Template talk:Did you know

DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now!

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
On the Main Page
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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

TOC:    Go to bottom     Go to top
Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
October 29 1
November 2 1
November 4 1
November 12 1
November 14 1
November 16 1
November 17 3
November 26 1
November 27 4 2
November 28 1
December 3 1 1
December 4 1
December 5 1 1
December 7 1
December 8 1
December 9 1
December 10 3 1
December 11 2
December 17 1
December 22 2
December 25 1
December 26 1
December 27 1
December 28 1 1
December 31 3
January 1 1
January 2 2
January 3 2 1
January 4 1
January 5 4
January 7 3 1
January 8 1 1
January 9 2
January 11 5 2
January 12 4 2
January 13 4
January 14 8 4
January 15 7 3
January 16 5 3
January 17 6 4
January 18 6 2
January 19 7 4
January 20 8 4
January 21 7 4
January 22 8 4
January 23 8 5
January 24 8 5
January 25 6 1
January 26 8 3
January 27 9 3
January 28 9 2
January 29 12 5
January 30 7 2
January 31 13 2
February 1 10 4
February 2 2 2
February 3 1 1
February 4
February 5 2 2
Total 222 82
Last updated 22:36, 5 February 2023 UTC
Current time is 22:37, 5 February 2023 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an or reviews it. Since ors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[]

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.

Advanced procedures[]

How to promote an accepted hook[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Handy copy sources: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook[]

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

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


Older nominations[]

Articles created/expanded on October 29[]

Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

Example warning label
Example warning label

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thank you, Flibirigit! I wasn't aware of that RFC; I thought my nom would just be ignored until I'd done a QPQ. I've done one. I'll now get on with the article expansion, I've found a bunch more sources; I hope to be done within a day, or two if I do some more reviews. HLHJ (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I will check back here in a couple of days. Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article created October 29 and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. No plagiarism issues were detected. The earwig tool highlighted multiple areas, but those were quotes, and proper nouns which are not violations. The sourcing is mostly good, however some quotations are missing a citation. I have tagged the relevant places. Also, there are three images in the "Results" section which have unclear sources. I have several questions about neutrality. I notice that "Tim Stockwell" is mentioned three times within the "Label design", but it is unclear what position he holds, and if anything he says is relevant or important enough to quote verbatim. If he's not notable, perhaps paraphrasing is best. In the section "Threats", the following statement seems to be promotional towards a person with questionable notability; "Robert Solomon, a Canadian law professor with 40 years' experience specializing in drug and alcohol policy". The section "Lobbyist identities" contains a lengthy quote from Luke Harford, which might be best paraphrased since he has questionable notability. The hooks proposed are all reasonably interesting. I question whether ALT0 is properly cited in the article. The claims of copyright infringement are cited to here, but it fails verification since the cited source says "fear of lawsuit by industry associations for defamation or copyright infringement.", which is not the same. I am unsure where ALT1 is cited in the article. I cannot find it in the main body, but two sentences in the introdcution could be used to cite the hook. If cited in the introduction, both sentences need a citation. Currently just the second sentence is cited. I cannot locate a citation in the article for ALT2, and do not see Streisand effect mentioned. All images used in the article are in the public domain. The image for this nomination is clear at a low resolution, and used in the article. The QPQ requirement is in progress. Overall the article is a decent contribution and I hope to see it on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I entirely agree with Flibirigit's comments. The descrption of Solomon is paraphrased from the NYT (he also co-wrote a paper. later I think), and a better phrasing would be good; Tim Stockwell is a full professor and a lead researcher on the study, and I hadn't realized I hadn't mentioned it. I'll fix. A lot of the cns are wher I've cited two successive sentences to a ref at the end of the second one; I can duplicate. I also find the proportion of quotes exvessive; ot reflects the news sources, which avoid saying much in their own voice, presumably for fear of lawsuits. The balance, flow, coherence, hooks, and third-party assessments of results need work. I have been unavoidably and unexpectedly unable to spend much time on-wiki; I apologise for not watching this page and will work on this as soon as I can. (Redacted) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I will look for the changes to appear on my watchlist. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy reminder posted on the nominator's talk page. Perhaps sending an e-mail will be the next step if no response. Flibirigit (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say don't bother with an email, Flibirigit – if they don't respond to a talk page message in a timely manner, I'd say to just close it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HLHJ (talk · contribs), your progress on the article is noted. Please comment here when you're ready to continue the review. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg There are still three "citation needed" tags, and one "weasel words" tag. Flibirigit (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HLHJ:, I have not noticed any progress on this article since December 31. This nomination is now more than two months old, and it is increasingly likely that others will want to reject the nomination if not completed soon. It's close to the finish line, I hope you find the time for three citation needed tags and the one weasel tag. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both (Narutolovehinata5 too) for the talk page pings, I'm afraid I've never gotten into the habit of using my watchlist. You're quite right, I got distracted into writing about weaving and spinning mechanisms (our textile content is surprisingly weak, systemic bias, I guess). The weasel-words tag is hard to succinctly clarify without misrepresenting the situation; I've been thinking that a wordy specific explaination in a footnote might be adequate to remove it. I'll make this the next thing I work on on Wikipedia, and finish it off before doing anything else (except replying to people). HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've now at least gotten rid of the templates. Not integrated all my notes yet, nor toned down the quotes, but some progress. HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will have a look at the changes later today, or by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am working through this today. Apologies for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg @HLHJ:, in reviewing this today I notice that expansions to rectify sourcing issues have introduced other problems. I will continue to copy today, and tag some areas for clarification. Unfortunately none of my concerns on the hooks have been addressed. Please see the review above, as the hooks are the most important part of the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I think I've fixed the things you tagged, and made sure all non-attributed claims are third-party sourced (with exceptions for very unselfserving claims, like the "not statistically significant", which detail third-party review of the results ignored). I've also restructured a bit for clarity. I'll work on the rest, including the hooks. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, will look for the changes on my watchlist. Flibirigit (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 2[]

Tree of life (biology)

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg First thing first: Earwig is giving me an... interesting copyvio score. Rightfully so - we have a very large Darwin quote that takes up 60% of my screen. Since Origin is in the public domain, the article should indicate that it incorporates much of its text from public domain sources. Template:Source-attribution helps with this. With regards to neutrality, I am not seeing any WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE red flags, which is good for something closely related to a controversial topic like evolution. Would like to stress, however, that I don't have any expertise on biology, so anyone who does is welcome to provide their second opinion on the article here.

