Current (main page) (T:DYK) |
---|
Queue (T:DYK/Q) |
Nominations (T:TDYK) |
Discussion (WT:DYK) |
Rules (WP:DYK) |
Supplementary rules (WP:DYKSG) |
Reviewing guide (WP:DYKR) |
Archive of DYKs (WP:DYKA) |
Stats (WP:DYKSTATS) |
This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK.
Contents
- 1 Instructions for nominators
- 2 Instructions for other editors
- 3 Nominations
- 3.1 Older nominations
- 3.1.1 Articles created/expanded on May 27
- 3.1.2 Articles created/expanded on June 5
- 3.1.3 Articles created/expanded on June 11
- 3.1.4 Articles created/expanded on June 12
- 3.1.5 Articles created/expanded on June 15
- 3.1.6 Articles created/expanded on June 16
- 3.1.7 Articles created/expanded on June 19
- 3.1.8 Articles created/expanded on June 20
- 3.1.9 Articles created/expanded on June 21
- 3.1.10 Articles created/expanded on June 24
- 3.1.11 Articles created/expanded on June 25
- 3.1.12 Articles created/expanded on July 1
- 3.1.13 Articles created/expanded on July 2
- 3.1.14 Articles created/expanded on July 3
- 3.1.15 Articles created/expanded on July 4
- 3.1.16 Articles created/expanded on July 5
- 3.1.17 Articles created/expanded on July 6
- 3.1.18 Articles created/expanded on July 7
- 3.1.19 Articles created/expanded on July 8
- 3.1.20 Articles created/expanded on July 9
- 3.1.21 Articles created/expanded on July 10
- 3.1.22 Articles created/expanded on July 11
- 3.1.23 Articles created/expanded on July 12
- 3.1.24 Articles created/expanded on July 13
- 3.1.25 Articles created/expanded on July 14
- 3.1.26 Articles created/expanded on July 15
- 3.1.27 Articles created/expanded on July 16
- 3.1.28 Articles created/expanded on July 17
- 3.1.29 Articles created/expanded on July 18
- 3.1.30 Articles created/expanded on July 19
- 3.1.31 Articles created/expanded on July 20
- 3.1.31.1 Jean Venables
- 3.1.31.2 Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty
- 3.1.31.3 Wang Zhongshu
- 3.1.31.4 New Zealand Coot, Chatham Coot
- 3.1.31.5 United States v. Lovett
- 3.1.31.6 Jesse B. Jackson
- 3.1.31.7 Information technology in Bangladesh
- 3.1.31.8 Kyi Maung
- 3.1.31.9 Agenda of the Tea Party movement
- 3.1.31.10 Party of crooks and thieves
- 3.1.31.11 Smim Payu
- 3.1.32 Articles created/expanded on July 21
- 3.1.33 Articles created/expanded on July 22
- 3.1.33.1 2013 IPC Athletics World Championships
- 3.1.33.2 International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
- 3.1.33.3 Paul Jowitt
- 3.1.33.4 An Account of Corsica
- 3.1.33.5 Bud VanDeWege
- 3.1.33.6 Church of San Pedro de Atacama
- 3.1.33.7 Charles Manby
- 3.1.33.8 1966 Alabama Crimson Tide football team
- 3.1.33.9 Victor Edelstein
- 3.1.34 Articles created/expanded on July 23
- 3.1.35 Articles created/expanded on July 24
- 3.1.36 Articles created/expanded on July 25
- 3.1.36.1 Battle Metal
- 3.1.36.2 Florence Margaret Durham
- 3.1.36.3 Burka Avenger
- 3.1.36.4 Elizabeth Press
- 3.1.36.5 Astrid (brig)
- 3.1.36.6 Raid on Brandenburg
- 3.1.36.7 The Baby-Roast
- 3.1.36.8 L.Stadt
- 3.1.36.9 Arturo Puig
- 3.1.36.10 Alice Vickery
- 3.1.36.11 List of songs recorded by Nicki Minaj
- 3.1.36.12 You Haven't Seen the Last of Me
- 3.1.36.13 The Midnight Zoo
- 3.1.37 Articles created/expanded on July 26
- 3.1.38 Articles created/expanded on July 27
- 3.2 Current nominations
- 3.2.1 Articles created/expanded on July 28
- 3.2.1.1 Murder of George E. Bailey
- 3.2.1.2 Broadholme
- 3.2.1.3 Jim Motavalli
- 3.2.1.4 Zaki Khan
- 3.2.1.5 Broadholme Priory
- 3.2.1.6 Terrain softening (Mars)
- 3.2.1.7 Image Lake
- 3.2.1.8 Star Trek: Planet of the Titans
- 3.2.1.9 St Oswald's Church, Old Swan, Liverpool
- 3.2.1.10 Battle of Tursko
- 3.2.1.11 TWG Tea
- 3.2.2 Articles created/expanded on July 29
- 3.2.3 Articles created/expanded on July 30
- 3.2.3.1 Astoria Theatre, Brighton
- 3.2.3.2 Linnea Henriksson
- 3.2.3.3 In a World...
- 3.2.3.4 The Idolmaster Dearly Stars
- 3.2.3.5 Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide
- 3.2.3.6 Delphine Parrott
- 3.2.3.7 Belgian Congo in World War II
- 3.2.3.8 Franz Joseph Bridge
- 3.2.3.9 Sonja Schlesin
- 3.2.3.10 Felley Priory
- 3.2.3.11 Psychos in Love
- 3.2.3.12 Allen Theater (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
- 3.2.3.13 Logo of PetroChina
- 3.2.3.14 Charles Alexander Bruce
- 3.2.3.15 Thinkwell Group
- 3.2.4 Articles created/expanded on July 31
- 3.2.4.1 Xerocomellus
- 3.2.4.2 Tuyuhun invasion of Gansu
- 3.2.4.3 Phil Robertson
- 3.2.4.4 The Idolmaster Live For You!
- 3.2.4.5 Britt Westbourne
- 3.2.4.6 First Presbyterian Church (Coldwater, Michigan)
- 3.2.4.7 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400
- 3.2.4.8 Addleshaw Tower
- 3.2.4.9 George Livermore
- 3.2.4.10 Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible
- 3.2.4.11 Spiritual Milk for Boston Babes
- 3.2.4.12 WBSC (AM)
- 3.2.4.13 Bookless libraries
- 3.2.4.14 1970 Colombia earthquake
- 3.2.4.15 Geoffrey Davis (doctor)
- 3.2.5 Articles created/expanded on August 1
- 3.2.5.1 Royal Pavilion Tavern
- 3.2.5.2 Les Revenants (album)
- 3.2.5.3 Ohlange High School
- 3.2.5.4 Disappearance of Charlene Downes
- 3.2.5.5 The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar
- 3.2.5.6 Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
- 3.2.5.7 Transportation of animals
- 3.2.5.8 Transammonia
- 3.2.5.9 History of the Jews in Namibia
- 3.2.5.10 History of the Jews in Zambia
- 3.2.5.11 Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
- 3.2.6 Articles created/expanded on August 2
- 3.2.1 Articles created/expanded on July 28
- 3.3 Special occasion holding area
- 3.1 Older nominations
Instructions for nominators
Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).
How to post a new nomination
For a step-by-step guide to filling out the
{{NewDYKnom}}
template, see {{NewDYKnomination/guide}}
.Please read the following instructions completely before nominating an article. A nomination is not considered complete until all 3 steps of the instructions below are completed.
I. |
Create the nomination subpage.
In the box below, enter the name of the article you are nominating (replacing |
II. |
Write the nomination.
On that nomination page, fill out the relevant parts of the pre-loaded
After filling out the template, enter an edit summary such as "Nominated YOUR ARTICLE TITLE at DYK" and then save the page. |
III. |
Post at Template talk:Did you know.
After you have created the nomination page, list it at this page by finding the appropriate date and adding
|
How to review a nomination
Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.
To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:
- Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
- Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
- The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
- To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:
Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.
:*<!--Make first comment here-->
showing you where you can put the comment. - Save the page.
If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.
Frequently asked questions
Backlogged?
This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several days until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).
Where is my hook?
If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.
If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.
Instructions for other editors
How to promote an accepted hook
- In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote. In a separate window, open the prep area you intend to add the hook to.
- Paste the accepted hook and the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) into the prep area. Make sure to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas.
- In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line
{{DYKsubpage
with{{subst:DYKsubpage
, replace|passed=
with|passed=yes
, and for the|monthyear=
fill in the month and year under which the nomination was posted (not the current date)—the format for the month and year should be, e.g.,August 2013
. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a green archive box and stating that the nomination was successful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes. - In your edit summary, please indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to.
How to remove a rejected hook
- Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
- In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line
{{DYKsubpage
with{{subst:DYKsubpage
, replace|passed=
with|passed=no
, and for the|monthyear=
fill in the month and year under which the nomination was posted (not the current date)—the format for the month and year should be, e.g.,August 2013
. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.
How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue
- Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
- Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there is usually a link to it in the credits section).
- View the edit history for that page
- Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
- Leave a comment explaining that the hook was removed from the queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
- If the day title for the section that contained the hook has been removed from this page, restore that section.
- If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.
- Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed
How to move a nomination subpage to a new name
- Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.
Nominations
Older nominations
Articles created/expanded on May 27
Hamburg Steak
- ... that while one tale has it that the Hamburg steak was invented in Hamburg, Germany (pictured), another alleges that it is an English creation?
5x expanded by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 10:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
-
Hook had a little grammar error. I fixed it. Can you please emphasize in the article how this differs from a Salisbery steak? Can you please cite the claim as well? From what it seems, it looks almost identical and this would make the reader confused. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Similar to the Salisbury steak, but different because of ingredients. Indentical to what? The Salisbury article reds far differently. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know the article are different. But I believe many readers would like to see the difference of the two steaks sourced in the Hamburg steak article so as to not refer to another page. Also, the hook is not fully sourced. I will add the tag in the article... Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done, I believe? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know the article are different. But I believe many readers would like to see the difference of the two steaks sourced in the Hamburg steak article so as to not refer to another page. Also, the hook is not fully sourced. I will add the tag in the article... Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't know about Proudbolsahye's concern, but you've already claimed this QPQ in Template:Did you know nominations/Satay Club, so you need to review another nomination (in addition to completing that review :P) Mentoz86 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, so I see. But isn't it "legal" now since I reviewed yours twice? Anyways, QPQ changed. Thanks for the heads up. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed, to check the abovementioned issues, and also to do the basic DYK checks such as length, newness, close paraphrasing, citations, etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why is there this article? It's not as if there is a big distinction like with Salisbury steak. There seems to be a perfectly good article to fold the content into... -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- They come from different countries, and are served differently. Hamburger came from Hamburg Steak, and for one, the hamburger has buns whilst the latter does not. Thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Bonkers, you should try to find sources which contrast the hamburg steak with the hamburger. This would help tremendously in showing that this is generally considered a separate dish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This source (which has been present since the nom) states the difference quite clearly. Just a bit of history here: The Hamburg steak was invented earlier than the hamburger. I hope it is okay now. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's not saying its different, that's implying "it's a hamburger without the bun", which is why there's been some resistance here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Before the hamburger was invented, there was just the Hamburg steak, so obviously people ate it just like that. Even though there's the hamburger now, we should not equate it to be the same, just minus a bun. However, I do know that different people of different nationalities will think of "Hamburg steak" and "Hamburger" to mean different things. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The issue is that this could easily be merged into "Hamburger#History", with a statement that it is still eaten as a steak. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Assuming this is not going to be merged, I have tagged some material that needs clarification. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- What sort of clarification is needed? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The present hook ("... that while one tale has it that the Hamburg steak was invented in Hamburg, Germany (pictured), another alleges that it is an English creation?") strikes me as needlessly wordy, so I am offering:
-
-
- ALT1 ... that different tales attribute the creation of the Hamburg steak to German and English origins?
-
- Another possible hook might be:
-
- ALT2 ... that adding bread to the Hamburg steak led to the creation of the hamburger?
-
- EdChem (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think I prefer ALT 2. Thanks, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Responding per a comment at my talk page. I am still unconvinced of the standalone notability of this piece of food. Unless sources which clearly differentiate between the two and consider them different foods are added, I will be nominating this for merger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Crisco 1492, it's been a week and nothing has been done to the article. The nomination is now over two months old. Next steps? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 5
Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh
... that the Persecution of Biharis stranded in Bangladesh started after the Fall of Dhaka?
-
- Reviewed: Anti-Muslim pogroms in India
Created by Faizan (talk). Self nominated at 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC).
- Not eligible - First, the image shown is of protests against the war criminals and Razakars, not against the Biharis. Second, the article is still going through POV issues (See talk page). Also, it focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. The article is not eligible to be promoted. --Zayeem (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- WHY? The article of Razakars says: "They largely constituted the East Pakistani paramilitary groups like Al-Shams, Razakars, and Al-Badr, becoming a major cause for the discontent among the Bengalis.[Siddiqui 1990, p. 153.], [A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171.]" Therefore the image is absolutely against Biharis.
- The protests (shown in the image) are against Razakars, not Biharis in general. The term Razakar has a specific meaning in Bangladesh. The term is used to refer to the local collaborators (or war criminals) who sided with the Pakistan Army in the violence against Bengalis. There were some Biharis who joined the Razakar force, however all the Biharis, who were living in Bangladesh during the war, were not part of Razakars (i.e. Bihari women and children). Hence the image is totally irrelevant here. --Zayeem (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The caption has been adjusted. Faizan 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
not fixed yet, I was actually asking to remove the image as it is misleading here, the protests were against Razakars, not Biharis in general. --Zayeem (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Disputed image removed. Faizan 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, now the hook, as said the hook focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. You need to change the hook.--Zayeem (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- No error The hook will remain the same. Already fixed below. Faizan 16:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, its not fixed. The user didn't even said that it is fixed, it's only you who is assuming to be fixed. The hook focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. This is not eligible.--Zayeem (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- These are facts. No error The hook will remain the same. Faizan 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The hook needs to be changed according to the policies as it focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute, see this. Also, you are continuously removing the POV tags from the article without reaching consensus ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), the POV issues also needs to be resolved. --Zayeem (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- These are facts. No error The hook will remain the same. Faizan 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, its not fixed. The user didn't even said that it is fixed, it's only you who is assuming to be fixed. The hook focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. This is not eligible.--Zayeem (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- No error The hook will remain the same. Already fixed below. Faizan 16:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, now the hook, as said the hook focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. You need to change the hook.--Zayeem (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The caption has been adjusted. Faizan 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The protests (shown in the image) are against Razakars, not Biharis in general. The term Razakar has a specific meaning in Bangladesh. The term is used to refer to the local collaborators (or war criminals) who sided with the Pakistan Army in the violence against Bengalis. There were some Biharis who joined the Razakar force, however all the Biharis, who were living in Bangladesh during the war, were not part of Razakars (i.e. Bihari women and children). Hence the image is totally irrelevant here. --Zayeem (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- WHY? The article of Razakars says: "They largely constituted the East Pakistani paramilitary groups like Al-Shams, Razakars, and Al-Badr, becoming a major cause for the discontent among the Bengalis.[Siddiqui 1990, p. 153.], [A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171.]" Therefore the image is absolutely against Biharis.
"killed by Bengalis"? You mean by both Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshi Bengalis? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- Cannot you read "stranded in Bangladesh"? Indian bengalis were in Bangladesh? Now if you got your answer, I expect a positive review. Faizan 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- But your hook doesn't clarify it. This hook is using ambiguous term and blaming some wrong people too. Cant you simply clarify it? And given the nature of the article don't expect a quick signal on this hook. Here i am finding problems in this one sentence. Haven't even started reading the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed issues addressed. Faizan 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The hook doesn't quite parse, I think it should have a few more words to make sense.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Faizan, please do not use the "fixed" template here in DYK. The symbol it uses is the same as the one used for a DYK AGF approval, and it looks like you're approving the nomination, which as it's your own nomination would be an inappropriate thing to do. The phrase "issues addressed" is all that's needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I have removed all "fixed" templates here. Regrets. And I have broadened the hook too. Faizan 10:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- The hook is still not parsed, firstly, putting the number 150,000 is a blatant POV as the neutral sources like Minorities at risk estimates the number as 1,000. Secondly, the hook promote only one side of the matter, the Biharis were killed for sure, but why? Because of their involvement in killing 3 million Bengalis. Both the points should be mentioned.--Zayeem (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I have removed all "fixed" templates here. Regrets. And I have broadened the hook too. Faizan 10:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Faizan, please do not use the "fixed" template here in DYK. The symbol it uses is the same as the one used for a DYK AGF approval, and it looks like you're approving the nomination, which as it's your own nomination would be an inappropriate thing to do. The phrase "issues addressed" is all that's needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- But your hook doesn't clarify it. This hook is using ambiguous term and blaming some wrong people too. Cant you simply clarify it? And given the nature of the article don't expect a quick signal on this hook. Here i am finding problems in this one sentence. Haven't even started reading the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cannot you read "stranded in Bangladesh"? Indian bengalis were in Bangladesh? Now if you got your answer, I expect a positive review. Faizan 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
ALT1:... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War, where the Biharis collaborated with the Pakistan Army in the atrocities against the Bengalis? --Zayeem (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's a pov one. If you improve it, then I may think of replacing it. Casualties must be cited, and the Fall of Dhaka should be referred to. Otherwise the hook is fine. Faizan 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Addition: Moreover, the proposed hook is not interesting enough and does not grab attention as soon as is seen. The thing is too trivial: If Biharis were against the War, the Bengalis will surely pesecute them after winning.—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is not POV as both the sides are shown. There is no obligation on adding the number of casualties on the hook, they could be seen in the article itself. The term Fall of Dhaka is a POV one as it is mostly cited by Pakistani sources and also sounds like a literary one. Why not include the actual term Surrender of Pakistan?--Zayeem (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This one ok? ... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971? Faizan 15:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, it is still promoting one side of the matter, the hook which I posted is absolutely fine, as it shows both sides.--Zayeem (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- No way, just national concerns are there. Faizan 15:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Get a DYK for 1971 Bangladesh genocide, this is for the Biharis' persecution only. Were Biharis cited, or was the DYK balanced for Bengalis? Faizan 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- No way, just national concerns are there. Faizan 15:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, it is still promoting one side of the matter, the hook which I posted is absolutely fine, as it shows both sides.--Zayeem (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This one ok? ... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971? Faizan 15:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is not POV as both the sides are shown. There is no obligation on adding the number of casualties on the hook, they could be seen in the article itself. The term Fall of Dhaka is a POV one as it is mostly cited by Pakistani sources and also sounds like a literary one. Why not include the actual term Surrender of Pakistan?--Zayeem (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not eligible - That article and estimated figures of victims are disputed. Information of that article are collected from several partial and exaggerated sources! Samudrakula (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note - I've already expressed the concerns about the hook, while the nominator is just putting in some pointless arguments without actually addressing the issue.--Zayeem (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have made a last change to the hook as per User:Samudrakula's suggestion. Now let it go. No more compromise.Faizan 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Your change has done nothing, you are still showing just one side of the issue, I've stated it before, what was the reason behind the persecution? Their collaboration with Pakistan army in the genocide against the Bengalis. Both the sides should be included in the hook.--Zayeem (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now it does not target the Bengalis. Faizan 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your proposed one is very long. Faizan 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, only 186 characters, well within the limit.--Zayeem (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your proposed one is very long. Faizan 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now it does not target the Bengalis. Faizan 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- AfD The article is under an AfD, and as soon as the AfD ends, the DYK be promoted. Faizan 07:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- According to your wish? The article needs to be kept in the AfD, besides, the article is still tagged with POV issues, they need to be resolved. And, not to mention the hook, I've already explained it. The nomination won't be promoted unless these things are resolved.--Zayeem (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wait for the discussions to end. Issues cited by only one editor are not only revered. Faizan 08:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- According to your wish? The article needs to be kept in the AfD, besides, the article is still tagged with POV issues, they need to be resolved. And, not to mention the hook, I've already explained it. The nomination won't be promoted unless these things are resolved.--Zayeem (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Article still is not stable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- @Crisco Why it's not? An RfC is under progress for neutrality issues. Other discussion is also taking place. I have tried my best to bring it on the main page, but awfully other editors want the opposite. Anyway, Reject this nomination, if that it's. Faizan 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have an awful culture at DYKs. One "Cross" by an editor, even if all other agree, will not allow the nomination to be promoted. Faizan 07:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- All other agree? I don't see anyone accept Wamiq who agree with you here. Also It's quite funny to see you commenting on DYK process just after somehow getting a nomination or two promoted. It's rather a fault on your part to expect no POV disputes in a controversial topic like this.--Zayeem (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have an awful culture at DYKs. One "Cross" by an editor, even if all other agree, will not allow the nomination to be promoted. Faizan 07:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Crisco Why it's not? An RfC is under progress for neutrality issues. Other discussion is also taking place. I have tried my best to bring it on the main page, but awfully other editors want the opposite. Anyway, Reject this nomination, if that it's. Faizan 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This is now good to go, all disputes finally over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Article remains unstable, with many edits already today. I strongly suggest waiting at least 48 hours to see whether article stabilizes; any approval before then is inappropriate. Zayeem, under the circumstances, I think a new ALT needs to be proposed. We give a certain amount of deference to the article's creator in terms of what hooks are unacceptable, and ALT1 continues to be objected to by Faizan, while you are the only person supporting it. There must be another interesting hook that can come from this article that is neither the original one nor ALT1. Faizan, feel free to suggest new hook(s) as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Faizan just said it's a POV one without explaining why it is. If he clearly expresses his concerns regarding the ALT1 then I can propose a new one.--Zayeem (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Zayeem You don't own this nomination, so this authority posing behavior will yield nothing. Your hook: ALT1:... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War, where the Biharis collaborated with the Pakistan Army in the atrocities against the Bengalis?.... is simply more nationalistic than being neutral. I told you to use good words and grammar repeatedly. Now this term of "atrocities against the Bengalis", it is for "atrocities against the Biharis". Now, if we get the article Persecution of Hindus on DYK nominations, will it so obligatory to include "Hindus committed atrocities on other communities too"? NO, simply because the article is about only their persecution. This article of "Persecution of Hindus" is simply about the "Persecution of Hindus", not about Persecution of Hindus as response to their atrocities(Whatever, whether they exist or not". The same case applies in the case of Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Anyway, now the DYK is alive again, and I have requested alternate hooks from experienced editors below. Better concentrate there. Faizan 10:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am grateful, the nomination is getting live again. I would request experienced editors like Shines, BlueMoonset and Crisco 1492 to propose alternate hooks. I will make a compromise, and I will not propose any other hook. Zayeem should also discuss the hooks proposed by such neutral editors. Faizan 10:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The same arguments. I won't comment on your personal attacks leaving it to neutral observers. About the hook, what is nationalistic there? please explain. My concern is that the hook must show both sides of the dispute. If you are talking about the persecution, you also need to highlight the cause behind it, which is why I proposed that hook. --Zayeem (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Faizan just said it's a POV one without explaining why it is. If he clearly expresses his concerns regarding the ALT1 then I can propose a new one.--Zayeem (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh was primarily due to their opposition to the independence of Bangladesh? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Like A great hook. This can go ahead easily. Secondly it's also supported by references there in the "Causes" section. Faizan 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Replace "is" with "was", as discussed before, there is no source which states that the persecution is still continuing. Also, I guess the wikilink of Bangladesh liberation war should be there under the phrase "independence of Bangladesh". --Zayeem (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The proposer can reconsider it as per your suggestions, but I have no problem and it can go like that too. Faizan 15:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced the word of "is" with "has been" as it's supported by the article. Faizan 15:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now what's the difference between is and has? If you didn't get my point let me repeat, there is no source which states that the "persecution" is still continuing so stating the fact in present tense is a blatant POV.--Zayeem (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The dispute has been solved on the talk page, and Fut.Perf.'s proposal has been accepted with an amendment. So the term "was" would be used. I have replaced it in the ALT2 hook. Faizan 13:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just added the wikilink of Bangladesh Liberation War in the ALT2, looks fine now! --Zayeem (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The dispute has been solved on the talk page, and Fut.Perf.'s proposal has been accepted with an amendment. So the term "was" would be used. I have replaced it in the ALT2 hook. Faizan 13:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now what's the difference between is and has? If you didn't get my point let me repeat, there is no source which states that the "persecution" is still continuing so stating the fact in present tense is a blatant POV.--Zayeem (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced the word of "is" with "has been" as it's supported by the article. Faizan 15:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The proposer can reconsider it as per your suggestions, but I have no problem and it can go like that too. Faizan 15:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Replace "is" with "was", as discussed before, there is no source which states that the persecution is still continuing. Also, I guess the wikilink of Bangladesh liberation war should be there under the phrase "independence of Bangladesh". --Zayeem (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check revised ALT2 hook; have struck earlier hooks as problematic. A full review is probably in order; neither of the earlier reviews mentioned checking basic DYK criteria such as length, timeliness, sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc., which needs to be done (and mentioned in the review!). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I have referred the ALT2 hook proposer here to review other things too. Besides, I see no copvio. Faizan 06:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Other things like sourcing, copyediting, close paraphrasing were activley discussed and solved at the article's talk. The reviewer participated there too. Faizan 06:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hook still checks out, @BlueMoonset: not seeing any close paraphrasing and the article has been rewritten extensively since creation. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
You as the proposer of the hook can not verify it. Its called conflict of interest. Let some new user evaluate it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- The rule is about not reviewing your own hook is at WP:DYKSG#H2. Faizan, discussion on the Talk page is fine for solving issues there, but a DYK review needs to take place here, not there, and an independent reviewer needs to do that reviewing. I'm reluctant for that reviewer to be Darkness Shines, since at the time the tick was given above the article had both a "citation needed" and a "by whom" template, both of which should have been addressed (and still need to be); I think it would be best for someone new to do a review once those template issues are taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Rather than wait, you would be far better advised to take care of the "citation needed" and "by whom" templates, issues I noted that day by providing the appropriate data in both cases. Otherwise, when a reviewer does arrive, the article will again not be approved until these are finally taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Oops yeah. It had a tag about the economic condition, I have added some refs. Can you please review the other issues you cited too? Viz, the copyvio and length-related, etc? I have no problem with your review, and no one else will have too. So better review it, and if it's ok, let it go. Faizan 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say no to this one. First of all, given that this has been up here for a month and a half, it's still not a very well-written article; note the edits I made. This is clear from the references also, where I find bare URLs (note 6); incorrect titles (note 2); missing name of co-editor, missing names of authors of essay (title and page numbers missing too) in edited collection (notes 1 and 7); missing date of publication (note 4); completely incorrect and incomplete citation (note 10); a dead link with missing bibliographical information (note 13)--I could go on, but it is in no way acceptable, and this alone is enough to turn it down.
Second, the hook is simply not unequivocally verified. There are various terms thrown about in the article (such as West-Pakistani) that could be said to mean "disagree with the independence of Bangladesh") but it's not that simple, and that the "events" were mostly caused by that position is not made clear either--the article seems to verify that atrocities were followed by atrocities, but that's been turned down before as too POV, and I agree. (One could easily make a hook that says that the events and its surrounding politics have led to an ongoing refugee problem, but that seems to have been out of reach in this all-too partisan discussion.)
Third, it's really not a decent article at all, given that (ahem) the "events" aren't even described. We get the wild estimates on the number of victims, but the actual events get little more than "Bengali mobs were often armed, sometimes with machetes and bamboo staffs" and a statement on an atrocity where bodies were thrown in the river. In other words, the actual persecution isn't described. For all those reasons I'm turning this down. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I agree, there were more conflicts there, as compared to improvements. I will try to get the references, bare urls, etc fixed. The Events section could be expanded, but I fear that we have not got any significant coverage for the events related to Biharis. The "West-Pakistani" terms could be fixed. There is adequate coverage on the developments in 1971 there, we get a good Background section, Aftermath, but again, the events involving persecution of Biharis did not get enough coverage. I will try to get it fixed. Faizan 06:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Articles created/expanded on June 11
Crime in North Korea, Crime in South Korea
- ... that prostitution is illegal, but nevertheless present, in both North Korea (policeman pictured) and South Korea?
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Saint Kitts and Nevis (1st review) and Template:Did you know nominations/Lina Ron (2nd review)
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 07:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC).
-
- Prostitution, legal or not, is everywhere. Is there a better hook? PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that North Korea is really corrupt, while South Korea is better? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think really is a WP:WEASEL word.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please suggest a less weaselly one then? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think really is a WP:WEASEL word.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- A less weaselly version might be:
- ALT2 ... that corruption in North Korea is more prevelant that it is in South Korea?
- Though I am not sure this is really a surprising / interesting hook... EdChem (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I know right. Well, what harm could possibly occur if we weasel the North? Lol. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- But policy is policy, ALT2 then. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that "corruption in North Korea" should link to Crime in North Korea when Corruption in North Korea exists as a separate article. And it would be better if the hook fact was a piece of information unique to the bolded articles, rather than something copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia. I can't come up with anything myself, though... There isn't really much that links these two articles, other than geographical proximity. Would it be an option to create two separate hooks, instead of combining them? DoctorKubla (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- It could work... Do I have to split this nom page or something? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you propose both hooks here. We may end up doing a multi in the end anyways.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Alright then. For South Korea: ALT3a ... that the sex industry of South Korea generates about 1.6% of the country's gross domestic product? For North: ALT3b ... that cannibalism is, according to rumours, rife in North Korea? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why not ALT4 ... that while 1.6% of the South Korea's gross domestic product comes from its sex industry, cannibalism is rumored to be rife in North Korea?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- or ALT4a ... that while 1.6% of the South Korea's gross domestic product comes from its sex industry, in North Korea, cannibalism is rumored to be rife?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But they don't really seem to share a link... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a rule about sharing a link? If so, must it be a wikilink?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I meant there's no distinct similarity or close difference between sex and cannibalism, so the usage of "while" seems wrong... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a rule about sharing a link? If so, must it be a wikilink?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But they don't really seem to share a link... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Alright then. For South Korea: ALT3a ... that the sex industry of South Korea generates about 1.6% of the country's gross domestic product? For North: ALT3b ... that cannibalism is, according to rumours, rife in North Korea? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you propose both hooks here. We may end up doing a multi in the end anyways.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- It could work... Do I have to split this nom page or something? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added some more info to both articles, so how about the following hooks:
- ALT5a ... that South Korea's crime rate dropped by 21% during the first ten days of the 2002 World Cup?
- ALT5b ... that the theft of rice or potatoes is considered a political crime in North Korea?
DoctorKubla (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- There is a link between North and South Korea. Thus, articles about crime in both are linked. That is sufficient for a conjoined multi-hook, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 12
Egg fossil, Timeline of egg fossil research, Cephalopod egg fossil, Fish egg fossil, Reptile egg fossil, Dinosaur egg, Egg paleopathology
- ... that paleontologists have discovered the fossilized eggs of cephalopods, fishes, and reptiles, with some dinosaur eggs (pictured) being preserved with pathological shell deformities?
-
- Comment: I request some reviewer patience; some of these articles have some kinks to work out. I had to move quickly to nominate because User:Ashorocetus created one of these articles without realizing that I had been working on this article series in user space for some time. I think I have a back log of DYK reviews we can use for QPQ purposes. Abyssal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Abyssal (talk), Ashorocetus (talk). Nominated by Abyssal (talk) at 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC).
-
- Timeline of egg fossil research:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
- fossilized eggs:
Threadbare, but new and long enough.
- Cephalopod egg fossil:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
- Fish egg fossil:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
- Reptile egg fossil:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
- dinosaur eggs:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
- Egg paleopathology:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced. Can you get rid of the orphan tag?
- Egg taphonomy:
New enough, long enough, fully referenced. AGF on sources.
- Image:
Taken in the UK, where there is Freedom of Panorama, so good.
- Hook:
AGF on offline source.
- QPQ:
Need six QPQs.
- Overall:
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- OOPS. My expansion of dinosaur egg, which was finished within 2 days of the nomination, was forgotten to languish in userspace. I've mainspaced it. Abyssal (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Timeline of egg fossil research:
Needs a review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- All it needs is QPQs. Otherwise okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- For some reason one of the articles didn't make it's way into the nomination. It's up there in bold. Here are the QPQs, including one for Egg taphonomy:
- All it needs is QPQs. Otherwise okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Template:Did you know nominations/Île-de-France tramway Line 1
- Template:Did you know nominations/Eucidaris metularia
- Template:Did you know nominations/In Secret Tibet
- Template:Did you know nominations/National colours of Greece
- Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Heindl, Jr.
- Template:Did you know nominations/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics
- Template:Did you know nominations/Barbary ground squirrel
- Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Northup's Odyssey Abyssal (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Hawkeye7, can you please confirm/indicate that you've reviewed the new Egg taphonomy article, which was a late addition to the nomination and does not have an individual tick above? I'm hesitant to promote this without that specific confirmation, especially since a quick look at the article shows that all of the inline citations come from a single source. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Issues noted in WT:DYK on excessive citations in Dinosaur eggs—the same citation used for many sentences in a row, instead of letting them run—which has led to a copyedit template being added to the page. The article has other issues as well: there is a "citation needed" template that needs to be taken care of in the Paleobiology section—the first paragraph is uncited, and all paragraphs should be. Citations are also needed for the first paragraph of History and the first two of the three bullet points after the first paragraph of the Classification section (unless there's a citation that could go at the end of that paragraph that covers the subsequent list). If there's an overall citation that can cover the Embryos subsection, that would be helpful. Other articles:
-
- Egg fossil should have a citation for the Dinosaur eggs section.
