the real name also be shown in the band article? Otherwise I find it confusing. Piping to a different band is even more confusing. - In the hook, can we mention "parody" because that seems the key difference to others? - I like some quotes for reception, but the longish one that more or less only says that people stand in line for them could probably reworded for brevity. - I can't help being surprised by the singular/plural of "the band play", but guess those are the beauties of English. It wouldn't work in German ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: - Thanks for that - I've unlinked the confusing names in the "occasional members" section. It is confusing, because (for example) Simon Friend and Maart Allcock only use those names when playing with the Doonicans, not when playing with their own bands - so hopefully that'll be clearer now. The main performers, however, do indeed use their stage names not only on stage but on social media and everywhere else. Added "parody" to the hook (probably should have done this to begin with). I can't think how to shorten that quote without making it seem a bit dull? Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg fine, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Both those hooks look fine Black Kite, thank you for the quick response. However, as I spent 90 minutes verifying that set earlier this evening and am tired, I think it would be best if I left the verification until tomorrow as I might overlook something if I continue on now. If somebody else wants to verify the above alts in the meantime, be my guest. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 16[]

Joseph Jagger

Joseph Jagger
Joseph Jagger

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk) and Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

Review

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg It's a good story and I'm tempted to get Fletcher's book myself to read more. Perhaps we can share a copy at the meetup? Has someone ordered it yet? Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have Fletcher's book, and haven't ordered it. The main source for the article is the piece in The Times which was clearly drawn from Fletcher's book, so I took that to be the most authoritative source for the year 1881 as I thought she and The Times must be right. There are multiple earlier sources that give slightly different years for the event, including Brewers, but I took them all to be less reliable than the recent biography. We could certainly get the book and someone should but that might have to wait until the article is expanded to GA. As The Times clearly drew their article from Fletcher's book, I feel the sourcing is reasonable at this stage. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ismail Amat

5x expanded by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 23:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC).

  • @Mhhossein: You're mistaken. The pre-expansion version had 638 characters, not 1862, because templates, categories, etc. do not count, only prose characters do. And appearance in "recent deaths" does not disqualify an article for DYK, only bolded appearances do. Please read rule 1D: "Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible." -Zanhe (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Zanhe, Mhhossein, this is a very odd one, because apparently DYKcheck is adding a huge number of prose characters due entirely to the "lang-ug" template. When that template is removed from the article (tested in Preview without changing the article), the total character count drops from 4556 characters to 3385 characters. When I do the same to the September 3, 2018 version of the article, which is the one prior to the expansion (Mhhossein, you should use the prior to the date the expansion started for the "before" count, regardless of who made the first on the expansion date), the total character count drops from 1843 to 657. This just makes it as a 5x expansion, because 5 x 657 is 3285, which is more than covered by the 3385 in the article. I'm not sure whether the language equivalents in those initial parenthesis should count as prose or not, but I don't think we should sweat it under the circumstances. I should add that Zanhe is correct, in that a non-bold appearance in recent deaths at ITN does not disqualify an article for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) (updated at 05:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC) to add "more than covered" in clarifying my prior statement)
  • @Zanhe: As you see the main problem stems from the "lang-ug" template and hence I was not mistakenly counting templates, categories, etc. I knew that only readable prose had to be considered, that's what the DYK check tool do normally. Anyway, thanks to BlueMoonset's clarifying comment, I'll resume the review process. --Mhhossein talk 12:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ALT1:... that Ismail Amat was one of the highest-ranking Uyghur politicians of China's history?
Let's see what Zanhe thinks about it. --Mhhossein talk 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Befehlsnotstand

Created/expanded by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 04:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Needed article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Questions for the article:
  • Translation of the term - I see that Langenscheidt comes up with it, but think it's so misleading (as overly simple) that perhaps the source should not be used. You translate ref titles so well (mostly) that I think your translation might be more helpful than that one. You could first explain, and then give a translation.
  • How about moving the "Notstand" = necessity to Etymology. It holds up getting to the key fact.
  • "drastic consequences" - how about mentioning in the lead that this means danger to life or body, nothing less than that?
  • "reliable defense" - is that a legal term that I don't know, or a description that accused could rely on it to be pardoned? In other words: am I the only one who has a question about the meaning?
  • "Crisis created as a result of following orders" - I can't follow even if it's in a source. The crisis is imagined if NOT following orders, no?
  • "Under the circumstances of Befehlsnotstand, within German law, carrying out an unlawful order could not result in the prosecution of the culprit if disobeying would lead to drastic consequences for the person refusing to carry out the order." - Trying: "In German law, the situation Befehlsnotstand arises when a person refusing to carry out an unlawful order would have to face drastic consequences. In this situation, the person would not be prosecuted for carrying out the order."
  • "... that refusing an unlawful order did, in no known case, result in severe punishment" - I think the commas make the phrase wrong, because if we drop the clause we get to "... that refusing an unlawful order did result in severe punishment" which seems the opposite of what is meant. May be my lack of English, though.
  • "a state where the individual mistakenly believes their live is in danger"? - "a state where the individual mistakenly believes that their life is in danger" (if we have to use "their" for one person at all).
  • translate Mauerschürtzenprozesse?
  • Other countries, and then it's only one. How about getting the info about Austria from the German Wikipedia?
  • If it's Befehlsnotstand (I'm never sure about italics) we need {{italic title}}.
Regarding the hook, I am afraid it's completely uncomprehensible for someone who doesn't know already what it means. Can you put a bit more explanation in? - Tough topic, thank you for tackling it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: Pretty amazing review! I will go through the individual points, fix them up at the next opportunity and let you know when I'm done. Thank you. Turismond (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done a rewrite of the article along the line of your suggestions but, to be honest, my understanding of law subjects is to limited to truely achieve a satisfying result. Same goes for the hook, I'm struggling to come up with one that truely makes sense. I will give it some further thought and try to come up with a better hook. Turismond (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: I spend a fair bit of time researching and found the best translation of the term yet, Necessity to obey orders. What about the following hook? Its a difficult subject to explain, especially within hook-length requirements! Turismond (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that, after World War II, Befehlsnotstand, the necessity or compulsion to obey orders, was successfully used as defence in German war crimes trials, but has been proven to not have existed?
Thank you, just returned after a day out, will look tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
No rush from my side, plenty of time! Turismond (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Some unsoliticited alternate hook suggestions that sidestep the linguistic issue: Catrìona (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, both, returning after a busy day. I think we deal with a legal term, and while a pipe might work, the negative "not" makes it harder to understand. ALT1 is a bit too wordy, and in ALT3, I suggest to get the legal defense upfront. Also, to my knowledge, it concerned not only soldiers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Rue du Tapis-Vert