Furthermore, the hook seems run-of-the-mill - I would suggest making the hook about Darwin's seminal work as his name is more well-known to a general audience. Something like ... that Charles Darwin conceptualized his theory of evolution using a "tree of life" model? would be good. Another optional suggestion would be to incorporate an image there and bam, more readers hooked. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Your Power: Got rid of the blockquote. Is that good enough? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion of the material is not appropriate. Use the Source attribution template as advised above if it's thought really necessary - I can't see why it should be, as all Darwin text is PD as he died in 1882, so his writings have all been PD since 1 January 1953. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: WP:FREECOPY, a subsection of WP:PLAGIARISM, urges to use attribution templates when copying material from free sources (PD, CC licences compatible with enwiki, etc). I do agree that removing that long quotation was not the best, however. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
04:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to add it if it's troubling you. I was not consulted about starting this process and have no interest in its outcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't exactly know how use an attribution template so someone will have to teach me or do it themselves. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried to address this. The usage instructions at Template:Source-attribution didn't cover how to use it with other referencing templates like {{sfnp}}. After looking at some other articles that use the template, I modified the instance of the quote to {{sfn}} and added it in the |loc= comment. Not sure if this is exactly what the reviewer wanted. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Your Power: Is it good now? Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 4[]

Charles Redd

A close-up portrait photograph of Charles Redd
A close-up portrait photograph of Charles Redd

Created by Cjstirlbyu (talk). Self-nominated at 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The ALT0 hook is interesting and cited, but the article clearly needs a lot of work. SounderBruce 06:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SounderBruce: -- Thanks for the review; I've made some changes to the article to further improve it! I have added more information and corrected the copyright notice on the image page on Wikimedia Commons, and I've added citations immediately following the ALT0 hook, and have further clarified some of the information in that paragraph. I have also added additional citations to the rest of the article and changed some of the language to reflect a more neutral viewpoint. Since this article is within my first five DYK nominations, QPQ is not required. Let me know if any other changes need to be made! Cjstirlbyu (talk)
Well done on the improvements, but three's still some work to be done. The lack of outside perspectives is still an issue and would be bolstered by using coverage from out of the region (where the story of a quick repeal would have garnered some attention), while also looking at more critical commentary of his activities, both contemporary and modern. I don't think the picture fits very well, given it shows Redd long after the time of the bill's passing and repeal. SounderBruce 07:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SounderBruce: -- I've added a few more sources from outside of Utah on Redd and the bill's passing and repeal, as well as some more broad commentary on the rest of his life. There isn't a lot of modern commentary on his time in the legislature, given that he was only a member of the Utah House for a few years. I feel that the photo is appropriate for the article, however it's fine if we don't use it for the DYK. Let me know if I can change anything else!
Still has an outstanding tag for lack of viewpoints that I feel is a valid criticism. SounderBruce 08:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi SounderBruce, could you elaborate? The person who originally put the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag on put in the summary "sourcing continues to be overwhelmingly reliant on BYU-affiliated publications." The Arrington source that has many citations is published by Utah State University, which is not affiliated with BYU. The Alexander essay collection was published by the BYU university press, and constitutes 7 citations. What viewpoints do you feel are lacking? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @SounderBruce: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, the article is fine when it comes to independent viewpoints. I would like to see the citations cleaned up (currently the titles are just the paper name and page number, which is a jumbled mess) before giving final approval, Cjstirlbyu. SounderBruce 06:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks SounderBruce. The last name, year, and page number style of citation is one called shortened footnotes style (sfn). It is used on today's featured article, CSS Baltic. It is very helpful for being able to reference the exact page number of a book that is used multiple times as a reference. This page uses sfn style for books and more regular citation templates for items with a URL. For DYK, a certain style of footnote is not required. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, the newspaper citations are the ones that need cleanup. SounderBruce 20:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SounderBruce, I've cleaned up the newspaper citations—let me know if anything else needs to be done before the nomination can go through! Cjstirlbyu (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT0a ... that Utah state representative Charles Redd (pictured) moved to legalize horse racing and betting in 1925, only to make it illegal again two years later?
@SounderBruce: How does this sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT0a works for me. SounderBruce 04:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry to have to reopen what's already a long discussion, but I don't believe this is in fit state for the main page. I happened to spot-check a random sentence, and found the sources didn't remotely support the content; I then did five more spot-checks of sources I could access, and only one of them was completely okay. I don't know if this is carelessness, too many people working on the article, or sources shoehorned in to address the lack of independent content raised above; but it needs to be fixed. Given the issues I've raised, I would not be comfortable featuring this until someone has done spot-checks and found no issues. Also: the hook is a bit of a problem. Redd didn't make racing illegal; he didn't have that authority. He proposed the bill which made it so, much as he proposed its legalization. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Vanamonde, I did find some issues with text-source integrity. In the cases you found, the source was further down in the paragraph, but it wasn't clear that it applied to the earlier material. Cjstirlbyu and I went through the page to check for the accuracy of the material and make its sourcing clearer. I think I added a little information like Redd's introduction of crested wheatgrass and being voted one of 29 stockmen of the century by a cattle newspaper. I looked for information on the environmental impact of Redd's ranching, because I'm certain that it has affected the environment in the La Sals, but I haven't found anything that concretely connects Redd's ranching to ecological problems (although general articles on how grazing permits were freely given in Utah's early days and their impact on the ecology exist). As for the hook, how does this sound?
ALT0b ... that Utah state representative Charles Redd (pictured) successfully proposed the legalization of horse racing and betting in 1925, only to successfully propose making it illegal again two years later? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rachel Helps (BYU): Thanks for doing that; I know it can be trick for a student who may be relatively new to Wikipedia. Regardless, though, I would like to see a spotcheck by someone else before passing this myself. I can do one, but it may be a few days before I have the time. Other reviewers can of course step in if they wish. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 12[]

Caroline Ellison

Created by Molochmates (talk). Self-nominated at 05:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 14[]


Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It's a type of ticket, that you can buy from any British station; you can use any train service or ferry you choose with it, provided it's relevant. Similar to a Travelcard. The only possible way this article could be promoting it is comparing it against flying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "SailRail" is the formal term, as that's what gets printed on the ticket, and what I think the common name should be. The fact that multiple sources refer to it slightly differently is an indication of its relative obscurity, which is why we haven't had an article on it until now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We really need something more concrete than "I think that's the formal term". Lots of things get printed on tickets, that doesn't make the ticket a WP:RS. Also, how is it being relatively obscure different from it being not notable?
@Ritchie333: Having thought about this more (and cogitated a bit on WP:COMMONNAME), let me propose that using SailRail as the article title and in the hook would be fine, as long as you add something to the article explaining that it's a generic term covering a number of similar services known by various similar names. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just seen the discussion on this at Talk. I have access to specialist sources and may be able to assist. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, Hog Farm, and RoySmith: Various additions/tweaks now made following on from the discussion at T:T/DYK, particularly by clarifying that SailRail is the brand used between Britain and Ireland and that other similar schemes are not directly linked. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A promotional hook would be something like "Go far beyond your usual stop with a Rail and Sail ticket. Head for the wilderness of the Outer Hebrides, the history of Shetland or the buzz of Belfast – that one ticket holds the key to countless adventures." which is how the ScotRail website describe it. If you mean I want to "promote" SailRail in as much as I want more people to use it, showing it's a viable alternative for sitting in an uncomfortable departure lounge for 3 hours before being told your flight is 2 hours late ..... then I guess so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by starship.paint (exalt)