- Timeline of egg fossil research appears to be have repetitive cites in 1979 and 1991, but that's all I've noticed.
- Cephalopod egg fossil has the same copyedit tag as Dinosaur eggs for the same reason.
- Fish egg fossil has one extra cite in a row; not a big deal.
- Reptile egg fossil might have one extra cite; the issues here is that there are errors showing up in the reference section that need to be dealt with.
- Egg paleopathology has the same copyedit tag as Dinosaur eggs for the same reason. Can anything be done about the orphan tag? Egg fossil does link here now; can any others?
- Egg taphonomy has the same copyedit tag as Dinosaur eggs for the same reason.
- Please check back in when these issues are settled; it would be nice to get this approved again. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It would have been nice to have a dinosaur egg on the front page, but I am getting really, really close to closing this nom down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll finish fixing the last two articles on Monday. Abyssal (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything should be set now. Abyssal (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I was very specific about what needed to be addressed in Dinosaur eggs, and only the copyedit template has been addressed. Everything else remains to be done, notably the citation needed template, and the unsourced paragraphs and list entries. Please take care of these right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized that another issue needed addressing in Dinosaur eggs: the final two paragraphs of both the "Scanning electron microscopy" and "X rays" sections are identical. Please figure out which section they belong to, remove it from the other, and remove the extra blank line separating the paragraphs from earlier ones in the section. Hawkeye7 and I have added citation needed templates as appropriate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything should be set now. Abyssal (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Dinosaur eggs article edits have addressed all the concerns I mentioned earlier: duplicative citations have been removed, missing citations have been added, duplicate paragraphs deleted, plus additional editing has been done to improve the article. The other articles approved as well; the issues I noted originally for each have all been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
-
There appears to be some direct copying from sources in Dinosaur egg: compare for example "The first real discovery of dinosaur eggshell was in 1859 from southern France, by Jean Jacques Pouech. Due to their large size, the French eggs were at first thought to belong to giant birds. More complete eggs were found in 1869 by Matheron. He, in turn, believed these eggs were those of a giant crocodile.[5] In 1877, Paul Gervais published the first detailed study of the eggs, and suggested that they could belong to a dinosaur. They are now known to have been laid by the sauropod dinosaurHypselosaurus.[1]" with "The first real discovery of dinosaur eggshell was in 1859 from southern France, by Jean Jacques Pouech. The French eggs were thought to belong to giant birds at first, because of their large size. More complete eggs were found in 1869 by Matheron. He thought these eggs belonged to a giant crocodile. In 1877 Paul Gervais (1816-79) published the first detailed study of the eggs, and suggested that they could belong to a dinosaur. They are now known to have been laid by the sauropod dinosaur Hypselosaurus." This is especially concerning given that while FN1 is the source for all of this content, FN5 (in the middle of the copied material) is a different, offline source. Given the scope of that single event, the rest of this article and possibly the others need to be checked for similar issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The same problematic paragraph appears in egg fossil. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I want to emphatically state that those paragraphs aren't my own work. Can we proceed with the nomination just without the plagiarized content (which, again, I had nothing to do with)? I've done more than enough for each article to pass DYK on its own merits. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and you can relax about footnote 5. :) Although that sentence was written by a previous editor based on who knows what source, I cited that sentence to Carpenter 1999 because the fact can indeed be verified there. Carpenter 1999 was not the source of the initial plagiarism and its widespread use throughout these articles is my own work, not the plagiarist's. Abyssal (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, without the problematic content (which includes a couple other sentences in addition to the paragraph above), egg fossil is not long enough to qualify - we would need to either expand it or remove it from the hook. I'm also not comfortable approving dinosaur egg without further checking, as it's quite possible there is more content there that isn't original to Wikipedia. I haven't checked the other articles so can't comment on whether they're good to go as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm plenty willing to fill in any gaps left by the removal of the plagiarism. Egg fossil was just barely long enough from the beginning, rewriting it to be long enough despite the removal of the plagiarism would be simple. The articles apart from Egg fossil and Dinosaur egg were written exclusively by myself with no input from the plagiarist (newbie User:Ashorocetus). Abyssal (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, without the problematic content (which includes a couple other sentences in addition to the paragraph above), egg fossil is not long enough to qualify - we would need to either expand it or remove it from the hook. I'm also not comfortable approving dinosaur egg without further checking, as it's quite possible there is more content there that isn't original to Wikipedia. I haven't checked the other articles so can't comment on whether they're good to go as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and you can relax about footnote 5. :) Although that sentence was written by a previous editor based on who knows what source, I cited that sentence to Carpenter 1999 because the fact can indeed be verified there. Carpenter 1999 was not the source of the initial plagiarism and its widespread use throughout these articles is my own work, not the plagiarist's. Abyssal (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I want to emphatically state that those paragraphs aren't my own work. Can we proceed with the nomination just without the plagiarized content (which, again, I had nothing to do with)? I've done more than enough for each article to pass DYK on its own merits. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The same problematic paragraph appears in egg fossil. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Giving this a slightly less dire icon so it isn't closed prematurely while Abyssal is working. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Moonie! >:D Abyssal (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be rewriting Egg fossil offline over the weekend. Abyssal (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, check out Egg fossil. I've rewritten most of it, but some of the original content seemed safe from the plagiarism and was preserved. Abyssal (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be rewriting Egg fossil offline over the weekend. Abyssal (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've revamped Dinosaur eggs. Everything should be all set now for this nomination. Abyssal (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Egg fossil now has enough original content, but is missing attribution for sections copied from other Wikipedia articles. Dinosaur eggs has some concerning passages with regards to close paraphrasing: compare for example "The absence or rarity of pores on stomach stones' surfaces are hints to their true nature" with "The absence or scarcity of pores on the surface is a giveaway as to their true nature". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- "If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." I was the sole contributor of the copied passages. Also they were pretty heavily retooled to integrate with the new article. I'll get to rephrasing the problematic content today and tomorrow. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- The version used appears to have been edited by at least one other person, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Infant clothing
- ... that infant clothing can cause death or injury to an infant?
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dog and Duck (tavern) Mindmatrix 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 22:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC).
I'll add this for convenience.
Pending issues: QPQ not done, orange tag present. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- The tag applied has no effect on DYK. The point of DYK is to introduce a new concept to WP, not to introduce a new concept with a full and broad discussion about all its aspects. The main DYK rules are highlighted above the editing box for each nomination. It should be judged solely on those criteria. Mindmatrix 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
-
Time for fresh eyes? --00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I don't object to it going to DYK with the tag. Alternatively a change of name to reflect the scope would justify the removal of the tag. Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do object. DYK articles are in the window of our shop and should advertise us--DYK is already about half US-related, and sending an article on with a tag like that does not do us any favors. The irony is that this article is much better than the average DYK nomination. But, as Johnbod suggests, a change in title or scope would justify removal of the tag. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't object to it going to DYK with the tag. Alternatively a change of name to reflect the scope would justify the removal of the tag. Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook seems weak. And this issue of infant death seems quite controversial, requiring good sources and balance per WP:MEDRS. One can easily imagine new parents ending up at this article by following the redirect baby clothes. Given this, it seems bizarre that the article doesn't even mention nappies (diapers). I suggest that the best way forward for this topic is for it to pass a GA review so that we can be comfortable with it being showcased on the main page. Warden (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 15
Generación del 13
- ... that Fernando Álvarez de Sotomayor was so influential on the Chilean artist group Generación del 13 (pictured) that "Generation Alvarez de Sotomayor" has been suggested as a nickname?
Created by Rosiestep (talk). Self nominated at 19:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC).
-
Date and length fine; no appearance of plagiarism/paraphrasing. But! the hook is not supported by reference given (correct page?). While it may be inferred it is not stated. Can you come up with something more concrete since article is weakly referenced in general? QPQ pending. Djflem (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT1: ... that many of the Chilean artists known as Generación del 13 (pictured) were trained by the Spaniard, Fernando Álvarez de Sotomayor? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
-
New review needed to see whether issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
-
I regret to report that I discovered that much of this content cannot be treated as new to English Wikipedia (although the article creator probably was unaware of this). I discovered that the topic is already covered at Chilean art#The 13 Generation, in far more detail than in this article. Both this article and the section in Chilean art may have started out as translations from the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Generación del 13 (this provenance is documented in the Generación del 13 page history, but Spanish Wikipedia is not acknowledged as a source for the Chilean art article), but the Chilean art translation is more artful.
- The content about Álvarez de Sotomayor in the Generación del 13 page does seem to be original (and it is more extensive than what's in the Chilean art article) and the article is better sourced than either Chilean art or the Spanish Wikipedia article. However, because Álvarez de Sotomayor was a Spaniard who was not actually a member of this Chilean group, the focus on him (rather than on the artists who were actually in this group) creates a somewhat unbalanced presentation here. Based on what I found, I have reservations about using this article at DYK -- at least until it stops looking like a poor copy of the other article.
- There is some potential good news in my discovery, though. The good news is that this article could be substantially expanded and improved by bringing in content and wording from the Chilean art article -- assuming, of course, that references can be found for the imported content that is not currently supported by citations.
- Rosiestep, what are your reactions to this information? --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Orlady - My initial reaction was, "What??" I was unaware of Chilean art#The 13 Generation. If I had been aware of it, I would have incorporated some of its content (referenced bulleted list) in the early hours of creating Generación del 13. The [Sala generacion del trece.JPG] image of the Generación del 13 room at the Casa del Arte was the catalyst for starting the Gen13 article; my contribution history shows that I was working on the Casa del Arte article previously.
- I think the bulleted list in Chilean art#The 13 Generation could be incorporated into Generación del 13. As there aren't any references in any of the prose paragraphs in Chilean art#The 13 Generation, the content is currently unusable. I'll google again for English language refs, though I had done an exhaustive search previously; perhaps there's an English language textbook out there... after all, someone used something to write up Chilean art#The 13 Generation. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was pretty sure that you hadn't been aware of that other article. I found it when I Googled "Generation of 13". I didn't investigate very closely, but I had the impression that the content in the Chilean art article might have been translated from the Spanish Wikipedia article about this group. --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad you found it! Yes, it might have been translated... and they did a much better job than my attempt. I'm going to contact the Chilean art author, User:Teamdulwich (apparently a husband/wife Chilean/British team), to ask if they remember what resources they used for the Gen13 section. I did find the article in their sandbox. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I plan to work on some of the editing changes described above on Saturday. It would be nice if I hear back from User:Teamdulwich before then; we'll see. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Too bad you haven't heard from the "team" yet. They have done a bit of editing in the last couple of days -- including adding a new citation to the 13 Generation section of Chilean art. Regardless, there's no deadline here. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Teamdulwich responded on my talkpage today, providing 4 es lang ELs (1 to a book description, and 3 websites) used in creating the Gen13 section of the Chilean art article. I thanked Teamdulwich for its response and indicated the changes I intended to make to both articles, along with why I thought it would improve both. Thereafter, I edited both articles with appropriate attributions, etc. I'll postpone converting the website ELs into inline citations until tomorrow or the weekend. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Too bad you haven't heard from the "team" yet. They have done a bit of editing in the last couple of days -- including adding a new citation to the 13 Generation section of Chilean art. Regardless, there's no deadline here. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I plan to work on some of the editing changes described above on Saturday. It would be nice if I hear back from User:Teamdulwich before then; we'll see. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad you found it! Yes, it might have been translated... and they did a much better job than my attempt. I'm going to contact the Chilean art author, User:Teamdulwich (apparently a husband/wife Chilean/British team), to ask if they remember what resources they used for the Gen13 section. I did find the article in their sandbox. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was pretty sure that you hadn't been aware of that other article. I found it when I Googled "Generation of 13". I didn't investigate very closely, but I had the impression that the content in the Chilean art article might have been translated from the Spanish Wikipedia article about this group. --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 16
Eagle Peak (Wyoming)
- ... that the Eagle Peak (Wyoming) (pictured) was named in 1878 by Jack Newell, who killed a golden eagle on the mountain that year?
- Shouldn't there be a reference in the hook to highest point in Yellowstone? Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- Reviewed: 1st QPQ from Template:Did you know nominations/De Buitenmolen, Zevenaar
Created/expanded by Gilderien (talk), MONGO (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Gilderien (talk) at 19:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC).
-
- ALT1 ... that Eagle Peak (Wyoming) is the highpoint of Yellowstone National Park? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't "highpoint" misleading? It could mean the highlight of a visit as well as elevation. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, "highpointing" is a common American term for climbing the highest point in states or national parks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As the reviewer is banned from DYK, a new review is needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
-
When I found the article, it qualified as a 5x expansion, but my editing has unfortunately caused it to fall below the threshold. I removed the "Geology" section because it didn't make any sense and I couldn't find a valid replacement. The mountain is obviously formed of bedrock, not of recent glacial deposits. The surficial geology map of the Eagle Peak quadrangle shows the mountain to be "Rock". It's probably volcanic rock (tuff or breccia) because that's what this part of the Absaroka Range is mostly, but I've not found any source that specifically states that this peak is volcanic. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I undid your edit because I think you mis-interpreted it. It does not state that the mountain is formed entirely of glacial contact residue, but just that there "is a layer of rock" formed this way.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- No, I believe you misinterpreted the source. The source cited has no information about this mountain; the source is a report on the surficial geology of an adjacent quadrangle (meaning the area covered by a USGS topographic quadrangle map). The source does mention the Eagle Peak quadrangle, but not Eagle Peak. As for this business about a "layer of rock", it may be useful to recognize that not all "geology" consists of rocks. "Surficial geology" generally refers to unconsolidated material on the land surface. There is no layer of rock formed by glacial deposition. The report tells about glacial deposits, including glacial till and lake sediment, in the area surrounding the mountain. I did find an online map of the surficial geology of the Eagle Peak quadrangle and I found Eagle Peak on that map. It shows Eagle Peak as consisting of "rock", with tiny areas of talus (scree) and some glacial till on its slopes. The article's indication that Eagle Peak is mantled by a "layer of rock formed by the contact of ice and the ground" is nonsense. Furthermore, I don't believe there is any relationship between Eagle Peak and "the volcanic ash which was produced in successive eruptions of the Yellowstone Supervolcano." Eagle Peak is part of the Absaroka Range, which is mostly (but not entirely) volcanic in origin and is older than -- and unrelated to -- the Yellowstone Supervolcano, according to the Wyoming Geological Survey. --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It looks like the rewrite was completed shortly after the above post, but never announced here. Orlady, is this what you were looking for, or is more work needed? (The article is back above 5x expansion as it currently stands.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That edit was an improvement. I further revised the Geology section so that it now describes the rock that forms the mountain (and cites a good source) before it mentions that fact that glaciers were in the area.
Sadly, the closer I look at this article as a whole, the worse it looks. Much of the information in the article is not about Eagle Peak, but is about other parts of Yellowstone and the surrounding area (basically, this looks like padding inserted to make this a 5x expansion). Some of the information that is represented as being specific to the peak isn't; for example, the "sedges and rushes" described at the end of "Wildlife" turn out to be the lowland vegetation in the foreground of a photo that has Eagle Peak in the background (I don't know where the "tufted hairgrass" in that same sentence comes from). Other information (including the origin of the name) isn't in the sources cited. It's not clear that the main source for Eagle Peak being the tallest point in the park (i.e., Peakery.com is a reliable source, and the single most-cited reference in the article turns out to be a work of fiction published by a vanity press (i.e., lulu.com). --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I shall address your points as I can. I agree that Peakery is not a reliable source for it being the highest point in the park, but I would certainly think that 3, the NPS one is, which is cited in the lede.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The first given origin of the name isn't in the source, the second is. I shall see who added the first one and ask for clarification.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The etymology is covered by the source I added, confirmed by the editor who added it. I have removed the unreliable sourced statements, except from a direct quote attributed in the text.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Gilderien's efforts have successful resolved the etymology issue. Also, as Gilderien notes, all but one of the citations to the fictional work have been removed; however, the factual information that was sourced to that work still remains and is not supported by any other sources.
I have to ask someone else to pick up the rest of this review, essentially due to recent interactions between Dr. Blofeld and me (at [9] and other places). --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Not worth it Gilderien. I'm withdrawing our involvement with it, we'll still be here next month arguing the same points.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Gilderian, since you're the nominator, it's up to you whether the article is withdrawn or not. Given your subsequent posts above, after Dr. Blofeld's talking about withdrawing, I'm guessing that you want to continue with it; please let us know either way, and we'll be happy to look for another reviewer if you'd like. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Great! Have you addressed that one remaining citation to the fictional work that Orlady mentioned was still extant? If so, and it's ready for a re-review, I'll put out the icon in the hopes of attracting a new reviewer. (Apologies, Gilderien; I'm usually better about spelling people's usernames.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Do consider whether Fred Whissel is a quotation-worthy source on the topic of Eagle Peak. According to his LinkedIn profile, he's the owner of an audio-video store who has a side business as a consulting writer/editor and self-publishing specialist. He's also a self-published author. In additional to the fictional work quoted in the article, his publications include "Save Yourself! How You CAN Troubleshoot Your Own Audio/Video Problems", several anti-Barack Obama books, and "In Light of Fires and Foggy Mornings: Stories from a Small Town in the 1950s That Are Absolutely, Positively True". It's not clear what it is that makes him a source of quotable quotes about this mountain. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Need new reviewer to pick up the review and bring it to a conclusion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say no to this one. I've made some minor edits (in particular, I culled a short list of names of creeks and removed a sentence that was left over from an earlier revision) and the article is a few hundred characters below the 5x expansion, and I still see a few things that don't really pertain to the actual mountain (in Wildlife and Geography). I'll leave a note for BlueMoonset, and I'll ping Gilderien as well--with my apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I have acquired a new source - Kelsey, Michael R. (2001). Climber's and Hiker's Guide to the World's Mountains and Volcanos (4th ed.). Provo, Utah: Kelsey Publishing. ISBN 978-0-944510-18-6. - and I believe it is now long enough.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ping BlueMoonset, Drmies.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- DYKcheck gives the size now at 3454 prose characters, which is more than the 3205 required for a 5x expansion. However, the other new source, the "Coverill" (the guy's name is "Covill") has been questioned as to its reliability by Orlady, and I have to add my skepticism as well, beyond the fact that it doesn't really support the information there: a 2000 report of a Park Service register doesn't mean one's there in 2013 (there had obviously been a recent change prior to this source's climb), and "infrequently climbed" is quite vague. I'll leave the more general issues to Drmies. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. Down to 3310 prose characters, which is still 5x. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Articles created/expanded on June 19
Pricasso
- ... that Pricasso (pictured) is an Australian painter who has gained fame for painting portraits with his penis, scrotum and buttocks?
Created/expanded by Russavia (talk). Self nominated at 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC).
-
- Please note that I am still working some on the article, but in mainspace, but as with all of my articles they are meticulously sourced so please do not worry about this aspect of it still being worked on. Russavia (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Somewhere I am suppose to note what article I reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Darrell Tryon. Russavia (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any source for the age of this man? The Legend of Zorro 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- In this interview from 2013, he states he is 63. I've still got more sources to scour for information, but I don't recall any giving an actual date of birth. Russavia (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will not do a full review, but here are two comments:
- Is YouTube a reliable source (especially for a BLP)?
- What about WP:CENSORMAIN?
-
-
-
- Youtube is not the source, the source is Metropolis TV, which is reliable, it's just that it's a video source. WP:CENSORMAIN is not relevant here, due to there not being a distasteful image as part of the hook, and the article is about an artist, who just happens to paint with his penis. I have NO DOUBT that if this article is made the lead hook that it could possibly be one of the highest viewed DYKS of all time. I'll report back in a day or two on progress, as I am still adding information, etc to the article. Russavia (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, maybe I'm going out on a limb here as WP:CENSORMAIN doesn't say it, but I don't personally think that anything blatantly offensive (say, um, an article of a picture of a guy painting with his p*n*s) should be linked to from a main page (imagine some 8-year-old clicks on it (many will, no doubt), and encounters this file). Note: I'm not saying the article itself should be censored, just that maybe it shouldn't really be on the main page. King Jakob C2 01:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You know, it is not the children who get bent out of shape when they see a penis, especially a penis put to use as a painting brush, but rather some adults, writing on behalf of the straw man 8-yearold. This article is undoubtedly educational, and the subject, amusingly notable. Really, let's not get out of whack over this. It's quite mild, comparing to what else an 8-yearold might encounter on Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 02:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I do not see how the image can be used on the main page. Clicking on the image, uploaded by Russavia, leads to the Commons file page with its link to the original on flickr. But on flickr an account is required to view this image and possibly any image related to Pricasso, presumably because of flickr's own safe viewing and protection policies. Those policies are far more careful and finely judged than those of Commons. Because of that I believe that if there is a hook (possibly with less "in your face" wording), there should be no accompanying image. It is unclear how stable the article will be, since at one stage it contained an image and content related to Jimmy Wales. The creation history of the file is not accessible to non-administrators, since Russavia requested that the two pages in his user space be deleted. None of that history is viewable. Nor the fact that at a certain stage the article was fully protected by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Jimmy Wales found the content relating to himself offensive and harassing. As a consequence, per BLP policies, Russavia was topic banned from all matters related to Jimmy Wales by User:Newyorkbrad. The article should presumably have been moved with the history of its creation intact, which is not the case. Given that previous content in the incubating article has already resulted in a topic ban for Russavia, any decision about placing a link to it on the main page with an image should have a delay of at least a week (or possibly longer) to allow other editors to express their opinions. It is unclear whether this article was created to make a WP:POINT, but its deleted history, the BLP related problems with Jimmy Wales, the topic ban and the previous page protection raise doubts. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, maybe I'm going out on a limb here as WP:CENSORMAIN doesn't say it, but I don't personally think that anything blatantly offensive (say, um, an article of a picture of a guy painting with his p*n*s) should be linked to from a main page (imagine some 8-year-old clicks on it (many will, no doubt), and encounters this file). Note: I'm not saying the article itself should be censored, just that maybe it shouldn't really be on the main page. King Jakob C2 01:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Youtube is not the source, the source is Metropolis TV, which is reliable, it's just that it's a video source. WP:CENSORMAIN is not relevant here, due to there not being a distasteful image as part of the hook, and the article is about an artist, who just happens to paint with his penis. I have NO DOUBT that if this article is made the lead hook that it could possibly be one of the highest viewed DYKS of all time. I'll report back in a day or two on progress, as I am still adding information, etc to the article. Russavia (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Supplementary rule D6 states "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus does not count.)" Once the history is restored, it will be clear that there has been edit warring and protection of this article in its recent past. The Jimbo issue is not resolved (though I am pleased that the suggested image is not the Jimbo portrait). Russavia is likely to face further sanction, to judge from NYB's talk page, and this article will not be stable for a while. This nomination should not be approved until the furore over Jimbo's image, the commons deletion debate, and the controversy over NYB's and Russavia's actions are all resolved, and then the article has time to stabilise. EdChem (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pricasso. Comment is invited. EdChem (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, did you at any point in your correspondence with the artist promise him with (or strongly hint at) an appearance of his article on the main page, perhaps in exchange for the creation of freely licensed media? --Conti User talk:Conti 12:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Before reading the source, I thought he painted paintings with a little something added to the picture... I did not think that he would actually smear paint on those parts. But I have to admit, it's very well-written. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just to notify you all at DYK: Russavia has just been indeffed by User:Spartaz and there's now a discussion on WP:ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's the link to the artist website, which is linked to in the article. The first thing you see there is: "STOP By entering my website you agree you're 18+". I believe the artist would not be comfortable with being featured on Wikipedia's main page, which is visited by millions of school kids much younger than 18 years old. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- His site contains videos and such. The only adult imagery in the article is him holding his penis so that he can paint, but the paint obscures his genitals to the point where you can only really tell if you look at the enlarged versions of the image. Not an issue in my opinion. You can find more explicit depictions of genitalia in sex education textbooks.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This entire article is a clear-cut case of WP:NOTCENSORED. I think the mere mentioning of "penis, scrotum, and buttocks" should be enough of a red flag about not clicking on this article if you're supposed to be tabulating your company's profits for this month (and a green flag for those looking at DYK and seeing this thing that wouldn't look too out of place if the date were 04/01/2014). Aside from that, and this Jimbo portrait controversy that I've been reading about, I see nothing wrong with the article in its current form. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- What about the apparently explicit image at Pricasso#Works and appearances? Do we want to link to something with that from the main page? As to WP:CENSORED, you'll note that I am not commenting on whether the image should be removed from the article and the policy has nothing to do with the main page. I will also point you to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_34#Pornography-related_articles_on_DYK. While not exactly the same thing, the subject of that thread and this controversy are fairly similar. King Jakob C2 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- See my comment above. That image is not even close to being an issue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Supplementary rule D6 relates to "unresolved edit-warring." Within the last six hours, the contentious link to the Jimbo image has been removed by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "One of the images has caused an editor here to claim that it constitutes Hostile environment sexual harassment. Don't become a part of that," been re-added by Auric (talk · contribs) as an unexplained revert, and re-removed by Tarc (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "we're not linking to the problematic image that started this mess in the first place." This article is not presently stable. There is debate at WT:DYK about notability and an AfD is possible. I think the article is likely to run at some point, but it is not ready to be promoted yet. EdChem (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- @DA, Pornography is "is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification." Here's a quote from the article:
“ | Some weeks after seeing Puppetry of the Penis, he was in a men's bathroom when he had the idea of sliding his penis across the dry stainless steel urinal and made a smiley face. After this, he bought some easels and paint, dipped his penis into the paint, and then started painting. He noted that after 30 seconds, due to the motion of moving his penis over the rough surface of the canvas, he gained an erection. Pricasso told Fala Fil that he could see himself getting paid to create art if he was able to get better and quicker, and liked the idea of being paid for doing the three things he liked most: creating art, being naked and holding his penis, noting that he would have to control his erections to achieve his goal. | ” |
So of course there's some pornography in the article. Besides that kind of painting is an unsafe sexual practice, and I am almost positive there will be a backlash, if this "Fucking article" as Newyorkbrad calls it, is featured. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- Unless we are talking about someone with a paint fetish, then this doesn't qualify as "pornography" by any means. Given that his whole method is built around his penis, it is relevant and informative to note certain foreseeable issues he encounters. Whether the wording could be further improved, I improved upon it a bit from what it was previously, is a separate issue. I think some of the prose could be developed further before considering a front page entry.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
-
Regardless of whether it's pornography or not, it fails supplementary criterion D6 as there is now a {{POV}} tag on the article. King Jakob C2 12:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- The tag has been removed. Optimom (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would note that the editor who added the tag insists, based off a single misrepresented comment in a source, that the subject is a porn star and not an artist, ignoring the multitude of other sources that plainly state he is an artist. Anyone can tag an article with any absurd excuse, and this is just an instance of that ability being misused.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Porn star
By Pricasso
I'd never take a sickly and I’d work for very little pay ...
I'd love to be a porn star --now that would make my day
-
-
-
-
- He's a porn star wanabee and has said so directly more than once. He works almost exclusively at Sexpo's and similar venues. Don't ignore reality. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- Well, let me put it this way: I just do not think that posting the hook "... that Pricasso (pictured) is an Australian painter who has gained fame for painting portraits with his penis, scrotum and buttocks?" to the Wikipedia Main page will do Wikipedia any good. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Since the nominator has been indefinitely blocked, who is taking his place? there is almost always some back-and-forth between the nominator and commenters usually resulting in some adjustments in the article or hook. I'd like the responsible person to make adjustments to 1) the name of the article, which has been changed; 2) the use of the term "artist" when he is clearly a porn show performer; and 3) "gained fame" in the hook, when it should be "gained notoriety." Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- No one is going to ignore the preponderance of reliable sources describing him as an artist and relabel him a porn star as that would violate WP:BLP. Your evidence of him being a "porn star" or "porn star wannabe" is a poem and a misrepresented quotation. That is nowhere near enough. I asked you to stop repeating this accusation and yet you continue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Google search "Pricasso Porn" 185,000 hits, "Pricasso artist" 53,000 hits. Essentially all the articles on him are about Sexpo or similar exhibitions. He performs for 20 minutes for $50-100, includes a video, and btw includes a canvas with paint on it. No way he is an artist and nobody is *seriously* calling him an artist. He is a porn performer. Presenting him in the article and in the hook as an artist is just misleading our readers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let me make this perfectly clear, either you provide a reliable secondary source that explicitly and unequivocally says he is a porn star or stop bringing it up. Should you assert again that he is a porn star without providing such a source, then I will report you at ANI for violating WP:BLP. You are free to your opinion, but your opinion is not fact and you have not shown any indication that said opinion is supported by any reliable source.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Devil's Advocate, the person says he's a pornstar. See the quoted poem above. King Jakob C2 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- He does not even say he is a porn star in the poem, which shouldn't be taken literally in the first place as it is a poem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Devil's Advocate, the person says he's a pornstar. See the quoted poem above. King Jakob C2 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate is pretty aggressive in saying he's not a porn performer. He's seen this before but denies that it (and Pricasso) says that Pricasso is a porn performer. "I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me."
Do you often visit shows and events to paint pictures in front of the audience. You do not feel embarrassed about it ?
"I have just finished a 4 day Sexpo in Australia and I will be going to Macau in a few days to paint at the Asian Adult Expo and then to Taiwan for another 4 day show then one in South Africa Spain and Germany I am pretty busy. And I have spent the past 7 years doing this so it feels really natural to be the only person naked holding my penis in a hall with 5 or 10 thousand other fully clothed normal people." [10]
Or just google "Pricasso porn" - half the sites say they are selling Pricasso porn videos. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Smallbones, if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it? EdChem (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I cannot see any particular consensus at the moment. I see Newyorkbrad suggesting that pushing this article as a DYK os not a good idea. One problem with the article is that the novelty of Patch's artworks seems to have dwindled lately. Outside the world of Australian Sexpo and other soft porn conventions, there seems to be very little recent coverage in reliable sources. He advertises his services on vimeo,[11] giving his location as Gold Coast, Queensland near Brisbane. He has posted the Jimmy Wales video there and writes, "I started painting naked using my Penis as a brush in 2005 and now travel around the world performing at adult shows, parties and clubs." His entries for the Bald Archy Prize (2011-2013) do not seem to have received any significant media coverage. On page 231 of the Dictionary of Erotic Art: Painters and Sculptors by Eugene C. Burt (2010),[12] there is a short entry: "Patch, Tim (Australia). Contemporary builder and painter based in Brisbane. He has been called 'Pricasso' because he creates paintings of landscapes, portraits, and female nudes using his penis as a brush." There are no proper independent recent sources. The BBC source relied on the Sydney Morning Herald. The Sun article is very short, full of smutty puns. But the use of "adult shows" by Patch himself is in an indication that this is not safe material for DYK. Most of the "meticulous sourcing" claimed by Russavia does not bear close scrutiny. It is a BLP cobbled or patched together from interviews. That makes the article hard to distinguish from a promotional piece—free publicity through wikipedia. Several sources, including the dictionary above, describe Patch as a builder. That is not properly discussed in the article. Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here is what the source says with the important parts Smallbones has consistently left out in bold:
-
Art Critics consider your work seriously ? They consider your painting as an Art ?