  • Reviewed: Bob Jones
  • Comment: Translated from French articles, but still eligible as per 1e of the eligibility criteria

Created/expanded by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 17[]

Ethnographic group

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 03:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC).

Neo-Bechstein

Created by Scope creep (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg--
  • Plagiarisation and Close paraphrasing is very-evident.
  • semi-acoustic instrument, with the sound being generated in the traditional way by striking strings is copied in toto from the source.
  • Although having no sound board, it was much lighter is copied in toto from the source.
  • Original research
  • Usage of the words:-- micro-hammer, eighteen microphones et cetera.
  • Many lines are un-sourced. They are (probably) sourced in some of the references but as much as inline cites are not required, it's optimum to use them.
  • Prose form is quite poor.
  • The Construction section starts with:--The was semi-acoustic instrument which is meaningless.
  • The Marketing section again starts with:-- Bechstein reportedly built 150 copies of which exist today which is meaningless.The same can be said about the last line:-- and was restored in 2007 at the technical Museum Vienna ready to play and is used for concert purposes.
  • The entire paragraph reads like a marketing brochure of the piano (viz The stop has been refined by the micro pounding...., This avoids the knocking noise...... et al).A lot trivial details ( that typically hit the string at a force of 5%....) are noted.
  • Additionally, the term neo-petrof is used out of nowhere and is not even wiki-linked/ explained at a foot-note.
  • I have no idea about the 4th source.
  • This can be improved, quite a lot.Use the press-reviews and exploit the many rigorous sources which mention it, without getting bogged down into trivialities.And above all, copy- whatever you have written till now. (I will try to invest my own efforts, if possible:-) )
  • On a note, I have not even bothered to find out about QPQ:-)WBGconverse 07:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks WBG. That was bit of a wake up call. I never realised it was so bad. Thanks. Is it possible to take each in turn,
  • I can get rid of the plagiarism by rewording.
  • Regarding mirco hammer, I took this from the image, No. 5, mikrohammer. I thought that would be self evident. I have explained mechanics.
  • The stop has been refined by the micro pounding, technical detail of the first electric piano.
  • 5% was what made it unique, and its mentioned in a few sources. Explained.
  • I have reordered it and tried to address the points raised. scope_creep (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • QPQ doesnt seem to apply, as this is my first DYK. scope_creep (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 18[]

Statcheck

Created by IntoThinAir (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I leave it it up to the author as to which hook to use: alt1 is read to go, the original hooks needs something with a bit more grab. One other issue, outside bounds of DYK , is that I would look for in future development are positive pieces about StatCheck. I can understand the immediate concern of those researchers with their papers flagged, but I would anticipate that because its gotten attention, there are positive things that Statcheck is doing for that community Masem (t) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Masterpiece (Basshunter song)

Created by Eurohunter (talk). Self-nominated at 14:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, and has lots of inline citations, which is all good. There also appear to be no identifiable copyright concerns. But this nomination needs to be formatted correctly in keeping with the guidelines. Specifically, as per WP:DYKHOOK, the hook should link to the article itself (in this case Masterpiece (Basshunter song)) and the article should be bolded. The grammar in the hook (as well as the article) should be fixed too. The hook seems to be accurate as per the source (CelebMix) but I am uncertain about whether it is a reliable source. And just in case Eurohunter has 5 or more DYK crs (doesn't seem like it from their talk page archives), they need to do a QPQ. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @IntoThinAir: I fixed hook formatting and grammar but I'm not sure if it's fixed. As I understood there is problem in the article too. Do you mean only this sentence or something else? CelebMix has over 285,000 followers on Twitter (follows itself almost 100,000) and has a draft in Wikipedia and they oranize interviews with artists. Eurohunter (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
      • It looks like CelebMix (and specifically articles on the website written by Jonathan Currinn) is considered a reliable source, so that's not an issue. I am glad you improved the hook, but some more information is needed regarding the song, so I think the hook should say something like "...that the lyrics of the 2018 Basshunter song "Masterpiece" reference the 2009 video game League of Legends?". With regard to the grammar in the article, I have just ed it to deal with some (really most) of the issues I noticed when I was first writing this review (e.g. "revelated" is not a word). But I didn't check the "Reception" section for syntax/grammar/spelling issues, so you should try to do so and fix any errors you may notice. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @IntoThinAir: Thanks. Unfortunatelly I would never realise I have done these mistakes and I can't improve it any soon in new cases like that. I adjusted a hook as you showed me. Eurohunter (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hakea pulvinifera