@Ritchie333: - see above. Also as a courtesy - notify Hassocks5489. starship.paint (exalt) 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg - right now, based on the above. Please ping me if there is any update. starship.paint (exalt) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 16[]

Chris Lewis (Usenet)

Created by Vortex3427 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Meets eligibility criteria. Recently expanded to 5x by the nominator. Article is well sourced. WP:AGF on offline sources. Article is well sourced and is neutral in tone. Earwig does not show any issues. Hook is interesting. I was not able to see the reference to forty other volunteers at the Wired link. Requesting the nominator Vortex3427 to take a look and point that to me in case I missed it. The hook itself is interesting. Can the nominator take one pass at rewording the hook if they can? Reading the source it appeared that the boycott was primarily them stopping their actions of spam filtering pressuring the ISPs and usenet admins to install their own spam filtering tools. The hook seems to be missing that nuance. Happy to hear the nominator's views. QPQ pending. passing this back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ktin: This is the nominator's second nomination so a QPQ is not required. Sending another ping to Vortex3427 in case they missed the above review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The part about there being forty volunteers is mentioned in this article. Will try to reword this hook shortly—in retrospect, the "crashing computer servers with unfiltered spam" was more of a predicted side effect then a goal.— VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 01:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With due respect, I do not see why a new reviewer is needed. I have been waiting for a revised hook from @Vortex3427:. I noticed the QPQ comment from Narutolovehinata earlier. Ktin (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok sorry. I thought you had lost interest lol. BorgQueen (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Happy ing. Ktin (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is accurate. But, does this one read too verbose? Any chance at precis-ing a bit? Ktin (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ktin: ... ALT1a... that in 1998, Chris Lewis led an unsuccessful boycott with the goal of convincing internet service providers to filter spam?
Like this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: -- does not read right. Unsuccessful boycott of "what"? Ktin (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 17[]

Serie A Player of the Month

5x expanded by Dr Salvus (talk). Self-nominated at 21:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Dr Salvus: Good article. However, i feel as if there needs to be more citations before this proceeds. The end of the second paragraph and third paragraph needs a citation. Multiple winners, awards won by club, and awards won by nationality also need citations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onegreatjoke, does it go well now? Source 3 is for the whole lead. Dr Salvus 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr Salvus I still need citations for multiple winners, awards won by nationality, and awards won by club. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Onegreatjoke WP:CALC. Dr Salvus 05:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Dr Salvus Assuming that, I will approve this now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith, WP:CALC 2.0. You can see the source and notice only those two won the trophy. If you see the source, you can make four calculations and obtain the info. Couldn't find anything that says the textual words. Dr Salvus 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we're not looking at the same source? I'm looking at https://www.legaseriea.it/it/award/ea-sports-player-of-the-month. I don't see where it even mentions either of those names. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to search for the previous seasons (2019–20 and 2020–21)! Dr Salvus 09:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, that's not a good enough citation. Even with your hints I can't find the information to support the stated fact. If you can't come up with a better citation for this, you'll need to write a different hook. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source does say who won the trophies and in what month they did. If you read the entire list of winners, you'll see my hook is supported. Dr Salvus 16:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here from WT:DYK – I understand the dispute is about the veracity of the source, but something else jumped out at me while I was reading this. Even if the sources say what Dr Salvus says they do, it'd still be SYNTH to arbitrarily group the winners into various time periods. It's a form of interpretation – it makes some of the awards seem more special than they are, but it's doing that based off of primary sources. For that kind of analysis, I'd argue that secondary sources are needed, and WP:CALC wouldn't cover it. Off to investigate the sources now, will return shortly. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also just noticed this still needs QPQ. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm seeing Gene Cipriano (nom) in the comment field? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now I see it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so it does seem like the table checks out – Gómez and Ronaldo both have two MVP wins in 2020 (I'm not sure why the sub-awards aren't listed), one under the 2019–2020 season and one under the 2020–2021 season. I assume that's what Dr Salvus was driving for? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some thoughts. Firstly, the date sorting in the table is set up wrong; it needs to be based on Template:Date table sorting to produce meaningful output. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe that the sourcing for the hook is good enough. The first table is sourced and whilst sourcing is indirect, everything can be traced back to a reference and beyond that, WP:CALC is a reasonable argument. That said, thirdly I need to point out that the article currently fails rule D2 of the supplementary guidelines. We cannot have unsourced sections. The sources need to be repeated for the bottom three tables. Schwede66 01:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it looks like to have been fixed. Dr Salvus 11:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I might just have found a solution for the source problems, or at least a partial one. On Serie A's own YouTube channel, there are several playlists containing a video for each Player of the Month from each season, including the 2019-20 campaign (which first introduced the prize). I'll provide all the links right here, hopefully all of you can access them. 2019-20 (actually, I could only find this round-up video); 2020-21; 2021-22; 2022-23. Please let me know if they're useful! Oltrepier (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casey Newton

Moved to mainspace by SWinxy (talk). Self-nominated at 01:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg @SWinxy: Good article. Hook is interesting, sources seem good, and no QPQ is required. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg @SWinxy, Mandarax, Paul2520, Onegreatjoke, Theleekycauldron, and Cwmhiraeth: - I am reopening this nom per issues raised at WP:ERRORS (see [2]). The previously approved hook appears to be based on unreliable sourcing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In theory, Money Control could have verified the stories independently, but I would expect a line like "We independently verified that these were former Twitter employees who first heard about their being fired this way."
How would a slight hook change be?
ALT2: ... that Casey Newton's reporting of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter may have been the first way some ex-Twitter employees learned they were laid off?
ALT3: ... that Casey Newton's reporting on the effects of content moderation on workers has led to a contracting company cutting ties with Facebook? Source: I assume good faith on the Hertz book source.
@SWinxy and Amakuru: = paul2520 💬 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul2520: Hi Paul. I have been spending less time on Wikipedia and so I forgot to reply. I'd be okay with either of those, with ALT2 > ALT3. SWinxy (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: or @Amakuru:, would you re-review with ALT2 or ALT3? = paul2520 💬 19:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Like others, I'm not that comfortable with the fact that we're citing Moneycontrol (sketchy reputation per WP:RS Noticeboard) and BGR (owned by Penske Media Corp, says it likes accurate reporting, but article essentially sourced to anonymous "company sources" and a random tweet reply) for the hook and in the article. It's also a shame because in fact... There is quite a bit of other secondary coverage (in sources considered reliable enough by WP standards) about Casey Newton's reporting of the ongoing employee-related drama at Twitter! So I think a hook similar to ALT2 might work, or you could have a hook stating that all these other news outlets relied heavily on what Casey Newton is reporting (without getting bogged down in having to vouch for the accuracy of what he was reporting). Regardless, I think in order to do justice to Casey Newton, a bit more additional research, content, and sourcing is required in the article. (I was starting to paste some article links, but a quick Wikipedia Library search yields 139 hits, so there is a lot to choose from.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drag Den