A lot of Artists only exist from being awarded grants paid for by the tax payer because their work is considered exceptional by a small number of Art experts which I guess is fine as it’s all part of the system as I do believe Art is a business dependent mainly upon rising prices and I rock the system a bit, I have never been awarded a grant and have entered many art compertitions but never won any . I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me. - Mind you, Small is not only insisting Pricasso is a porn star, but that he is not even an artist. However, the very source being cited starts out by calling Pricasso an artist and he explicitly refers to himself as an artist and calls his work art with that being the description favored by every reliable secondary source I have read. As it stands, this is the only reliable secondary source Small seems to be able to provide to even conceivably support the first part of the assertion, but it isn't all that explicit in context. Given his comments about "rocking the system" and "not knowing how to judge me" in the context of discussing whether his work is considered art by critics, the mention of porn there should not be treated as some sort of admission to being a porn star.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you can't understand 2 direct quotes from the subject or the obvious reality of his videos, then there is no point discussing it further. As far as me approving this for inclusion in DYK, no way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Smallbones (talk · contribs), if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it? EdChem (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's the 2nd time you've asked this, so I think you deserve an answer, but also deserve to know why this question could be seen as offensive. You're asking whether I will follow policy - do you have any reason to believe that I won't? AGF, please. You also seem to be asking whether the other editors on this page can understand 2 direct quotes - I see no reason to believe that they can't. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear A) Russavia's "vote" doesn't count, in fact somebody needs to step up to fill his place as the nominal "nominator" - who is that? B) It's this page that counts for DYK, there are discussion on this spread across at least 3 pages. Anybody who wants to weigh in on the DYK can do it here. I'll deal with the article page when I have time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's the 2nd time you've asked this, so I think you deserve an answer, but also deserve to know why this question could be seen as offensive. You're asking whether I will follow policy - do you have any reason to believe that I won't? AGF, please. You also seem to be asking whether the other editors on this page can understand 2 direct quotes - I see no reason to believe that they can't. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Smallbones (talk · contribs), if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it? EdChem (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is now locked down, following apparent edit-warring. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- And now the article is really not going anywhere. Per criterion D6, we don't feature articles with huge disputes, and the dispute on Pricasso is apparently so huge that the article got full-protected. So can someone maybe close this? King Jakob C2 12:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't even a huge dispute. The whole thing is terribly petty at this point as the link to the Commons cat doesn't even have the image pictured. You have to go through another link to get to the image. As this is the only issue, it should be given time to be sorted out. We aren't going anywhere.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I support the request for closure. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
So what even if he is a "porn star"? Don't porn stars also deserve their right to notability? And certainly this "porn star' would qualify as notable... Look at the media coverage this "porn star" has got! I see no problem with the neutrally written and reliably referenced biography of this "porn star". Seriously, the guys who want to fail this are just pissed off at Pricasso for painting a majestic portrait of Dear Founder Jimmy Wales. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The point about the claims about this person being a pornstar is that the article presents him as an artist, which is misleading. Also, see WP:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#D6. {{Pp-dispute}} on the article indicates a dispute if anything does. King Jakob C2 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
I am very uncomfortable with the Bonkers The Clown approval, especially in light of how damning Mathsci's review of the article's current state on June 30:
-
Despite pruning, the article is still poorly written and poorly sourced. There is too much reporting of non-events in the article (e.g. unsuccessful entries in competitions, Patch's activities as a builder). A lot of the content is not neutrally written, with uncritical and direct reporting of Patch's own statements in interviews. Much of the tone seems promotional. The quality of the prose is very variable, with some parts perhaps reflecting too closely the original gutter press or sex industry sources: "one celebrity was OK with it," "Pricasso hit back," "a canvass which concealed his brush," etc.
-
-
- I don't see how an article with this many problems in its current version can be approved at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I have initiated an RfC on the Commons link issue. When that concludes, presumably resolving the main problem, I will be happy to handle the other issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 20
Thomas Yeoman
- ... that Thomas Yeoman was the first president of the first engineering society in the world?
Created/expanded by Chris55 (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 13:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
Article is new enough and long enough, and the hook is short enough and interesting. However, DYK rules require more complete in-line citations than are present in this article before it could be featured on the main page. For example, the second paragraph in the Northampton section has no citations. As a further example, the second paragraph in the London section has no citations. There are also direct quotations in the article with no citations. This would need to be cleaned up before it can be promoted for DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at that, but are you sure you've interpreted the requirements correctly? I read: " The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article" and "Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability", but nothing about what you assert is required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is long enough and was new enough when nominated. The hook seems fine. There was a typographical error in the subject's name both in the lead and in the infobox, which I've corrected. It would be very nice to have a citation by that direct quotation in the first paragraph... Presumably we're meant to understand that it goes to the citation at the end of the paragraph, but perhaps a direct quotation merits a citation immediately beside it? Other than that, it would be nice to have an additional source or two, since currently it leans pretty heavily on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If the citations can be clarified, I'd support this one. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 21
Diego García de Moguer, Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory
- ...
that Spanish explorer Diego García de Moguer discovered an island of what is now the British Indian Ocean Territory and is named after him (roads of Diego Garcia pictured)?
Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Ipigott (talk), Gilderien (talk),Rosiestep (talk), and Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 21:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC).
-
- Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Sam K. Harrison.--Nvvchar. 05:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hook fact carries a [citation needed] tag in Diego García de Moguer, and is part of a difficult-to-understand phrase (why was it a Portuguese expedition, and why is it in double quotes). This article further needs a copyedit, there are several ungrammatical sentences; some to an extent that I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean (e.g. After his Juan Díaz de Solís was killed died (killed...). Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory has several unsourced paragraphs. --Pgallert (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- It's been a week, and while the above sourcing was accomplished and some minor copyediting was done to Diego García de Moguer, a thorough copyedit is needed for that article. Please report back when this has been accomplished so I can call for a new reviewer; there's no point in doing so before then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I'm still available, unless you want to go with a different reviewer. However, for as long as there is still a [citation needed] tag behind the very fact that is supposed to be the hook, there is no way I can pass that. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Great, Pgallert. I certainly didn't mean to bypass you, and am very happy you're planning to continue; this was more of a bump that your issues had not been answered, so I couldn't put out the "review again" icon. I notice that Rosiestep has started some edits on Diego, so I suspect you'll be reviewing this again soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- All 3 sentences with the 'citation needed' tag are translations from the es wiki by one of our collaborators. As I can't find en language refs to support these sentences, do you want me to remove them? My concern is that once I start removing translated sentences that lack inline citations, little will be left. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Regarding article content I commented on Talk:Diego García de Moguer, in a nutshell, the hook statement I would indeed remove from the article. There is no need to remove everything uncited, but we would need a different hook (one that carries a good ref in the article), and for DYK we cannot have paragraphs completely without references. I'm not sure if the ugly 'citation needed' tags pose a problem for passing a DYK (Rule 4 requires conformance with the Verifiability policy). The Buenos Aires foundation claim contradicts the existing WP article, and that needs to be resolved per Wikipedia:DYKAR#D10. So there is still quite something to be done, unfortunately. --Pgallert (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the unsourced stuff but couldn't find a citation for his death, but I have a feeling people are still going to be awkward over this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed a few more of the unsourced sentences. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- We still need a new hook, and the Buenos Aires issue needs to be resolved. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the Buenos Aires fragment from the article. But I think what needs to happen next is to split this nom into two separate ones with two different hooks. Can that be done? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- There should be no rules against that but there might be some technical trouble. Maybe suggest a hook for only one of the two articles, and renominate the other one, linking to this conversation. --Pgallert (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, Pgallert. For the record, here are the two proposed hooks. I'll deal with the splitting after work (if someone doesn't beat me to it).
- There should be no rules against that but there might be some technical trouble. Maybe suggest a hook for only one of the two articles, and renominate the other one, linking to this conversation. --Pgallert (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the Buenos Aires fragment from the article. But I think what needs to happen next is to split this nom into two separate ones with two different hooks. Can that be done? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- We still need a new hook, and the Buenos Aires issue needs to be resolved. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed a few more of the unsourced sentences. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ALT1a: ... that the human Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory includes the depopulation of Chagossians (pictured unloading survey equipment with US personnel in 1971) from the Chagos Archipelago?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ALT2a: ... that Diego García de Moguer was a pioneer in exploring the Paraná River, as well as the Sierra de la Plata of the Río de la Plata? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rather than create a new template, just have the separate hooks be dealt with here and promoted one at a time. It's how we've dealt with previous multihook splits. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Articles created/expanded on June 24
Muggeseggele
- ... that according to Swabian author Henning Petershagen an entomologist of the Naturkundemuseum in Stuttgart measured average lengths of 0.22 millimetres (0.0087 in) for a Muggeseggele (pictured)?
- ... that according Swabian entrepreneuer Thomas Lindner, at the Indian premises of his company everybody knows what a Muggeseggele is (pictured)?
Created/expanded by Serten (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
-
-
- I added some text and erased the UD reference. The funny aspect of the first hook seems to be lost in translation. Muggaseggele is an idiom, no one expect to have an exact length being measured. Cheers Serten (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
-
My issue with the hook was that there was no needed commas - "that according to Swabian author Henning Petershagen, an entomologist of the Naturkundemuseum in Stuttgart, measured average lengths of 0.22 millimetres (0.0087 in) for a Muggeseggele (pictured)? I assume good faith on the references. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Rjanag placed a "merge" template on the article. Accordingly, I'm pulling it from the prep area until the situation is more settled. Here's the hook wording that was in the prep area:
-
-
- ALT... that the average length of a muggeseggele has been measured as 0.22 millimetres (0.0087 in)?--Orlady (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- The article is now at AFD.
- Serten: as I have explained multiple times, the fact that you don't agree with merging does not mean that there isn't a discussion happening. DYK has rules expressing that nominations don't get passed while there is a discussion like this ongoing; you cannot keep trying to pretend there is not a discussion just because you don't agree with merging. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I would llike to aopolgize for not being as familiar with DYK and discussion habits as I should be probably. I however have the impression, that if you provide sources in german, it is handled as if they would not exist here. Thats sometimes annoying. Serten (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never acted as if the sources don't exist. As I have already articulated multiple times at the discussion page, regardless of how many sources there are I don't think the claims being made are sufficient to establish notability. For example, even though I could find thousands of dictionaries with the word "the", and probably thousands of articles and blogs talking about it, I still would not claim that the number of sources makes the word "the" notable. In short: whether your sources are written in German or English has no bearing on the points that I was making, I never suggested that it did, and you don't need to keep trying to change the subject like this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would llike to aopolgize for not being as familiar with DYK and discussion habits as I should be probably. I however have the impression, that if you provide sources in german, it is handled as if they would not exist here. Thats sometimes annoying. Serten (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Anti-Muslim violence in India
- ... that Praveen Swami believes that anti-Muslim violence in India has "scarred India's post independence history"?
-
- Reviewed: Mughalsarai–Kanpur section
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC).
- ALT1 ... that anti-Muslim violence in India has been described by Gyanendra Pandey as a new form of State Terrorism?
- ALT2 ... that scholars argue that Hindu Nationalist political organizations have a central role in planning and carrying out anti-Muslim violence in India?
-
First address the concerns raised in talk page by an editor. The Legend of Zorro 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- I have addressed them, his concerns are invalid. You already self reverted your addition of the tags? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Self reverted for discussion first. What do you mean by concerns are invalid? Seems perfectly valid to me. The Legend of Zorro 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- His concerns are entirely invalid, I already explained why on the talk page. I can add more sources to show how wrong he is if you wish? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- You calling them invalid and he calling them valid only means that a third non-involved person should gauge them. Also more concerns are raised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three uninvolved editors looked over the article before I moved it to mainspace. I have addressed your "concerns". I do not appreciate this kind of disruption because you guys do not appreciate the subject matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are you counting RP-Sitush-Boing lot as uninvolved? And i don't care about your appreciation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three uninvolved editors looked over the article before I moved it to mainspace. I have addressed your "concerns". I do not appreciate this kind of disruption because you guys do not appreciate the subject matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- You calling them invalid and he calling them valid only means that a third non-involved person should gauge them. Also more concerns are raised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- His concerns are entirely invalid, I already explained why on the talk page. I can add more sources to show how wrong he is if you wish? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Self reverted for discussion first. What do you mean by concerns are invalid? Seems perfectly valid to me. The Legend of Zorro 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have addressed them, his concerns are invalid. You already self reverted your addition of the tags? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate some DYK regulars to look this over, the two editors commenting here have been in a few disputes with me on other articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the article needs some independent assessment. I did look over it the other day and thought it looked okay, with one or two possible exceptions, but I haven't read through the talk page yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- What were the exceptions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- FYI DS, i am almost regular at DYK. And why not give full story of how you tried to push this article through DYK last time and how it was pulled out of queue and then was deleted and again failed at DRV? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyone willing to review this? Or shall it sit in limbo for eternity Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's hoist the "reviewer needed" icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
groupuscule reviews
- First of all, the article is long-enough, well sourced, and reasonably well written. (A copy-edit would be welcome; presumably Indian English would be the standard.) The hook is marginally appropriate because it attributes a quotation (rather than making a direct statement)—however, a less subjective statement would be preferable. Alt1 is already better along these lines, and Darkness Shines might consider composing others. That doesn't mean that the hook must be whitewashed, rosy, or falsely evenhanded.
- To us, this seems like a well-written article about a difficult topic. There are some complaints about bias on the talk page, but none of the complainers have produced a single source to challenge the claims being made here. The article is focused on victimization of Muslims, and not acts by Muslims, because it's about anti-Muslim violence: a well-established and discrete topic in the literature.
- The article sympathizes with the interpretation that this violence is systemic, political, and primarily directed at Muslims. There is strong evidence for this interpretation. However, there undeniably exist scholarly sources who discuss this conflict as a more bilateral "Hindu–Muslim conflict", and this interpretation must be given more weight. (Indeed, although it should not supplant "Anti-Muslim violence", it might be reasonable for an article on "Hindu–Muslim conflict" to exist.)
- This book seems to use a more evenhanded tone. Even this author, who argues that there is an "institutionalized system of riot production" and agrees that Muslims feel the brunt of it, frequently uses the term Hindu–Muslim violence. Even if the violence is driven by right-wing Hindu authorities, it is necessary to acknowledge that on the ground the violence is at least somewhat back-and-forth.
- Conclusion for now: the article is not heavily biased, but needs to present a wider spectrum of scholarly viewed, rather than just listing one-line opinions of scholars in support of an apparent single conclusion. Presenting some issues that provoke serious debate in the scholarly literature would go a long way towards increasing neutrality in the article's tone. The article doesn't have to be a complete literature review before it runs as a DYK—but for a topic of this seriousness it is necessary to at least identify a range of scholarly opinions. Darkness Shines, can you add some discussion into the article? You have done a really great job so far, and we appreciate your work. groupuscule (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- @Groupuscule: First, thank you for the review. I have posted to the guild of copy-editors to give it a once over already. Two of the sources you suggested have no preview on GBooks, so I will either have to purchase them or order them through the library, however my time is limited over the next few weeks. The paper you linked to is pretty good, thank you for that. I will review Brass's books again to look for some balancing content, I assume you wish for me to add incidents by Muslims which were a spark to begin an instance of mass violence? Such as Godhra was used as an excuse for the 2002 violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even better than adding the incidents themselves would be adding a statement or two about how these incidents are discussed in popular and/vs scholarly literature. We're talking about the type of analysis presented in the first paragraph of the lead, in the sentences starting with "Inside India,...". It seems like you are describing a situation where the pogroms appear to represent spontaneous reactions to the actions of Muslims, but in fact are organized (and/or encouraged, sanctioned, otherwise aided & abetted) by the state and by right-wing Hindu powers that be. This seems like the consensus view of academics (though we haven't researched in enough depth to guarantee this claim). Even so it would be a great benefit if the article could explain better (a) that the appearance of a more bilateral (and thus presumably 'uncontrollable') 'cycle of violence' exists, and (b) how exactly this appearance is created. Does that make sense? Feel free to say 'no'. groupuscule (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Can you jump into the conversion here please, RP and Maunus seem to be thinking along the same lines as yourself and they may be better suited to the task as I do not know if I will have the time to do what you are requesting, although I shall of course try. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: First, thank you for the review. I have posted to the guild of copy-editors to give it a once over already. Two of the sources you suggested have no preview on GBooks, so I will either have to purchase them or order them through the library, however my time is limited over the next few weeks. The paper you linked to is pretty good, thank you for that. I will review Brass's books again to look for some balancing content, I assume you wish for me to add incidents by Muslims which were a spark to begin an instance of mass violence? Such as Godhra was used as an excuse for the 2002 violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hook: (1) We cannot have comment from one person as a hook for a subject as voluminous and exceptional. (2) Has India faced international sanctions/ censure regarding the treatment of Muslims? Like for example the "Former Yugoslavia? One scholar's opinion can't be used for a statement like this. (3) "Scarred" is a weasel word. (4) Has a security council resolution been passed, any other resolution in UN fora of similar stature. (5) Wikipedia isn't a repository for the sensational. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that Yogesh Khandke is one of the people mentioned by Groupuscule in his review above, lotsa waffle, no sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been expanding the article with demographics and economic disparity as being another cause for the violence, the article has also been tweaked by RegentsPark and Maunus. It really is time this got promoted, how often does such a well sourced article get to DYK? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apart from the issues with the hook, the name of the article has been proposed to be changed, Maunus mentioned by DS has suggested an alternative to the name I've proposed, the DYK shouldn't be done pending such an important matter as the title of the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have not proposed a move request so that is not a relevant issue for the DYK process + nor has anyone else.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are no issues with the hook, and the article is not getting moved. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maunus said: "Maybe we could move the article to Hindu-Muslim violence in India in that way the article could include violence by and against both groups and would have less of a POV feeling. It is also the title of the 2003 book by Paul Brass." We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion, disputed in the lead itself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- There is no relation between that statement of mine and your argument about the hook. I have not made a move proposal, I aired an idea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Yogesh Khandke: What is disputed about the hook exactly? Or is this going to be another time wasting exercise were you provide no sources and just "know" that what Pandey has said is disputed? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- @DS: (1) On Wikipedia, consensus decides the state of its articles, editors have to learn handle disagreements and not personally attack those who disagree. If my arguments are bad, whoever closes this would judge them, it isn't for you to accuse me of "time wasting... again", you've called me disruptive earlier. I request you to apologise. (2) The hook statement implies that some how India is a "terrorist state" that is an exceptional claim to make, there have to be exceptional sources. One scholar's views shouldn't supply such a wide sweeping comment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Maunus I didn't claim that the move argument and the hook argument are related, they are different, my view is that the title of the article or even its structure is disputed, I presented your statement verbatim as evidence of suggested alternative title. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I thought, no sources. There are more than one source which says these instances of mass violence are akin to state terrorism, and you need to look up the difference between a "terrorist state" and state terrorism. And I did not accuse you of time wasting, I asked if this was to be another time wasting exercise, which it now appears to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, you wrote "We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion" I asked you who is it disputed by, you failed to respond. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- (1) How can I supply sources for absence of something? Please supply evidence that India has been sanctioned for being a terrorist state, just like Iran or N Korea or Afghanistan or others were? We cannot have controversial opinions however scholarly as hooks. (2)"A terrorist state is a state that indulges in terrorism." The perpetrator of terrorist acts is a terrorist. (3) Please don't accuse me of wasting time, this is a collaborative project, in such a project participants have to learn to live with those who do not agree with them and not berate their efforts as worthless time wasting. Please don't attack me personally. It isn't for you to judge me, it is for the DYK referee to do so. (3) We cannot call something "state terror" based on hearsay howsoever scholarly it may be. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- You are not making sense at all and yes tyou are wasting the projects time by your nonsense. You are being asked to please supply a source that this view is disputed. We are not calling anythinf state terror, we are repeating the verifiable fact that Praveen Swami has said that it is. Your efforts are worthless time wasting because its only objective is clearly to wikilaywer and twist policies in any way possible in order for nothing unpleasant to be said about India and Narenda Modi. By doing so you are harming, not helping the project.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Yogesh Khandke: You said it was disputed, given that as usual you have no sources and this is obviously another waste of my time I am quite simply done with you. If this article is not promoted within 24hrs I will withdraw it myself and DYK can lose a well written and well sourced article on an important subject, personally I am fed up of this messing around. I have had three DYKs promoted since I wrote this, the fact that it is being held hostage is terribly, terribly wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- (1) How can I supply sources for absence of something? Please supply evidence that India has been sanctioned for being a terrorist state, just like Iran or N Korea or Afghanistan or others were? We cannot have controversial opinions however scholarly as hooks. (2)"A terrorist state is a state that indulges in terrorism." The perpetrator of terrorist acts is a terrorist. (3) Please don't accuse me of wasting time, this is a collaborative project, in such a project participants have to learn to live with those who do not agree with them and not berate their efforts as worthless time wasting. Please don't attack me personally. It isn't for you to judge me, it is for the DYK referee to do so. (3) We cannot call something "state terror" based on hearsay howsoever scholarly it may be. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Maunus said: "Maybe we could move the article to Hindu-Muslim violence in India in that way the article could include violence by and against both groups and would have less of a POV feeling. It is also the title of the 2003 book by Paul Brass." We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion, disputed in the lead itself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
From where groupuscule is sitting (in the library) the article is reasonably well-sourced and reasonably well-written. ALT2 is accurate and central to the topic as its presented here. This topic seems to be attracting a lot of controversy—at least within Wikipedia. Let's quickly run it by DYK talk just to get a few more eyeballs on it. groupuscule (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have compared this article to Religious violence in India and given the length and scope of the latter, have concluded that there is at least a case to be made for the existence of a separate article on this particular aspect of the wider topic. There also looks to be enough new material here to meet DYK requirements. I have also read through the article talk page (though not yet the archive) and the discussion above, and haven't seen much in the way of substantive criticism from the article's critics.
- On the other hand, I share groupuscule's concerns above that the article may be presenting a somewhat one-dimensional view of the conflict. I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence. I think therefore that the next step will be to spend some time reading the source material to see how it compares. I probably won't have time to do that today but will endeavour to do so tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- @DS: You've to provide evidence for India being a terrorist state, evidence more solid than Pandey's opinion. Do you want me to provide Evidence of absence?
- @All: Can we have a statement like "xx argues..." as a DYK. I may be wrong but I assumed that DYK is about facts and not about opinions or arguments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is a source, you say it is disputed, I ask who is this disputed by? You as usual have no source, so take a hike until such a time as you do in fact get some sources to support your pointless arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- "take a hike", "pointless arguments" I'd read before I commented. I wrote on 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)' "We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion, disputed in the lead itself." Do you want me to link to the article whose DYK discussion is in progress here? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- You keep writing that it is disputed, who is it disputed by? Until you have a source which disputes what is in the article take a hike, you are just wasting not only my time, but anyone else who is reviewing the DYK. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you speaking on behalf of others? Do you want me to copy the lead of the article here, as it stood when I wrote the comment? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus christ, it does not matter what the article says, nor the lede, nor anything. You, and only you are saying that the hook is disputed, I have asked you three of four times now who is disputing it, you have yet to provide a source, so all you are being is is disruptive and tendentious. Either come with sources or do not post, how difficult is that for you to understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you speaking on behalf of others? Do you want me to copy the lead of the article here, as it stood when I wrote the comment? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- You keep writing that it is disputed, who is it disputed by? Until you have a source which disputes what is in the article take a hike, you are just wasting not only my time, but anyone else who is reviewing the DYK. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- "take a hike", "pointless arguments" I'd read before I commented. I wrote on 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)' "We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion, disputed in the lead itself." Do you want me to link to the article whose DYK discussion is in progress here? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is a source, you say it is disputed, I ask who is this disputed by? You as usual have no source, so take a hike until such a time as you do in fact get some sources to support your pointless arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) The DYK represents the article, why does it not matter what the lead mentions? The lead stated that "Many scholars have described incidents of anti-Muslim violence as politically motivated and organized, preferring to call them pogroms or acts of genocide rather than mere riots." Isn't there a dispute regarding nomenclature? Whether the incidents be called "pogroms" "genocide or "riots"?[13] Why should the DYK endorse one of the many disputed nomenclatures? (2) Secondly why should the DYK succumb to hyperbolic opinions of some scholars? Genocide or program is an exceptional claim, have there been any convictions or international sanctions against the Indian state alleged to be perpetuating "state terrorism", like Iran, N Korea, Afghanistan? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- You are wrong Yogesh. It is a very widely held claim that the 2002 riots were a pogrom, I would say that outside of India it is in fact the consensus - and it is also a very commonly held view outside of hindutva circles in India. It is by no means an exceptional claim. Your idea of what DYK should and shouldn't be seems to have no basis in any familiarity with DYK or other editorial processes on wikipedia, but as usual you are attempting to make it seem as if your POV pushing has a basis in policy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- "View" you're right, commonly held is your opinion. If my objections are not DYK compliant, they would be overruled. "Program" or "genocide" is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources, do you have a UN security council resolution, an international tribunal or the like describing it so? The article rightly carries opinions of scholars, as "opinions of scholars", is DYK about opinions? I need to be informed by an uninvolved editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- O look, we are back to the legal crap again. As for "exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources" we have them, they are in the article, they have been explained on you on that article talk page ad nauseum, you refuse to get the point however and just keep blowing smoke. For the last fucking time, either get sources which dispute that which is in the article or let it go. I am this >< close to filing an AE against you for this constant disruption. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have no control over what you do or the abuse you shower. All I can suggest is to let other editors judge the arguments presented. There are uninvolved editors here, it is for them to take the call. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- O look, we are back to the legal crap again. As for "exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources" we have them, they are in the article, they have been explained on you on that article talk page ad nauseum, you refuse to get the point however and just keep blowing smoke. For the last fucking time, either get sources which dispute that which is in the article or let it go. I am this >< close to filing an AE against you for this constant disruption. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- "View" you're right, commonly held is your opinion. If my objections are not DYK compliant, they would be overruled. "Program" or "genocide" is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources, do you have a UN security council resolution, an international tribunal or the like describing it so? The article rightly carries opinions of scholars, as "opinions of scholars", is DYK about opinions? I need to be informed by an uninvolved editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong Yogesh. It is a very widely held claim that the 2002 riots were a pogrom, I would say that outside of India it is in fact the consensus - and it is also a very commonly held view outside of hindutva circles in India. It is by no means an exceptional claim. Your idea of what DYK should and shouldn't be seems to have no basis in any familiarity with DYK or other editorial processes on wikipedia, but as usual you are attempting to make it seem as if your POV pushing has a basis in policy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on June 25
Latin Rhythm Albums
... that Ivy Queen is the only female artist to rank on the Billboard Latin Rhythm Albums chart?
-
- Reviewed: Coming Soon.
-
- Comment: The reference used requires a subscription. I think a WP:AGF should be used here. Thanks.
Created/expanded by DivaKnockouts (talk). Self nominated at 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
-
AGF on the sub only source, I found a few others which say more or less the same thing. Good to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Adding icon that shows that this is not ready for promotion (initially a QPQ issue, but there are more problems beyond that). I would have also preferred a more comprehensive review that says what was checked; to my eyes, some of the sentences sourced to FN3 are too closely paraphrased for comfort. I also wonder about the "original mythology and natural settings" phrase, which is not supported by the source and also unencyclopedic in tone. Unless the chart ended in spring 2011, the hook is not adequately supported, since the source be used is dated April 23, 2011. There are over two years of charts since then: 100+ chances for another female artist to chart. There needs to be more current sourcing of Ivy Queen still being the only female to have an album chart for this hook to be feasible. Finally, the article needs a copyedit: there's too much back and forth between present and past tense, and some of the wording and punctuation is incorrect and confusing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, the article has gone through a full copy-edit and I believe I have addressed your issues with the prose. I'll perform another copy-edit, just in case. Blue, you were actually right, a second female artist performed on the chart in 2012. I had assumed that Queen was the only female artist to chart because the source said so and that the chart was active for six years already. Thanks for pointing that out. — DivaKnockouts 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Here is the ALT I propose:
- ... that Ivy Queen is the only female artist to rank a number-one album on the Billboard Latin Rhythm Albums chart?
-
Your sourcing does not support the new hook. It's clear that Ivy Queen does have at least one chart-topping album; source 8 does confirm that. But that she's the only female artist? That is not supported here. What you need is an independent source that says so in an article somewhere. The two number-one and five top-ten sentence that follows source 8 also needs to be sourced: it's a very strong claim. (If it's from source 17 or 25—which use the same link—I can't get it to show me that particular chart or those five top tens—it isn't clear whether the two number ones included in the five top tens. Are you sure that's the right source?) Finally, I think the "one of the few female artists to rank in the top ten of the Latin Rhythm Airplay chart" statement is questionable, at least in terms of the list, given that the source is from March 2007, over six years old. A lot can change in six years, especially if someone not on that list made number two on the albums chart last year—though even there, source 10 does not link to her album's appearance at number two: she isn't there at the link provided. I'm afraid there's still considerable work to be done yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
It has been over a week since the nominator was notified of continuing significant issues with the article, and over three weeks since a reminder was given that the QPQ requirement had not been fulfilled; it remains unfulfilled today. Given the inaction, I am marking the nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
-
Articles created/expanded on July 1
J. J. Goodwin
- ... that without the efforts of British stenographer J. J. Goodwin (pictured), a good number of lectures of Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda would have been lost?
-
- Comment: Date request 10 July, relation: Vivekananda wrote a very important letter on that day.
Moved to mainspace by Haripriya63 (talk), Titodutta (talk), Ukexpat (talk). Nominated by Titodutta (talk) at 22:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Someone such as Swami Vivekananda is not generally known to readers so there should probably be more context. Perhaps instead of saying "Vivekananda" it could say "Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda." CaseyPenk (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. I have tweaked and added wikilink. --Tito☸Dutta 03:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I had to make some grammatical changes, maybe there are more to be made in the article. Requiescat in pace was not spelled correctly, and I fixed that. Other than that it is okay. Wer900 • talk 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Needs a new reviewer to check the entire article and hook to see whether the prose is okay and the article meets DYK criteria, given the fact that the review icon and text are inconsistent with each other. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
2001 Protection One 400
- ... that even though Rusty Wallace led the most laps at the 2001 Protection One 400, he finished fourth due to speeding on pit road?
Created by ZappaOMati (talk). Self nominated at 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Interesting hook and I think it could work with some more context. To someone who's not familiar with racing, I'm not sure if it would be self-evident that this was an auto race. Also, I don't believe "pit road" is a general knowledge term that non-fans would tend to know. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I don't know about how self-evident it'd be, unless you go up to a random non-race fan and ask "did you watch the Blah 500?" or something. For pit road, I linked it, which could help people know what it is. ZappaOMati 19:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't review the article, but the hook looks self-evident enough. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a little unsure a reader outside the US will be able to parse this quickly enough, though I worked out what it was talking about because "pit road" is contextually similar enough to "pit lane" as used in Formula 1 to understand it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The source uses the phrase "pit road speeding penalty". I think "pit road" should be used in the article rather than "pit lane", if that's the term of art used for NASCAR; I also think you need to use "the" in the article and hook sentences, i.e., "speeding on the pit road". Once these are addressed, we can call for a full review; I don't think it makes sense to ask for a reviewer when this issue is still a snag preventing approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Wa alaykumu s-salam
- ... that Wa alaykumu s-salam is a Muslim greeting in response to As-salamu alaykum, often considered the equivalent to "hello" or "good day" in English?
-
- Reviewed: Sardar Ayaz Sadiq
Created/expanded by Faizan (talk). Self nominated at 06:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Note The article needs expansion, development is under progress, and shall be completed within few days. Faizan 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
It has been another week, there has only been one edit, and the article is only up to 1150 prose characters, plus it has acquired a bare ref. It should have been ready long before now. If the editor had been away from Wikipedia I might be inclined to give more time, but over 1000 edits have been made on Wikipedia since the "doing" template was placed. Closing the nomination for failing to meet minimum length requirements despite a generously long extension to expand it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- My regrets. The article is good now, the prose characters are also more than the required ones. I don't know why DYKcheck gives them as 1150. The highlighted text in yellowe is only 1150, whereas the section below is not counted by the DYKcheck script. I have difficulty in its more expansion, as there are no easy sources for this single greeting of 'Wa alaykumu s-salam'. Faizan 08:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Tables and lists do not count for DYK, so the list of Islamic rulings are not included in the eligible total. If there are not additional sources for more material—even two of the three listed rulings are unsourced—then perhaps it just can't be expanded to be big enough, and will remain too short. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DYKcheck gives the current size of the article as 1461 prose characters, still insufficient to satisfy DYK length requirements, though far closer than earlier efforts. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- This symbol was a bit extra. Anyway, the greeting Wa alaykumu s-salam is a response to the standard greeting of As-salamu alaykum. Therefore, there is not much content there about the response.i.e Wa alaykumu s-salam. I don;t know why DYK check does not include the whole of the characters in the article. 1461 prose characters are just the 80% of the total length, excluding table, templates, etc. I am done with references, but will try to get more substance related to further expansion. Faizan 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Full review needed now that article is long enough. However, the fifth reference is a bare url, and must be fixed before this can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 2
Kinjockity Ranch, Rufus Riddlesbarger
- ... that Rufus Riddlesbarger acquired Kinjockity Ranch with the proceeds from his contraceptives company?
-
- Reviewed: L.S. Alexander Gumby and New Brighton Tower
Created by Acroterion (talk). Self nominated at 12:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC).
Another QPQ needed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Of course, I'll review another when I get some time today to do it right. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewing New Brighton Tower. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
QPQ reviews completed; nomination needs a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
(re Kinjockity Ranch) size and age ok, hook cited and true to source. good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
What about the Rufus Riddlesbarger article? It, too, needs to be fully reviewed; the nomination shouldn't receive a final tick until both articles under consideration have been checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata)
... that the statue of Swami Vivekananda at Golpark, Kolkata, was his first statue in the city?