Hakea pulvinifera
Hakea pulvinifera
  • Reviewed: TBA

5x expanded by Allthingsnative (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 13:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg The article is long enough, and has been 5x expanded recently enough. The article is well written, there are no obvious copyvios, not sure if the author did QPQ though. The DYK fact is not cited on that line, though the subsequent citations in the Taxonomy and Naming section check out. —User:SonOfPatter (User talk:SonOfPatter)

Cubbington Pear Tree

The Cubbington Pear Tree
The Cubbington Pear Tree

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 08:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Hi -WBG, just a reminder that this one is still open. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello WBG? - Dumelow (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Doing the review within hours (next will be here-)); I forgot this in entirety and weirdly, did not receive your earlier ping. Apologies, WBGconverse 17:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's an obvious ☑Y from me, as to the article. But, how about a hook that explicitly mentions about the (Tree of the Year)/(Oldest wild-pear tree in GB) being subject to a felling attempt? Won't it be more hooky? WBGconverse 16:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the review WBG. With regards your suggestion: doesn't the first hook say this? Happy to amend it if you have any improvement? Note that it is not definitively the oldest wild pear -the source only says "it may be the UK's oldest wild pear tree" - Dumelow (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 21[]

Sozusagen grundlos vergnügt

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The full review is to come, but what do you think about these alternative hook suggestions?
Personally I find the translated title a more interesting fact than the poem being published after her death. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As you like it. - Sadly, I found no other translation. This one is from a blog, and I am not sure about copyright. I am sure that we don't capitalise when we only give a translation, so changed that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article is new enough and long enough, and it is adequately sourced. It is neutral and free from close paraphrasing. As mentioned above, I don't really find the first hook interesting as it's very common for works to be published after the author's death. My issue with my own proposals is that the translation is cited to a Wordpress blog, and I don't know if the blog is run by a reliable source on the subject and/or is authorized to host the poem. However, I don't really see much else hook-worthy in the article so it could be our best option here. As I proposed ALT1 and ALT1a, a new reviewer is need to choose a hook here. QPQ is still pending, so this can't be approved until one is provided. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No new reviewer is needed, as no new facts were added, just reworded. I am sure we can say without citation problem that it can be translated that way. I would probably have stayed closer to the Herman and said "So-to-speak causelessly merry", but that's very minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruth Bettina Birn

Created by K.e.coffman (talk). Self-nominated at 22:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

Well, it's a bit "inside baseball" type of a hook, but when I saw the page A Nation on Trial, I was struck that Norman Finkelstein was linked and had an article, while Birn was not even red-linked: diff. They are equal co-authors of the book. The fact is supported by the article having been created in 2018, while Finkelstein's article history shows that it was created in 2003: [30]. I think it speaks to Wikipedia's "gender gap"; that's why I picked the hook. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand the sentiment behind the hook, but unfortunately, rules are rules. A new hook may need to be suggested if it can't work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I provided another option. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that works, but I'm not sure why the source is an Estonian one. With that said, ALT1 can probably be tweaked further since: 1. the hook implies that it's about the position of chief historian rather than Birn, and because Birn is no longer in the said position. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The Estonian source was the one which listed the length of Birn's tenure. But if it's not needed, I provided an English-lang source as the second link ("Profile"). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding ping @Narutolovehinata5:. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose that works. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Social entrepreneurship in South Asia

Created by Wickersong (talk). Self-nominated at 23:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Red XN - not needed, users first DYK
Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I’m concerned with the overall quality of the writing. There are several passages containing broken, unclear, or confusing language, and I have to agree with the tag regarding undue weight. This is certainly a valid topic for an article, but this article seems a bit narrow and focuses only on a few specific organizations. This does not necessarily disqualify from from DYK, but it isn’t optimal to have such an article featured on the main page. Also, please provide a source which directly verifies the hook. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, I'm currently working on this for an educational assignment and so am in the midst of heavily revising this article. I will work to address the issues with writing quality as well as undue weight as I expand on this article and improve upon it. Hopefully then it can be optimal. I also fixed the hooks up a bit more to hopefully make it more interesting and added citations. How quickly do I need to revise this article to still have it up for consideration? Wickersong (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Once you’re “in the system” so to speak I think you’re good as far as timing, there isn’t really a deadline. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The hook and alt are now cited, so that’s half of it, but the article itself hasn’t been improved. I’m afraid they took my comment about timing a bit too literally, obviously it is expected that the issues will be fixed at some point but it looks as though they’ve walked away for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all I am working on it today and over the next few days/this week to improve the article itself. I've been unable to work on it because of school. Happy to get any more feedback @Beeblebrox: and @Narutolovehinata5: as I revise. Will let you both know once I've reached a good point with this article. Wickersong (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: and @Narutolovehinata5: I've revised the article quite a bit. Please review and let me know whether there's anything else I should fix in order to perfect my nomination for DYK Wickersong (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 22[]

Ma'adin Ijafen

Source: Red Gold of Africa: linked page covers date, name of explorer and site, number of brass ingots, and location. The ‘Lost Caravan’ of Ma’den Ijafen Revisited: covers the cowrie shells. Indigenous African Metallurgy: Nature and Culture: page 323 covers the dating.