5x expanded by JuanGLP (talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough and I didn't find any close paraphrasing. No QPQ needed as the nominator has only one prior DYK nomination. However, I have reservations about the hook. It doesn't really read like a hook, more like a news item or a promo. In addition, it seems to be reliant on the reader knowing who Manila Luzon is. Perhaps a different direction can be used here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I tried to reworded it sound it a bit less promotional. If there's any advice to help the hook, please tell me. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuanGLP: I think a completely different direction in hook fact is needed here since I don't think the hook is going to interest people unfamiliar with the names involved. Given that this is about Filipino entertainment, I'll ask help from Pseud 14 to see what other hook options are possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Okay, thank you for getting help. I did reworded the hook again. I will try to type it better. — JuanGLP (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think these angles about Manila Luzon or the premiere is working out. Since this is about a television series, maybe I can also ask Theleekycauldron for ideas about a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Here are three more alternative hooks. What do you think? I removed the mention of Manila Luzon. Any thoughts on those hooks? Also, did you manage to get a response for the help on the hook? — JuanGLP (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still waiting for Theleekycauldron's response before responding further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well ALT 5 doesn’t really sound promotional, and doesn’t ALT 6 needs to have at least 200 characters? Please check the ALTs I placed. Now with the sources, we have plenty of sources in the article, you can check that out. I will write more ALTs to sound less promotional. — JuanGLP (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At most 200 hundred characters. Please keep them as short as possible :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 12:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, well I believe ALT 5 sounds like a possible hook, though your hook sounds good, it should have more context about Drag Den. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggested an ALT 6a. Does it sound good? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ehhh... I guess since there is a little bit more of wording. I support for ALT 6A. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose this article should first go through WP:GOCE/R to fix the awkward wording before it can be given final approval. Per the above discussion, I've struck all hook proposals except for ALT6a (which is direct to the point, cited inline and verified, and gives context about the series that would clarify it to those who are unfamiliar with it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well okie dokie, thank you for your help, please let me know if the DYK? hook went through. — JuanGLP (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuanGLP: Just to clarify: this is still in need of a GOCE copy. I noticed that a request has yet to be made, so I am reiterating that I will not be approving this until such a copy has been completed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5:, I do not know what that means… — JuanGLP (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuanGLP: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has some instructions you can follow. Actually I've gone ahead and requested a copy myself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, it isn't going to be feasible to wait for GOCE; your request still has 50 articles ahead of it even after waiting over a month, and probably won't be taken for copying until sometime in March at this point. If someone can't the article to improve the prose sufficiently soon, the nomination should be considered for closure. (I don't think we can offer GOCE as a solution at DYK any more, given its long backlog and the slow movement of the requests list.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What issues needs to be addressed? — JuanGLP (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is still in need of a major copy. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 26[]

Charles Grobe

Charles Grobe, circa 1845
Charles Grobe, circa 1845

Created by RexSueciae (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Anyways, to make a long reply short -- I'm also fond of the Lincoln hook, Charles Grobe and his quicksteps would be an amusing thought. I can't think of more sources (although there has to be more in unsearchable print somewhere) -- maybe these liner notes? But if you'd like me to harmonize things, I'll go take another look. RexSueciae (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a version of ALT0 that omits the 1998 part and just says he composed over a thousand works in his lifetime? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: This better? (I added it in as a new ALT1 and shifted everything else down.) RexSueciae (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Per the above discussion I'm asking for a second opinion from another reviewer regarding the usability of the composers-classical-music.com source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm against using that source. It's a personal website and I can't find evidence of the author being an established expert in the field. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I don't know of anything else to add. If there are any other sources on the life of Charles Grobe, I have been unable to find them digitized. Meanwhile, just to confirm, there's no problems with the hooks? RexSueciae (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave the final approval to another or, but my pick for a hook would be either ALT1 or ALT4 (with a slight preference for ALT1). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 27[]

Benjamin Tompson

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 00:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Gwillhickers: Good article. However, the hook and what's in the article don't exactly seem to match up in a way that bothers me. For example, in the article it says "the first collection of American poems to be printed in what is the American colonies" while the hook says "was the first poet in the American colonies to have his poems printed and published". I feel like the hook should be a bit more specific here because of that. I'm being picky here because of how DYK is with "First" hooks. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Onegreatjoke: — Thanks for your thorough review. Sorry about the delay - was under the weather for a few days there. I added the following statement to the lede, and it already occurs in the Vocation section. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1  ...Benjamin Tompson (pictured) is cred for being the first native born poet to emerge in North-America?   < Hall, 1924, pp. 1, 22 >< Fussell, 1953, p. 494 >
Symbol voting keep.svg Approving Alt1. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gwillhickers and Onegreatjoke: the first published native born poet, though, right? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 04:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, in order to establish the idea of 'first poet' you have to establish the idea in terms of tangible evidence -- published works. Otherwise, all historians would have is a speculation or an assumption that Tompson was the first at anything. See: <Wroth, 1938, p. 258> <Hall, 1924, p. 13> <Fussell, 1953, p. 500> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is the term the sources use, and used in the proper context doesn't imply anything wrong, imo. Again, the lede, not to mention the article, makes things clear. Also, I have to say, it's wrong that the term "native" has been reserved, by some people, for only one race of people, as if other lives don't matter. We could always use the original hook if someone is going to make a big issue over matters of opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Like other poets, Tompson developed his writing by patient practice during hours not involved with his teaching responsibilities" with "Tompson, like other early poets, developed his craft by patient practice during hours unoccupied by his classroom responsibilities", or "definitive example of cultivated standard of achievement in verse in New England in the late seventeenth century" with "represents the cultivated standard of achievement in verse in New England in the late seventeenth century". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I was not aware of this - you have moved this from the prep but you did not ping any of the involved parties (@Theleekycauldron, Gwillhickers, and Onegreatjoke:. You have placed the close paraphrasing banner on the article but it would be far more helpful to help fix the issue. Bruxton (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bruxton: this appears to be a recurring problem on Gwillhickers' DYK noms – fixing it is probably not a reasonable ask for an admin copypatroller (my bad, i could've sworn!) with lots more to do. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: they are not an admin. But I guess this one is kaput now. Bruxton (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria, Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and Theleekycauldron: — The phrases in question have been reworded. Bearing in mind
CLOP: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."
It would seem the phrase, "cultivated standard of achievement in verse" is one such example. I had always thought that some similarities were allowed in such cases when used in the context of one's own words, which has always been the case. In any event, I've gone through the article and checked for other issues. If anyone sees something I may have missed please bring it to my attention. If there are no more issues I'm hoping to get this Nom back on track. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is always possible to directly quote unique turns of phrase like that one. But again, direct copying is not the only problem to avoid. Consider this example: "Tompson lived to the age of seventy-two, during which time he had the opportunity to produce a good deal of poetry over a period of fifty-five years. From the 1658 poem on Samuel Arnold to his last work in 1713, Tompson wrote at least twenty-nine poems" vs the source's "Because he lived to the age of seventy-two, Tompson had the opportunity to produce a good deal of poetry over a long period of time. In the fifty-five years of his productivity, from the 1658 poem on Samuel Arnold to his "last lines" of 1713, Tompson wrote at least twenty-nine poems". There are pieces of this that are truly limited - but placed in the context of others that are only slightly altered, the whole still consists of close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement has been reworded and simplified. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Honestly, I think I'm going to give this review to someone else as I lack confidence in reviewing this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arun gas field