-
- Reviewed:
Not self creation/expansionRequired as nomination was requested by creator
- Reviewed:
Created by Titodutta (talk). Nominated by Solomon7968 (talk) at 02:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
- Looks good, but the hook is a little vague, if there are other statues I'd give a number.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
QPQ will be required, as the creator requested that the nominator nominate this for him. Whatever the motives, it is inappropriate to bypass QPQ in this manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- QPQ; Template:Did you know nominations/Rice production in the United States Tito☸Dutta 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- That QPQ has already been used for Template:Did you know nominations/Lectures from Colombo to Almora; please select an unused one. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- My bad... it should be Template:Did you know nominations/Miriam Battista. I copied the wrong one from here User:Titodutta/DYK tracker --Tito☸Dutta 04:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation provided
1.2 million (US$20,000) for a new 12-foot high statue of Swami Vivekananda in Golpark, Kolkata?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC) minor changes by Tito☸Dutta 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Needs a full review now that hook and QPQ are settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, that means you've been slacking on the job for 21 days. Well, I'm trying, but there are problems. First, the grammar was and is tortured and I've done some major copy editing already. Second, it's on the short side and not very exciting, but quality is not a concern at DYK, I'm told. Third, I'm in the first paragraph of the "Bronze statue" section, and there's trouble. The sentence "In 2006, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture..." is tortured like you wouldn't believe, and the claim is not borne out in the article: in fact, the article does not mention the new statue, and claims the old one is from 1961, not 1966. And it does not verify that the new statue was unveiled in 2006. This is a serious problem, and it puts the entire process on hold. Might I suggest that if someone gets to work on the article they try to find a bunch more sources and write a bit more text? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ToI source mentions:
"In 2006, KMC gave us the responsibility for maintenance of the park and nearby boulevard. In these years, we have tried our best. Now, with Times Foundation, we have been able to restore it to its full glory," said Swami Sarvabhutananda.
- At that time the Bronze status was installed. The Telegraph has some details on it. --Tito☸Dutta 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 3
Rose Lambert
- ... that Rose Lambert (pictured) reported that many Armenian widows and orphans saw their loved ones get "brutally" massacred before their eyes during the Adana massacres?
- ALT1 ... that Rose Lambert (pictured) wrote about an Armenian who was "brutally massacred" after his eyes were dug out and his body was cut to pieces during the Adana massacre?
-
- Reviewed: John_Rocque's_Map_of_London,_1746
Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 03:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The hooks are poorly written and at the very least would need a copyedit, the article also needs a copyedit and strikes me as having POV issues. Also, I am uncomfortable with gruesome acts being sourced solely to offline references, since they can't be independently verified. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Issues fixed. I don't see how the first hook is grammatically incorrect. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Removed both refs. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Since these references merely supplemented other sources, I guess that was an acceptable solution. However, their removal makes me wonder whether you read these sources, or if you cited them because they were cited in a source that you did read. Wikipedia advises us that reference citations should "say where you got it"; we shouldn't cite sources we didn't actually see. --Orlady (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've read Walker's book a while back and I have it in handy at my own home. I forgot to set up a bibliography on the page which I do with all my other articles (See: George Juskalian). Also, the century of genocide book is also online. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Please don't bother with placing additional "talkback" templates on my talk page. I have this page watchlisted and I'm well aware of your recent changes to the article (you might notice that I have edited the article since your last edits -- that's because I was investigating the article topic due to this DYK nomination). --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Forgive me for that. Looking forward for your review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewer needed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I have discussed fixed the issues and discussed it on your talk page. You haven't responded. Since your comment some editors/admins have CE'd the article. That is why I stated that a third-party reviewer is needed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Just to update the status of this nom: Both the hooks and the article need a substantial copyedit, and some statements in the article will need to be carefully checked against the sources for accuracy. I will try to get this done myself some time over the next few days (I have visitors staying over ATM so it's rather difficult), so that we can move forward with the review. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I am looking forward to your review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, yes I am still reviewing this, in fact I spent most of yesterday evening reading the whole of Lambert's book in order to gain a better perspective on the events in question. At this point, I believe the article needs a substantial amount of work and I intend to do some work on it over the next few days. Once again, my apologies for the long delay, but I had relatives staying here for three weeks, during which time I had little opportunity to edit, and I also picked up a respiratory infection from one of them which I have only just recovered from. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable. Get well soon. Looking forward for your review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, yes I am still reviewing this, in fact I spent most of yesterday evening reading the whole of Lambert's book in order to gain a better perspective on the events in question. At this point, I believe the article needs a substantial amount of work and I intend to do some work on it over the next few days. Once again, my apologies for the long delay, but I had relatives staying here for three weeks, during which time I had little opportunity to edit, and I also picked up a respiratory infection from one of them which I have only just recovered from. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I am looking forward to your review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 4
2006 USG Sheetrock 400
- ... that in the 2006 USG Sheetrock 400, race leader Matt Kenseth was spun by Jeff Gordon, ran out of fuel, and was involved in a second wreck?
-
- ALT1:... that Jeff Gordon won the 2006 USG Sheetrock 400 after spinning Matt Kenseth?
Created by ZappaOMati (talk). Self nominated at 03:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC).
-
This article is new enough and long enough. Both the hooks are suitably referenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I took this out of the prep area because of some issues. These statements can be changed for a common reader to understand or have it there, but just have it clarified - "bumped into a slowing", "On the green-white-checkered finish", and "the first caution flew for debris". The sentence with "Gordon held on to win" could possibly be reworded, but I'm not too concerned about it to not let the article run because of that. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how some of them can be changed, such as the green-white-checker finish, since it's a NASCAR term not really used in other bodies. The only other possible term for a GWC is Overdrive, which only NASCAR on Fox used. ZappaOMati 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I have to ask why information like the national anthem and grand marshall and the other "guest stars" are considered notable enough to include. They don't affect the race at all, and national anthems aren't mentioned in other sports, such as baseball World Series games. The flyover might be notable, though I'm not sure. Just because the source goes into exhaustive detail regarding minutia doesn't mean an encyclopedic article should. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it doesn't really affect the race itself, but it is one of the things that helped the page get past the 1500 character mark, especially considering the scarcity of reliable sources and recaps available of the race. I removed it, but now I gotta find a way to expand the article 300+ more characters. Dang. ZappaOMati 03:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: OK, so I was able to expand it to 1898 characters. Better? ZappaOMati 04:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, thanks. New articles really shouldn't have filler to get to 1500; it needs to be a solid 1500. Assuming FN5 is reliable enough (I'm not entirely sure it's neutral), I thought the information that Gordon's victory lap was marred by junk being thrown on the track by spectators who were angered by his bumping Kenseth rather than passing him outright might be worth adding. However, I do think that some of SL93's notes on problematic statements should be addressed: "the first caution flew for debris" should probably be something like "the first caution flag was caused by debris on the track", for example, and I'm not sure why "bumped" is used when one car struck/hit the other's bumper (it would be better prose not to use "bumped" and "bumper" for the same occurrence). I'll let SL93 take it from here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I have to ask why information like the national anthem and grand marshall and the other "guest stars" are considered notable enough to include. They don't affect the race at all, and national anthems aren't mentioned in other sports, such as baseball World Series games. The flyover might be notable, though I'm not sure. Just because the source goes into exhaustive detail regarding minutia doesn't mean an encyclopedic article should. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Needs a new reviewer to check phrasing and sourcing reliability and neutrality, and also the hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 5
Russian submarine K-18 Karelia
- ... that the Russian President Vladimir Putin boarded the submarine K-18 Karelia (pictured) in April 2000?
-
- Reviewed: Juan Manuel Galán Pachón
Created by Strike Eagle (talk). Self nominated at 09:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC).
-
There are issues with close paraphrasing.
- " About 100 new features were applied to the boat including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and addition of the RSM-54 Sineva SLBMs. in article compared to "Over 100 innovations were applied during upgrade, including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and SLBMs RSM-54 Sineva."
- " It was laid down in February 1987, launched in 1988 and was commissioned in 1989 into the Soviet Navy." compared to "The submarine was laid down in February 1987 in Severodvinsk; launched in 1988; commissioned in 1989."
- "The submarine conducted over 14 missile fires and covered more than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)." compared to "The sub has performed over 14 missile firings and covered more than 140,000 nautical miles."
- "K-18 Karelia (Russian: К-18 Карелия) is a Project 667BDRM Delfin class (NATO reporting name: Delta IV) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine currently in service with the Russian Navy." compared to "K-18 Karelia is a 2nd generation Project 667BDRM Delfin Nuclear-Powered Ballistic Missile Submarine."
There are no categories as well. SL93 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Another identical bit: "In April 2000, Vladamir Putin sailed aboard the sub" from FN1 also appears in the article, albeit extended with additional information (and "sub" becomes "submarine"). The consensus at WT:DYK#Editor closely paraphrases sources is clear: the article does indeed have close paraphrasing that can and needs to be fixed. This is not just a DYK issue, but a Wikipedia article issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have made some edits and solved the close paraphrasing problems as mentioned earlier. Any more suggestions? Or is the article ready to be passed? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The close paraphrasing has been fixed. This is ready now. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- All the same, to me it's a dull hook. Head of state/government with powerful military visits naval vessel? I'm sure just about every other Russian, American, Chinese or British leader has done that.
However, there's not much to work with in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- He did not only visit one. He boarded it, and went out to the sea in it. I do not know if any head of state has done that in a nuclear submarine (forgive me if I am unaware!). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, maybe the hook could be reworded. "Boarded" does not necessarily mean "went out to sea in". DoctorKubla (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, you are right. But I am not the one who worded the hook that way, and I am not the nominator either. Though i did work a little on the article. The cited sources say he sailed in the submarine. To remove close paraphrasing, i had re-worded that to "In April 2000, the then newly-incumbent Russian President Vladimir Putin was given a demonstrative excursion in the submarine". May be we can use that as the hook. How does that sound? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, having looked at the sources, they don't go into much detail about what exactly Putin did in the submarine; "sailed" is very vague. Better play it safe and stick with "boarded". DoctorKubla (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- But sailing and boarding a ship are quite distinct. Sailing implies travel. Boarding implies a visit. A lot of politicians board ships and submarines, but riding out to the sea in a nuclear submarine can be noteworthy, IMO. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- If I saw a hook that said "Putin sailed in a submarine", I'd want to know where he went (did he go out to sea? did he go underwater? or did he just sail half a mile along the coast?), and I'd be annoyed that this information isn't in the article. Besides, the original hook's been approved, and I don't want to disrupt the process by proposing a new one at this stage. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- But sailing and boarding a ship are quite distinct. Sailing implies travel. Boarding implies a visit. A lot of politicians board ships and submarines, but riding out to the sea in a nuclear submarine can be noteworthy, IMO. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, having looked at the sources, they don't go into much detail about what exactly Putin did in the submarine; "sailed" is very vague. Better play it safe and stick with "boarded". DoctorKubla (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, you are right. But I am not the one who worded the hook that way, and I am not the nominator either. Though i did work a little on the article. The cited sources say he sailed in the submarine. To remove close paraphrasing, i had re-worded that to "In April 2000, the then newly-incumbent Russian President Vladimir Putin was given a demonstrative excursion in the submarine". May be we can use that as the hook. How does that sound? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, maybe the hook could be reworded. "Boarded" does not necessarily mean "went out to sea in". DoctorKubla (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- He did not only visit one. He boarded it, and went out to the sea in it. I do not know if any head of state has done that in a nuclear submarine (forgive me if I am unaware!). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- All the same, to me it's a dull hook. Head of state/government with powerful military visits naval vessel? I'm sure just about every other Russian, American, Chinese or British leader has done that.
James E. Dull
- ... that Dean James E. Dull was instrumental in developing and implementing plans for the peaceful integration of Georgia Institute of Technology in 1961 which was achieved without incident?
Created/expanded by Mistercontributer (talk). Self nominated at 22:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC).
- Review in process. Seems a fine article, and himself a very fine man. Please be nice to me: this is my first DYK review, and I might be doing it all wrong. Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Article #1: New = yes; #2: Long enough = yes; #2: Within policy = yes, though the referencing could be tidied up; #4: BLPs are tagged = yes, not a BLP itself, and there appear to be no corollary BLP problems
- Hook #1: Format = yes; #2: Content = not sure. The hook would appear to invite comparisons with the desegregation of other tertiary institutions in the South, perhaps inadvertently: "peaceful" would appear to be a problematic word in this context, as it suggests that there may have been less than peaceful integration in other colleges, and the implicit comparison may render the hook without full referencing. I would suggest it be re-written to focus on Georgia Tech itself. Am I being too picky?
- Other #1: PQP = I don't know. Apparently there's a link you can click on to check this, but I don't know where to find it. #2: Images = yes. They're all from Commons, maybe a size-tweak may be needed.
- Am I doing OK so far? --Shirt58 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Did you mean "QPQ"? If so, there's a link at the top of this nom template. Anyway, QPQ check on toolserver says Miscontributer has had only one previous DYK and does not require QPQ. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing this DYK nomination. With regards to the proposed hook, I suggest removing the word "peaceful" to resolve the concerns described above. This article has other potential hooks, such as Dean Dull's purchase of the Ramblin' Wreck car, but I thought the proposed hook would be more interesting for the readers. Mistercontributer (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Maybe Shirt58 isn't finished with the review. I don't see any tick that says conclusively what the status is on his/her review. I don't see that Shirt58 ran a copyvio check (also link above on this template), so maybe the review isn't finished?. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The following is proposed revised hook:
- ALT1: ... that Dean James E. Dull was instrumental in developing and implementing plans for the integration of Georgia Institute of Technology in 1961, which was achieved without incident?
- Please let me know if this proposed revised hook will work? - Mistercontributer (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The following is proposed revised hook:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Needs a full review, to check first-time reviewer, do a close paraphrasing check, and make sure ALT1 is sourced and addresses issues found with the original hook. (I added a comma to ALT1.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 6
Art in Paris
- ...
that the Louvre of Paris is the world's largest and most famous museum, housing many works of art, including the Mona Lisa (pictured) and the Venus de Milo statue?
Created by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Gilderien (talk) and Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld at 07:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC). Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Aega psora
I do not see "world's largest and most famous museum" supported by the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I noticed this was not nominated until the sixth day after the content creation began (however since we are on 12-hour sets, we must be short of hooks).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- A few hours late, yes.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Length and date are solid otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the image passes, give the size of the Mona Lisa. However, we might want to call in the experts if we want to include the photo on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Length and date are solid otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
There is a major sourcing problem: while the article cites Michelin 2011 seven times and Lawrence & Gondrand 2010 six times, neither has a matching entry in the bibliography section, which is a must when using this sourcing format. I couldn't do a quick close paraphrase check without further information on the sources. Can this please be corrected? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The article was split after I condensed it in the Paris article, this is why. I believe I've fixed the issue now, if not, give me another bell.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; the two sources are now in the bibliography section. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article was split after I condensed it in the Paris article, this is why. I believe I've fixed the issue now, if not, give me another bell.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- To Gilderien: Can you list out those offline sources as I asked earlier? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- A more concise hook possibility which also avoids the superlatives about the Louvre which are of tangential relevance to the target article which is about the art:
-
- ALT1: ... that the Louvre houses many of the most famous art works in Paris, including the Mona Lisa (pictured) and the Venus de Milo statue?
-
- EdChem (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the world's largest museum is worthy of mentioning. I've now sourced so the original hook should be fine.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why is one source for largest and most famous with the footnotes and the other tucked away under the footnotes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am unable to see page 18 of ref 10 (i am on my backup computer this week).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Page 20 mentioned in the article of reference 10 reads " “Musee du Luvre is the most famous museum in the world with over 6 million visitors each year…”. --Nvvchar. 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I am unable to see page 18 of ref 10 (i am on my backup computer this week).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why is one source for largest and most famous with the footnotes and the other tucked away under the footnotes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the world's largest museum is worthy of mentioning. I've now sourced so the original hook should be fine.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to review ALT1 and issues regarding the original hook (noted by EdChem), and also anything required by DYK beyond article length and date, which have already been reviewed by TonyTheTiger. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The article does not support "many of the most famous art works in Paris". The closest it comes is "richest art collections in the world" and "world's largest and most famous museum".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. Mona Lisa and Venus de Milo are reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I struck out the original hook. Here's ALT2: ... that public access to art in Paris includes museums such as the Louvre ("Mona Lisa" room pictured)? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
- The picture seems unnatural in the sentence. I think you should just mention the Mona Lisa and/or Venus de Milo in was that are properly reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ALT3 ... that publically accessible art in Paris includes works such as the Mona Lisa (pictured) and the Venus de Milo? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Articles created/expanded on July 7
Gustavo Nieves Campello
- ... that after suddenly losing his vision at age 17, Gustavo Nieves Campello left football to compete in athletics?
Moved to mainspace by LauraHale (talk). Nominated by Thine Antique Pen (talk) at 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- athletics should be linked to track and field, Athletics (sport).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Otherwise, the article is long enough, new enough, supported by refs and copyvio free.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
I've added the wikilink for athletics to the hook (picking the "athletics" one over "track and field"). However, I'm concerned about the sourcing in the article. Noticing a factoid that I thought probably didn't belong, the mention of a girlfriend where only a first name was given, I decided to check the source, FN6. No girlfriend. The previous sentence was also not supported. It turns out, on further investigation, that there are two completely different "news12" references, and one is supplanting the other in the reference list. This is not good. Can this be fixed, the currently invisible source checked to be sure it does back the article, and the article be checked for other errors? I also think it would be a good idea to remove random facts, like who he's dating, unless there's sourced info that indicates it's a serious relationship? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I've fixed the references and removed the fact about his girlfriend, as the source does not indicate a serious relationship. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Reviewer needed to complete nomination checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 8
Yves Gaucher (artist)
- ... that Yves Gaucher, a Canadian artist, was expelled from the College Brebeuf for drawing "immoral pictures" which were actually copied from his textbook?
Created by 069952497a (talk). Self nominated at 20:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Seems good, though I'd repeat the reference right after the sentence which explains why he was expelled. LAcitizenz (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Done. Thanks for the review! 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "In 1970, Gaucher began to create works consisting entirely of broad horizontal stripes of clashing colours, which would later come to be called colour band painting. He would also explore the diagonal line and arranging planes of contrasting colours in order to disrupt space, expressing his interest in theories of chaos" with "In 1970, Gaucher began to paint broad horizontal stripes of clashing colours in a style that would come to be called colour band painting. Several years later, he would explore the diagonal line, arranging flat planes of antagonistic colours to disrupt space, expressing his interest in theories of chaos". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Okay, that one example has been sufficiently paraphrased (I think). Are there any others? 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Yes: another example is "Gaucher had distanced himself from printmaking, and instead began to study the work of the New York Modernists, including Barnett Newman and Mark Rothko. He was particularly interested by their use of geometric shapes, flat colour planes and large canvases" vs "he distanced himself from print-making and began to re-examine the art of the New York Modernists including Barnett Newman and Mark Rothko. He was drawn to their geometric shapes, flat colour planes and large canvases". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I've gone ahead and corrected pretty much everything I could find with the Dup Detector. Please let me know if there are more examples of close paraphrasing. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The problem with Duplication Detector, though, is that it catches only parts that are identical to the source, but misses those that, while not identical, are still to closely paraphrased. For example, "use more colour contrasts and irregular patterns in his artwork, instead of rational geometric relationships." is closely paraphrased from but not identical to "free of rational geometric relationships by using irregular patterning and colour contrasts". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
BabbaQ, I'm afraid that's not acceptable. Nikkimaria pointed out close paraphrasing remaining in the article on July 22, which is a violation of DYK rules, and the article has not been edited since, meaning that a serious problem still remains. 069952497a wasn't notified of the issue until July 29 and is on vacation for the next few weeks, so it may be some days until a response is made, but the paraphrasing must be dealt with before the article can be reviewed again, and someone who is better versed on close paraphrasing should be the one to check it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Articles created/expanded on July 9
Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University
- ... that the foundation stone of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University was laid by Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, on 30 April 2005?
Created by Titodutta (talk), Dharmadhyaksha (talk), Moonriddengirl (talk), Voceditenore (talk). Nominated by Titodutta (talk) at 13:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
-
. Length, date and hokk reference are fine. No copy vio. Good to go.--Nvvchar. 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have pulled this one from prep 1 as I think the hook is substandard - politicians lay foundation stones of new buildings all the time, it's a commonplace occurrence. IMO a new hook should be found. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- A hook based on the "industry-academia linkage system" mentioned in the article would be one possible alt, though I haven't checked the sources for that statement in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Copyvio/paraphrasing issues that are not detected on the tools here, for whatever reason:
- 1) Article:"In early 2005 the State Government of Chhattisgarh decided to establish the University to ensure high-quality, systematic and effective education in the state related to engineering and technology subjects. The relevant act was passed in the Chhattisgarh state assembly on 21 January 2005. The foundation stone of the institution was laid by Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh on 30 April 2005"
- Ref 1 source: "The state government established the CSVTU through an Act passed by the Chhattisgarh assembly on January 21, 2005 to ensure systematic, efficient and quality education in engineering and technological subjects. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laid the foundation stone of the university on April 30, 2005"
- 2)Article: "The University reserves 50 percent seats in postgraduate studies in courses like steel technique and material handling for the employees and children of the employees of Steel Authority of India"
- Ref 1 source:"The state government would reserve 50 percent of the seats in postgraduate studies in certain courses such as steel technique and material handling for SAIL employees while a few seats would be reserved for SAIL employees' children in other courses. IANS"
- — Maile (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have reported it. --Tito☸Dutta 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- A hook based on the "industry-academia linkage system" mentioned in the article would be one possible alt, though I haven't checked the sources for that statement in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The consensus there is that the article does indeed contain close paraphrasing that needs to be dealt with. Can you please fix it, and propose another hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rewriting of those two sentences has been attempted.
- ALT1 ... Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University affiliates more than 60 Engineering colleges and more 30 Polytechnics colleges in Chhattisgarh, India? --Tito☸Dutta 14:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note on ALT1: The University affiliates almost 100 Engineering colleges. I think, this piece of information might be interesting. --Tito☸Dutta 14:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rewriting of those two sentences has been attempted.
- The consensus there is that the article does indeed contain close paraphrasing that needs to be dealt with. Can you please fix it, and propose another hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Gatoclass/Maile, can you please take a look at this now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- They followed Gujarat University. Anything second is not interesting. Industry-academia linkage system is not a highly significant step too. --Tito☸Dutta 18:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Bat Out of Hell (TV series)
- ... that the 1960s British television serial Bat Out of Hell followed two lovers who received a phone call from their murder victim?
Created/expanded by 72.74.212.145 (talk). Self nominated at 07:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
-
-
Comment - the link in the hook was incorrect and clicking it took you to the wrong article (the album) - I have corrected it to go to the TV series, which is a new article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT required related to real life, the synopis section here Bat_Out_of_Hell_(TV_series)#Episodes either filled or removed. --Tito☸Dutta 09:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 10
Residual feed intake
- ... that residual feed intake is a method used to determine the growth efficiency of beef cattle?
-
- Reviewed: Crime in Laos
Moved to mainspace by Tikuko (talk). Self nominated at 22:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC).
I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "RFI is phenotypically independent from the production traits used to calculate a given animal's expected feed intake, which allows comparison of animals who are producing at different levels" with "RFI is by definition phenotypically independent from the production traits used to calculate expected feed intake, it allows comparison between individuals differing in level of production". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry for the slow reply, I didn't notice this pop up on my watchlist and someone just pointed it out to me. I've corrected the offending line. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 19:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Chechen-Russian conflict
- ... that the Chechen-Russian conflict (Chechen rebel pictured) dates back to as far as 1785?
-
- Reviewed: Japanese serow
Moved to mainspace by Yerevanci (talk). Self nominated at 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC).
-
New enough, long enough and well sourced. QPQ done. Hook is short and directly sourced. AGF on offline sources. Images in article appear fine.
Hook image appears fine, but it's not used in the article currently. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Please check again. --Երևանցի talk 17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything is fine. It's just that the image nominated with the hook (File:Evstafiev-chechnya-tank-helmet.jpg) has to be used in the article. See Wikipedia:DYK#Images. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. --Երևանցի talk 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Good to go now. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. --Երևանցի talk 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything is fine. It's just that the image nominated with the hook (File:Evstafiev-chechnya-tank-helmet.jpg) has to be used in the article. See Wikipedia:DYK#Images. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please check again. --Երևանցի talk 17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
-
I have pulled this from the queue as I think the article has POV and probably accuracy issues. For example, the article simply states that the conflict began in 1785 when Russia tried to conquer Chechnya, but the first source for the article I reviewed states that the 1785 conflict was begun by a Chechnyan revolt led by an imam who planned the forcible conversion of his neighbours. The article mentions this revolt but presents it in such a way as to imply that the revolt was the result of the Russian invasion rather than the other way around. The same source also seems to suggest that the conflict began well before 1785, between Chechens moving down from the mountains and Cossacks who had settled on the plains. The rest of the article similarly seems to be lacking in contextual information to say the least. So I think this one will have to be held until a more thorough review can be completed. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Let's see. Ref 4 from the Universirty of Maryland says "Sheik Mansur leads Chechens in their first attempt to resist Russian encroachment on their lands." The University of Southern California source (ref 5) says "Russian military involvement into the Caucasus started early in the 18th century and in 1785-1791 the first major rebellion in Chechnya against the imperial rule took place." Doesn't this mean the Russians wanted to conquer Chechnya and the Chechens revolted? What exactly is POV here?
- The rest of the article similarly seems to be lacking in contextual information to say the least. So I think this one will have to be held until a more thorough review can be completed. I thought Wikipedia is a community and everyone is free to edit. Isn't that the case? I didn't know this is a GA/FA review. Let others too fill the "lack in contextual information" as you claim. --Երևանցի talk 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- The U. Maryland source looks leftwing and a little iffy. The USC source doesn't exactly contradict the source I mentioned above, but regardless both of the sources you mention are nothing more than brief chronologies, the other source is much more detailed and presumably more accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Take a look at T:TDYK. There are nominators who have been waiting 2 1/2 months for completion of their reviews. There is a long backlog here due to shortage of reviewers, and I currently have a lot of work to do on other nominations, so you are going to have to exercise some patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
My Play is Done
... that in the poem My Play is Done, Swami Vivekananda (pictured) expressed his desire to return to India, as he felt, the task of spreading his Master's message abroad was finally accomplished?
-
- Comment: Date request
15 August, India's Independence dayAny day
- Comment: Date request
Created by Titodutta (talk). Self nominated at 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC).
-
I'm not entirely convinced that the hook is supported by the source. The source states that the concept of "home" is actually an escape from the cycle of birth and death - rather than specifically saying that he wants to return to India. Miyagawa (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch. I need to make changes in the article too.
- ALT1: ... that in the poem My Play is Done, Swami Vivekananda (pictured) expressed his desire to return home, as he felt, the task of spreading his Master's message abroad was finally accomplished? --Tito☸Dutta 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Pulling from prep area. Article and hook both closely paraphrase the source in wording like "task of spreading his Master's message abroad" and "finally accomplished". I didn't find any other issues with close paraphrasing. This should be reasonably easy to fix by minor rewriting, but because it affects both article and hook, I think it needs to be taken out of prep area. --Orlady (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- While trying to figure out how best to reword the article, I carefully reviewed the article and the sources cited, as well as other sources about the poem and the writer. I confirmed from sources that he wrote this poem midway through his time in America -- on March 16, 1895, before the time at Thousand Island Park that is described in the article. The chronology in the article is odd -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus so much on the work that he did after he wrote the poem. Also, I found that only one source suggests that the poem was about the completion of his work of spreading his master's message. This source states that the theme of the poem is "the awareness of the endless nature of the quest for God" and discusses "the fervent clinging of the child to the mother" and the "impassioned poetic frenzy" in the poem. This book discusses the poem as visionary. This book (which is cited in the article) also describes it as visionary, and as a fusion of religion and mysticism. This source suggests that the poem was written during a dark mood. (That's a bit simplistic. I think it's pretty easy to read the poem as expressing a desire to leave this life -- i.e., a wish for death, but the poem is more complicated than that.)
After reading those sources, I am unable to accept the proposed hook as factually accurate. I can't say what Swami V. was thinking when he wrote the poem. I think that a hook could be created for this article by quoting or paraphrasing some expert's interpretation of the poem, for example: "... that Famous Expert interprets the poem "My Play is Done" as indicating Swami Vivekananda's ____." Of course, the article will need to be revised to present the content in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 11
Maria Jacobsen
- ... that Maria Jacobsen (pictured) took thousands of children under her care during the Armenian Genocide and hid them from Turks?
