Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

Within the context of Wikipedia's "Did you know..." (DYK) project, reviewing refers specifically to the process by which a nominated hook and the associated article(s) are evaluated, improved, and eventually either rejected as irreparably unusable or approved. This page is intended as a guide to aid ors in the reviewing process. Keep in mind that, in the end, Did You Know approval is a subjective process. No amount of studying rules, almost-rules and precedents will guarantee approval, nor will violating any rule guarantee disapproval. (D13)

Pick a nomination to review[]

Nominations are listed at Template talk:Did you know. On that page, the nominations are generally arranged in chronological order, with the oldest nominations at the top of the page. It is best if you start with one of the older unreviewed nominations.

Review the article(s)[]

To qualify for DYK, an article needs to meet several special criteria, in addition to being checked for normal encyclopedic issues. The fact that an article has been accepted as a Good article should not be considered an assumption that the article meets these criteria.

  • Check that within the past seven days, the article either:
    1. was created (ie a new article);
    2. had its readable prose expanded at least fivefold;
    3. was listed as a good article.

    The DYKcheck tool is helpful in evaluating this, or if you want to figure it out yourself, detailed instructions are here. Older articles or expansions can be allowed.

    • If a new article incorporates text copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a pre-existing article.
    • Fivefold expansion means at least five times as much prose as the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are the only exception), no matter whether any of it was kept, and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise to nominators, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
    • Check that the article hasn't been featured on the Main Page's In the news section and hasn't previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in an earlier DYK. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.)
    • Check that the article is long enough. Articles must contain at least 1,500 characters of readable prose.
    • In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.
    • Check that the article contains appropriate citations.
    • The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article.
    • The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
    • Sources must be properly labelled in a References (or similar section), not as "External links".
    • References may not have bare URLs such as [1] or http://example.com
    • Any direct quotation must be marked as such (generally using quotation marks for short quotes and blockquote for longer quotes) and cited to a reliable source.
    • Do not assume that any criteria are met based on the fact that the article is a good article.
    • If the article is entirely or substantially sourced to offline, foreign-language or paywalled sources, verify the basic facts, or at the very least, the existence of the article subject.
    • Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem. A list can be found at WP:DISPUTETAG. An orphan tag is not a dispute tag, and not a validation for rejecting or holding up a nomination.
    • If the article includes information about living individuals, make sure it does not violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. This applies even if the article subject is not a living person.
    • Check that the article does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The Earwig tool can be helpful for this.
    • Consider whether the article deals with the subject in a neutral manner.
    • DYK nominations for articles at WP:AfD should be held pending the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article is retained, the DYK nomination can proceed, and of course, if deleted, the DYK nomination must be rejected.
Special occasion hold requests

Review the hook[]

Assuming that you have a qualifying article, it's now time to review all the hooks, including any ALT hooks that have been suggested.

If there is an image[]

If there is an image to go with the hook, you will need to do a little extra checking on it.

Finishing the review[]

After evaluating both the hook and the nominated article, check the nominator has reviewed another DYK nomination under the quid pro quo (QPQ) rules (WP:DYKSG#H4), and make sure that review adequately covers all of the DYK criteria just as yours will do. A QPQ review is not a requirement if its nominator has nominated fewer than five articles for DYK (whether or not self-nominated). If this is a multi-article nomination, then H4 rules apply. If in doubt about the number of previous nominations, look for s giving DYK cr on the nominator's talk page (possibly using DYKUpdateBot). Note that not all nominations are cred in this way and the bot also crs DYK creations and expansions, not just nominations. If in doubt, ask as part of your review process.

Type your review in the section for that nomination. You should begin your review with one of the five DYK review icons. This allows the nominator and other ors to more quickly understand your review decision, including the severity of any problems. It is also used by the bot to keep the tally of how many hooks have been passed. After posting the icon, indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

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

Be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have, since several other ors may comment on the nomination before you return.

Symbol Code DYK Ready? Description
Symbol confirmed.svg {{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
Symbol voting keep.svg {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline or paywalled hook reference accepted in good faith
Symbol question.svg {{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
Symbol possible vote.svg {{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
Symbol delete vote.svg {{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}

If the outcome of your review is anything other than an approval (Symbol confirmed.svg or Symbol voting keep.svg), please consider notifying the article nominator(s); you can do this with a personal message on their talk page or by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} there, replacing Article with the title of the nominated article. This will automatically create a new talk page section and will automatically append your signature, so there is no need to do either of those.

The icon Symbol redirect vote 4.svg — coded as {{subst:DYK?again}} — may be used by creators and nominators to indicate that a nomination that previously had a problem is ready to be reviewed again after changes were made to resolve the issues identified.

An article cannot be officially promoted until a reviewer has given their approval (Symbol confirmed.svg or Symbol voting keep.svg) to at least one of the article's hooks. Nominators are encouraged to work with reviewers to come up with hooks that meet the standards of the DYK process, and new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook. Once a reviewer has conducted a thorough review of the nomination and given their approval by placing the requisite symbol on the discussion page along with a statement indicating which hooks are ready, and if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessment, an uninvolved or will soon review the discussion and likely close it and promote the article.

If the article does not qualify for DYK (Symbol delete vote.svg) for some technical reason or if the participants cannot agree on at least one viable hook, the discussion will eventually be closed by an uninvolved or and the article will not be promoted.

Resources[]