Source: Red Gold of Africa: linked page covers date, name of explorer and site, and location. The ‘Lost Caravan’ of Ma’den Ijafen Revisited: covers the cowrie shells. Indigenous African Metallurgy: Nature and Culture: page 323 covers the dating and total weight of hoard.

5x expanded by Premated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 03:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC).

National Police Memorial (India)

Created/expanded by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 20:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

Comment — As flattering as it is to be cred for creating/expanding substantially this article, I wouldn't feel right in taking cr for this, all I did was a bit of copying, in addition to adding a bunch of convert templates, I don't think one should receive DYK cr for contributions that significant. Hence, I have removed my name from the nomination text, but, I would like to thank DiplomatTesterMan for adding my name to this, very nice of him to do so! I won't review this DYK nomination, though, because of having contributed to the article before its DYK nomination. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Tuttle

Created by SonOfPatter (talk). Self-nominated at 07:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 23[]

Li Lianda

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Zanhe: Honestly I don't find the proposed hook interesting: it's very common for people to employees to claim that their employer's product or service is unsafe, and lose lawsuits. In fact, it's also common for people to lose lawsuits on claims about company safety. We may need a new hook here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Foerster

Created by Jamieowens (talk). Nominated by Jamieowens (talk) at 15:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nomination fails Eligibility citeria rule no 3 and 4, that is, the hook is uncited and the article has multiple problems. L293D ( • ) 15:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have fixed a couple of the issues. The article is now up to 1811 characters and is not an orphan. I have cited a couple of books where she is mentioned.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

  • Reviewed: DYK exempt
  • Comment: Hooks could go further if there is consensus for that. There are also numerous authors to the content in this article.

Created by Frayae (talk). Self-nominated at 10:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Frayae: the first revision of the article, other than its lead section, was copied from the Donald Trump article. This is the same text as it appeared 7 days ago. This text has a prose size of 1005 characters, and the article currently has a prose size of 2714 characters. Per WP:DYKSG#A5, If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. This article would need to be expanded to at least 5025 characters (i.e. almost double its current length) to satisfy DYK requirements. feminist (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Feminist: It is possible, the article can't go on DYK with a RM in progress and hopefully the extra size can be added by then. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Placing nomination on hold. feminist (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The RM was closed as not moved 10 days ago and no one has brought it to move review. The article now has 11132 characters (1823 words) readable prose size. Almost double what was needed for the fivefold increase. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Concerns about the article's neutrality have been made on its talk page but these seem to have been addressed now. The main problem would be the hook: it's a snoozefest. Of course everyone knows Donald Trump is controversial. From a glance the fact that FactCheck.org declared him the "King of Whoppers" seems interesting. Also note a number of long direct quotes that should be trimmed. feminist (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There has already been some effort to reduce the number of quotes, I will see what can be done to improve the situation there. Regarding the hook, King of Whoopers sounds good, I will see what I can do. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A Scary Time (for Boys)

  • ALT2:... that a viral protest song encourages Americans to vote in today's election because "it sure is a scary time for boys"?
  • Reviewed: Raúl Meza Ontiveros
  • Comments: Requesting 6 November as a special occasion date; the song references the US election but does not endorse any candidate.

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

ALT0 and ALT1 are too passive in my opinion; I really, really like ALT2. A couple more alts below. wumbolo ^^^ 09:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 24[]

Dr. Horatio Q. Birdbath

Created/expanded by Zacharyfruhling (talk). Nominated by The lorax (talk) at 15:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I came by to review this, but did a lot of copying and wikifying on this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. However, the article does not feel like it meets DYK's start-class Rule D7 yet; it's more like a list of his roles with no real description or indication of notability. You can't assume that readers know the importance of the films he appeared in; you have to tell them (sourced, of course).
  • I moved the page to Purv Pullen, the name he was born with and known by for many years before becoming Dr. Birdbath. If you can add more about his personal life, such as who he married and where he lived and died, it would be helpful. FYI the IMDB and Find a Grave are not considered reliable sources; I removed them from the text and put them under External Links.
  • The bit about the Q. in his stage name needs a reliable source. The whole Filmography section needs to be sourced to reliable sources, like encyclopedia articles or online or print articles. It might also be a good idea to break it into film and television roles. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK crs. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Dui Bigha Jomi

Rabindranath Tagore
Rabindranath Tagore
  • Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Titodutta (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg, new, copyvio ok, could be expanded and improved further. Once QPQ done, ok for dyk, picture okay. Hook is in article and sourced. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


Vincent Toro

Created by Audreyspell (talk). Self-nominated at 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The subject appears to be notable as the winner of an important poetry award, the Norma Farber First Book Award. (The Sawtooth Poetry Prize is not notable and should not be mentioned in the hook.) However, the sourcing in the article is mostly based on user-generated content (pw.org and kwelijournal.org) and there is no detail on his personal life or his notability, aside from what the page creator is writing in a promotional tone. At this time, the article does not meet Rule D7 IMO. The hook is also not the most interesting ("Did you know that X won the Y award?"). Image is freely licensed. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK crs. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 25[]

Ahmadou Ahidjo

5x expanded by Victoria0998 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Red XN - Not applicable according to QPQ Check. Less than 5 DYKs.
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Copy violations need to be addressed. Please check using the Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Also, format hook correctly and add source. Expansion 5X, but performed on 24th, nominated for 25th. Please confirm. [Note: This is my first review. You can get a second opinion.] DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