-
- Reviewed: Pollen Street Social
Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
-
(Should be listed under July 12, not the 11th.) New, long enough, QPQ good. The hook's two citations don't use the same numbers (2k vs 3.6k). Can you verify with a third source? Also consider changing "3,600" to "thousands", especially if there isn't clear historical consensus on the number. Also the image should use a page link source (not a bare image URL) so its info can be verified. If it came from [16], the image's origins aren't very clear. The rationale for the license must be explained in the details section, esp. how the image was definitely taken in America pre-1923 (license should be as verifiable as possible). czar · · 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Also not sure that the Danish Peace Academy is a reliable source: "The Danish Peace Academy is an independent, non profit, low budget organization and educational site under development; produced by unpaid, voluntary learned specialists." [17] czar · · 08:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar, I have removed the 3,600 figure and replaced it with thousands as you recommended. The source is reliable. The information is verifiable with her diary and also with other sources. More importantly, the source is used in peer-reviewed journals such as ref #6 of the article (see ref #63). Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simply stating that the source is reliable doesn't help allay my doubts about their editorial process. I can appreciate that one fact from the article was used in a peer-reviewed journal, but that doesn't clear the source publication or the individual article. (The orphan number discrepancy between the several sources contributes to my skepticism of their fact-checking rigor.) Side notes: "With the encouragement" sentence is unclear and needs citation when you have a chance. Also, the "and in July 1922" part. I'm prepared to accept the hook, but the image concerns haven't been addressed. I'd feel more comfortable about the Peace Academy source if Dickran was a scholar himself and not personally connected to the Bird's Nest orphanage. And is the image available by any other source? Even if offline, I can AGF, but I'm very hesitant about the website's authority for both the text and the image. The site's other content doesn't make me feel better. czar · · 04:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar (talk · contribs), I actually found out that the reason why there is a mix up in numbers is because the second source refers to the hiding of Armenian children in Lebanon after the Armenian Genocide. In other words, they are two different events. Excuse my mix up of sources. Anyhow, Dickran's source once again proves valid in that sense. The figure is also verified by the Armenian Genocide Museum-Insitute here. The figure is also given here (See page 135, "...by June, 1919, there were 3,600 children in Maria Jacobsen's secret family." However, I wouldn't want to use these sources because it doesn't provide the essential detail about her hiding these children from the Turks. Overall, Dickran's source is scholarly since it can be easily verifiable by other RS sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simply stating that the source is reliable doesn't help allay my doubts about their editorial process. I can appreciate that one fact from the article was used in a peer-reviewed journal, but that doesn't clear the source publication or the individual article. (The orphan number discrepancy between the several sources contributes to my skepticism of their fact-checking rigor.) Side notes: "With the encouragement" sentence is unclear and needs citation when you have a chance. Also, the "and in July 1922" part. I'm prepared to accept the hook, but the image concerns haven't been addressed. I'd feel more comfortable about the Peace Academy source if Dickran was a scholar himself and not personally connected to the Bird's Nest orphanage. And is the image available by any other source? Even if offline, I can AGF, but I'm very hesitant about the website's authority for both the text and the image. The site's other content doesn't make me feel better. czar · · 04:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar, I have removed the 3,600 figure and replaced it with thousands as you recommended. The source is reliable. The information is verifiable with her diary and also with other sources. More importantly, the source is used in peer-reviewed journals such as ref #6 of the article (see ref #63). Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also not sure that the Danish Peace Academy is a reliable source: "The Danish Peace Academy is an independent, non profit, low budget organization and educational site under development; produced by unpaid, voluntary learned specialists." [17] czar · · 08:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The genocide museum ref is worth adding as the primary on that sentence, for its authority. I'm still not sold on the reliability of the Peace source (regardless of its individual claims), but as I said, I think this is all fine to pass once the image details mentioned in my first post are cleaned up (bare URL, etc.). Good research on this article—much more effort than is common in DYK. czar · · 05:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar (talk · contribs), I couldn't find a duplicate copy of the photograph. However, I did change the bare URL and provided more description for the source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- In case you so intended it, that template doesn't send notifications
Significant portions of the text are directly copied or too closely paraphrased, and need to be completely rewritten. You can see these parts highlighted in specific via the copyvio link above, but the whole article should be written in original language, not just to avoid what the copyvio detector can find. czar · · 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar (talk · contribs), thank you for pointing that out. I fixed all of the close paraphrasing issues. I didn't change the blockquote for obvious reasons. The copyvio detector says "21%" due to the blockquote which is in fact a quote by Jacobsen herself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- My concern language lifted directly from the sources (I wasn't looking at the likeness percentage or quotes), which I'm sure you know has big implications for Wikipedia, especially if this article were to be unknowingly circulated for many years without another such check. Now seeing that you were the primary author, have you looked back on your previous edits to correct any similar practices used on prior articles? This article still has a few problems, mainly the Hansa section: "seven-year-old girl that the Turks had sold to a Bedouin family" and "a Turk gendarme discovered her ... fell from the tree unconscious". Ideally these parts would have been mixed with other facts for completely original sentences. I don't want to be overbearing, but I can't stress the ugly ramifications of plagiarism enough. If this was not a one-time accident and it may be possible that you have done this in the past, I can find help to go through your previous edits. A brief spot check of your last couple DYKs look okay and the tool is down so I can't check more, but I trust that you'll be honest with how often you may have used this practice in the past and we can correct it. czar · · 22:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- My concern language lifted directly from the sources (I wasn't looking at the likeness percentage or quotes), which I'm sure you know has big implications for Wikipedia, especially if this article were to be unknowingly circulated for many years without another such check. Now seeing that you were the primary author, have you looked back on your previous edits to correct any similar practices used on prior articles? This article still has a few problems, mainly the Hansa section: "seven-year-old girl that the Turks had sold to a Bedouin family" and "a Turk gendarme discovered her ... fell from the tree unconscious". Ideally these parts would have been mixed with other facts for completely original sentences. I don't want to be overbearing, but I can't stress the ugly ramifications of plagiarism enough. If this was not a one-time accident and it may be possible that you have done this in the past, I can find help to go through your previous edits. A brief spot check of your last couple DYKs look okay and the tool is down so I can't check more, but I trust that you'll be honest with how often you may have used this practice in the past and we can correct it. czar · · 22:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar (talk · contribs), thank you for pointing that out. I fixed all of the close paraphrasing issues. I didn't change the blockquote for obvious reasons. The copyvio detector says "21%" due to the blockquote which is in fact a quote by Jacobsen herself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copy and paste plagiarism remains. The second sentence of the article: "Maria Jacobsen watched the persecution of Armenians from close quarters and tried to save as many Armenian women and children as possible. She also pleaded with the Ottoman authorities, provided clandestine relief, and recorded what she witnessed" The original: "Maria Jacobsen watched the persecution of Armenians from close quarters and tried to save as many Armenian women and children as she could. She pleaded with the Ottoman authorities, provided clandestine relief, and recorded what she saw." This type of editing (copy and pasting and changing one word) is intentionally deceptive and when Czar tries to alert you to the fact and guarantees are made that "I fixed all of the close paraphrasing issues" when this remains in the lead(!), it casts further doubts on the good faith being made. Note: Further, this may be a longstanding editing practice. From the last approved DYK Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey, "Most of the properties formerly belonging to Armenians were confiscated by the Turkish government and turned into military posts, hospitals, schools and prisons. Many of these were also given to Muslim migrants or refugees who had fled from their homelands during the Balkan Wars. The legal justification for the seizures was the law of Emval-i Metruke (Law of Abandoned Properties), which legalized the confiscation of Armenian property if the owner did not return." And from the original source: "Most of the property belonging to Armenians and Syriac Christians, including houses and churches, was either appropriated by the state and turned into military posts, hospitals, schools and prisons or distributed to Muslim migrants who had been expelled from their hometowns during the Balkan Wars. Property was also sold to local leading families. This was justified under the law of Emval-i Metruke (literally “abandoned properties”), which legalized the appropriation of Armenian and Syriac Christian property if the owner did not return within a certain period of time." Looking over a couple other articles, if the cite is not linkable (if it is behind a pay wall or not published online), the writing tends to be awful close to the original source's writing. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I fixed the above mentioned sentence. I honestly don't think there are anymore paraphrasing issues. You guys can double check. As for the other page, that edit may or may not be mine because I wasn't the articles chief nominator and creator. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I went through the WikiBlame for the mentioned line on the cultural heritage article, and the direct copy was in the original diff, later modified by someone else. Proudbolsahye only had two small edits on that article. On this article: again, the issue isn't "fixing" these edits so much as "fixing" the general practice—finding whether it was accidental or intentional, telling us how it happened, and showing some concern for reviewing where it may have happened on other articles instead of being defensive about it. We're trying to help. I assumed good faith, but that faith wanes when AbstractIllusions can poke holes in it. czar · · 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- ...and as for this article, I just double checked. I do not see any other close paraphrasing. There's only 1 offline source and everything else is out in the open. Feel free to check to rest and let me know. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I went through the WikiBlame for the mentioned line on the cultural heritage article, and the direct copy was in the original diff, later modified by someone else. Proudbolsahye only had two small edits on that article. On this article: again, the issue isn't "fixing" these edits so much as "fixing" the general practice—finding whether it was accidental or intentional, telling us how it happened, and showing some concern for reviewing where it may have happened on other articles instead of being defensive about it. We're trying to help. I assumed good faith, but that faith wanes when AbstractIllusions can poke holes in it. czar · · 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the above mentioned sentence. I honestly don't think there are anymore paraphrasing issues. You guys can double check. As for the other page, that edit may or may not be mine because I wasn't the articles chief nominator and creator. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would completely support a more good natured editor than I, maybe Czar, restoring the approval, but I can't assume enough good faith to restore it myself. Plagiarism remains. For example, "In July 1922, she settled in Zouk Michail near Byblos" and in the original "In July 1922 she settled in Zouk Michail which was between the cities of Byblos and Beirut." Or also "In 1920 and 1921, Jacobsen attempted to return to Kharpert but was not granted permission" and the original "In 1920-1921 Maria Jacobsen tried to go back to Kharberd, but Turkish authorities did not permit her to enter the Ottoman Empire". Czar said it better than I can, that this is about writing differently- combining and summarizing ideas rather than copy and pasting and changing words slightly. Changing "tried to go back" into "attempted to return" does not make it your own ideas. I will admit that I blamed wrongly in the first instance and offer apologies. However, there are others. Oscar S. Heizer, for example, the original reads "according to Heizer, they were assimilated as Muslims within weeks", the wikipedia article created by Proud reads: "Heizer also describes how some children were assimilated into Muslim Turks in a matter of weeks." Or further from the original "Oscar Heizer, the American Consul, reported that most of the deportees were killed by their guards shorty after leaving" and from the wikipedia article: "Heizer stated that most of the deportees were murdered shortly after they were told to leave." These are cosmetic minor changes (and only the ones that I have the time and energy to quickly check). Every editor worth their salt has close paraphrased at some point, so I'm not going to be overly self-righteous, but the practices of editing are causing way too much close paraphrasing. And the repeated incidents and hesitance to actually self-critically rewrite the articles when the mistakes are discovered makes it problematic for me to think this is DYK ready without a complete rewrite. (If I could give my 2 cents, three chance to remove close paraphrasing and they still remain, I think is too much time spent on this by multiple editors when we could be dealing with other issues. Czar asked repeatedly for a check of the entire article, not just the specific passages highlighted. I think this DYK nom should be retired--but leave that up to others.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Abstract, these are small things that can be fixed. I sincerely don't see any other paraphrasing issues with the article. I feel the new issues you brought up have aren't MAJOR in any way (I fixed them anyways). I am suggesting a new reviewer and if he or she finds any MAJOR problems with the article we can work accordingly. As of now, I don't see why an article should ever be removed when it is ready and good to go, especially when all other DYK requirements are met. In regards to Heizer...I suggest leaving the discussion of that and other articles in the talk pages of those articles. Any other concerns, please ping me directly on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
If you would just stop and rewrite the piece, it could have been fixed and passed. But, from the original: "Jacobsen is considered one of the great saviours by Armenians in the Diaspora. In several documents she is referred to as mayrik--"stepmother" or "Mama" Maria Jacobsen." and from the wikipedia article: "Jacobsen, who is considered one of the great saviours by Armenians in the Diaspora, was often referred to as "mayrik" (Armenian: mother) or "Mama." For those keeping track, those two versions have 17 similar words in the same order between versions (and what really frustrates me is that you plagiarized the British spelling from the source, despite the general use of American spellings throughout the rest of the article). Other reviewers can of course decide to pass the article, but you are plagiarizing constantly, it is major (unethical, illegal, and against wikipedia's policies). To quote Czar above: "I can't stress the ugly ramifications of plagiarism enough." Please stop plagiarizing. Maria deserves a DYK for truly heroic actions, but without a complete rewrite, your unwillingness to understand the problems and fix them, means that the article should not go up for a DYK. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- When have I been unwilling to fix them? The original source contained two sentences. I have combined them and worded it originally to the best of my abilities. That ultimately means that I have paraphrased and reflected the source to the best of my abilities Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Yes, combining two sentences together is plagiarism. See: this guide and pay specific note of this statement "The writer has compressed the author's opinions into fewer sentences by omitting several phrases and sentences. But this compression does not disguise the writer's reliance on this text for the concepts he passes off as his own." Or WP:Plagiarism or WP:Paraphrase or WP:Copy-paste. As Czar originally specified, the problem is not those incidents the software highlights, or that editors find, the problem may be more endemic in the writing. (Czar also offered to help you figure this out--an offer certainly worth considering). If you copied two sentences from a source and combined them together with 2/3 of the words staying exactly the same, that is plagiarism. A good rule of thumb I try to use is 4 words: if you have 4 words the exact same as the source that is either plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Once again, every editor will make this mistake in the course of writing articles, so I am not saying you are a bad editor. But, if I can lift up almost any sentence and find multiple strings of words directly copied from the source, that is plagiarism and should be rejected out of hand. Blunt: This article has severe plagiarism and close paraphrasing problems, it needs to be rewritten entirely for DYK consideration. Fixing the times we catch problems is not sufficient. Please think about going back to earlier articles and changing them at places you may have made this mistake. But some awareness of the problem is a necessary first step. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
I'm going to have to request a new reviewer. I have meticulously checked each sentence for plagiarism and have worked with AbstractIllusions to remove and resolve the issues. A third-party reviewer is needed to check the article for any additional issues. All other DYK requirements are met. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some overly close wording remains: compare "Cliff where Armenians were hurled to death" to "Cliff where Armenians were hurled to death" from here. I'm also concerned that in the process factual errors may have been introduced: for example, "sheltered 206 Armenian children" is cited to a source claiming 208 children. The article also needs copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have made the necessary copy-editing and fixed the issues you have raised. Please feel free to take a look and vote/comment accordingly. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Kovan double murder
... that the suspected perpetrator of the Kovan double murder is a policeman?
Created by Yienshawn (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by Bonkers The Clown (talk) at 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
-
ALT1: ... that the suspected perpetrator of the Kovan double murder in Singapore is a Senior Staff Sergeant with 14 years of experience?✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be general agreement ([18]) that the proposed hooks are inappropriate for the main page. How about:
- ALT2: ... that a senior staff sergeant of the Singapore Police Force was arrested in connection with the Kovan double murder?
I don't think this raises any BLP issues, and it's an interesting fact regardless of whether or not Iskandar is found guilty. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I'm fine. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT2 needs to be reviewed; original reviewer didn't mention a few of the usual review parameters, including NPOV and close paraphrasing checks, so a general review probably wouldn't be amiss either. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- While all the sources present in the article may be local, this case has been reported by numerous non-Singaporean media, including Fox News and Sky. Have you any idea what the importance of this event is? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Fox and Sky might be considered the same source and are a bit tabloidy but that is at least some evidence of global coverage. Got any more international sources? Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Malaysian Insider and Perth Now. I hope that will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perth Now is also affiliated with Fox, so it could be considered the same outlet. I'd feel more comfortable about this one with one or two additional international sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't find any more. But as you can see, local sources are already overhwhelming enough. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a very big thing in Singapore. Should be sufficient enough? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perth Now is also affiliated with Fox, so it could be considered the same outlet. I'd feel more comfortable about this one with one or two additional international sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Malaysian Insider and Perth Now. I hope that will do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fox and Sky might be considered the same source and are a bit tabloidy but that is at least some evidence of global coverage. Got any more international sources? Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Do DYKs even need to be notable? Perhaps I didn't read enough about DYKs. Could someone tell me? Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, Arctic, everything on Wikipedia needs to be notable. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh silly me, how could I forget that?!
✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh silly me, how could I forget that?!
Charles Henry Herbert Cook
- ... that Charles Cook was a foundation staff member of the University of Canterbury?
2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Stuartyeates (talk). Self nominated at 23:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC).
Stuartyeates, the article is not a biography of living person. And that's why a 5x expansion would be needed. Also, it wasn't unreferenced in it's first version of 07:35, 8 February 2012. The expansion started on 11th and you can still do it till 16th. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- My bad! It is 5x already. Will review the article now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Okay! The hooks checks, no copyvios, all good to go when one bare url in references is fixed. On a side note, aren't there way too many red links in it? Although they are legit, not sure if there is anything wrong in main page display of such article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- (a) Sorry for the BLP thing. That was my mistake filling out the DYK nom, it's been a while since I thought about DYK. (b) About the WP:red links: yes there are a lot, I'm continuing to look for award winners and I expect that as I go further back more will have articles (or have the sources available to have articles written), this is a potential worklist. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- (c) WP:Bare_links fixed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- So do you still want to work on the article to expand the list? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not at this time. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- So do you still want to work on the article to expand the list? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay! The hooks checks, no copyvios, all good to go when one bare url in references is fixed. On a side note, aren't there way too many red links in it? Although they are legit, not sure if there is anything wrong in main page display of such article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Good to go then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is 1,131 characters. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Explanation of the above: despite being a 5x expansion, the article does not meet the minimum size for a DYK article: DYKcheck gives the number of prose characters as 1131, far short of the minimum 1500 required. In addition, the article is a stub, and DYK does not accept articles unless they are beyond the stub stage. The article will need significant expansion to the point that it is longer than 1500 prose characters and no longer stub-like. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now at '1516 characters (242 words) "readable prose size"' Stuartyeates (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh! How did i miss that. Will be careful next time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now at 'Prose size (text only): 1543 characters (246 words) "readable prose size"' plus some stuff that doesn't count. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Article still has at least one bare url, which is not allowed for DYK articles. Also, the stub template will need to be removed before this can be approved. Once these are done, we can have a new review that encompasses the added material. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I believe both of those are now done. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article still has at least one bare url, which is not allowed for DYK articles. Also, the stub template will need to be removed before this can be approved. Once these are done, we can have a new review that encompasses the added material. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Stub template removed and bare url not bare any longer; this article needs a full DYK review. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Suggested hook is backed by a citation, but the reference doesn't contain the crucial info (founding staff member). Perhaps the reference got changed by accident in the improving of the article? The hook also isn't particularly interesting. I would suggest
- ALT1: that Charles Cook was studying to be a lawyer when was selected to be the first head of mathematics at University of Canterbury?
- Naturally this hook has the same reference issue since it is partially the same material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT1 looks good to me, thanks. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Stuartyeates, if nothing is done about the referencing issue noted by ThaddeusB, then ALT1 cannot be approved. Are you planning to address this soon? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Withdraw. I think this has dragged on to the point where this is no longer 'new' Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
White slave propaganda
- ... that White slave propaganda (example pictured) was used to gain the sympathy of northern whites during the American Civil War in order to secure school funding for former slave children in Louisiana?
-
- Reviewed: Second Harvest North Florida
Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Well, it's certainly new, long enough, and cited. I'd feel more comfortable, however, if there was a second work used to cite the article (for notability reasons) but I guess that's not too much of a problem. The hook's 191 characters, so just fits the restriction, but the "in Louisiana" part could (I feel) equally be cut if needed. --Brigade Piron (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Note: I added "example" to the "pictured" entry in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That will not work, I'm afraid since it takes the hook over the maximum... Could the "in Lousiana" bit be removed to get it within its limits?---Brigade Piron (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I added "example" to the "pictured" entry in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some of the wording in this article is too close to that of its single source. Compare for example "Their light complexions contrasted sharply with those of the three adults, Wilson, Mary, and Robert; and that of the fifth child, Isaac--" with "Their light complexions contrasted sharply with those of the three adults, Wilson, Mary, and Robert; and that of the fifth child, Isaac--". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm more than willing to get to that, although the earliest I'll be able to dedicate some time to this will probably be Sunday, so I just wanted to leave a note here so that you knew that this notice was seen and will be acted upon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking that over, that is a direct quote that I used to show what Harper's wrote on the subject and I wasn't intending to violate anything. Could you be more specific on any other concerns, because if you are only concerned about quotes that are historical and not the website, I really have no idea what you are going after here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 12
Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide
- ... that press coverage of the Armenian Genocide (an article pictured) included reports of babies being boiled alive?
-
- Reviewed: Hammet Street, Taunton
-
- Comment: Article moved to Wikipedia database from Yerevanci's userspace on July 12
Created by Yerevanci (talk). Nominated by Proudbolsahye at 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The date of article creation, expansion for this July 16 nomation:
-
- Article created by Yerevanci in their user page on July 1, 2013 and by July 2 had 317 characters of readable prose. It was a list of articles, a few bare URLs, and a one-sentence lead.
- A July 12 expansion by Yerevanci and Proudbolsahye expanded the list, cleared up the bare URLs and brought the (lead) article to 391 characters of readable prose. Article was moved to mainspace on this date.
- Expansion July 13 through July 18 by Yerevanci and Proudbolsahye brought the readable prose to 2674 characters of readable prose.
- Although recent DYK discussions of Newness criteria mention it is possible for noms older than 5 days to be accepted, the history should be listed here. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
This nomination could easily be changed to 5x expanded rather than created. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the July 13 edit would be included. It was only adding wikimarkup. SL93 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article was moved from Yerevancis user page to the mainspace on July 16. Its a new article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to recommend rejection of this one. Per my comments at WT:DYK, I just don't see how a list of newspaper articles can be of encyclopaedic value, and a list of this type is almost certain to remain POV due to cherry picking. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- The general consensus presents the Armenian Genocide as fact and not a two sided story Gatoclass may presume. Above all, the denial of the Armenian Genocide is a phenomenon that occurred decades after the event occurred as a sort of retaliatory measure against overwhelming claims of Genocide by the Armenian and international communities at large. More importantly, Turkey is actually the first country to recognize the massacres as a state sponsored program in 1920 with a verdict issued against the perpetrators that condemned them to death (See: Verdict and indictment). With most of the press articles alluding to the systematic nature of the massacres and with a brief description about that in the lead, I do not see any POV issues with this article. If for any reason Wikipedian users feel compelled to create a "Press coverage of Armenian Genocide denial" or "Press coverage of massacres of Turks" etc. etc. article(s), they may feel free to do so. However, I highly doubt it will remain an article for the reasons mentioned above. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, but I think it should be emphasized that AFD only determines whether a topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it rarely draws conclusions about content, so a pass at AFD in no way translates to a pass at DYK. The content of this article looks far from NPOV to me and seems unlikely to achieve it any time soon, in which case I would have to maintain my opposition to promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The article is in line with the general consensus of Wikipedia which presents the Armenian Genocide as fact. Just like any other story, there may be two-sides, however, the side that presents it as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. Take a glance at the article Armenian Genocide for example, it is not called the "So-called Armenian Genocide" or "Armenian Genocide allegations" and etc. All denialist articles and opinons are held seperate from any article related to the Genocide and that ANY denialist source is considered unreliable. More importantly however, this article is special in regards of portraying the intent of exterminating the Armenian population in Turkey and the international communities media coverage during the time it was happening. There is no conceivable doubt that these articles did exist and published what is stated. Might I also add that up until 1923, the Turkish government itself acknowledged the Armenian Genocide (See: Verdict and indictment) becoming the first country in the world to do so. Denialist literature came decades after any one of the listed newspaper articles, but that shouldn't matter anyways. As Taner Akcam said, "It may look amazing, but the reality that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder that was accepted by everybody having lived in that period, and was never the object of an argument." Therefore, I highly doubt there is any argument DURING the time-span of the media coverage that presents these newspaper articles as "lies", "unreliable" and having never been published. Even if there is such argument, the source will come from a later time-period and very likely be deemed unreliable. With that said, the article is NPOV and will remain as is until anyone can come and present a reliable third-party source during the time of the media coverage (1890-1922) that states the all international media is unreliable and that there is another side of an argument. Even if such articles are presented, I highly doubt that the information and factual basis of the source will be in anyway reliable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article is kept. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article is in line with the general consensus of Wikipedia which presents the Armenian Genocide as fact. Just like any other story, there may be two-sides, however, the side that presents it as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. Take a glance at the article Armenian Genocide for example, it is not called the "So-called Armenian Genocide" or "Armenian Genocide allegations" and etc. All denialist articles and opinons are held seperate from any article related to the Genocide and that ANY denialist source is considered unreliable. More importantly however, this article is special in regards of portraying the intent of exterminating the Armenian population in Turkey and the international communities media coverage during the time it was happening. There is no conceivable doubt that these articles did exist and published what is stated. Might I also add that up until 1923, the Turkish government itself acknowledged the Armenian Genocide (See: Verdict and indictment) becoming the first country in the world to do so. Denialist literature came decades after any one of the listed newspaper articles, but that shouldn't matter anyways. As Taner Akcam said, "It may look amazing, but the reality that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder that was accepted by everybody having lived in that period, and was never the object of an argument." Therefore, I highly doubt there is any argument DURING the time-span of the media coverage that presents these newspaper articles as "lies", "unreliable" and having never been published. Even if there is such argument, the source will come from a later time-period and very likely be deemed unreliable. With that said, the article is NPOV and will remain as is until anyone can come and present a reliable third-party source during the time of the media coverage (1890-1922) that states the all international media is unreliable and that there is another side of an argument. Even if such articles are presented, I highly doubt that the information and factual basis of the source will be in anyway reliable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Okay, since I've had some more time to think about this nomination, I have decided to modify my position to some degree. I previously recommended rejection, but I might be persuaded to change my mind providing two conditions are met. Firstly, the list of newspaper articles/links would have to go because IMO it can never be anything other than a cherry-picked list. Secondly, the prose portion of the article would have to be expanded because it is currently too insubstantial and too off-topic. Whatever remains would then of course have to meet all the usual content policies. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no cherry-picking involved since there is no "two-sides" of the story when it comes to the Armenian Genocide due to the general consensus of Wikipedia as stated in the AfD by myself and others. I shall place what I have wrote in the discussion at AfD here:
Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. More importantly, this article isn't about massacres...it's about a genocide or in other words, the systematic and purposeful massacre of a race. The race in this case is the Armenian race. Current Wikipedia consensus does not allow us to present any the other "side of the argument" and present it as fact. In fact, if that happens, the user may be risk being banned from editing any articles related to Armenia under WP:ARBAA2.
and added...
Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Yes, Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues.
Therefore, there is no "cherry-picking" involved here. I am warning any user here, that if for any reason, a user presents a "two-sided" story to this article or other Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles, I will proceed with further action of that user under Arbcom. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your commentary is irrelevant. The core issue here is that every article has to be based on reliable sources about the topic, and this article has to be based on what reliable secondary sources have said, specifically, about press coverage of the Armenian genocide. Okay, you appear to have some commentary there about the topic, which is fine. In relation to the list however, what reliable sources have endorsed it as a representative sample of press coverage of the Armenian genocide? The answer, apparently, is none. The list was compiled by wikipedians, with a particular POV. It's WP:OR. It's a WP:CHERRY-picked list, and it will always, inevitably, be a cherry-picked list unless it is based tightly on a range of reliable secondary sources, which is not something we are likely to see any time soon, if ever. So again, if the nominators insist on retaining the list in the article, I will have to recommend rejection. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 13
Wildlife of Burundi
- ... that Burundi's wildlife protection (protected area pictured) includes a 2005 ban on the harvesting of natural Christmas trees in an effort to slow deforestation?
5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
Article long enough, well sourced, and expanded fivefold within the timeframe. However, the "Environment" section contains very close paraphrasing of this source, and will have to be rewritten. Hook fact is verified (not sure how reliable that source is, but this BBC report backs it up), but doesn't quite make sense – Christmas trees aren't a species of tree that can be harvested. It should simply read "a ban on natural Christmas trees". DoctorKubla (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I've c/e that section of the article. Here is ALT1: ... that Burundi's wildlife protection (protected area pictured) includes a 2005 ban on natural Christmas trees? Also, here is ALT2: ... that the Bururi long-fingered frog, believed to be extinct, was rediscovered in 2011 amidst the wildlife of Burundi? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edits to the article didn't really address the close paraphrasing issue. I've rewritten the section myself, but now it needs to be checked by a new reviewer. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've c/e that section of the article. Here is ALT1: ... that Burundi's wildlife protection (protected area pictured) includes a 2005 ban on natural Christmas trees? Also, here is ALT2: ... that the Bururi long-fingered frog, believed to be extinct, was rediscovered in 2011 amidst the wildlife of Burundi? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 14
Calayan, Cagayan
... that on the northern coast (coast with crashed ship pictured) of the Calayan, war ship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?
-
- Reviewed: First of the two in this Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Endean, John Endean
5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The reference section says that this article incorporates text from a public domain source; per DYK rules, this text must be subtracted from the overall character count. The source isn't available online, so can you tell us how much of the article is made up of original content? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Public domain reference (of 1906) was mentioned in the article when we started expanding it. We could not locate it. However the entire text now incorporated is from other references mentioned specifically in the article.--Nvvchar. 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Okay. Article meets all DYK criteria, as does the hook (to which I've made some trivial copyedits). No copyvio problems. QPQ done. Image is public domain, but not easy to make out, so I'd recommend not including it. Other than that, good to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
I pulled this out of the prep area due to concerns raised on WT:DYK. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The following is copied from the talk page (by Orlady):
-
- The hook "... that on the northern coast of the Calayan, war ship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?" strikes me as odd for several reasons. 1. Typo: "war ship" -> warship. 2. Isn't there a "the" missing before "war ship"? 3. The Datu Kalantiaw link doesn't lead to a ship at all, rather to a mythological character. 4. The whole hook sort of doesn't flow all that well, I feel. The hook seems effected adversely by a desire to place the bold hook early on in the hook. Plus, there are oddities in the article itself, like that the Americans "... imprisoned the Japanese prisoners and moved them to camps in Luzon." Manxruler (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Also, what's "the Calayan"? Manxruler (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The following is copied from the talk page (by Orlady):
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for the review. I have made changes in the article. The revised hook ALT1 proposed is
...that on the northern coast (coast with crashed ship pictured) the warship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, in the Calayan and only 49 bodies of crew members out of 97 were recovered?--Nvvchar. 17:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I have made changes in the article. The revised hook ALT1 proposed is
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ALT1 hook is 225 characters (you get an 11 character credit for "(pictured)" but no more), so it's well over the maximum length. It's also still a very tortuous and involved hook that fails to give any clue as to what "the Calayan" might be; even if someone does know (unlikely), there's still no hint between city, island, or island group. The hook also implies that 49 of 97 dead bodies were recovered; in fact, 79 of 97 of the crew perished, so 49 of the 79 who died were recovered (and presumably 30 were not). I suggest you simplify the hook and get rid of at least two clauses. I've struck both hooks so far as ineligible. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And, might I add, the Datu Kalantiaw link still doesn't lead to a ship. Further, calling "a 3rd class (in terms of economic condition) municipality", "the Catalan", is a bit peculiar. Manxruler (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There are also issues with the article. Taking a look only at the History section: 1. "American Forces, who came by the USS Princeton, occupied the island." Which Princeton did the American forces arrive on? There are six. 2. Re the Japanese occupation: "This resulted in disturbance to the quality of life for the islanders, as many of the development works implemented by the Americans were destroyed." - The source only says "According to some Calayanos, the Japanese soldiers practically despoiled the islands of the improvements achieved during the American regime." 3. "This trend, however, changed in early 1944 when the American Forces reoccupied the islands as part of war of liberation and the Japanese prisoners were moved to concentration camps in Luzon." - The Philippines weren't liberated in early 1944, and the source doesn't say that Calayan was liberated any earlier either. The source says: "However, the American Forces easily subdued the Japanese garrison during the early liberation period in 1944 and brought the Japanese prisoners to concentration camps in Luzon." That is, early on during the liberation of the Philippines, not early in 1944. 4. Ship names should be in italics. Manxruler (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Addressed above concerns. I suggest ALT2 Hook ...that on the northern coast (pictured) of the Calayan the warship Datu Kalantiaw hit by the Typhoon Clara ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?--Nvvchar. 00:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well. 1. It's the right Princeton now, but the italics are wrong. The prefix is not to be italicized. 2. The article now gives the impression that all the islanders expressed the quoted opinion, and that's not what the source says. 3. Now that sentence has been brought very close to the wording of the source, except without the year 1944. The year should be included and the information written in your own words, not the source's. 4. Speaking about ship links, Mount Hood doesn't lead to a ship, the correct link is Mount Hood. Please check your links. 5. The Datu Kalantiaw links in the hook and the article are still incorrect. Here is the correct link: Datu Kalantiaw. I'd like to repeat that I've only looked at the history section. Manxruler (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maria-sama ga Miteru (film)
- ... that most of the main cast of the 2010 Japanese film Maria-sama ga Miteru are fashion models?
-
- ALT 1 ... that the two lead actresses of the 2010 Japanese film Maria-sama ga Miteru are fashion models?
- ALT 2 ... that the two lead actresses of the 2010 Japanese film Maria-sama ga Miteru have modeled for Love Berry and Seventeen?
-
- Reviewed: Simple layering
Created by Juhachi (talk). Self nominated at 00:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
Khorashan of Kartli
... that Khorashan of Kartli was the queen consort of Georgian king Teimuraz I of Kakheti?
Created by Kober (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 01:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- If anyone is wondering about the edit which changed the hook, I had two articles open at the same time and pasted the wrong name. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am reviewing this nomination. Firstly, I corrected the hook, one 'the' will be sufficient. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Step 2: direct link to the List of Georgian consorts. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
The article is new enough (created on 14 July), long enough, and cites sources. The bibliography consists of four works, two of them are very recent (2012 and 2013) publications. The third is a French work from the 19th century, but it is easily accessible by the Google Books. Maybe an infobox could further strengthen the quality of the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a very good article but I have to say that the proposed hook is unremarkable. There are much more interesting facts about her. Here is one suggestion:
- ALT1: ... that the Georgian queen Khorashan of Kartli avoided being captured by enemy soldiers thanks to a nightmare that frightened her into hiding?
If you don't like this one, perhaps you can come up with another one, but try to avoid the "... that X is Y?" form. The article fascinated me, so it should be fairly easy to come up with an equally fascinating hook. Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Reviewer needed for Surtsicna's ALT1 hook; striking original hook as uninteresting. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT1 is interesting, but the article kind of implies that this is just a story ("According to the Georgian chronicles...", "This description of events..."). It can still be used as a hook, but if it isn't known to be true, that has to be made clear. It would be helpful to know exactly what the French-language source says – I'll ask the article's creator to comment. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Just a story? "Chronicles" were how historical events tended to get passed down in earlier times: think Roger of Wendover and other chroniclers from earlier in England. No one can ever be sure that any of the histories and chronicles are completely accurate, but I've never seen this kind of requirement on any other historical hook. In fact, the paragraph is relying on two independent ancient sources that basically give the same account of events, one of which is said to have been written by a contemporary of Khorashan. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I'm just trying to make sure the hook is factually accurate. I can't read the French source and I don't have access to the other one – if you're telling me that the sources report this as fact, I'll take your word for it. I wasn't intending to review this DYK, by the way, just to comment on the hook. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not telling you that the sources report this as fact since my experience with them is basically the same as yours. However, the quotes you selected did not seem to me to support your concern that these were stories rather than recountings, which was my point. This is all moot, however, since you are not reviewing the hook and article, and that's what's needed here. Reiterating my call for someone to review ALT1, who can also look at this issue and see if it is a concern. It would be nice to have a comment from the article's creator, of course; with luck, Kober will return to editing soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Aylmer Firebrace
- ... that British firefighter Aylmer Firebrace was awarded the Bronze Medal by the Royal Humane Society in 1918, and the King's Police Medal in 1938?
Created by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 23:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Hook facts are footnoted, but hook source is behind a paywall, hence AGF. Hook short enough. Article new enough and long enough. Refs in proper format. No neutrality or BLP concerns. Random googling of various sentences indicated no concerns related to copyright violations or plagiarism in the article. No violations detected by earwig@toolserver:copyvios. Good to go. --PFHLai (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ... that the appropriately named Aylmer Firebrace become the only man ever to lead the entire British fire service as head of the National Fire Service? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Is there a ref for "appropriately named"? Otherwise, this new hook may be good, too. --PFHLai (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- How about: ... that Aylmer Firebrace was the only man ever to lead the entire fire service in Britain as head of the National Fire Service? --PFHLai (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Symbolic ethnicity
- ... that the celebration of the Saint Patrick's Day in the United States (pictured) by Irish Americans is highly symbolic?
-
- Reviewed: Belgian Government in Exile
Moved to mainspace by Yerevanci (talk). Self nominated at 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
Created Decemeber 1 2012; no significant expansion.(btw, find it hard to believe Yerevanci unaware of DYK conditions and would self-nominate this unknowingly) Djflem (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article was moved to the mainspace on July 14, 2013. I an very well aware of the DYK requirements. --Երևանցի talk 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
With regard to:
can you explain how very well aware of the DYK requirements you are? Djflem (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be new here. That's the way I work on most of my article. Look here. Look at the Eligibility criteria.
- d) Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace.