5x expanded by Larataguera (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg @Larataguera: Based on the NPOV criteria, I feel the hook should be revised to say "alleged atrocities" since this involves an ongoing court case that has not rendered a verdict on ExxonMobil's complicity in the atrocities. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arsonal, it's true there's a subtle difference between "not denying" and "acknowledging." I missed that, and I'll fix that sentence. As for the hook, the source says that Since the end of the civil war in 2005, the government-backed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) and the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have extensively documented abuses committed by the Indonesian military both around Arun field and across Aceh. I don't think there's any question that the atrocities occurred, and so it would be misleading to say "alleged atrocities". (That is, we would not be misrepresenting the source if the hook read "... that extensively documented atrocities ...!)
So to be clear, what is "alleged" (and yet to be ruled in the lawsuit) is Exxon's responsibility for the atrocities (under US law). Not the atrocities themselves.
Larataguera (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Larataguera. I agree that the sources point to atrocities being committed, but a reader with no knowledge of the context (which is the point of DYK) and just reading the hook without any antecedent of who committed the atrocities would imply the atrocities were committed by ExxonMobil, resulting in the lawsuit. But, as your source states, the atrocities were in fact committed by the military. I propose the following:
Let me know what you think. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Arsonal for this suggestion. It seems like anyone who reads much of anything into the hook will just click on it and find all the information they need. The point is to create interest. I think Alt0 is factual and would get more clicks than Alt1, which I think is a little too long and gives too much information.
If you strongly feel Alt0 is unacceptable, how about
That works for me. Symbol confirmed.svg Approve ALT2. Thanks for working with me, Larataguera. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom). SL93 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose that if people are insistent that the atrocities be "alleged" (per concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom)), then the hook could read:

I think this is a bit wordy, but could meet people's concerns that we not describe the atrocities to have occurred in wikivoice, while not mis-representing the situation as being more uncertain than it actually is? Larataguera (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 28[]

Pyotr Masherov

Improved to Good Article status by Mupper-san (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

pinging @Mupper-san: since he knows the sources better than I do. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:: You (unfortunately) won't find it in Belarusian - it's part of a collection of texts titled Pyotr Masherov: Epoch and Fate. On the 100th Anniversary of his Birth, a Collection of Articles and Texts (Russian: Петр Машеров. Эпоха и судьба. К 100-летию со дня рождения. Сборник статей и воспоминаний.), and to my knowledge hasn't been published on its own. Additionally, I would call Dzyemyantsyey reliable given he was a witness to events occurring under Masherov's rule. Lastly, Vecherko is (I believe) Valentin Vechyorko [ru], a Belarusian historian and opposition politician. Mupper-san (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mupper-san: I see – not sure why it would be G. N., then. Who published Dzyemyantsyey's book? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 23:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:: There is also the possibility (which is more likely now, looking at it) that it was Valentin Vechyorko's father, Grigory Nikolayevich Vechyorko (Russian: Григорий Николаевич Вечёрко) - himself an advisor to Masherov, deputy head of Gosplan in Belarus, and a member of the KGB. Dzyemyantsyey's text (Which is actually in a separate collection, a mistake on my part as the two are similarly anthologies of first-hand accounts and historical analysis) was published by the League for the Assistance to Enterprises Association (Russian: Ассоциация "Лига содействия оборонным предприятиям) The collection which Dzyemyantsyey's memoirs are actually part of is Pyotr Masherov, Son of the Belarusian Nation: Memoirs and Articles on his 95th Birth Anniversary (Russian: Сын белорусского народа Петр Машеров. К 95-летию со дня рождения. воспоминания и статьи. Mupper-san (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mupper-san: Aha, gotcha. Is the publisher reputable for historical content? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I can't really testify as to any knowledge of the publisher, but I can say that many of the authors included in it were people who had some experience with his leadership, among them various social, academic, and cultural figures during the period. Additionally is the fact that sizeable portions of content (for example, Masherov being referred to as a "genuine communist" or similarly described as being a genuine adherent of communism compared to his equivalents during the Era of Stagnation). As an addendum, Dzyemyantsyey would likely have expertise in regards to agriculture as he was head of the agricultural department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Byelorussia from 1977 (see here). And my sincerest apologies for not replying earlier - it must have completely slipped my mind! Mupper-san (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I know that public officials have a lot of first hand experience, but that doesn't make them reliable for the content they produce – public officials still have agendas and alliances, even after leaving office. If the publisher doesn't have a reputation for historical content, I'm not entirely convinced that we're dealing with a reliable source for the figures. No worries on the response time :) I'm rather swamped and bonked myself. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 4[]


Improved to Good Article status by Nathan Obral (talk). Self-nominated at 06:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 7[]

Gother Mann

Gother Mann in 1763
Gother Mann in 1763

1778? Source: (1) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Mann,_Gother (2) https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-17944

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 03:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I'll work on expanding the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ficaia: Any progress? BorgQueen (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BorgQueen: Yes, by my count I've added 1736 characters of text based on other sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 8[]

The Virgin in Prayer

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • @JeBonSer: Again, the issue I’m having is that this isn’t particularly unique to this painting. It’s not particularly surprising to read that the Virgin Mary was a common subject Italian art in the Baroque era given the strong relation of Roman Catholicism to all three of these topics, and that hook says nothing particularly exciting about this painting. Do you have responses to the other issues I raised? Umimmak (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JeBonSer: Hi there, sorry to interrupt; how about that ultramarine is made of a stone from Afghanistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talkcontribs) 03:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JeBonSer and Paradise Chronicle: as Umimmak points out, ultramarine was a pretty common colour for paintings of the time. If a hook can't be agreed upon in a week, I'd say that this nom should probably be marked for closure. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience as I have my wikibreak for these past days. I have my other suggested hook which you can agree:
* ALT2: ... that The Virgin in Prayer (pictured) was acquired by the National Gallery in the mid-19th-century as the London art world had a renewed interest of its artist? Source: "This picture and The Virgin in Prayer were both acquired by the National Gallery in the mid-nineteenth century, when Sassoferrato’s star was high in the London art world." National Gallery. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 04:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 9[]

Beezer Brothers

Created by MB (talk) and Doncram (talk). Nominated by MB (talk) at 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Not sure if hook can be considered interesting enough (I very rarely look at DYK), so would prefer another reviewer to comment. Voice of Clam 17:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 10[]