1994 Gambian coup d'état

5x expanded by Ira.morga3 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Ira.morga3: The article was nominated the day 5x expansion happened, so it meets the date criterion. I wasn't able to find any close paraphrasing. This is the nominator's first nomination so a QPQ is not required. Although I suppose both hooks are potentially interesting, I have concerns with both: for the first, I'm not sure if bloodless coups are really unusual as I'm aware it's happened before in other places. The second hook might be too obtuse for people unfamiliar with political science: it would be advisable to add a link to Waves of democracy in the said hook. Otherwise, both are cited inline: ALT0 reference is verified, while I can't access ALT1's source so for now it is accepted AGF. The article is of an appropriate length, but I would suggest that the "The Paradox to the Third Wave of Democratization" section be rewritten in a more neutral tone. As for the "The Paradox to the Third Wave of Democratization" claim itself, I would suggest that some background be written about it (i.e. who formulated that term, and in what context) as the term is discussed rather abruptly. I would also suggest that the "Coup" and "Discontent in the Gambia" sections be switched (i.e. "Discontent in the Gambia" comes before "Coup", to give background). This will be good to go once these issues have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 26[]

Karuka

Karuka nut cluster
Karuka nut cluster

Created by NessieVL (talk). Self-nominated at 23:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

Mulatschak

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC).

  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the feedback. I thought I'd covered it in the "Background" section, but I've now added a summary to the lede which aligns with the hook and cited the reference there too. Hope that's okay. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. However, the assessment of it only being published in 2004 appears to be the rules author's self-assessment and not a certain fact. I suggest then that the hook and article be rewritten to instead express this uncertainty (i.e. instead of "its rules were first published only in 2004", perhaps instead it could be rephrased as "the rules were only codified in 2004" or a similar wording?). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The claim is now verified by a second authoritative source (cited below and in the article), although that too stops short of absolute certainty. Anyway, how about this:
  • ALT1: ... that although the card game of Mulatschak may justifiably be called the national card game of Salzburg, its rules were almost certainly unpublished before 2004? Source: "Das Mulatschak kann man mit Fug und Recht als das Salzburger "Landesspiel" titulieren… [aber] die Regeln für das charakteristischeste unter allen Salzburger Kartenspielen, bis heute nirgendwo publiziert wurden." (Geiser, Remigius (2004). "100 Kartenspiele des Landes Salzburg"], in Talon, Issue 13, pp. 37 & 40.) and "His [Geiser's] article includes what is almost certainly the first published description of Mulatschak..." McLeod, John (2005): "Playing the Game: Schnellen, Hucklebuck and Donut" in The Playing-Card Journal Vol 30, No. 2, p. 288. Bermicourt (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 27[]

Gert Westphal

Katia and Thomas Mann
Katia and Thomas Mann
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

Worked on it, dropped a few that to know seems less relevant in English. I have a problem with Schallplattenkritik, because they have only an archive to search, and I am too stupid to find more than two. (it seems to go by year, but when I insert 2005, I get again to 2002, for example.) I am sure though the others are as correct. Help? I found referencing for some of our awards articles rather sad, I must say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Gilley

Created by Binksternet (talk). Self-nominated at 04:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC).

Jack Vainisi

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 28[]

Rosalinda González Valencia

Source: "En 1996 Rosalinda González Valencia se casó con el que se convertiría en el hombre fuerte del Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes / [English]: "In 1996 Rosalinda González Valencia married the one who would become the strong man of the Jalisco Cartel Nueva Generación, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes." (El Universal) [English] "Known as “El Mencho,” Oseguera has risen to become Mexico’s most-wanted drug lord after Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman was extradited to the United States last year to face trial." (Reuters)

Moved to mainspace by MX (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 29[]

Articles created/expanded on October 30[]

Adrien Agreste

  • Comment: 4 DYK crs at the moment.

Converted from a redirect by Flowerpiep (talk). Self-nominated at 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

Max Rose (politician)

  • Comment: Strongly prefer the article to go on the main page before November 6, when the election occurs

Converted from a redirect by Philepitta (talk) and La comadreja (talk). Nominated by La comadreja (talk) at 20:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: This also reeks of advertising quite a bit. Really recommend findig an alternative hook. Juxlos (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg @Serial Number 54129: Looking at the article now, I don't really see much wrong with it: it does appear to be adequately sourced and neutrally written (at least right now). My main issue is the hook proposals itself: as mentioned here, they appear to have a promotional, even campaigning, tone. My suggestion is that a variation of ALT0, perhaps focusing on his military career instead of his campaign, would option here. @Philepitta and La comadreja: In the interest of disclosure, hooks are prohibited from being run 30 days before a subject's election date unless all major candidates are featured as well; as such, the request to be featured before November 6 would have been disallowed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, my issue was only ever with the spammy hook, not the article. Agree with you that the issue could be resolved with a hook that focusses on something other than his political career. ——SerialNumber54129 10:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I think the best option here is ALT0 since it's more about his military career and the part about being a candidate is only a descriptor. Do you have any ideas on how to reword it? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Max Rose won the election. I would reword it as: ... that Max Rose, U.S. Representative of Staten Island and South Brooklyn, is a veteran of the Afghanistan conflict and served as chief of staff at a health care nonprofit which runs clinics around New York City?
Thing is, he doesn't actually becomes Representative until January, so that might need to be reworded depending on when this will be promoted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So maybe we could call him "representative-elect"?