You see now? --Երևանցի talk 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not really quite sure what the above explanation has to do with what do did, namely publish an article in the mainspace on December 1, 2012 and bring it to DYK on July 14, 2013? How does creating a userpage as redirect for a already published article make it a new article? How many DYK self-nominations have you previously made in this manner? Djflem (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- For months you've been taking articles that are six months old, creating a Userpage with their title and redirecting to that article, and ignoring the 5-day new article criteria, to make a self-nom at DYK? How did you manage that? Djflem (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- We just went through this on another nomination. It's easier to refer to This Discussion. DYK Check on this article clearly says, "Article moved from User:Yerevanci/Symbolic ethnicity on July 14, 2013". That makes it a new article as of July 14, 2013. As DYKFN#F3 says, ""Five days old" means five days old in article space. You may write your article on a user subpage and perfect it for months. The five days start when you move it into article space. Such moves are often overlooked when enforcing the five day rule..." This article qualifies as a brand new article as of the date it was moved to article space, July 14, 2013. If you are still confused about this, I suggest the discussion continue on the DYK Talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The diff you're looking for is here. Before that point, this article was in userspace (and thus the clock had not started ticking yet). Age is fine, though the other comments need to be taken care of before this can reach the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Needs a new review. --Երևանցի talk 23:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I pulled this from the prep area. The hook fact isn't in the source. The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity, but nothing in the source says the celebration is "highly symbolic". --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- If the word "highly" is that problematic for you, simply remove it. Check out the two new hooks.
- ALT1 ... that the celebration of the Saint Patrick's Day in the United States (pictured) by Irish Americans is symbolic?
- ALT2 ... that the term symbolic ethnicity only applies to White Americans?
Articles created/expanded on July 15
IQ classification
- ... that "genius" has not been a term used in IQ classification since 1937, and history shows that IQ 125 is enough to win a Nobel Prize and be praised as a genius?
-
- Reviewed: Liu Zihou
-
- Comment: First-time submitter to WP:DYK. The article was expanded more than tenfold on 15 July 2013 by moving it from a user sandbox. The hook is referenced by footnotes and the accompanying text, especially in the article section IQ classification and genius. Several of the key references live online, and I have provided direct links to the text of those references online in the citations in the article references, for easy verifiability.
-
- Background: The article was rated as a high-importance, start-class article for the Psychology WikiProject on 28 May 2011.[21] The article has been flagged for expert attention since 16 October 2012,[22] and on 26 February 2013,[23] I announced on the article talk page that it was time to update the article using better sources (previously shared by a link posted on the article talk page). I then began a sandbox update of the article, and during that process discovered the reader feedback page for the article and also received helpful comments to the sandbox draft[24] from other editors. Now as I post the expanded version, I hope through collaboration with other editors eventually to bring this article all the way up to featured article quality.
5x expanded by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk). Self nominated at 04:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Prior to the large scale edit on 15 July, the prose section had around 400 characters. Now, there are far more than 4000 characters of prose, so the required fivefold expansion is clearly met (and it's also new enough) Also, as first-time nominator, no QPQ is needed. I need to take a closer look at the content of this article, therefore I will post this review in two parts. At first glance I can already say that the hook is not suitable. Obviously, being a "genius" (however this term may be defined) is not a prerequisite for being awarded a Nobel Prize (especially concerning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is strictly non-academic). The second part of the hook statement basically is that Feynman was widely regarded a genius (a term lacking any official, universally accepted definition), that he once was tested an IQ of 125, and that he is a Nobel Prize laureate. So what? In my opinion, these three facts are completely unrelated and should not be put together to make some kind of a point. Before having finished the deeper analysis of the article itself, I can thus say that in any case, another hook is needed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, here comes my review of the article itself: It seems to be extremely well written and sourced, in my opinion being too technical, though.
I have to admit that I am not experienced enough to determine if in some cases, the paraphrasing of the sources might be too close to the original.To sum it up, I guess the article is eligible for DYK as long as there is an acceptable hook.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much for your comments. I think the hook submitted is well evidenced in reliable sources in the article, and I took extra care to find sources that can be verified online through Google Books links. Your comment about how technical the reading level of the article is was helpful (I was relying on technical sources for my research, so I picked up some of that writing style, but DID NOT do close paraphrasing). So I will work on a rewrite of the lede and eventually the whole article to make the readability more friendly for people from around the world who read English as a second language. I hope that meanwhile an editor will see fit kindly to post the new expansion as a DYK. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess another opinion is needed here. WeijiBaikeBianji, please don't get me wrong. I think you did a great job on expanding the article (that stuff I wrote about possible close paraphrasing obviously was capable of being misunderstood; I should have made it clear that I was assuming good faith). There is no doubt that the hook is properly referenced. But I stick with my reasoning why I think it's not suitable.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, thanks for the follow-up comment that helped me focus on your thoughts on the hook language. I actually found this fact surprising when I discovered it, because when I was growing up in the United States, it was widely believed that "genius" is a designation of an IQ range (as it was for the first Stanford-Binet test), and I've actually had a Google News search going for quite a few years on the phrase "genius IQ," which is a frequently occurring phrase in English. So it was surprising to me that two persons who have had biographers name them as geniuses--Richard Feynman and William Shockley--are known historically to have had lower IQs than the former classification required for "genius" designation, while Lewis Terman decided as of the second revision of the Stanford-Binet test to abandon the term "genius" altogether for IQ classification. I think many people in several parts of the world would find all parts of the hook surprising. I appreciate your comments and look forward to comments from any other Wikipedians who have thoughts about this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Wang Changshun
- ... that Wang Changshun currently serves as the chairman of Air China?
Created by QatarStarsLeague (talk). Self nominated at 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Current readable prose size is 1280 and 1500 is minimum required. You should add more info about the subject. The article currently doesn't look like a biography but only his career profile. Maybe you can add info about where he was born, his educational qualifications, personal life info if any, etc. What did he study at the University of Science and Technology? Also one reference is bare and needs fixing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Length issues. For the record. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I brought it to 1,527 characters. I doubt that much more can be done or if anything more can be done. Based on the sources, it seems like people are more interested in the company itself. Most articles only mention him in the context of the company, which includes interviews where he doesn't answer any questions about himself. The sources that do only mention him are extremely short. He is indeed notable, but I'm not sure if he is notable enough for his own article or if it should be merged elsewhere. SL93 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator is not a completely new editor and i suppose they will have something to speak on this issue. Have notified them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have scoured both English and Chinese sources, and have been unable to locate any further information. I feel this is the furthest extent of the article, and therefore the DYK review should be based upon current article content, as opposed to potential addendums. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator is not a completely new editor and i suppose they will have something to speak on this issue. Have notified them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The article at current is barely over 1500 characters and that is with a long quote that adds nothing. There is enough material in the Air China bio alone to write a proper (short) article, but at current the page isn't sufficient to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The article is now at 1201 prose characters; the quote, per WP:MOSQUOTE, was put into a blockquote; I do agree with ThaddeusB that it adds nothing useful, and in any case, such a large quote doesn't count toward the 1500 prose character requirement. There's also a bit of confusion, in the current article order, about what was for the chairmanship of Air China and what for the IATA 2012 chairmanship; this needs to be clarified. Please note, however, that any information copied from the Air China bio would not count as new material for the purposes of DYK. If this is indeed the furthest extent of the article, then it regrettably will not qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Goodwyns
... that Nikolaus Pevsner praised the "elegant" 1960s tower blocks (one pictured) on Dorking's Goodwyns estate?
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/iOS 7
-
- Comment: This Google Books link should point straight to the page in Pevsner (who is always good value for an interesting quote about architecture).
Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nominated at 19:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC).
- ALT1 ...
that Nairn and Pevsner commented that some of the 1960s tower blocks (one pictured) on Dorking's Goodwyns estate were "more elegant than average"? - --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that ALT suggestion is fair; thanks Peter! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
for ALT1 - hook OK and confirmed by online source. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that ALT suggestion is fair; thanks Peter! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
New reviewer needed for ALT1; since Peter I. Vardy proposed that hook, and it has new facts in it, someone else (per WP:DYKSG#H2) needs to review it. (Have struck original hook due to concerns noted above.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
ALT1 verified and ready to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
I have pulled this one from the queue as the hook is weak - that some buildings on a housing state were described as better than average is barely worthy of interest. Suggested alt:
- ALT2: ... that Goodwyns council estate in Dorking has been described by critics as an "unusually good" example of its type? Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you missed the irony (a sort of typical comment from Pevsner). Now ALT2 really IS dull! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Irony? That sounds like OR to me :) And yes, both hooks are pretty dull, but "unusually good" trumps "more elegant than average" in my book ;) Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not OR. I think that most people would consider the use of the word "elegant" in respect of 1960s tower blocks is, well, ......ironic. And "more elegant than average" is a direct quote from the source. IMO you cannot use "unusually good" as a quote because it is not in the source – that could be construed as OR (or at the least, as an interpretation of the material). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? "Unusually good" is right there as a quote in the article itself, cited to this page in the supplied source. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the picture of the stark grey tower block helps to give that element of surprise in the hook; if the pic isn't used the hook needs to "do more work" to provide interest. What about this, or something along these lines:
- Huh? "Unusually good" is right there as a quote in the article itself, cited to this page in the supplied source. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not OR. I think that most people would consider the use of the word "elegant" in respect of 1960s tower blocks is, well, ......ironic. And "more elegant than average" is a direct quote from the source. IMO you cannot use "unusually good" as a quote because it is not in the source – that could be construed as OR (or at the least, as an interpretation of the material). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Irony? That sounds like OR to me :) And yes, both hooks are pretty dull, but "unusually good" trumps "more elegant than average" in my book ;) Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT3 ... that critics have described the Goodwyns council estate in Dorking as an "unusually good" example with "more elegant than average" tower blocks (one pictured)? Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I also was bothered by this hook. In ALT3, I don't like the word "critics", as this could refer to any number of types of critics (e.g., disgruntled residents) and I'm bothered by "example" (example of what?). I think that indicating the nature of the critics' expertise would make this more interesting. I don't think, however, that it's necessary to say that it's in Dorking. How about this variant:
-
- ALT4 ... that architectural historians have described Goodwyns as "unusually good" for a council estate, with "more elegant than average" tower blocks (one pictured)? --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Murder of Elsie Lie
- ... that Singaporean woman Elsie Lie had her eyeballs dug out by her boyfriend?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 10:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Article is new enough and long enough. There is adequate referencing. I found no copyvios. However, the sources in the article only say the boyfriend was charged with murder, not convicted. And my own web search did not uncover any stories confirming that the boyfriend had been convicted. Unless there is a reliable source for a conviction, a statement that the the boyfriend did it would not be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I suppose that a hook that the boyfriend was charged of doing this would be supportable, although I would not be comfortable with that as a hook from a BLP perspective (assuming he had not been convicted and executed. But a hook about this being cited as one of Singapore's most gruesome murders may be ok. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I note that you have helped make those changes. Thank you. Hm that's true I often fail to realise the distinction between "charge" and "conviction". Last time I read, the suspect went for some check-up to see if he was nuts. Perhaps the trial is not ready to end yet. I'm alright with ALT1: ... that the murder of Elsie Lie has been described as one of "Singapore's most gruesome murders"? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
That should work. I will just note that I reviewed a similar nom Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Darren Ng after this that used this hook, so it might be best to combine these into a double nom, although I see that one has already been promoted. If it is two late to bring that one down and combine with this one, at least this one should probably wait a few days. Maybe it could even be expanded to ALT2: Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)... that the murder of Elsie Lie, in which the victims eyes were gouged out, has been described as one of "Singapore's most gruesome murders"? Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Under the circumstances of the virtually identical hook, I think the phrase "Singapore's most gruesome murders" should not be reused. It's the sort of thing that stands out: a couple of weeks might not be long enough. Can we please have a new hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT3: ... that in the murder of Elsie Lie, the victim's eyes were dug out and thrown out of the house she was killed in? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have a reservation about the image of the victim used in the article. Whilst I would accept the use of the person's portrait under Fair Use provisions because it's of interest how a notable person looks/looked like in real life, we are dealing with an incident, where it really doesn't matter what the victim looks like. I could imagine using a photograph of the murder scene or somesuch, if there was one available. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 16
Talia Castellano
- ... that Talia Castellano (pictured) appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and was announced an honorary face for CoverGirl cosmetics?
-
- ALT1 ... that Talia Castellano (pictured) was an American internet celebrity known for her YouTube channel TaliaJoy18, that became famous for her unique makeup tutorials?
- Reviewed:Mogiła Abbey.
- ALT1 ... that Talia Castellano (pictured) was an American internet celebrity known for her YouTube channel TaliaJoy18, that became famous for her unique makeup tutorials?
Created by Akstarflower (talk). Nominated by BabbaQ (talk) at 15:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Carl Moritz (architect)
- ... that the architect Carl Moritz designed in Cologne the opera house (1902) and a bank building (pictured)?
-
- Reviewed: Charles Agnew
-
- Comment: Even if "Dr. Blofeld" doesn't want credit, he started the article. I would like to show the impressive opera house from the German Wikipedia, but am not sure about the license.
Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 08:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
-
This is a nicely written and illustrated article. It is, however, rather short of references. In particular, most of the "Career" section is unsourced, and there are no references at all in the "Works" section. This needs to be fixed. I've also modified the hook slightly to improve the grammar. Prioryman (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- What can we do? de-article with book sources, book that I didn't read, so can't give page numbers. His works are buildings with articles, pictured. I looked for other sources and asked the author who started it to do the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
I'm not entirely sure what can be done, but until the Works section has more references (two of three paragraphs are unreferenced), by DYK rules this cannot be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- As I am unhappily busy collecting evidence for arbcom, I have no more time for Moritz, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I asked Dr. Blofeld, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I added several refs for buildings, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Chasing New Jersey
- ... that New Jersey politicians think the FCC should shut down WWOR-TV for replacing its newscast with a TMZ-like public affairs show?
-
- Reviewed: Alice Candy
Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 03:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Excellent article, almost ready to go. You just need an inline citation for the description of the show as "tabloid-style" if we're to use that in the hook. The article only mentions the word 'tabloid' once, uncited, and your first five refs don't appear to use that word. Also, ref 5 goes to a 404 page. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Many of the sources compared it to TMZ; isn't TMZ a tabloid? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it was just article text, I would agree, but there are strict DYK rules about citing the content of the hook. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Amended. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it was just article text, I would agree, but there are strict DYK rules about citing the content of the hook. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Many of the sources compared it to TMZ; isn't TMZ a tabloid? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Pulling this one out of the prep area due to my concerns about the hook wording. The item that bothered me was "TMZ-like". I didn't know what TMZ is, and after reading this article and the TMZ article, I'm only slightly better informed; I don't think that "TMZ-like" is sufficiently widely understood to be used in the hook. Also, the statement about "New Jersey politicians" is too broad; it implies that a significant number of state-level politicians have this concern, when in fact it is a subset of the state's representative in Congress. The hook wording needs more work. --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC) After examining the cited sources, I'm not convinced that the calls for revocation of the station's license can be described as being "for replacing its newscast" with this show. As I read it, the Senators and Representative objected to the newscast, and they don't like this new show either. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- How about "that Senator Bob Menendez criticized a New Jersey television station for airing a news program he described as being "like TMZ"?" ViperSnake151 Talk 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That's not what the article says. It quotes him as saying: "rather than add much-needed New Jersey specific programming to their lineup, WWOR instead [chose] to supplant its nightly news segment with a show referred to in news reports as ‘like TMZ'.'" --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Or how about "A New Jersey television station was criticized for replacing its nightly news with the younger-skewing Chasing New Jersey? ViperSnake151 Talk 15:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Articles created/expanded on July 17
The Wreckage (Ocean Park, Washington)
- ...
that The Wreckage, built in 1912, is a log cabin which was completely built out of driftwood?
Created by Acroterion (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
Article is of adequate length and new. However the reference from the National Register of Historic Place Inventory does not specifically say that the cabin was built from driftwood. It says that animal artwork, furniture and a sign were built from driftwood but not the actual cabin. If possible another hook should be found. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- that The Wreckage, built in 1912, is a log cabin which had its cement foundation obtained from a wrecked French barque? SL93 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Alt. hook #2) How about "that The Wreckage is a log cabin built in 1912 from materials that were salvaged from the shoreline? Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This needs a complete review. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Pepe (Haiti)
- ... that some pepe, Haitian second-hand clothes that are imported from the United States, can be sold for as little as thirteen cents? Created by LittleT889 (talk). Self nominated at 01:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article has less than 1,500 characters. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse
- ... that the historic Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse (pictured) in Sioux City, Iowa, was one of six locations?
Created by SL93 (talk). Self nominated at 21:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC).
Well, it is vacant and the reference for 1936 is unreliable. I thought that it would be obvious though because of when the history ends. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I will fill it in with this. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have expanded the article with the sources given, which I also found online. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The hook is plain as vanilla to me. Can you please explain why it may be interesting to the potential reader of the MP? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- When the warehouse is mentioned in sources, it is rarely mentioned that there were other locations. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, unless you count sources from the early 1900's which the majority of people don't read. SL93 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's in the source or not is hardly sufficient to make it past "interesting". Once a company has a certain scale, additional warehouses are often brought on line out of logistical necessity, and their locations are determined by strategic choices requirements. It may remain central, or be diffuse. So what I meant was that it's never rare for a company to have more than one warehouse location once it gets to a certain size, so what's in the article is hardly surprising enough to be "interesting". -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, unless you count sources from the early 1900's which the majority of people don't read. SL93 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- When the warehouse is mentioned in sources, it is rarely mentioned that there were other locations. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the historic Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse (pictured), in Sioux City, Iowa, is also known as the Battery Building? SL93 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed, including of ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Bridging (programming)
- ... that Apple Inc. used a method they called "toll-free" bridging to support the Carbon system under Mac OS X?
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC).
-
I'm wondering why three full length sections are unreferenced.... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement for this non-existent criterion to be met. For DKY all necessary requirements and rules have been met to a T. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 18
On the Receipt of My Mother's Picture
- ... that the 1798 poem "On the Receipt of My Mother's Picture" was written by William Cowper because he loved his mother, who died when he was six years old?
-
- Reviewed: Chris Holtmann
Created by SL93 (talk). Self nominated at 19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- I got the idea for this article when I picked up a very old battered book of poetry at the library in Kingsley, Iowa. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- It might have something to do with the evolution of British spelling... I don't know what publishing practices are, but the poem is replete with obvious American spellings in today's usage, which I don't find acceptable when the subject should be cited as it is actually spelt at the hand of the author. Maybe you should refer to an English edition of the work. Also, the title does not comply with MOS:CT. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I can find another source for it, but I'm not sure how the title is wrong now. I moved the article to make "Of" lower case. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have made "The" lower case. SL93 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I think that takes care of the incorrect capitalisations, thanks. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I can remove the poem instead of fixing it if preferred. I can also fix it, move it to Wikisource as it is not currently there, and then add a link to the Wikisource page here. SL93 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's always possible. But I don't think it's a problem anyway becoz the poem is long time out of copyright. Your call. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If anyone can find the name of the poet's mother, that would be great. I can't find it anywhere and it isn't even in the article about him. I don't understand why though because of a notable poem being written about her. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the poem by using this book that was published in 1798. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I see the American publishers have taken quite some liberties with the spellings and styling. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Well, the 1875 source that I used says that it was published in 1799, but the source is definitely the second publication. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed of nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Lydia Lariba Bawa
- ... that Lydia Lariba Bawa is the Commissioner of Insurance in Ghana?
Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self nominated at 16:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- I'm so sorry to say this, but I find that this is a terrible article that reads like a resume. The hook is boring as shit. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Good to go. Hook is short enough and hook fact is supported by a citation. Article is long enough, new enough, properly tagged as BLP, and QPQ was accomplished. Article is neutral, with many in-line citations, and spot-checks confirm that they support article content. Moderately close paraphrasing appears to exist at times, but appears excusable, since the wording is indeed different at various places throughout, there are only so many ways that simple things can be said, and the information is properly attributed (for example, one source includes the sentence: "She has since 2000 been a visiting lecturer at the West Africa Insurance Institute in Banjul, The Gambia; and a part-time lecturer on various subjects at the Ghana Insurance College (GIC) since its establishment in 2006", while article includes the closely similar sentence "Since the year 2000, she has been a visiting lecturer at the West Africa Insurance Institute in Banjul, The Gambia, and at the Ghana Insurance College since its establishment in 2006"0. Hook is not very interesting overall, but no improvements have come to mind, and perhaps the setting will be interesting to some. -- Presearch (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though inappropriately expressed by the first review, a DYK requirement is that the hook be interesting. This cannot be ignored by a subsequent reviewer: if an interesting hook cannot be found, then the article should not be featured under DYK, and the nomination should not be approved. (Perhaps this will be a spur to find additional information for the article that could be the basis of an interesting hook.) I'll also be asking Nikkimaria to take a look at the "moderately close paraphrasing" to see whether it is at a level that she considers to be of concern. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Ah, yes, indeed, there it is spelled out - "interesting" is the first requirement for the hook content. Seems to me the page creator should be notified, they'd be the most qualified and motivated to come up with additional material. I've put a notification on their talk page. -- Presearch (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I've taken another look, and I'm concerned about the sourcing. References 1, 4, and 5 are the exact same text (including typos), 2 goes to the main topix.com page, and when searching for Bawa, the first of three selections, with the same title as that in the topix URL, goes to mobile.ghanaweb.com, and is the same article as in FN1, FN4, and FN5. So all four of the multi-use inline sources are the same actual text. Of the other three sources, all are used inline in addition to this master source: FN6 is the SIC insurance company she spent 30 years with, FN7 is a dubious-looking source (zoominfo), and FN3 looks like it was based on a similar press release that the primary multisource text was based on. This is a woman who has been appointed Commissioner of Insurance in Ghana after 30 years in the industry. What makes her notable? What are the duties of the Commissioner of Insurance? (Is there only one? Are there several?) This does indeed read like a resume: is there anything else about her? Is there something remarkable about the post? (It isn't mentioned on Ghana's Wikipedia page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- How embarrassing - egg on my face - I should have noticed the reference cloning (if that term is appropriate). By doing a Google News archive search it appears there was some earlier news coverage of this person, although I haven't looked close enough to have a sense of any of it could help make the hook rise to the level of interesting. For example, [25] duplicated at [26], [27], [28]. Not a lot of coverage, and notability does seem somewhat precarious, since some of this coverage only tangentially deals with the article subject. At this point, it's up to the article creator to solve all these problems, if possible, and make the article interesting. --Presearch (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quick note: not seeing any big red flags as far as close paraphrasing, but I agree the sourcing is suboptimal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
D. J. M. Mackenzie
- ... that D. J. M. Mackenzie was the last non-Chinese person to hold the post of Director of Medical and Health Services of Hong Kong, from 1958 to 1963?
Created by Clithering (talk). Self nominated at 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
- Before you do anything else, the dates in the Mackenzie article need to be rendered WP:MOSNUM compliant. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Would you please kindly specify which part(s) of WP:MOSNUM I have not complied with? Thank you. --Clithering (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was that the dates in the article lack consistency. Some are in an 'authorised' format (dmy) while there is a huge bunch of imported Chinese refs that are formatted "1963年9月17日" that need to be restated in dmy format. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- dmy format is applied to the article now. --Clithering (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was that the dates in the article lack consistency. Some are in an 'authorised' format (dmy) while there is a huge bunch of imported Chinese refs that are formatted "1963年9月17日" that need to be restated in dmy format. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Would you please kindly specify which part(s) of WP:MOSNUM I have not complied with? Thank you. --Clithering (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Full review of nomination needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sarah Moore (racing driver)
- ... that Sarah Moore won the Ginetta Junior Championship in 2009?
-
- Comment: If you want me to remove the piping from the name, that's fine :) There are a few other possible hooks you can use (like the fact she was the first female to win a TOCA-sanctioned race) with this as well :)
Created by Lukeno94 (talk). Self nominated at 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
- Then I would use that. As it is this is a dull hook. Someone wins every race ... there should be something significant about the victory, and that's it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't referring to a race, it's referring to a championship? Anyway, the other hook is
- ALT1: ... that Sarah Moore was the first female racing driver to win a TOCA-supported race? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that Sarah Moore was the first female racing driver to win a mixed-gender, national-level series in the UK? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed; I have labeled the second hook as ALT1 for clarity. The original hook would be effective if she had also been the first woman to win the championship, but the article doesn't state that. (If it's true and can be sourced, it could be added to the article and the hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- She was indeed the first female to win the championship, and to win a championship on the TOCA package. I can reference that as well, if required - you may need to ping me tomorrow, as I've got a football match soon, and will be too tired to sort things out tonight (probably). :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Added a second alternate hook - that text is referenced in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 19
Richard Dewhurst
- ... that Richard Dewhurst served in the Wisconsin State Assembly for four single discontinuous terms over four different decades (from the 1850s to the 1880s) under four different political party labels (Republican, Union, Liberal Reform and Independent); and was defeated twice when running for election on the ticket of a fifth party, the Democratic?
Created by Orangemike (talk). Self nominated at 20:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- I can shorten it by removing the specificity (which decades, which parties, a word or two). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Comment (not a review): It's not a question if you could shorten the hook, you have to. Currently, it's way too long (343 characters, as apposed to the absolute maximum of 200 characters).--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to say this, but this article does not seem to be new enough: It was created on 19 July, and the DYK nomination was filed on 26 July, nearly exactly one week later (and clearly above the five days threshold). It was expanded on 23 July, but this has not resulted in a fivefold expansion of the prose part, either.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
White Wonderland
- ... that the former co-organizer of an electronic music festival began holding its own competing event on the exact same night?
-
- Reviewed: I Shall Not Be Moved (poetry)
Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 01:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- I have not reviewed the article, but I have concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed hook. It's too vague, and it focuses too much on the non-target article. I suggest the following revision:
-
- ALT1 ... that the first White Wonderland music festival was held on the same night as a competing festival that its sponsor had previously co-organized? --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I'm okay with it if it says "previously co-organized", and if "same night" is linked to New Year's Eve (because that's a key aspect of why this makes sense). ViperSnake151 Talk 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I just added "previously" to my hook suggestion. Linking to New Year's Eve is not a good idea. The purpose of a DYK hook is to get the reader to look at the new article. Links to other articles should be limited. The reader won't learn anything in particular about the hook topic by reading an article about New Year's Eve. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Okay, you win. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Río Azul
... that the ancient Maya city of Río Azul in Guatemala was used by the city of Tikal to secure trade routes against its great rival Calakmul?
-
- Reviewed: Dryopidae
5x expanded by Simon Burchell (talk). Self nominated at 17:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC).
-
This is my first review of a DYK nomination. Please forgive me if I am too strict; I'm trying to follow the guide. This article was expanded between 19 and 23 July, and the prose part grew from 2,100 to 12,600. Therefore, there has been the required fivefold expansion. Unfortunately, the hook fact does not seem to be sufficiently cited. There are several references for the relationship between Río Azul, Tikal and Calakmul, but the explicit "was used to secure trade routes" statement is taken from the lead section, where it is not followed by an inline reference. The similar "Tikal's dominance over Río Azul at this time would have secured an important trade route to the Caribbean and would have challenged Calakmul, Tikal's great rival" further down the article is followed by an inline reference, but as it is written in the conditional form, it cannot be used to cite the hook.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Otherwise, the article is well written, and comprises many interesting facts. I would therefore suggest to come up with another hook. I would like to add that the current one does not satisfy me, regardless of whether it can be properly referenced. It reads a bit awkward because the word "city" is there twice; and the wording "was used" sounds quite ambiguous (it doesn't really contain any information). Finally, QPQ is met.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the review. How about this for ALT1:
-
... that a series of three altars at the ancient Maya city of Río Azul in Guatemala depicts the sacrifice of at least eight nobles in AD 385?
-
-
- Judging from the wording in the article (and presumably also in the references), the depiction of a human sacrifice is rather an interpretation than a fact, isn't it? Therefore, I would suggest a hook like: (ALT2)
-
- ... that judging from depictions discovered in the ancient Maya city of Río Azul, it is believed that the local elite was sacrificed after a takeover by Tikal?--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Fine by me... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
for ALT2. This hook is sufficiently sourced by an inline reference, assuming good faith.--FoxyOrange (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Sorry for holding it up, but I've just realized that I had been on the verge of promoting my own hook. Another reviewer is needed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Asylum in Australia
- ... that the number of asylum seekers in Australia arriving via unauthorized boat (refugees pictured) jumped from 161 in 2008 to more than 17,000 in 2012?
- ALT1: ... that in 2013 Australia announced it would no longer grant asylum to anyone arriving in the country without a visa (refugees pictured)?
-
- Reviewed: Tsuken Island
Created by ThaddeusB (talk), Shiftchange (talk). Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk) at 02:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC).
- This is a good article that would make a solid lead hook if it had an image to go along with it. I will give the nominators a little time if they want to look for one, otherwise I will complete the review shortly without one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is this hook accurate? Is 161 the total number of asylum seekers, or the number that arrived by boat without a visa? Are there asylum seekers that arrived by air? - Shudde talk 09:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 20
Jean Venables
- ... that Jean Venables was the first woman president of the Institution of Civil Engineers?
Created by Paul W (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 12:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
-
New enough. Long enough. Well cited. It was actually created on July 20th but incorrectly posted under June 20th. Please move this under the correct date. Hybernator (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Pulling from prep area because it's not long enough. With 1481 prose characters, it's close to the minimum. It should be easy to expand: I see that the infobox has some information that's not presented in prose form, and it would easily be longer if the the article were written less in the cryptic format of a "Who's Who" entry and more in standard English prose. More importantly, after reading this article I found myself knowing almost nothing about what she did professionally that led to all those awards -- and I know that some of that information is available because I found it in online sources. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty
- ... that the Jurchens captured the Song Dynasty emperor Qinzong and the former emperor Huizong (pictured) during the second siege of Kaifeng in 1126?
5x expanded by Typing General (talk). Self nominated at 10:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
Wang Zhongshu
- ... that some 50 years before archaeologist Wang Zhongshu won the Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize of Japan, he was a refugee fleeing from the Japanese invaders?
-
- Reviewed: Zou Jiahua
Created by Zanhe (talk), Dreambeaver (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article is new enough, long enough, within policy and BLP tagged, and the hook referenced. -- KTC (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
I like the hook, but I don't see any inline source citation for him winning the Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize, nor is there one that says it's a Japanese prize, both keys to the hook. Note that by DYK rules, hook information must be sourced by the end of the sentence where the information appears. Elsewhere, like at the end of the paragraph, is not sufficient for DYK. An AGF tick should have been used for the "refugee fleeing" bit from the third source, unless of course you read Chinese and can confirm the information directly, in which course the regular green tick is fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. That takes care of the sourcing and prize locus. I'm wondering, though, whether the hook needs rewording, since the prize isn't given by Japan, but by a city (or an organization in/of the Japanese city, I can't quite tell which) in that country. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
-
- ALT1: ... that some 50 years before archaeologist Wang Zhongshu won the Japan-based Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize, he was a refugee fleeing from the Japanese invaders?
- I think "Japan-based" will do the trick; otherwise, Fukuoka would need to be reiterated (e.g., from the Japanese city of Fukuoka). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Need someone other than me to review ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
New Zealand Coot, Chatham Coot
- ... that the New Zealand and the Chatham Coot (sternum pictured) were likely hunted to extinction by the Māori people?
Created by Maias (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 08:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Reviewing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Why is something pictured that is not mentioned in the hook?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Both articles point to overhunting without clarifying by whom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
United States v. Lovett
- ... that Robert M. Lovett did not receive back pay for an unconstitutional firing for many years after the United States Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to it?
-
- Reviewed: Dr. Hun Houses
Created by NuclearWarfare (talk). Self nominated at 04:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
-
New Enough, long enough. QPQ done. Article is within policy (although I'd prefer more secondary sources such as [here (PDF)], but article does have some secondary sources supporting) I don't understand what this sentence is saying: "Two judges would have ruled against the three claimants, but the ultimate decision of the Court of Claims was in favor of the claimants." Checked close paraphrasing on Gunther article, obituary, and majority decision and found no hits. So, now onto the Hook, some problems. 1. The relevant passage in the WP article is not supported by the source. Source says that Lovett got his money eventually, but does not say that "Congress appropriated the $1,996" (having been in a public worker's union with required back pay, the legislature never appropriated the money, it just appropriated money to "settle their court losses"--regardless, I think it is possible Congress did not appropriate money but that Lovett got the money anyway which is all the source leads us to believe). But Hook is actually more in line with the source, so fix the wikipedia article to be more in-line with source. 2. Is "Fired" the right word? It isn't in the Wikipedia article and may veer too far from source or what actually happened. Maybe just "...back pay for many years...". 3. You are right about the hook's Hookiness, but I'm not sure I got any great improvements. Some Alt hook proposals, maybe they help: AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Alt1: ... that the United States Supreme Court can find that when Congress denies back pay it is unconstitutional, but it may take many years to get it?Alt2: ... that Robert M. Lovett was denied his pay by Congress, he sued to get this pay, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that denying him pay was unconstitutional?