Ludwig's subathon

Ludwig Ahgren in 2021
Ludwig Ahgren in 2021

Improved to Good Article status by PerfectSoundWhatever (talk). Self-nominated at 01:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg @PerfectSoundWhatever: Good article. Article is sourced and the hook is interesting. Just waiting on a QPQ now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't believe I forgot to sign my post. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Alright, approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting article and subject. A few sources are blog-like in nature, but they appear reliable based on the credentials of the author or the fact that the publisher is reliable, and the information used have been written in a neutral manner. In this oldid, citation 10 is a press release, and citation 12 is an anonymous blog, but their usage for referencing is minimal. If WP:RS is an issue, the two citations could be removed, and it would not impact the reliability of the article. @CurryTime7-24: Note that there are instances where "kanzuri" is misspelled as "kanzari". —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. Been short on time on account of Christmastide/New Year's. What little time I've had available for ing was spent tripling the size of the article for Galina Pisarenko in order to salvage its attendant DYK nomination. Will get back to work on kanzuri later today or tomorrow—promise! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Been a busy month so far. Working on this right now finally. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CurryTime7-24:, any progress? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the updates, CurryTime7-24. I think the MAFF source also needs to be used to cite "traditional process known as kanzarashi or yukisarashi" so that the statement doesn't violate WP:SYNTH since neither the Satoyama Library nor the Yukiguni citation after that sentence specifically mentions kanzarashi. Also, looking at the hooks again, I think ALT1 needs be struck since it's directly based on a statement by the president of the product's maker. It's fine within the article, but using it as a hook doesn't meet WP:NOTADVERT in my opinion. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: Making sure you didn't miss my comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 11[]

Elizabeth Mary Wells

Moved to mainspace by Lauraosull (talk). Nominated by Kingsif (talk) at 23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough, is neutral and is plagiarism free. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ is done. However, in terms of sourcing - the majority of those mentioned seem to be primary sources from the Church Missionary Society (which I can't access), and one secondary source Europeans in East Africa (which is about her husband). I'm concerned that although the article is well-written and detailed, it depends too much on primary material which does not necessarily establish her own notability. (I am loathe to say this, as most of the pages I start are for women!) I think to approve it, I'd need to hear which of the Church Missionary Society sources contribute to her notability, not just background to her life. Also, the page needs to be de-orphaned, there's two citations missing, the quotes need attributions, and it needs some categories adding. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Lajmmoore: While I looked over the article and am confident of two independent sources for GNG, I don't have any knowledge of the sources you ask about. The article is a WikiEd product that the student is still working on, and I don't want to mess with their "work" until their class is over. It is a stupid system, but at least we have a well-written article in this case. I, separately, don't think being an orphan or uncategorised is a barrier to DYK. But if there are outstanding issues, I probably can't address them. Happy for this to be closed if that's the case, and I'll either find another article to nom or ask to use another of mine for the Christmas set. Kingsif (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Kingsif - which were the two sources you'd identifed for GNG? (In hope I can change my mind!) I just looked at the toolkit the new ors are given, and they don't get told about article categories or de-orphaning, so I can see better why that's not been done. The course page says the final week ended 10 December, so I think we can help and it be OK - @Helaine (Wiki Ed):, @Brianda (Wiki Ed):, @Ian (Wiki Ed):, @Breamk: what do you think? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just leaving a tag for @Lauraosull: & the message I left on their talk page here. If you could leave a note on the sources that prove notability here, that would be great! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lajmmoore: In this I note which sources I thought fit, but also that the urls are all student-user log-ins, and are time-restricted. Needs work, there, too. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kingsif I can now approve the hook - Laurosull explained (on the talk page & on her usertalk) that three of the sources supported notability, so I am much more confident in the sourcing of the article now. Good to go. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have given it a very thorough copy. The only outstanding issue is the same thing I mentioned the first time, @Lauraosull:; that many of the refs point to urls that are student-login blocked (i.e. if you used school access and just copied the url, nobody else can see it). Is it possible for you to re-access the sources and change the refs to have general bibliographic detail (how you would cite it in a term paper) - preferably including page numbers where the sources are long or detailed. Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isaac Hill

Isaac Hill
Isaac Hill

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg Expansion of the article began on Decemner 11. The article was 2037 characters of prose before the article was expanded, and was 10906 on December 18, which is slightly more than a 5x expansion of prose. No copyvio detected, hook is interesting and AGF on source. No concerns here; good to go. - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC) - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Hill became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, involving Constitutional amendments which would effect corporate law lending his support to the action taken by the state, and did all he could to keep the controversy alive until it assumed proportions which would continued to effect local politics for nearly a half century" with "he became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, supporting the action of the state and fanning the flames of controversy until it assumed proportions which affected local politics for almost half a century". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Oh no, thanks for catching that, I think I over-relied on Earwig here and didn't think to check the sources with that level of scrutiny. - Aoidh (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoidh and Nikkimaria: — Actually, while there are a couple of phrases that are similar, one involving only a general statement, much has been quoted here that doesn't involve close-paraphrasing,. Here is what was quoted, with the similar text in bold. All else does not involve close-paraphrasing.
"Hill became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, involving Constitutional amendments which would effect corporate law lending his support to the action taken by the state, and did all he could to keep the controversy alive until it assumed proportions which would continued to effect local politics for nearly a half century".
It should be noted also that the source involved is in the public domain and offered as a free download from archive.org, so there are no copyright issues involved here. I double checked the article with Earwig's Copyvio Detector which shows no more issues. I will correct the couple of incidents involving close paraphrasing. Apologies, and thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The portion you've bolded is essentially identical, but close paraphrasing involves more than just identical text - see WP:CLOP more information. Keep in mind that Earwig will catch only identical text, and only for materials which it is able to index. Even material copied from public domain texts needs to be properly attributed, but what leads you to believe this source is PD? Multiple ions of the work appear to have had their copyright renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoidh and Nikkimaria: — As I said, the portion I bolded, a couple short general phrases, was identical, all the other text quoted was not. In any case, the source is available for download at archive.org. There is nothing there that indicates that the particular source I used is copyrighted. If it still had a copyright archive.org would not offer it up for a free unrestricted download, or they would be facing legal issues. Is the text in question okay in your opinion now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IA is indeed facing legal issues, and even if it were not, being freely available on the web does not mean the text is suitably licensed for inclusion here. Thus it is necessary to ensure adequate paraphrasing, beyond the single example presented above. Here is an additional example: "a lengthy and energetic political commentary on the current trend of national affairs, and gave his support to a strict construction of state reforms, favored rotation in office, economy, and advocated democratic simplicity" vs "a lengthy and vigorous commentary on the trend of national affairs in support of strict construction, rotation in office, economy, and democratic simplicity". While this is not the word-for-word copying that would be caught by Earwig, it does constitute close paraphrasing per WP:CLOP. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then how would one say that Hill was a strong supporter of Jackson who received a recess appointment, and later the Senate refused confirmation of his appointment, which disappointed President Jackson? These are all simple yet important points that make the overall statement comprehensive. If there is anyway to mention Hill's strong/ardent/faithful support of Jackson, "recess appointment", "Jackson's subsequent disappointment", Senate refusal, etc, without "too close paraphrasing" I'd like to see it, to get a better idea of relating these basic points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Gwillhickers: how would something like this go re: CLOP? "In 1829, Hill received a recess appointment to serve as comptroller of the treasury. He remained in the position until April 1830, leaving the position following the Senate's refusal to confirm him to the position when he was nominated. The decision not to confirm Hill, a strong supporter of Andrew Jackson, drew Jackson's ire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talkcontribs)
@Theleekycauldron and Nikkimaria: — Theleekycauldron, thanks for your help. It looks okay to me, but we should also mention an important point of context, somewhere in your last sentence, that Hill was a strong/ardent/faithful/passionate (take your pick) supporter of Jackson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would imagine that the phrase "a strong supporter of Andrew Jackson" accomplishes that quite nicely :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: — As per the rest of the article, I'm seeing no issues that go beyond the usage of general phrases of basic points found in sources, used in the context of my own wording, and no copyright issues. Yours and other opinions on that note would be most welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 17[]