Articles created/expanded on October 31[]

Fatih (drillship)

Source: "İlk sondaj gemimiz Deepsea Metro-2 Türkiye'de" (in Turkish) [38], "Name of the ship: FATIH, Former names: DEEPSEA METRO II (2018, Marshall Islands)" [39]

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 12:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Tell al-Hara

Tell al-Hara as seen from the Golan Heights to the west
Tell al-Hara as seen from the Golan Heights to the west
  • Reviewed: Pending

Moved to mainspace by Al Ameer son (talk). Self-nominated at 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Excellent article Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracy LaQuey Parker

Moved to mainspace by MrLinkinPark333 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

Mirza Zulqarnain

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 08:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC).

Ceintures de Lyon

Created/expanded by Rystheguy (talk). Self-nominated at 09:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The English version of this article is new enough, long enough, and neutrally written. The hook is an acceptable length, and it is supported by citations in the article. QPQ is complete. However, some unreferenced sections of the article need citations to show the reader what source supports the text. Something that slowed me down was that the majority of the article is directly translated from the French version, fr:Ceintures de Lyon, so I took a look at the guideline about WP:Close paraphrasing which says that straight statements of fact can be translated without worrying about close paraphrasing of the original, but that unique constructions of prose should not be included as a direct translation. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your Call Football

Created/expanded by User:Rickwilson826 . Nominated by JC7V7DC5768 (talk). at 17:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 1[]

New Mexico State Road 162

Created by Bacardi379 (talk) and Bill-on-the-Hill (talk). Nominated by Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) at 03:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

Kenichi Hirose

Created by Kuon.Haku (talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg A new hook might be needed here, as I don't really find the proposed hook to be interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree; even past the grammar issues, the hook is not very interesting (it is a prestigious school but that is not clear to most readers). The article is barely at DYK size, and there is an AfD pending (though it looks like there are two keep !votes at this time). I think there might be a better hook here: Raymie (tc) 05:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Kenichi Hirose went to Russia to test out assault rifles produced by Aum Shinrikyo founder Shoko Asahara?

Articles created/expanded on November 2[]

Hans-Joachim Schulze

  • Reviewed: to come
  • Comment: best on his birthday, 3 December

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Economic history of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos

Former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos
Former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos

Created by Alternativity (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

AJ Gil

Converted from a redirect by Jpcase (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 3[]

Ana Padurariu

  • Reviewed: Coming soon.
  • Comment: The hooks are open for improvement.

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 06:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Dawn Mabalon

Mabalon in 2015
Mabalon in 2015

Created/expanded by RightCowLeftCoast (talk) and Sky Harbor (talk). Nominated by RightCowLeftCoast (talk) at 22:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC).

Ojos de Mar

One pond with Aracar volcano in the background
One pond with Aracar volcano in the background
  • Reviewed: Sara Cox (rugby union referee)
  • Comment: Attempted to make an interesting hook, if someone has a more interesting proposal that would be nice.

Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 13:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 4[]

EuroTrump

  • Reviewed: Throne Hall of Dongola
  • Comment: I know; I'm a few days late here! This was something I was planning on nominating a long time ago, but between everything I've been doing, I completely forgot about this until now. This is an extremely interesting topic and it would be really great to be able to get this on the main page. However, 5x expanding it would be impossible, due to how little encyclopedic information there is available, and it would be extremely difficult to get this to GA, so this would pretty much be the only way to get this to DYK. Is there any way a reviewer would consider ignoring all rules here? Thanks, and sorry for the delay!

5x expanded by SkyGazer 512 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

French submarine Armide

Armide, date unknown
Armide, date unknown
  • Reviewed: Woodvale Park
  • Comment: feel free to remove "by itself" if you think it does not fit in well.

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 14:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

Oranges & Lemons (album)

  • Comment: save for February 27, 2019 (the date of the album's 50th anniversary)

5x expanded by Ilovetopaint (talk). Self-nominated at 20:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

2018 Tallahassee shooting

Created by Jim Michael (talk) and Leaky.Solar (talk). Nominated by Morgan Ginsberg (talk) at 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

MLS Cup 2009

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 07:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The full review will be to follow, but right now, the statement "The two teams were from Western Conference, marking the third ion to be played between two teams from the same conference" is unsourced, and the article needs clarification on the term "expansion team". According to the article, RSL was "the second expansion team to participate in an MLS Cup Final"; however, RSL joined the league in 2005, and as far as I know about the term expansion team, it usually is only used to describe teams in their first season (for example, the Vegas Golden Knights in 2017). Maybe this needs to be clarified somehow (i.e. that RSL was the second non-"original" MLS team to make it to the Cup Final)? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I'll take care of the unsourced sentence in a bit, though I am having trouble finding a proper source (as MLS statistics from a decade ago are hard to track down). The term "expansion team" can persist for decades, especially in leagues like MLS, NHL, and MLB with clear legacy or original teams; the NY Times source calls them the second expansion team to contest the final, so I went with their wording instead. SounderBruce 01:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of the unsourced statement. SounderBruce 01:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that I've nominated MLS Cup 2002 for the December 9 slot, I would prefer this hook to run on the 9th anniversary of the match (which was played at night on November 22, which corresponds with November 23 on GMT). SounderBruce 08:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Estadio Jesús Martínez "Palillo"

  • Reviewed: Lyle Wright
  • Comment: In the process of the DYK expansion, it was discovered there were two articles on this stadium (one from the ors focusing on American football in Mexico and another from the Olympics ors), which I merged. However, there is significant new content previously not in either article, some of it timely, and this is a 5x expansion anyway.