-
-
- Hi AbstractIllusions, thanks for the review. As far as the points you raise, I would have to disagree slightly. The NYT obituary says "Congress failed to appropriate the money for many years, but Dr. Lovett's relatives say he eventually got the $1,996 owed to him." I think it's reasonable to conclude without it being original research from the "many years" clause that while Congress failed to appropriate it for some time, they eventually did. And fired I think is an adequate way to describe forbidding an employer to pay one for their work. Perhaps a third alternative would allow us to sidestep the issue altogether –
*Alt3: ... that the United States Congress failed to appropriate money for Robert M. Lovett's back pay for many years after the Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to it?- I don't know, I still prefer the original to the three alternatives so far.
Thanks for the law review article by the way; I will try to incorporate it into the article soon. NW (Talk) 04:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working with some hooks, edits are great (the compromise wording on the "appropriation" question seems right on). Seeing if I can figure something out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear: Article checks out fine, only problem is the hook at this point. So, the original hook seems to be the best there is. But I'm still wary about "unconstitutional firing" as the phrasing. From the majority opinion (page 307): "The Court of Claims entered judgments in favor of respondents. Some of the judges were of the opinion that § 304, properly interpreted, did not terminate respondents' employment, but only prohibited payment of compensation out of funds generally appropriated, and that, consequently, the continued employment of respondents was valid, and justified their bringing actions for pay in the Court of Claims. Other members of the Court thought § 304 unconstitutional and void, either as a bill of attainder, an encroachment on exclusive executive authority, or a denial of due process." But from page 316 expressing the majority's opinion: "No one would think that Congress could have passed a valid law stating that, after investigation, it had found Lovett, Dodd, and Watson "guilty" of the crime of engaging in "subversive activities," defined that term for the first time, and sentenced them to perpetual exclusion from any government employment. Section 304, while it does not use that language, accomplishes that result." I'm just wary of unconstitutional firing as being the issue. If there were a version of the original hook (a new Alt) without "unconstitutional firing" in it, I'll probably approve that hook. If you think firing is the right wording, just tell me why you think that, and I'm sure we can figure it out. Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably right. Firing is probably the most succinct way to put it, but I wouldn't want sacrifice accuracy for succinctness. What do you think of Alt3 then?
Also, I realize I never addressed your point about the Court of Claims; I'll go back and fix that in the article. NW (Talk) 18:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably right. Firing is probably the most succinct way to put it, but I wouldn't want sacrifice accuracy for succinctness. What do you think of Alt3 then?
- To be clear: Article checks out fine, only problem is the hook at this point. So, the original hook seems to be the best there is. But I'm still wary about "unconstitutional firing" as the phrasing. From the majority opinion (page 307): "The Court of Claims entered judgments in favor of respondents. Some of the judges were of the opinion that § 304, properly interpreted, did not terminate respondents' employment, but only prohibited payment of compensation out of funds generally appropriated, and that, consequently, the continued employment of respondents was valid, and justified their bringing actions for pay in the Court of Claims. Other members of the Court thought § 304 unconstitutional and void, either as a bill of attainder, an encroachment on exclusive executive authority, or a denial of due process." But from page 316 expressing the majority's opinion: "No one would think that Congress could have passed a valid law stating that, after investigation, it had found Lovett, Dodd, and Watson "guilty" of the crime of engaging in "subversive activities," defined that term for the first time, and sentenced them to perpetual exclusion from any government employment. Section 304, while it does not use that language, accomplishes that result." I'm just wary of unconstitutional firing as being the issue. If there were a version of the original hook (a new Alt) without "unconstitutional firing" in it, I'll probably approve that hook. If you think firing is the right wording, just tell me why you think that, and I'm sure we can figure it out. Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working with some hooks, edits are great (the compromise wording on the "appropriation" question seems right on). Seeing if I can figure something out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, I still prefer the original to the three alternatives so far.
-
Article good, Alt3 is good hook. I edited NW's comment above to make the Alt more visible for promoter, hope that doesn't cross anyone the wrong way. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think I've discovered that the hook is factually inaccurate. New York Times, April 2 1947 (so the session right after the Supreme Court ruling) writes: "Added by amendment were amounts of $350,000,000 for veternas benefits, $8,000,000 for additional support for the Federally financed school lunch program, $25,480 for the District of Colombia's recreation department and $2,158 in compensation for three former Federal employees whose claims for back pay had been approved by the Supreme Court." Washington post same day titled "House Restores Pay Funds for Ousted Trio": "The House yesterday reversed its Appropriations Committee to tack on in the 2,827,528,286 Deficiency bill an amendment to pay $2138 in back salaries to three ousted Federal employees....The Appropriations Committee of the present House reported the Deficiency Appropriation Bill without a provision for carrying out the Court ruling." So 1. My objections to appropriation were incorrect and 2. the hook that it took many years to get back pay while verified in the NY Times obituary, doesn't appear to be correct. Sorry to raise the late objection, but got any other ideas for hooks from the Article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could you email me the articles (nw.wikipedia
gmail.com)? I would like to investigate this issue further though that would involve diving into the text of the Appropriations Act. It may be that the House Amendment never passed for whatever reason. NW (Talk) 01:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done- feel free to change the edits on the Article as you see fit. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sources. It looks like this article was far more publicly contentious than I imagined it to be. I was thinking it to be something more like Sekhar v. United States – liable to get noticed by other lawyers but not really very much by the public. I had originally planned to write this only as a DYK, but I might try to expand it out further to a GA. Anyway, as far as hooks go:
Alt4: ... that even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Congress unconstitutionally withheld Robert M. Lovett's salary, the House Appropriations Committee did not appropriate funds to pay him?
NW (Talk) 12:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Alt4 looks good to me for sure (and expansion and GA seems like a good strategy). Although because I added some of the info to the article, I think it might be questionable for me to approve the hook. So I'm asking for another reviewer to approve the hook. Article is new enough, long enough, QPQ, within policy, just the hook that needs approval. Best. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sources. It looks like this article was far more publicly contentious than I imagined it to be. I was thinking it to be something more like Sekhar v. United States – liable to get noticed by other lawyers but not really very much by the public. I had originally planned to write this only as a DYK, but I might try to expand it out further to a GA. Anyway, as far as hooks go:
- Done- feel free to change the edits on the Article as you see fit. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could you email me the articles (nw.wikipedia
Jesse B. Jackson
- ... that Jesse B. Jackson (pictured), who was known for saving thousands of lives during the Armenian Genocide, said that the Ottoman government tried to "extinguish the Armenian race"?
-
- Reviewed: Information technology in Bangladesh
-
- Comment: I tried really hard to find the best hook. This is what I came up with. If the reviewer suggests a more catchy and powerful hook, please let me know. Thank you.
Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 02:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
-
I find the hook to be good and sufficient. Length checks out, sources, good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- A gentle reminder that it is not cool (and against policy) to directly cite works that you have not seen yourself; instead, you should only cite works where you got the information. Hopefully the editors of the article will change the citations everywhere they have done this so they are not directly citing documents and sources that they have not seen themselves (which is a problem for A. knowing the full context, B. verifiability and C. claiming someone else's archival work as their own). Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I have repositioned offline sources next to accessible sources so that there is now no standalone offline source that cannot be verified without a written and accessible publication. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not Done. To be clear: You must cite where you found the reference: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. They do not have to be accessible online, but unless you visited the U.S. National Archives yourself, you should cite the work of the people who did the hard work and visited the archives for those inline citations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the U.S. National Archives sources but have stored the information in my computer regardless. The U.S. National Archives was visited by the researchers and authors of the sources provided. I chose to place U.S. National Archive sources strictly for research purposes and to provide a reference to the information. Maybe I'll make notes of the information later and not necessarily sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Issue resolved. You can also cite them in the example style given in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT to keep them in. This way it directs the reader both to the author who did the archival work and the original document. Hope you'll continue citing where you got it on future articles and maybe cleaning up earlier articles where you may have done the same thing. 18:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the U.S. National Archives sources but have stored the information in my computer regardless. The U.S. National Archives was visited by the researchers and authors of the sources provided. I chose to place U.S. National Archive sources strictly for research purposes and to provide a reference to the information. Maybe I'll make notes of the information later and not necessarily sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not Done. To be clear: You must cite where you found the reference: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. They do not have to be accessible online, but unless you visited the U.S. National Archives yourself, you should cite the work of the people who did the hard work and visited the archives for those inline citations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As for this DYK? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of "genocide" is widely known so I think the second phrase in the hook is redundant. Suggested alt:
- ALT1:
- ... that Jesse B. Jackson (pictured), is known for saving thousands of lives during the Armenian Genocide? Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Need a new reviewer for ALT1. The article was GTG per BabbaQ's review but small changes were made. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Information technology in Bangladesh
- ... that a seven-year-old Bangladeshi computer programmer is set to become listed as the "youngest IT expert" in the Guinness Book of World Records?
-
- Reviewed: Centre Party (Sweden, 1924)
Created by Kmzayeem (talk). Self nominated at 16:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Hook cited. New enough. Long enough. Good to go! What an amazing kid! Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
As the sources make clear, he is reportedly going to be appearing in the Guinness book, but he hasn't yet, and nothing comes up using the Guinness website's Search function. This is prospective, not actual, and WP:CRYSTAL prohibits saying it has already happened: sometimes things that are reported as happening in the future never come to pass. Both the article and the hook need to be adjusted to reflect this as something that it has been reported will be happening (something like "is set to be listed as", perhaps); for now, this is not ready to proceed. Query to nominator: both sources give him three names, Wasik Farhan Roopkotha, and refer to him by that final name; the article only calls him by his first two names. Is there a reason the article doesn't use his full name? (If you use him in a revised hook, please spell out "seven" per WP:NUMERAL. Thanks!) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. I've made some minor edits to the relevant article sentence; since the two sources given both use "Roopkotha", I didn't see that there was a spelling issue. (If you think it's important to list more than one spelling, be sure to add the other, currently unlisted sources.) While this issue is now settled, the article does need a copyedit: there are odd word choices and sentence. I'm also, frankly, troubled by the claim in the article's lead that Bangladesh's potential allows the assertion that it will be the next global leader in IT. This is based on highly optimistic extrapolations made by two individuals only, and I find it an extraordinary claim that is not justified by the references provided. In the History section, the copyedit could help make more clear that the first paragraph occurred before Bangladesh existed; "erstwhile" is a nice word, but "former" or "formerly" is more clear. I'm unable to get access to FN3 (Banglapedia), which provides most of the information here, so I can't check: was there one computer, or more than one ("mainframes")? Since each mainframe was an independent computer back then, I think either both should be singular or both should be plural. Finally, the last sentence of the article seems based on the source's headline, but the source contents appear to say that the sector won't be 7.28% of GDP in 2021—1/14 of GDP is beyond huge—but that if current trends continue will add 7.28% to previously expected GDP growth. That's very significant, but the article needs to get this fact right. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- BlueMoonset, yes the claim in the lead was really an extraordinary one, my failed attempt to expand the lead. :/ I've fixed it. I've also replaced the word "erstwhile" with "formerly" per your suggestion. About the Banglapedia article, can't figure out why you are unable to access it, there is nothing required to access Banglapedia, if problem persists try a web archive site. Regarding the last line, I just kept it the way the source reports it. If you still find anything dubious or misleading in the article feel free to reword or even remove it, I won't be able to log in wikipedia in the next few days. Thanks.--Zayeem (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Kyi Maung
- ... that Burmese politician U Kyi Maung was given twenty years of imprisonment after his political party won the 1990 general elections in Burma?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 09:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
-
New enough=yes. Long enough=yes. Cites sources=yes. Hook is cited=yes (agf on offline source). Interesting hook meets formatting guidelines. OK for DYK. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
After recent extensive changes and expansion, and a move, the article now gives the name as "Kyi Maung" or "Col. Kyi Maung" (is the latter valid naming for the lede?), the "U" has been removed entirely from his name. In addition, the article no longer supports the "twenty years imprisonment" statement in the hook, so a new hook will have to be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Geez when did that happen. Changed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that Burmese politician Kyi Maung went to prison for four times, for a total of a dozen years, by the country's military governments?
-
-
-
-
-
I've restored the original hook, since that's what the above commentary was about (even if it isn't supported now), and moved the new hook, now labeled ALT1, below said commentary. At the moment, ALT1 is in the article, but it is not adequately supported to DYK standards by inline sources (the actual statement needs sourcing). If you could get sourcing for the final sentence of the intro, then you could improve the ALT1 hook to "went to prison four times for a total of 12 years" and perhaps even "was imprisoned four times for a total of 12 years by the country's military governments". I've also added a DYKmake template for Hybernator, who was responsible for the recent expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Agenda of the Tea Party movement
- ... that the agenda of the Tea Party movement seeks to both protect and change the U.S. Constitution?
Created by Phoenix and Winslow (talk). Self nominated at 05:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
-
There are unreferenced paragraphs, and the article has not been categorized Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not very sure about the proposed hook. "seeks to both protect and change the US constitution" sounds like their ideas are contradictory, but for what I read (note that I'm not from the US and I don't know anything about this political party before checking this DYK) it seems that they support the original US constitution, and not some of its later amendments. That sounds consistent as a political platform, and not contradictory (without making an opinion of the amendments themselves). Did I understood it correctly? Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's why it's a hook. Supporters of the Tea Party movement say there is no contradiction. The changes they seek are intended to restore the Founding Fathers' original intent and meaning. Critics of the Tea Party movement say there IS a contradiction. Note that it is not a political party, it's a political movement, there is a difference. Political parties are organized, they have structure, they have leaders who are clearly identified. Movements do not usually have identified leaders, they are usually very disorganized. But that doesn't mean they can't be effective. One of the proverbs about U.S. politics that I've learned is "the most impossible thing to stop is an idea whose time has come." It is possible that the Tea Party represents an idea whose time has come, and neither of the major parties was prepared to embrace that idea. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- If some people say that they are contradictory and others that they are not, we should not suggest either thing at the main page. Perhaps a better hook may be like this.
- ... ALT1 that the agenda of the Tea Party movement seeks to restore the main principles of the early United States Constitution?
- However, I'm not sure if the first United States constitution that the Tea Party supports is the 1777 Articles of Confederation or the one drafted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (either link may be better than "history of the United States Constitution"). Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- ... ALT2 that the agenda of the Tea Party movement seeks to restore the main principles of the
earlyUnited States Constitution?
-
-
- How does that look as a nice, neutral, non-controversial hook? Linking to Constitutional Convention (United States). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
While DYK articles are not expected to have the comprehensiveness of a Featured Article, if we are to feature an article on the front page, a certain level of comprehensiveness is required, especially when dealing with controversial political topics. This article skips over a number of issues that we know have been of importance to the Tea Party (race,
healthcare, etc.) and largely presents their agenda in uncritical terms. Even the block quote from Kate Zernike of The New York Times, who would be an ideal source for such material, is mostly a restatement of the Tea Party's own professed agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- The Tea Party's attitudes about race are already explored with exquisite attention to detail in another spin-off article, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement. I'm relying almost exclusively on academic, peer-reviewed sources such as law journals. Even the source that I've used by Kate Zernike, a journalist rather than an academic, should be viewed as very reliable per WP:RS. Zernike agrees that the Tea Party's statement of its agenda is, in fact, its true agenda. According to the academic sources such as Christopher Schmidt and Elizabeth Price Foley, various Tea Party positions on specific legislative issues should be viewed through the lens of their constitutionality as perceived by Tea Party members. Zernike also touched on this aspect of the agenda — how the Tea Party's understanding of the Constitution affects its views on everything else — and that passage from Zernike's work is blockquoted.
- Health care is specifically mentioned. The Tea Party argued that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the new health care law. This constitutional challenge is well described. The Tea Party's views on such issues revolve around their perceived constitutionality, or perceived UNconstitutionality. For that reason, examination of the Tea Party's views on the Constitution is of paramount importance, and an indispensible first step toward understanding everything else on their agenda — because that's what the very reliable sources are saying.
- Your use of the word "uncritical" is inaccurate, since both Ronald Formisano and Theda Skocpol are critical of the Tea Party movement's agenda, and both are cited. Skocpol's criticism of the agenda is blockquoted, since she's a very reliable source (political science professor at Harvard). There's no shortage of criticism in this article. As usual, the disagreement arises over how much criticism should be included. Editors who enjoy criticizing the topic of an article in real life will want to see that amount soaring up to 50% or higher, while editors who are able to suppress any bias they may have are inclined toward a lower criticism level. Of the total article content, current criticism is in the 5%-10% range. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You are right, healthcare is mentioned in passing, so I struck that aspect of my comment. But I think that is a problem with this article, is that even the issues that are mentioned are mentioned in passing. When you have breakout articles like this, there is going to be material that is more comprehensively covered in other articles, but each article should stand on its own. You keep citing RS but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought Zernike, Fromisano, Skocpol, et al are unreliable sources. On the contrary, my comment specifically cited Zernike as an ideal source, my issue was with how this source was employed. Citing or mentioning critical authors does not necessarily mean that the article itself is critical. Also, I think you misunderstand how I used the word "critical". I mean it in the sense of (to quote Wikitionary) "Relating to criticism or careful analysis", not "Inclined to find fault or criticize", so your comments about the perceptions and biases of editors aren't pertinent. I should have been more explicit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, Okay. So when we look at the "Relating to criticism or careful analysis" definition, you were thinking of the "careful analysis." I think the blockquotes I've selected demonstrate some very careful analysis. Some more careful than others I suppose. Schmidt, Zernike, Foley and Zietlow are rather good. I'm also impressed by Skocpol. It's really too bad we can't quote more of these works, but the article is getting a little blockquote heavy already. It's a work in progress.
- The scope of the article was determined at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion under the supervision of SilkTork, a member of ArbCom, who served as moderator. Unfortunately SilkTork stepped aside when he went on vacation, and a couple of other key people also took a Wikibreak, so after the topical scope was decided on — focus on TPm's views on the Constitution, and other issues are of secondary importance — I finished it up. The Agenda section of Tea Party movement is now a spin-off article, just as the "Issues of race, bigotry and public perception" became a spin-off called Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, which is essentially an entire article focused on allegations of bigotry. I think this one is worth featuring in DYK, although clearly there's more work to do. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- NOTE: I've added some more (sourced) material about the Tea Party protests against certain legislative initiatives. Please review. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Party of crooks and thieves
... that Russia is ruled by the "party of crooks and thieves"?
-
- Reviewed: Education in Medieval Scotland
Created by Yerevanci (talk). Self nominated at 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
-
I agree with Hawkeye. The party is not called the "party of crooks and thieves." That is derogatory name that a blogger gave to the political party led by Vladimir Putin. Even if true, Wikipedia rules state: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." This hook, calling Putin and the other leaders of his party "crooks and thieves", plainly violates that rule. Cbl62 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the ruling party of Russia is often called the "party of crooks and thieves" '?
- The blurbs so far seem to be in gross breach of WP:WEASEL, and it seems pretty unavoidable if that title is to be made as "interesting" as possible. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is the term really notable enough to even have a separate article? Isn't a redirect a proper way to include it in an encyclopedia with a few lines written in the main article of United Russia? It definitely is a sensational term and hence is kinda popular. But that seems to be all about it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's all it gets on the Russian language Wikipedia article on the party. Партия жуликов и воров is a redirect over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Smim Payu
- ... that Adm. Smim Payu, who led Toungoo Burma's naval attack on Martaban that ended the Hanthawaddy Kingdom in 1541, was a former Hanthawaddy minister?
-
- Reviewed: Reach Records
Created/expanded by Hybernator (talk). Self nominated at 01:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
Articles created/expanded on July 21
Andrew Smith (basketball)
- ... that basketball player Andrew Smith (pictured) was a high school All-American his senior year despite missing half the season with a stress fracture?
Created by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article is new enough, long enough, reliably referenced, and has no close paraphrasing. The hook meets DYK criteria and a QPQ is completed. The image is fair use. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Luciano Castro
- ... that Argentine actor Luciano Castro worked with Natalia Oreiro in Amanda O, a telenovela distributed directly by internet?
-
- Reviewed: Bunge church
Created by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 02:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Article is long enough and new enough. Hook is short enough, but I didn't find the bit about working with Natalia Oreiro to be very interesting. That he starred in a telenovela distributed directly by internet is interesting, but not the other part. Is Natalia Oreiro a big star such that her mention makes the hook more interesting? Hook is supported by reliable source. Article otherwise looks ok. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Well, yes. Check her article, she is famous at several countries, not just in Uruguay and Argentina Cambalachero (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Louis N. Stodder
...that Louis Stodder was the USS Monitor's turret officer and the first person injured at the Battle of Hampton Roads surviving a direct hit to Monitor's gun turret. ....?
Created/expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self nominated at 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Time length and hook all check out, GTG. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The hook was incorrectly formatted in many different ways. Try:
- ... that Louis Stodder was the USS Monitor's turret officer and the first person injured at the Battle of Hampton Roads, surviving a direct hit to Monitor's gun turret? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for taking the time to review. Just want to be clear on something. For purposes of the DYK presentation on the main page I used the full name, Louis Stodder, but the actual sentence (hook) on the ' Stodder page only uses the last name, as the full name is spelled out in the lede. Will this be okay? Again, thanks for your time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- That's fine. There is no requirement that the hook be a verbatim replica of a statement from the article (in fact, many of the best hooks have different wording from their articles); the key thing is that the factual content of the hook must appear in the article.
- Note for DYK volunteers: No QPQ is required for this user yet. --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
I am concerned that this article may include some close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Crockett overcame Stodder's innate modesty he persuade him to give a first-hand account of the birth, short life, and death of that famous ship" with "Mr. Crockett was able to overcome Captain Stodder's innate modsty and persuade him to give the following first-hand account of the birth, short life, and death of that famous ship" here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Done have reworded the passage in question. let me know if you feel there are others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Nikkimaria gave you one example of the issue that she found. It's your responsibility to make sure that the article doesn't have other instances of WP:close paraphrasing (when there's one instance, there are often others). Also, the paragraph in question is lacking a reference citation. Presumably it should point to Civil War Times Illustrated, January 1963. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Just added reference to C.W.T.I. I'll go over the article again to check on any other close paraphrasing aside from common terms, phrases and names. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Henri Julien (Motor Sports)
- ... that Henri Julien founded and managed the smallest Formula 1 team of the 1980s with only six employees including the driver, while the more established teams had more than 100 employees at that time?
Created/expanded by NearEMPTiness (talk), Matthias v.d. Elbe (talk). Nominated by NearEMPTiness (talk) at 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
Articles created/expanded on July 22
2013 IPC Athletics World Championships
- ... that at the 2013 IPC Athletics World Championships Germany's Heinrich Popow (pictured) and Australia's Scott Reardon were both awarded a gold medal after a dead heat in the T42 100 metre final?
-
- Reviewed: Leo Cushley
Created by FruitMonkey (talk). Self nominated at 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
- ... that the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering was instituted following the First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in 1936?
Created by Paul W (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 12:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article is new enough, long enough. However, it is currently too poorly sourced to meet DYK standards. What sources are given are all primary (either directly associated with the society or with its president, rather than being by neutral parties) and the history section is entirely unsourced. A minimal standard for appearing in DYK is that every paragraph should have at least one source, and the specific facts given in the hook should be clearly sourced. I know that this quality of sourcing is usually difficult to obtain for even highly prominent academic societies, but it needs to be met before this nomination can be approved. Additionally, although I don't think it rises to the level of being a copyright violation or plagiarism, some of the phrasing and word ordering in the article is uncomfortably close to that in http://www.issmge.org/en/the-society/history and could do with being rewritten using more original prose. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have added several references from various US non-ISSMGE geotechnical sources to the history section, also including some additional facts. Hope this meets the points made above.Paul W (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Paul Jowitt
- ... that Paul Jowitt is a trustee of the charity "Engineers Against Poverty"?
Created by Paul W (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 12:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
An Account of Corsica
- ... that the 1768 journal An Account of Corsica (engraved illustration pictured) was so successful its author became widely known as "Corsica Boswell"?
-
- Reviewed: St Mungo's (charity)
-
- Comment: The article was created new by User:Calamity Hill on 22 July but for some bizarre reason, the history shows something weird for October 2005.
- If you look at the Diff , it would appear that an IP created something with an incomplete 3-word sentence on 2005. Probably immediately deleted. When Calamity Hill created this version with a Wizard, it probably was right over the old deleted one. Guessing that's what happened. It does throw the DYK Check off, so good that you noted it here. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The article was created new by User:Calamity Hill on 22 July but for some bizarre reason, the history shows something weird for October 2005.
Created/expanded by Calamity Hill (talk), SatuSuro (talk), Moondyne (talk), and Sagaciousphil (talk). Nominated by Sagaciousphil (talk) at 20:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
Bud VanDeWege
- ... that Bud VanDeWege coached the Michigan Wolverines women's basketball team to its first appearance in the NCAA Tournament in 1990?
-
- Reviewed: pending
Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 03:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
Church of San Pedro de Atacama
- ... that the roof of the Church of San Pedro de Atacama (pictured) features cactus and wood bound with llama leather in the altiplano style?
Created by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 01:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Image is under free license, so that's ok. However, length is barely ok (1748 characters -- just scrapes away from a stub tag) & the entire article is sourced to travel guides, which are not reliable sources. As is, the article does not rise above travel-guide blurb, which IMHO is not worthy to be showcased on WP's main page. The hook is also confusing. Suggested re-phrasing, if article sourcing can be improved: that the roof of the Church of San Pedro de Atacama (pictured) is made of cactus and wood bound together with llama leather in the altiplano style? Renata (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Nvv and I both spent time researching for non-travel guide references before this nom was made and neither of could find other sources. If the current refs are not satisfactory for promoting this article, then no worries, I'm withdrawing the nom. And thank you for the review. The hook fact, though, was interesting IMO: tying cactus and wood together with llama leather to create a roof! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I debated long and hard about this. Yes, the hook is interesting (like, WTF? interesting), but the article quality is lacking. As usual with non-English subject matter, there is a dearth of English-language sources (I am very familiar with the problem) and opposing the entry only promoted pro-English bias... But I can't, with good conscience, promote an article written based on travel guides (not just the hook, the whole article in general). It would be simply fantastic if someone could dig up local (Spanish) sources about the church. Renata (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I added 3 sentences with 3 Spanish language refs, including the fact that the church is a registered historical monument. I recognize, though, that this may not be enough. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thought about it longer and harder, but still, sorry, does not change the fact that the hook and majority of the article is sourced to travel guides. However, feel free to reach out for a second opinion (I am not familiar with intricacies of DYK rules - when did it become this giant instruction creep? *shakes head* - but I assume that's a possibility). Renata (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Renata3 - I do thank you for your review. It would be nice if this Chilean article were promoted (after all, when was the last time we used the words cactus and llama leather in a hook!) but I'm not the decision-maker. If a second reviewer wants to chime in and promote it; that's fine. If you want to decline it; that is ok, too, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Charles Manby
- ... that Charles Manby was an engineer on the first steamship to cross the English Channel, and served on the international scientific commission on the Suez Canal, the International Commission for the piercing of the isthmus of Suez?
Created/expanded by Paul W (talk). Self nominated at 09:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC).
- New article within policies and referenced. Added a ranking to the talk page, as well as CE and formatting of citations in the article. Hook is interesting, but a little long. QPQ - CZmarlin (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Shorter hook could be ... that Charles Manby, served on the first steamship to cross the English Channel, and on the International Commission for the piercing of the isthmus of Suez? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
1966 Alabama Crimson Tide football team
- ...
that Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi said of the 1966 Crimson Tide football team: "I don't know, we haven't played Alabama yet" when asked how it felt to have the world's greatest football team after winning Super Bowl I?
-
- ALT1: ... that the 1966 Alabama Crimson Tide football team was not recognized as college football national champions despite being the only undefeated and untied team at the end of the season?
-
- Reviewed: Bob DeCarolis
-
- Comment: Expanded from redirect
5x expanded by Patriarca12 (talk). Self nominated at 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Article is new enough and long enough. The main hook is the most interesting but exceeds 200 characters (currently 234). Can you tighten it a bit in an alt hook? Cbl62 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- How about ... alt 2 ... that Vince Lombardi said of the 1966 Crimson Tide, "I don't know, we haven't played Alabama yet", when asked how it felt to have the world's greatest football team after winning Super Bowl I?
- I have struck through the original hook and agree alt 2 does work better and support it as the preferred hook. The only change I made is a wikilink back to American football in the hook. Thanks for the review and suggestion! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- How about ... alt 2 ... that Vince Lombardi said of the 1966 Crimson Tide, "I don't know, we haven't played Alabama yet", when asked how it felt to have the world's greatest football team after winning Super Bowl I?
Victor Edelstein
... that Victor Edelstein designed the blue velvet dress worn by Princess Diana when she danced with John Travolta?
-
- Reviewed: The Butcher Of Amritsar
-
- Comment: Possible merge with the DYK for the Travolta Dress?
Created by Mabalu (talk), Surtsicna (talk). Nominated by Mabalu (talk) at 16:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Suggested alt hook:
... that Victor Edelstein designed the blue velvet dress worn by Diana, Princess of Wales, when she danced with John Travolta?
- (Explanation from Surtsicna was "Princess Diana" is the name invented by the media' My take is that "Princess Diana" is a popular widely-known and recognised name and more catchy, I personally have no strong feelings either way, but suggesting an ALT hook is fairer to all rather than changing the nomination.) Mabalu (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are right, of course, I am not sure if we are allowed to correct hooks of other users. Suggesting an alternative one is a better option. Anyway, I think there were several discussion about "Princess Diana" at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales. The consensus seems to be that factual accuracy should be not be ignored. For what it's worth, I believe the alternative hook is better because nobody can complain about inaccuracy at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Suggested alt hook:
I kindly ask reviewers to pay attention to this nomination by 28 July so that it can be featured as a double hook along with the hook about the Travolta dress. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that ship has sailed. I therefore propose an alternative hook, to avoid too many Diana-related hooks:
- ALT1:
... that Victor Edelstein quit designing luxurious dresses for British princesses in 1993 to become an artist whose painting is held by the National Portrait Gallery? - Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping to get this reviewed just under the wire so the double hook could be used—I like it better than the single one, which is a bit clumsy—but ran into a few snafus. First, the good news: the article is new enough, more than long enough at 2121 prose characters, is adequately sourced, and the ALT1 is supported by inline sources. However, I'm a bit disturbed by the closeness of the article to the wording in FN3: compare "Edelstein was born in London. He started out as a trainee designer for Alexon in 1962." from the article with the source's "Victor Edelstein was born in London. In 1962 he started as a trainee designer for Alexon,". There are also troubling inaccuracies: his time with Salvador is said to be before 1970, though Edelstein's own timeline (FN5) puts Salvador as starting in 1972. Also, though the FN2 source doesn't say which Lady Nuttall was involved, the article gives it as the third wife (1975–83) rather than the fourth (1983 until Nuttall's death); unless there's another source that confirms this (in which case it needs to be cited), I'd go with only the details that can be sourced. The next sentence after Lady Nuttall also seems to assume a bit more than can safely be done: while FN2 was published in 1989, book lead times make it almost certain that Edelstein was interviewed for the book in a prior year, perhaps 1988 or even 1987. Further, the material as I read it indicates that the 2400–2500 pounds cost of a dress had been a price point for a number of years: he's complaining that the price is basically the same five years later despite increased costs. Finally, ALT1 suffers from a problem between singular and plural: he's painted a number of portraits, one of which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. That one, of Judith Martin, might make for an even more interesting hook: Judith Martin is Miss Manners; if you add that fact to the article, you could do something like "whose painting of the lady who created Miss Manners is held by the National Portrait Gallery". BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Just saw this, sorry.
- "X was born in London" is such a generic statement that I don't think copyvio should even figure there. The trouble with such simple, direct statements (like "London is in England") is that they're so simple and direct that they leave little scope for rewriting. However, I have rewritten following sentence.
- Salvador: I've rearranged the sentence a bit so that it doesn't explicitly say he worked for them BEFORE launching his own label. The sources give conflicting information, chronologically, but all agree that he DID work for the labels at one point or another.
- Lady Nuttall - I remember trying to work this one out. But yes, I think you're right - have unlinked, and tweaked the ref to the second husband to just say "her husband"
- "Arond the 2400-2500" mark is pretty ambiguous - not sure about it being two years earlier, because such fashion books are usually written pretty quickly, particularly if by journalists, to the point where they are rushed out - particularly when they deal with very contemporary material. However, I've modified to "in the late 1980s".
- Just seen the ALT1 hook - With all respect to Surtiscna - I don't think it quite works, but I like BlueMoonset's suggestion. Along those lines:
ALT2: ... that former couturier to the British Royal Family, Victor Edelstein painted a portrait of Miss Manners that now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery of the United States?
-
-
- Absent the appearance of Miss Manners in the article, she cannot appear in the hook. (You'd need to add a source that made it clear that Martin and Manners were the same person.) I think it's better to list Edelstein earlier (before other wikilinks). How about a new ALT, assuming that source gets added:
-
- ALT3: ... that Victor Edelstein, a former couturier to the British Royal Family, painted a portrait of Miss Manners that now hangs in the U.S. National Portrait Gallery?