Woman to Woman (campaign)

Created by Moondragon21 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Article covers all the necessary criteria for DYK. Confirmed QPQ not required (user has 4 previous crs but first time nominating themselves). Happy to pass this one. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 22[]

Chauncey Yellow Robe

Yellow Robe (center) starring as Chief Chetoga in The Silent Enemy
Yellow Robe (center) starring as Chief Chetoga in The Silent Enemy

I am still quite new at submitting DYKs so I would appreciate constructive feedback.

I hope that the article has received enough expansion to qualify, and if not, I will happily research more to expand the article.

Yellow Robe's life is quite long and contains many anecdotes so I am also able to rephrase sentences or alter as needed. Created by Evedawn99 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Re: ALT0, I think the article needs to explain a bit more (could be as little as 1–2 sentences) about why CYR denounced Wild West shows. (It's well explained in his essay, the full text of which I wasn't able to access through your link, but easily found elsewhere online.)
  • Re: ALT1, it's ok but probably the weakest in the set (and it will likely drive more traffic to Rosebud rather than Chauncey).
  • Re: ALT2, I'm not so sure about the use of the word "forced" – is that the right word? Also, could you add one or two reliable secondary sources to back up the claim, in addition to the primary source?
  • Re: ALT3, I see that there's a "clarification needed" tag on this claim within the article. But it's definitely interesting, so would it be possible to add another source and/or fix this in the article as needed...?

Hope that all makes sense. Very excited to see this article, so really it's just a matter of fine-tuning the hooks (as well as how the information appears in the article). Cielquiparle (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Cielquiparle:! Thank you so much for your thorough and constructive review as well as the kind words! I am glad the article is of interest, is neutral, and has more than enough sources. Here are the revisions that I hope reflect your requests. Apologies for my possibly clunky ing as I have grown used to the visual ing tool. Thanks again! The Fonz (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellow Robe with daughter Rosebud (center) and President Coolidge (left) in 1927
Yellow Robe with daughter Rosebud (center) and President Coolidge (left) in 1927
@Evedawn99: Thanks for your response. ALT3a is better; personally I think it would be even better with the word "supporting" so it reads "thank him for supporting the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act" (or perhaps "thank him for signing the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act into law").
Unfortunately, I doubt the new image for ALT0/ALT0a is clear enough to run on the main page. Other issues related to ALT0/ALT0a: Article lacks a citation for casting "solely Native actors" and the Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance controversy; this is now tagged within the article and needs to be fixed. If it's important to attribute Atalie Unkalunt, where did she say it? (Or maybe it's not important to attribute the indirect quote to her, and you could modify the claim and choose another source.) ALT0a also repeats "Native/Native American" too much. What do you think of this:
ALT0b: ... that Lakota Sioux activist Chauncey Yellow Robe (pictured) denounced Wild West shows, but later starred in a 1930 film playing an Ojibwe chief?
Further comment is that regarding his objection to Wild West shows, my advice is to cite at least one or two secondary sources within the article that interpret "The Menace of the Wild West Show", rather than trying to interpret brief excerpts of the primary source yourself; the speech/essay is so famous, you have a lot of solid sources to choose from. A quick scan of other sources suggests that his objections had to do with the "demeaning portrayal" of Native Americans (e.g. "portrayal as savages" etc.), but also the fact that he was blaming the "Wild West schemes" themselves for perpetuating "drunkenness" (e.g., see Popular Culture Review).
Regarding ALT2/2a, I still think the hooks are not quite right. Just so we're clear, Chauncey Yellow Robe's father gave his permission to have his two sons sent to Carlisle, even if it was against young Chauncey's will. (See the NYT obituary already cited within the article, or page 12 of this biography of Rosebud.) This is quite different from abduction, and in any case, in his writings as an adult, Chauncey was actually positive about the education he received. Looking at this fresh, maybe you could make a case for keeping the word "forced" as you had it in ALT2, but the way it is phrased it also sounds like someone forced him to wear the full Indian dress, whereas if you read the sources it sounds like he just didn't have any other clothes *at first*. Anyway, regardless of whether or not we use this hook, this still needs to be fixed within the article and I also think you should go ahead and delete one of the two block quotes about his schooling, because they are redundant (and a lot of Wikipedia ors frown on too much blockquoting).
Hope this is clear enough. If you don't want to bother too much with the other hooks, we could probably go with ALT3a (or an ALT3b with minor tweaks), but regardless, there are still 3–4 issues that need to be resolved within the article, per my comments above. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've struck the hooks that don't work (because they aren't accurate), and have made further s to the article to address at least one of my own previous comments as the initial reviewer (about the repetitive block quotes and the mischaracterization of the reason he went to Carlisle).
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Could someone else now review the remaining hooks (ALT0b and ALT3b), as I have proposed some hook modifications and have ed the article? Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Schunk, Harold W. (January 1985). Masonry Among South Dakota Indians - Chauncey Yellow Robe's Story (PDF). Vol. XXXI. Knight Templar.
  2. ^ Agonito, Joseph (2011-08-02). Lakota Portraits: Lives of the Legendary Plains People. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 255. ISBN 978-0-7627-6829-5.