Created/expanded by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

Raising hands

Created/expanded by Giselle136. Nominated by Fransplace at 02:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 5[]

Laguna Socompa

Moved to mainspace by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 21:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg You haven't provided a citation here, but the hook is cited in the article in the Stromatoliths section. --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Per WT:DYK discussion I am reopening this as it needs a new hook and perhaps a closer review:

ALT1: ... that biological structures growing in Laguna Socompa today were the dominant expression of life between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The reviewer might want to consider adding something about the elevation or specify that they are aldo found elsewhere. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Aces (book series)

  • ☑Y Article is long enough (5962 characters), nominated just in time (GA on 5 November, nominated on 12 November), and article is within policy.
  • ☑Y Hook is short enough, interesting, and supported by source in German.
  • ☑Y QPQ done.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Holcaspis brevicula

Holcaspis brevicula
Holcaspis brevicula
  • Reviewed: No QPQ needed, as this is my fifth DYK nomination (and last freebie)

Created by Giantflightlessbirds (talk). Self-nominated at 00:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

Charlie McGeever

Created by Leitirlad (talk). Self-nominated at 10:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

List of Albania international footballers

5x expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

MVS TV

5x expanded by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

  • @Narutolovehinata5: I've added some additional material that should help. I don't think it's necessary to have a citation in *every* sentence per guideline, but the first main paragraph did not have any, which is no longer the case. Raymie (tc) 06:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

2016 Maryland shooting spree

Created by Leaky.Solar (talk). Nominated by Morgan Ginsberg (talk) at 02:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Is long enough (5,400 readable text), and new enough (created Nov 5). Checked for copyvio issues - found only short phrases and so on, normal stuff. Is within policy in regards to neutrality and inline citations. QPQ is done and hook is cited inline by both footnote 2 and footnote 10. I expressed an issue with the article covering the verdict (via the talk page), and the author quickly dealt with it. I think it's ready to go. --Krelnik (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no guideline against "trivia" in the hook of which I'm aware. Isn't the DYK section by its very nature a box of trivia? In the hook's defense, footnote 2 in the article specifically calls out that the Boston Market connection reminded locals of the earlier shooting. I'm disinclined to call attention to the Homeland Security connection or particularly the domestic abuse issue as they are both fairly negative. As this is an incident in which people died and others were injured or traumatized, I think its best to steer the hook toward a less painful aspect of the story, such as this. --Krelnik (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Andy Levin

  • Reviewed: IOU
  • Comment: This DYK is contingent on Andy Levin winning what should be a shoo-in election tomorrow.

Moved to mainspace by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 17:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. I am not seeing the bachelor in source #1. Source #8 does not mention the Great Recession. Not sure about #9 and #10 mentioning his DELEG career. No copyvio or plagiarism that I can see, although some sentences (e.g the second-to-last one) might merit rewriting. QPQ needed. And wait since he's not been sworn in yet. ALT1 not supported by article, the other one needs to be spelled out as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll make sure everything in the article is verified by sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Qerim Sadiku

Created by 1l2l3k (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk, and Hatake (talk). Self-nominated at 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

ALT2: ... that Qerim Sadiku, born in today's Albania to a Muslim family, became a Catholic martyr and saint? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I had that first, but then removed it, as I realized that the source doesn't say exactly that. Also I'm not finding a strong source that his family was Muslim. Do you have it? 1l2l3k (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 6[]

Vision of Lear

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

Clairmarais aerodrome

Clairmarais aerodrome in July 1918
Clairmarais aerodrome in July 1918

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk) and Alansplodge (talk). Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 21:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

Hi Andy. Happy to go with a WWI hook, though I couldn't find anything much more exciting than the one hook I proposed above. Perhaps you have a better suggestion? - Dumelow (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Natan Yavlinsky

Cutaway diagram of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the largest tokamak in the world projected to begin operation by 2035.
Cutaway diagram of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the largest tokamak in the world projected to begin operation by 2035.

Created by Arius1998 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 7[]

Irritator

Reconstructed skeleton of Irritator in Tokyo
Reconstructed skeleton of Irritator in Tokyo

Improved to Good Article status by PaleoGeekSquared (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

Dan Crenshaw

  • Reviewed: IOU

Moved to mainspace by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 19:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and well referenced. Hook is interesting, neutral, and supported with references. No copyvio found. Awaiting QPQ. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: You're too quick. I'm working on making sure other articles of newly elected candidates are up to snuff. Ping me in a week if I still haven't provided QPQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Take your time. -Zanhe (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Joe Cunningham (American politician)

  • Reviewed: IOU

Moved to mainspace by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 8[]

Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts

Created by DBigXray (talk). Self-nominated at 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

Her Strut

Converted from a redirect by Rlendog (talk). Self-nominated at 23:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

French submarine Z

Z, date unknown
Z, date unknown

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 02:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

The source doesn't support the claim you are making - it says Z was the first French diesel submarine, not the first diesel submarine in total - discussion of Aigrette is on page 208, not 207.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: fixed. L293D ( • ) 03:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Team Taisan

Team Taisan's 2012 championship-winning Porsche.
Team Taisan's 2012 championship-winning Porsche.