Judith Marquet-Krause

Judith Marquet-Krause
Judith Marquet-Krause

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Image also seems like it complies with guidelines. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1 ... that excavations led by archaeologist Judith Marquet-Krause (pictured) disproved that the Book of Joshua was a factual account of the city of Ai?
Does that move the emphasis enough? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol voting keep.svg ALT1 is definitely better. Striking ALT0. Interesting article. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello RoySmith, thanks for flagging this - I wonder if the issue was caused by the fact I used a translation from NL? Either way, I'll fix it in the next 48 hours. Thanks again Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello @RoySmith: I've taken another look and weeded out, I think the worst paraphrasing. I'm not sure what to do about the structure - whether that too is considered COPYVIO? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: could I impose on you to take a look at the latest version? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly better, although the Career section in particular could do with a bit more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done a bit more reworking, but I'm also at a bit of a loss with the structure since the JWA article is written quite like a Wikipedia article, I'm finding it challenging to see how to structure it differently. If someone could offer some advice that would be very much appreciated. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 25[]

Phylogenetic reconciliation

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Mietchen (talk). Nominated by Daniel Mietchen (talk) at 18:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 26[]

Mimi Kilgore

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 02:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A NYT obit is fairly persuasive and a Google search showed other reliable sources covering her life. Happy to reinstate the tick once the bare URLs are dealt with - Dumelow (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 27[]


Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 Hi! Kindly check. Thanks RV (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Apologies for the delay in replying. I'll need a few days first to think about if ALT2 or ALT3 are okay (I think ALT2 is probably the one that meets the criterion here best, albeit marginally). My main concern is that the article writing seems rather non-standard, with lots of '[' and ']' symbols along with an inconsistent use of quotation marks. I would probably suggest that the article be given a copy before the nomination can proceed further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Made the necessary changes. Please have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! Let me rework and ping you then. Thanks RV (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Kindly check ALT5. Thanks RV (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hook suggestions seem a bit complicated. Maybe simplifying it a bit? There's also maybe a few too many links, which might distract people away from checking out the article and instead direct them to those other articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Kindly check ALT6, it is simplified, and I have fixed overlinking. Thanks RV (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 31[]

Braxton Cook

Created by BanjoZebra (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 ... that Braxton Cook performed alongside Jon Batiste on the soundtrack for Pixar's Soul, which won the Academy Award for Best Original Score? SL93 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that my hook suggestion isn't in the source. SL93 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake, I fixed the source on the page. SL93 I think that hook works! BanjoZebra (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if it could be revised further. There's probably an okay core there but I'm not really a fan of the mention of Batiste. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Del Riley (clerk)

Created by 127(point)0(point)0(point)1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to welcome any alt hooks you could suggest! --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niwar (cotton tape)

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg As it stands, the article is not eligible for DYK. To qualify for DYK, the article should be at least 15,215 bytes in size (using the article's size based on the before expansion, 3,043 bytes, as the basis for this computation); the article is currently at 11,942 bytes. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BlueMoonset, Sky Harbor, thanks for your reconsideration. Kindly check the ALT1 if it suits. Regards RV (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg The hook does seem better, so I think this is good to go with ALT1. --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg Sky Harbor, RAJIVVASUDEV, I have some concerns about ALT1. The first is the "cotton tape" assertion, as the article makes it clear that Niwar is a type of tape or ribbon that is now manufactured using materials such as cotton, polyester, and nylon, not just cotton alone as the hook states, even if it may originally have only been made from cotton. Further, while some Niwar has historically been produced by prisoners, the article says was produced in various parts of India by cottage industries and also in jail industries, so not ever only by prisoners. The hook needs to be more accurate if it's to run. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sky Harbor, BlueMoonset, ALT2 added. Thanks RV (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RV, I'm afraid that ALT2 is also problematic: it is saying that the niwar bed, according to Sikhism, is both superior and the bed itself "attributes life's injustices to man's acts, not God's caprice", which seems unlikely. The words in quotes are nearly identical to the header immediately before XVI in Macauliffe's The Sikh Religion, and might be better as a direct quote and a better attribution, as these are from the writings of Kabir—based on what I'm seeing in the entire section, each header before the subsection numbers seems to be a brief explanation of what the section is conveying to the reader. The connection in the article is also not obvious between the niwar bed and the rest of it, just that the bed is used, along with silk and satin, as an example of luxuries that the gods might give to someone while others have not even a ragged coat or any bed, with the underlying thought that it all goes away when one dies. I'm not clear where those pre-number header lines come from: are these Macauliffe's summation, or a summary or header in the original Kabir? Finally, "niwar" is not a proper noun as best I can determine from the sources, and should not be capitalized in the hooks or in the text of the article, except as the first word in a sentence; I have adjusted the article accordingly, lowercasing a number of non-proper nouns. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueMoonset Thanks, Kindly check ALT3 and ALT4. Regards RV (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV and BlueMoonset: I've removed the bit about life's inequality and God's caprice from the article, so I've struck ALT3 and ALT4 as no longer usable. Also, some parts of the article are poorly sourced, eg. the "Present" section is sourced to raw export data and the third paragraph of the "Applications" section is sourced to invitations to tender. There may be close paraphrasing issues; compare the passage beginning "In 1956, approximately 215 units..." with this source (p. 147, 2nd paragraph). I'm not sure if this is a problem – the source may be public domain, or this may be a permissible WP:LIMITED exeption – but flagging it just in case. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth and BlueMoonset: After copy ing as per the given comments, ALT5 has been added. Please advise. Thanks RV (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that there are two bare URLs (currently references 11 and 26) that will have to be filled in before the article can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueMoonset: It is sorted. Thanks RV (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @RAJIVVASUDEV: I like ALT5. Could you please add citations to the end of each sentence with the information cited in the hook, even if it breaks your article's citation style? It's required under DYK rule #3b: Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. (I like ALT6 a bit less, mainly because the use of the world "fueled", while attention-getting, sounds odd in wikivoice, plus it could be read the wrong way (i.e., was someone burning niwar in the 20th century?). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Hi! Inline citation is there, and page 129 of the source [Survey report: Cottage And Small Scale Industries of India] reads Niwar Weaving: It is another allied industry of weaving. Practically in all cities manufacture of Niwar is very common. Coloured and plain Niwar is prepared and sold almost everywhere. Coarse yarn is mostly used for this article and this industry may, therefore, be a help in the production of hand-spun yarn. During the War this industry was given a good impetus and we hope it will pay if an enquiry be made as to the purpose this article can serve in the foreign market. There seems to be thus a possibility of establishing an export market. To improvise AL6, I have tweaked it [ALT7, ALT8]. Kindly have a look. Thanks 02:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Sorry if it wasn't clear...what the rule is saying is that every single sentence in that paragraph has to have an individual footnote at the end of the sentence. You can't just tack it on at the end of the paragraph, even if that is the citation style you have chosen for the page. (I found this very unclear as well but apparently that is what rule #3b means.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I have fixed it. Have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: This is a nice article topic by the way. I have one more request regarding sourcing for the hook: Is there an additional source you can find that is more recent, which supports the part of the statement that says it helped support handspun yarn manufacturers? The issue I'm having is that the source you are quoting says "the industry may...be a help in the production of hand-spun yarn" (so it's like it hasn't happened yet). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I couldn't find another source, so I'm adding ALT9 and ALT10 if they can work. Thank you RV (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 1[]

Millennial pause

following a longer hook:

following a shorter hook:

alt0a (with extra spacing before the bullet point):

alt0b (with extra spacing after the bullet point but before the ellipsis):

alt0c (with extra spacing after the "that"):

alt0d (with an ellllipsis):

alt0e (with no ellipsis):

alt0f (double ellipsis, added by Hameltion):

alt1 (with no ellipsis and uneven text):

Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC). [added alt1. dying (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]