Created by The359 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg good, long enough, no copyvios obvious, hook cited, short enough and image appropriately licensed. However, the hook is confusing to me because it reads like Team Taisan won eight teams, which make no sense. I suppose that you wanted to say the team won eight team championships and four driver championships. Could you please reword it a bit? Additionally, the image is not used in the article, a requirement for DYK. L293D ( • ) 02:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not know about the photo requirement, I substituted this photo for the DYK because I felt it was clearer at a smaller scale, but I have now changed it to match the one in the article. I also agree the hook was difficult to understand, I have modified it. The359 (Talk) 04:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @The359: hook is good now. The previous image was better in my opinion, so why not add it to the photo gallery in the article? L293D ( • ) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added the photograph back to the hook and added it to the article. The359 (Talk) 21:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Treat Myself

5x expanded by Ss112 (talk). Nominated by MaranoFan (talk) at 08:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Sexy Zone (song)

Created by Explicit (talk). Self-nominated at 02:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes

Satellite image of Hurricane Ophelia in 2017, the most recent storm to peak as a Category 3 Atlantic hurricane
Satellite image of Hurricane Ophelia in 2017, the most recent storm to peak as a Category 3 Atlantic hurricane
  • Reviewed: Antonio Delgado (politician)
  • Comment: For Alt1, there would be too many sources to list all of the deaths. They are listed after each storm. If there are doubts about the veracity, then I would go with the first hook, which is a little more bland.

Created by Hurricanehink (talk) and NotSparta (talk). Nominated by Hurricanehink (talk) at 19:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

Young Voters for the President

Richard Nixon campaigning in 1972
Richard Nixon campaigning in 1972

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 07:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article was created and nominated on the same day (Nov 8). However, it has 1471 characters, which is just below the required 1,500.--Երևանցի talk 15:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Peng Shilu

Peng Shilu in 2004
Peng Shilu in 2004

Created by Lvhis (talk). Self-nominated at 19:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

  • .

Current nominations[]

Articles created/expanded on November 9[]

Ústredňa Židov

Created by Catrìona (talk) and The Anome (talk). Nominated by Catrìona (talk) at 22:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Poèmes pour Mi

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 15:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC).

The Eucalyptus

Created by E.M.Gregory (talk). Nominated by Yoninah (talk) at 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

  • General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Consider looking for review sources that might provide some balance? valereee (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Valereee: thank you for the quick review. I have already ed the page but have not removed the tag yet. What close paraphrasing are you talking about? Earwig's shows nothing. Yoninah (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Yoninah The read of the article sourced sounded very similar to me, but I didn't parse it line by line, so earwig is good enough for me! Let me go it for a minute, brb valereee (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, Yoninah To be honest, a second read still felt like promotional copy, but I am having a hard time putting my finger on it as the language used is definitely sourced accurately. Perhaps it's that there are no sources that seem to criticize anything. Did you find any sources that were critical? A quick check found a rave from Forbes -- do you know of any that provided critical review? I did remove the tage valereee (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I nominated this yesterday to make the 7-day deadline, but I would appreciate a little more time to expand it with reliable refs. I provided a bunch of good refs to the page creator to build the page more encyclopedically. Could you give us some more time? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course! No rush! I only chose it because I was looking for a restaurant article to review and your hook hooked me :) valereee (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Valereee:, I'm puzzled as to why you removed the improvement tag after saying that you yourself consider it unbalanced. Deb (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Deb I was looking at WP:DYKNOT and thinking that for purposes of DYK, an article doesn't need to be perfect. Does a tag disqualify? If not, happy to add it back. Oh, are we commenting in the wrong spot? I'll move the line. valereee (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A new article, Moshe Basson, has just been created and we would like to propose this double hook:
  • ALT1: ... that chef Moshe Basson forages for wild plants and herbs in the Jerusalem hills to use in his traditional regional dishes at The Eucalyptus restaurant?
  • The QPQ for 2 articles should cover both these nominations.
  • However, Deb has pointed out some duplication between the articles, so we need another day or two to fix that up. @Valereee: I'll let you know when we're ready for re-review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Dena Vane-Kirkman

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

Saint Gregory the Illuminator Church of Galata

Saint Gregory the Illuminator Church of Galata
Saint Gregory the Illuminator Church of Galata

Created by Yerevantsi (talk). Self-nominated at 19:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Wayne Matthews

Created by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 19:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Russ Conway (journalist)

5x expanded by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 03:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Ameenpur Lake

Migratory birds at Ameenpur Lake
Migratory birds at Ameenpur Lake

Created by Sarvagyana guru (talk). Self-nominated at 11:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 10[]

Unbibium

Improved to Good Article status by ComplexRational (talk). Self-nominated at 02:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC).

Erin Zwiener

  • Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 05:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article created within the last seven days, is just over the required prose size and has no copyvio concerns. Hooks are interesting and supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Just waiting for the QPQ, I know you're putting a lot forward so ready to go when you get round to it. Kosack (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugaritic texts

Fragments of the Baal Cycle
Fragments of the Baal Cycle

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting history, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is stunning, but I think the other one would show in small size. Can you replace "famous" by something else? In the article, you will have to add references to all paragraphs. Can you combine one-sentence paragraphs? - A suggestion: the introduction should just be a summary, and then doesn't need references. Could you move the content to below, including the refs, and write a summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Payssé

Pierre Payssé on parallel bars in 1909
Pierre Payssé on parallel bars in 1909

Converted from a redirect by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 11[]

Marj Heyduck