- I think this will prove to be a very useful source. Not only is it by Martin herself, but it has a number of interesting bits of information about Edelstein's history, and mention's Martin's writings being turned into "Miss Manners on Music", which is probably explicit enough a connection between person and pen name for hook sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
There's been good work on all the issues above; however, as the proposer of the ALT3 hook, I can't also approve it, so another reviewer should finish the review here. (I have struck the earlier hooks: the two Dianas because the desire was to eschew Diana once the anniversary passed, and ALT1 and ALT2 because of objections raised.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
Articles created/expanded on July 23
Salomée Halpir
... that despite, or perhaps due to, her being a poorly educated Christian woman in an Islamic country, Salomée Halpir became an accomplished 18th-century oculist?
Created by Leilaharris (talk), Renata3 (talk). Nominated by Renata3 (talk) at 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article is new enough and long enough. However, I find the hook to be thoroughly confusing. Why would her being a poorly educated Christian woman make it less likely that she would become an oculist (as suggested by the "despite" phrasing)? Likewise, why would that same status make her more likely to become an oculist (as suggested by the "perhaps due to" phrasing)? This statement is referenced to the Lovejoy book which is not available for preview through google books. Also, the article says she became a highly-accomplished physician, not that she became a highly-accomplished oculist. Please clarify these points. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Um? Being a poorly educated Catholic female in a 18th-century Islamic country should be an obstacle to accomplishing pretty much anything. That part is very clearly sourced to article by Roczniak in JSTOR. The first page, available to anyone, talks about it. The "due to" is a bit later in the article (you can get it free if you register with JSTOR - that's what I did). She used her "novelty" as foreigner of different gender and religion to break social norms. I got an impression that the Islamic society did not know what to do with her so she did what she pleased ;) Attempted to clarify that a bit in the article. Re physician vs oculist: physician is a general term for any doctor, oculist is an old term for an eye doctor. No difference in meaning is intended by that. Renata (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying, and she sounds like an interesting lady. But I really do think the proposed hook is clunky, contradictory, and confusing. Would you be open to suggestions for an alternate hook? Perhaps something along these lines:
ALT1: ... that Salomée Halpir, a Lithuanian Catholic born in 1718, learned medicine from a doctor she married at age 14, and later became physician to the Sultan's harem in the Constantinople?Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, but I have to rephrase the hook: she was not a Lithuanian, she was Polish-Lithuanian which is a hornets nest and might as well be precise about the sultan:
ALT2: ... that Salomée Halpir, a Catholic born in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1718, learned medicine from a doctor she married at age 14, and later became physician to the harem of Sultan Mustafa III of the Ottoman Empire?Renata (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I think alt 2 is much improved, but it is now too long at 217 characters. My alt 1 was already pushing the limit at 182 characters. More precision is good, but not sure you need the sultan's name. How about this shortened version:
ALT3: ... that Salomée Halpir, a Polish-Lithuanian Catholic born in 1718, learned medicine from a doctor she married at age 14, and later became physician to the harem of the Ottoman Empire's Sultan?
- Ah, crap. I knew I was forgetting something! :) I really don't like Polish-Lithuanian as you won't find a cite for that and it's just asking for an edit war with nationalists. Ergo (190 characters):
- ALT4: ... that Salomée Halpir, a Catholic born in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1718, learned medicine from a doctor she married at age 14 and later treated the harem of the Ottoman Empire's Sultan? Renata (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think alt 2 is much improved, but it is now too long at 217 characters. My alt 1 was already pushing the limit at 182 characters. More precision is good, but not sure you need the sultan's name. How about this shortened version:
- I hear what you're saying, and she sounds like an interesting lady. But I really do think the proposed hook is clunky, contradictory, and confusing. Would you be open to suggestions for an alternate hook? Perhaps something along these lines:
- Um? Being a poorly educated Catholic female in a 18th-century Islamic country should be an obstacle to accomplishing pretty much anything. That part is very clearly sourced to article by Roczniak in JSTOR. The first page, available to anyone, talks about it. The "due to" is a bit later in the article (you can get it free if you register with JSTOR - that's what I did). She used her "novelty" as foreigner of different gender and religion to break social norms. I got an impression that the Islamic society did not know what to do with her so she did what she pleased ;) Attempted to clarify that a bit in the article. Re physician vs oculist: physician is a general term for any doctor, oculist is an old term for an eye doctor. No difference in meaning is intended by that. Renata (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Another point for clarification. The article says in the lede that she broke with social norms by not raising children. The article then goes on to say she had at least three children. Did she bear the children but then not raise them? This is another point that I found confusing. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
There are now some alts that I think are workable, especially alt 4. Since I worked with Renata in coming up with the new hook, a fresh review appears to be in order before this can be promoted. Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Dinakaran Attack Case
- ... that three people died in the arson attack on Dinakaran office as a fallout of publishing a survey result about next political heir of DMK party cheif M. Karunanidhi?
-
- Comment: My first DYK submission. Please let me know anything I missed. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Created by Evano1van (talk). Self nominated at 08:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- The article requires good copyediting. Also lead needs to be expanded to include all key points. I will do some editing now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the feedback, have expanded the lead and did some copyediting. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 24
Bangui Agreements
- ... that the Bangui Agreement was signed in 1997 after a crisis the previous year, which included three mutinees within the Central African Armed Forces?
Created by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 03:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
List of places of worship in Mole Valley, Providence Chapel, Charlwood
- ... that Providence Chapel (pictured)—a former church in the Mole Valley district of Surrey, England—was once a Napoleonic-era officers' mess and "would not be out of place in the remotest part of East Kentucky"?
- ALT1: ... that Providence Chapel (pictured)—a former church in the Mole Valley district—was once a Napoleonic-era officers' mess and "would not be out of place in the remotest part of East Kentucky"?
-
- Reviewed: Marco Johnson (article 1) and Loni Harwood (article 2) from this six-article hook
-
- Comment: This link should provide a direct link to the quote.
Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nominated at 23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
Hook is over 200 characters. Article states it was a barracks that was transported to Charlwood, not an officers mess. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Issues fixed. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- (pictured) is usually excluded from calculating the character count in hooks—although this is not an official policy, so perhaps remove , England from the hook (i.e. from ...of Surrey, England. In the article, it is stated that the officers' mess building was part of the barracks, and when the barracks was decommissioned the building (i.e. the officers' mess) was dismantled and taken to Charlwood. I have slightly reworded it to make it a bit clearer. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 25
Battle Metal
- ... that Battle Metal, the début album by the Finnish folk metal band Turisas, contains lyrics from an actual battle march?
-
- Reviewed: Hero shrew
5x expanded by Óðinn (talk). Self nominated at 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Florence Margaret Durham
- ... that geneticist Florence Margaret Durham whose father was an alcoholic, studied the effects of alcohol on mice for nine years, concluding that parental alcoholism was not inherited?
Created by BenjaminDrury (talk), MartinPoulter (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
Burka Avenger
- ... that the Burka Avenger is a Pakistani superheroine who disguises herself in a burqa?
-
- Reviewed: Trish Andrew
Created by Gobonobo (talk), Mar4d, CrazyPakExplorer (talk). Nominated by Gobonobo (talk) at 19:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Length, hook, source, date ok. But the copyvio report indicates that the character descriptions, as added by CrazyPakExplorer (talk · contribs), are largely plagiarized from the series website, http://www.burkaavenger.com/. An example: in the article, the main character is described as follows: "Separated from her parents at a young age, Jiya was adopted by a wise old Kabaddi Master, Kabaddi Jan. He took her under his wing and taught her the art of Takht Kabaddi, a new kind of fighting style where books and pens are primarily used as weapons in conjunction with a variety of karate moves." The character description at http://www.burkaavenger.com/about is word-for-word identical. I have indefinitely blocked CrazyPakExplorer because their contributions consist only of copyright violations, and removed the character section. The nominator should check for and remove any remaining copyvio, and then request a new review. Sandstein 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth Press
- ... that Elizabeth Press worked with Rodney Porter for 25 years, contributing significantly to his 1972 Nobel Prize?
Created/expanded by DesiLady (talk), Edithsim (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 21:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
Astrid (brig)
- ... that the tall ship Astrid, which ran aground on 24 July 2013, has previously served under Dutch, Swedish and Lebanese flags since its construction in 1918, and was most recently used as a training ship?
-
- Comment: I'm sure that there's a better hook here, but I'm afraid that I'm very out of practice with writing them. Alternative suggestions would be most welcome! Please forgive me for not meeting the 'Review requirement', but I'd rather take the time to regain experience and refamiliarise myself with this process before reviewing other DYKs. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self nominated at 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
Raid on Brandenburg
... that in 1326 pagan Lithuanians were allowed by Pope John XXII to raid the Holy Roman Empire?
Created by Lietuvininkas (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 18:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Nice little article. Age and length good; meets policy. However, this hook doesn't link to the article! This could be fixed by changing the hook to ALT1: ... that in 1326 pagan Lithuanians were allowed by Pope John XXII to raid Brandenburg, part of the Holy Roman Empire? DanHobley (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The Baby-Roast
... that Sears.com once sold infant roasters?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 09:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article checks out as new per the Revision history for the article relative to its being posted for DYK. The character count exceeds 1,500. Every paragraph (except for the lead) has at least one citation. Spot checking for copyvio finds no problems. A problem is in the hook above, in which it is stated that Sears literally sold these items. Per the source [29], the wording on the Sears website for a barbecue grill was modified by an online vandal; it wasn't Sears' intention to sell products labeled as such, it was a prank in which the Sears website was modified. Also per the source, "the company apologized for the incident and said there was no reason to believe customer data was intercepted during the security lapse." Northamerica1000(talk) 05:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Well, technically it was on their site; I thought that would make the hook funnier by not stating it was a prank. I would like to use the Sears.com body roaster part as the hook, what would your suggestions on making the hook better be? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Make the Sears website information in the hook more factual, or perhaps something about the urban legend aspect of the topic instead. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, then. How about ALT1: ... that in an urban legend, babies are roasted and fed to their parents? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Make the Sears website information in the hook more factual, or perhaps something about the urban legend aspect of the topic instead. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, technically it was on their site; I thought that would make the hook funnier by not stating it was a prank. I would like to use the Sears.com body roaster part as the hook, what would your suggestions on making the hook better be? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Bonkers, such hooks can only be used for April Fools, which is a while away. A hook of mine was originally "... that a representative of the National Weather Service sarcastically commented on how people should prepare for a sharknado scenario?", but I was told that I couldn't do that. SL93 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not even ALT1? If so, I don't mind leaving this in hibernation until April 2014... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was only referring to the original. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I see... I assumed "such hooks" to mean ALT1 and the original, rather than just a generic statement. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was only referring to the original. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
L.Stadt
- ... that the singer of "Death of a Surfer Girl", by Polish band L.Stadt, was compared to Billy Idol?
Created by Mayast (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 03:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
Arturo Puig
- ... that Argentine actor Arturo Puig has made a biographical theater play about Alan Turing?
-
- Reviewed: Salustiano Sanchez
2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
Alice Vickery
- ... that the 19th-century physician Alice Vickery (pictured), the first qualified woman chemist and druggist in Britain, advocated free love and believed that marriage was "legal prostitution"?
-
- Reviewed: Allan McLean (philanthropist)
-
- Comment: The image would greatly improve the quality of the hook because Vickery looks like a typical Victorian prude, someone we would not expect to be an anti-marriage activist.
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- The article is new and long enough.
I used duplication detector and found one sentence with 10 words matched phrase while rest of the sentence might be too close paraphrasing. I would take care about it myself, but because of my language skills I hope nominator would not mind resolving this minor issue.The hook is hooky, properly formatted and not too long (189 characters).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for choosing this nomination. I've rephrased the 10-word sentence. Other matches are that of very long names of organisations and political parties, which obviously cannot be reworded. Is it all sorted out now? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for very interesting article (and not the only one you wrote). I noticed long names of organizations so I did not mention them as an issue. Thank you for resolving this minor one. I will now continue with the review. The hook assertion about marriage being legal prostitution is not cited. Is it cited with reference at the end of paragraph?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is (page 207). I keep forgetting such citations for some reason. I've had to address that issue in at least a dozen nominations. Sorry for the inconvenience. It's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. AGF on offline source. Good to go.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. AGF on offline source. Good to go.
- Yes, it is (page 207). I keep forgetting such citations for some reason. I've had to address that issue in at least a dozen nominations. Sorry for the inconvenience. It's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for very interesting article (and not the only one you wrote). I noticed long names of organizations so I did not mention them as an issue. Thank you for resolving this minor one. I will now continue with the review. The hook assertion about marriage being legal prostitution is not cited. Is it cited with reference at the end of paragraph?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing this nomination. I've rephrased the 10-word sentence. Other matches are that of very long names of organisations and political parties, which obviously cannot be reworded. Is it all sorted out now? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article is new and long enough.
List of songs recorded by Nicki Minaj
- ... that Rihanna's vocals on Nicki Minaj's song "Fly" were a last minute contribution?
5x expanded by Calvin999 (talk). Self nominated at 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Prose section expanded 5x, over 1500 characters. Neutral, found no close paraphrasing. Not happy with hook, or "fact" in the list; citation does not say addition of Rihanna vocals was "last minute" - addition of the track to the album was last minute. From the source [30] "Time passed, Rotem e-mailed Nicki and the two went back and forth until the rapper told him Rihanna had agreed to sing on the track." - time passed?! Need an alt hook. - Shudde talk 10:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT2 ... that Nicki Minaj steals Lil Wayne and Drake's fans on the song "Girls Fall Like Dominoes"? — AARON • TALK 17:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Should be good with ALT2 hook. Although I'd recommend adding another citation to the "fact" within the list's lead [31] before posting. - Shudde talk 11:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Hmm one source is fine. Besides, that link doesn't contain any info. — AARON • TALK 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
The second source says "raps about ... stealing Lil Wayne and Drake's girls"; the one in the article doesn't say she steals fans -- rather this is implied, and the implication seems to be taken from the lyrics, rather than the RS itself (which includes some lyrics). May as well have just added a link to a site with the lyrics listed. The second source removes any doubt about verifiability. If it's excluded I'm not 100% sure it should be accepted for DYK, but am happy to defer to the promoting admin. - Shudde talk 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- "Nicki raps about how she’s hot enough to get loads of female fans: “Steal Wayne girls, I steal Drake girls", and the list says "On "Girls Fall Like Dominoes", Minaj raps about how she can steal fans from male artists in the music industry, specifically Lil Wayne and Drake." DYK is allowed to play on the words a bit, that's how things are made interesting and for people to click on it. What the review says and what the article says aren't that indifferent. You can't be so literally about things all the time. The fact is that the quote is backed up by the reviewer. Lyrics are all about interpretation, and this comes from a reliable source. I don't really see what the big issue is here to be quite honest. — AARON • TALK 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You Haven't Seen the Last of Me
- ... that when "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it made Cher the only act to have a number-one single on a Billboard chart in each of the last six decades?
5x expanded by HĐ (talk). Self nominated at 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
- I just made some grammatical changes to the hook as it didn't flow properly (Title needed to be bold too). Everything checks out fine, apart from the 5x expansion. It was 1403 characters before expansion here and 4383 characters as it currently is. I believe it needs to be 7015 characters or more to qualify for 5x expansion, but I'm going to ask any editors who see this for a second opinion please, as it has been greatly expanded with the information that is available.
— AARON • TALK 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Midnight Zoo
- ... that The Midnight Zoo won the CBCA Children's Book of the Year Award for Older Readers in 2011?
Created by Brambleberry of RiverClan (talk). Nominated by Brambleclawx (talk) at 17:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article meets DYK criteria - long enough, new enough, reliably referenced, and no close paraphrasing. I assume good faith on the references that require a subscription. The hook meets DYK criteria and a QPQ is not needed because this is not a self-nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 26
Kanchi Kailasanathar Temple
- ... that Kailasanath (pictured) is the oldest extant structural temple of Kanchipuram?
5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 04:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Telepharmacy
- ... that more than fifty pharmacies in North Dakota deliver pharmaceutical care without a pharmacist present using telepharmacy?
Created by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self nominated at 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Nudelman-Suranov NS-45
- ... that during World War II, the Soviet Union equipped two air regiments with single-engine fighters armed with the Nudelman-Suranov 45 mm cannon?
5x expanded by Someone not using his real name (talk). Self nominated at 20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
The Complete Collected Poems of Maya Angelou
- ... that The Complete Collected Poems of Maya Angelou is the author's first collection of poetry, published after she read her poem at President Bill Clinton's inauguration in 1993?
Created/expanded by Figureskatingfan (talk). Self nominated at 20:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
Footpaths of Gibraltar
- ... that the footpaths of Gibraltar (Douglas Path pictured) were originally created to enable cannons and troops to ascend the Rock of Gibraltar?
Created by Prioryman (talk), Gibmetal77 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 10:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
- Notification to reviewers
- Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews. When you have completed a review, please update the respective table below to change the background color to green and note that the review has been completed.
First review required |
So there were no footpaths in Gibraltar before this? This seems extremely unlikely, as most inhabited places in the middle ages were filled with footpaths, not for cannons and troops, but for the people who lived there. Fram (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- People lived (and still live) at the bottom of the Rock of Gibraltar. There's nowhere to live on the heights of the Rock, which is where these footpaths are. They were created for military use, not to allow people to go to where they lived. That's why they lead to fortifications, not houses - a fact which is quite obvious to anyone who's walked on those paths (as I have). The hook fact is cited and the source is quite explicit on that point. Your objection is a classic argument from ignorance and I note that you've not bothered to assess the article against any of the DYK criteria. This is quite clearly POINTy behaviour motivated by your long-standing opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you are going to abuse the process like this, you should not be reviewing any Gibraltar-related nominations. Prioryman (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
At most that requires a change to the hook, regarding "footpaths on the rock of Gibraltar". Fram, don't be so quick to use the X symbol when we can still fix the issue easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- If the article is about the footpaths on the Rock only, then both the hook and the article need a lot of work to indicate this. The "footpaths of Gibraltar" are not just a bunch of selected non-notable footpaths on the rock (note that e.g. the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath was recreated nearly verbatim in "footpaths of Gibraltar"; this is now a copyvio by Prioryman. Talking about "abuse of process"... Fram (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- It takes a retitle and attribution in an edit summary (or I could do a history merge, easy enough). That being said, if you were looking for an issue with the article, you could point that out and see if there was a 5X expansion from the existing material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, the hook issue that Fram raises can be resolved very simply by adding "many of" to the hook, which I've now done.
- Second, the article is not simply a recreation of the deleted Devil's Gap Footpath; I have reused only some of the content from that. I was already working on a separate article on Royal Anglian Way when the deletion discussion happened and decided to combine all of the footpaths into a single article. It's not a 5x expansion from any previous article and given that Devil's Gap Footpath was deleted, it would be inappropriate to use that as a baseline anyway.
- Third, talk of a "copyvio" is absolute bullshit. Gibmetal77, the author of the Devil's Gap Footpath content, has absolutely no problem with it (I asked him).
- Fourth, a history merge sounds fine to me. I had already credited Gibmetal77 in this nomination to recognise his contribution to it, but I was already discussing with TheOverflow how the other article's contribution history could be reflected (see User talk:Prioryman#DYK Nomination of Footpaths of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Prioryman, attribution still needs to be given (CC-BY-SA, right?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I just wasn't sure what the best way of giving attribution would be. I specifically credited Gibmetal77 to acknowledge the three paras that he wrote and I reused. If you think a history merge would work, then please do so. Prioryman (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hist merge completed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that the rejected hook is not the hook at the top of this nomination, it was changed after the rejection instead of adding an Alt1. Anyway, if the article is only about footpaths in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, it should change its name to reflect this. If it is about all of Gibraltar, it should change its contents. And recreating a deleted article verbatim is bad practice, no matter if you have permission of the original author. To recreate a non notable article nearly completely and verbatim as part of an overview article of non notable subjects (and one which may be notable, the Mediterranean steps) is just an end-run around community consensus. Fram (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I will make it an ALT1 if it will keep you happy (fat chance!):
- ALT1: ... that many of the footpaths of Gibraltar (Douglas Path pictured) were originally created to enable cannons and troops to ascend the Rock of Gibraltar?"
- Second, the footpaths are not wholly in the nature reserve and I wanted to leave scope for local editors to add other footpaths. Third, the deleted article was not recreated "nearly completely and verbatim" - I reused three paragraphs which I edited further. This discussion would be a lot more conducive if you avoided lying about my contributions, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Original article[32] vs. your unattributed recreation[33]
- The Devil's Gap Path commences at the eastern boundary of the Upper Town at the junction of Devil's Gap Road with Baca's Passage. It proceeds in a mostly southerly direction until it reaches a viewing point where a flight of steps link it to Green Lane just south of Devil's Gap Battery in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve.
- The path commences at the eastern boundary of the Upper Town at the junction of Devil's Gap Road with Baca's Passage. It proceeds in a mostly southerly direction before reaching a flight of steps which link it to Green Lane
- Although difficult to say for sure, it is thought that the path has been in existence since at least the early 18th century but definitely since the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-83). Older maps of the area show paths leading from the town to the Upper Rock but none seem to follow the current route. Luis Bravo de Acuña's 1627 "Plan of Gibraltar" shows that the eastern limits of the town were well below the current level. The natural route from the town to the Upper Rock at the time would have been via Charles V Wall.
- Although difficult to say for sure, it is thought that the path has been in existence since at least the early 18th century but definitely since the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-83). Older maps of the area show paths leading from the town to the Upper Rock but none seem to follow the current route. Luis Bravo de Acuña's 1627 "Plan of Gibraltar" shows that the eastern limits of the town were well below the current level. The natural route from the town to the Upper Rock at the time would have been via Charles V Wall.
- As part of the refurbishment works, the path was widened by pruning overgrown trees and shrubs and the drains were unclogged to prevent the path from puddling after rains. Information display panels carrying historical information about the path and on the wildlife that can be found there, together with a picnic table and waste bins designed to keep out Gibraltar's Barbary macaques were also added along the path. The project was announced by Minister for Health and the Environment Dr. John Cortes and led by Carl Viagas with the Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society and the Gibraltar Heritage Trust overseeing it to ensure the project was carried out in a sensitive manner.
- As part of the refurbishment works, the path was widened by pruning overgrown trees and shrubs and the drains were unclogged to prevent the path from puddling after rains. Information display panels carrying historical information about the path and on the wildlife that can be found there, together with a picnic table and waste bins designed to keep out Gibraltar's Barbary macaques were also added along the path. The Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society and the Gibraltar Heritage Trust oversaw it to ensure the work was carried out in a sensitive manner
You reused three paragraphs, of the original four... Fram (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Comment History merge completed, so that issue is settled (as it relates to this article... if it is a habit of Prioryman's, that requires discussion elsewhere). My count indicates that 5X from material derived from that article has been attained, so no worries about length there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Second review required |
Adenanthos ellipticus
- ... that the oval-leaf adenanthos is known from only three populations covering less than 0.31 km2 (0.12 sq mi) in Fitzgerald River National Park?
Created by Casliber (talk), Mishae (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 05:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
-
-
- It is a recently new article
- ~1950 characters
- Cited inline, refs look reliable
- Issues/Suggestions
- Lead says "not threatened" (referenced to something which says "Threatened Flora (Declared Rare Flora — Extant)", infobox says "near threatened", and #Status says vulnerable. Please reconcile this.
- Ref for last sentence of #Taxonomy? Also, what is a section, or what is it a section of? I haven't heard it as a taxonomy term.
-
- ref added - link to section (botany) added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
East Branch Fishing Creek
- ... that United States president Theodore Roosevelt had a resort near East Branch Fishing Creek?
-
- Comment: ALT 1: ... that a stream in the watershed of East Branch Fishing Creek has been observed to have a pH under 3?
Moved to mainspace by King jakob c 2 (talk). Self nominated at 01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- The article is certainly long enough and has no copyright violations (not saying I thought there were any, just want to be thorough). The name of the article is different than a similar creek found in the same area: Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) (made by the same author). We may want to change the title of the article but I don't see any reason that a DYK should be stalled for that. The DYK claim only has one reference that's a publication made by an animal rescue organization called Main Line Animal Rescue (see page 19 of the publication). It actually doesn't say that he "had" a resort but that he "used" a resort near the creek. Also, surely we can find a better reference than one published by an animal rescue organization. Also, the publication wouldn't be easy to find if it were to be taken offline due to it only citing the name of the organization and the publication date. This is my first DYK comment so if I did anything wrong, please let me know. WCS100 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- @WCS100: Interestingly, I cannot seem to find another reference for the fact. I can try to dig around for some offline sources. In the mean time, what about the ALT? King Jakob C2 01:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. The claim is that, "Big Run, has a pH range of less than 3 to slightly under 7". I guess I thought the ALT meant that it's normally under 3 but I think I read that on my own. Either way, that's a really interesting point. I'm no biologist but I know that a creek with a pH level under 3 is pretty damn acidic. At that level, it can only support life like bacteria. Not even plants or catfish can live at that level. At any rate, page 21 doesn't show the pH readings getting that low. Did you get that number from one of the maps? I didn't read the whole thing so I may have missed it. WCS100 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 27
Black truffle
- ... that black truffles (Tuber melanosporum pictured) suppress plant growth around their host tree, creating an area that looks burned?
-
- Comment: Originally written in the German Wikipedia by Jugrü and others, translated by Sandstein.
Created by Jugrü (talk), Sandstein (talk). Nominated by Sandstein (talk) at 06:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Burka Avenger. Sandstein 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ira Lalaro
- ... that Lake Ira Lalaro (floodplain pictured), located on the island of Timor, is the largest lake in East Timor?
Created by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 04:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Created on July 27, 2013 with 4,542 characters of readable prose right now, blessed by toolserver. I tweaked 2 citations to confirm hook 100%. Consider a possible ATL1 for more excitement (referenced there already). Good to go. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that lake Ira Lalaro located on the island of Timor, is home to top-level predator (pictured) not hunted by the locals as totem animal?
Krishna Prem
- ... that former British fighter pilot Ronald Nixon became widely revered as a Hindu saint and was hailed as a "great soul" by Indian President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan?
-
- Comment: There are two main hook facts, and both are verifiable online. That Krishna Prem "was recognized as a Hindu saint by many Indians of his day" can be seen in the Haberman online abstract, even though the full article is behind a paywall. The "great soul" quote from Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is embedded more deeply in the article, but it can be viewed on Google Scholar (LINK THAT WORKS FOR ME) by searching on the quoted phrase "hailed as a great soul when he died by the then president of india, sarvepalli radhakrishnan". Finally, that Nixon was a fighter pilot is supported by several of the sources, including Brooks, to whom it is cited.
Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nominated at 23:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
Jeremiah Hamilton
... that Jeremiah Hamilton was a Wall Street broker noted as "the only black millionaire in New York" around the time of the American Civil War?
- ... that Jeremiah Hamilton was a Wall Street broker noted as "the only black millionaire in New York" by James McCune Smith about a decade before the American Civil War?
Created by Emw (talk). Self nominated at 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- More than 1500 words. No copyright violations. Article only uses one reference for everything in the article although that reference was published by the NYT and written by a history professor that works at the University of Sydney (Shane White). The article actually states that James McCune Smith noted him as the only black millionaire in New York to disparaging him (Hamilton) for the crassness of his pursuit of wealth. Outside of wishing that White had included a reference, that may have been an unsubstantiated claim created to disparage Hamilton. For the good of the article and the DYK, we could really use more references. This will help clear up the validity of the claim. I also think that the DYK should note who made the claim. WCS100 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for looking over this. Here's the part of the Times article about Smith's statement: "the black intellectual James McCune Smith noted Jeremiah G. Hamilton as 'the only black millionaire in New York,' disparaging him for the crassness of his pursuit of wealth." In itself the phrase "the only black millionaire in New York" says nothing about Hamilton's purported crassness, and thus does nothing to disparage the subject. That's the only part I included in the Wikipedia article. I adjusted the lead sentence to note Smith was the one who made the claim.
- I agree that the article could use more references about Jeremiah Hamilton, but, as the Times article notes, "modern American historians have ignored him". I've searched Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR, and the Times article by Professor White seems to be the only feasibly accessible reliable source on the subject. White is writing a book about Hamilton that will contain many more references, but the Times article seems to be the only one available for now. Emw (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Jokichi Ikarashi
- ... that 111-year-old Jokichi Ikarashi was Japan's oldest living man when he died?
Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nominated at 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
- I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination -- Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Haywood. Futurist110 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article just barely passes the 1500 word count requirement. The DYK makes two claims: one is that he was 111 years old when he dies and the other being that he was Japan's oldest living man when he died. The source used to support both claims is in Japanese but a Google Translate version clearly supports the claims made. The only question I would have is, is the source reliable? The source, Hokkaido Shimbun has an article so I assume it's a reliable source unless someone finds otherwise. I don't feel that I can assess reliability since I don't speak Japanese. The only other question I would have is that of notability. I thought WP:ONEEVENT covered these sorts of things but even when I used to edit, it was usually argued on a case by case basis. WCS100 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Reg Dean, Ralph Tarrant, Arturo Licata, and Emile Turlant all have their own Wikipedia articles due to the fact that each of them was/is the oldest living man of his countries at the time of his death. Igarashi was Japan's oldest living man at the time of his death, and he was older than all of these other men (at least for now). Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to make yourself familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFF if you haven't already. I'm not going to argue notability - if I wanted to be doing that, I'd be at AfD. I just felt compelled to bring that up because not only does being old not seem interesting to me, there are currently 195 other people who can make the same claim and that list just keeps on changing. I don't want DYK to be a list of people who lived a long time. WCS100 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Reg Dean, Ralph Tarrant, Arturo Licata, and Emile Turlant all have their own Wikipedia articles due to the fact that each of them was/is the oldest living man of his countries at the time of his death. Igarashi was Japan's oldest living man at the time of his death, and he was older than all of these other men (at least for now). Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
More: The article is still classified as a stub. The line "At the time of his death, Ikarashi was the 46th oldest verified undisputed man ever." is uncited. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I linked to another Wikipedia article for that sentence as my source. That said, I can remove this sentence, but I honestly don't think that removing it is really necessary. Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- A wikilink here is not enough. What if the linked article is inaccurate? Which is why, direct citing is best. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I linked to another Wikipedia article for that sentence as my source. That said, I can remove this sentence, but I honestly don't think that removing it is really necessary. Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
Current nominations
Articles created/expanded on July 28
Murder of George E. Bailey
- ... that John C. Best became the first prisoner in Essex County, Massachusetts to be sentenced to the electric chair after he was found guilty of murdering of George E. Bailey?
Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 03:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Article is new enough, long enough, and hook is cited in article. Good to go. Beerest355 Talk 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Broadholme
- ... that until 1989, the village of Broadholme in Lincolnshire was located in Nottinghamshire?
-
- Reviewed: Aptostichus angelinajolieae
5x expanded by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 23:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
Jim Motavalli
- ... that Jim Motavalli, a senior writer for E–The Environmental Magazine, has his own syndicated column in The New York Times?
Created by Ceranthor (talk) Self nominated at 23:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- I reviewed St Oswald's Church, Old Swan, Liverpool. ceranthor 23:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Zaki Khan
- ... that Zaki Khan, a Persian general and aspiring Shah, went so far in his atrocities that his own men murdered him?
-
- Reviewed: Mogiła Abbey.
Created by Susuman77 (talk). Self nominated at 21:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Comment. If this is your first DYK submission Susuman77 you do not need a QPQ review (#5). However, your question about an alternative hook at Mogiła Abbey has been answered. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 15:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Broadholme Priory
- ... that Broadholme Priory was one of only two female houses of the Premonstratensian Order, in England?
-
- Reviewed: Night of the Scarecrow
5x expanded by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
another sound article, I check the 5x rule after removing the lists and seems OK to me. Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Terrain softening (Mars)
- ... that widespread permafrost explains why the whole landscape in the midlatitudes of Mars appears softened?
-
- Reviewed: Raid on Brandenburg
Created by DanHobley (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Comment: The article has been moved to Terrain softening. With some according adjustment to the article it should be ready to go. Alex ShihTalk 02:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Image Lake
- ... that Image Lake (pictured), a popular hiking destination in Washington state, is near the site of a failed proposal to open an open-pit copper mine?
-
- Comment: Might need a better source.
Created/expanded by SamX (talk). Self nominated at 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Nicely written. While it may not be technically new enough (originally created on July 22), substantial expansion done in the previous 5 days should be sufficient to meet the criteria. Didn't detect any close paraphrasing issues. Hook fact is stated at the end of the article following by proper citation. Alex ShihTalk 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Star Trek: Planet of the Titans
- ... that directors who were asked to direct the 1970s film Star Trek: Planet of the Titans included Steven Spielberg (pictured), George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola, but Philip Kaufman took the job?
-
- Reviewed: Torkild Rieber
-
- Comment: Expanded out of a paragraph at Star Trek: The Motion Picture and just creeps over the 5x expansion requirement from that paragraph.
Created by Miyagawa (talk). Self nominated at 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Long enough, new enough, assuming good faith for sources, hooks cited then, good to go. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
St Oswald's Church, Old Swan, Liverpool
- ... that the steeple of St Oswald's Church, Old Swan, Liverpool, (pictured) was designed in the 1840s, and the body of the church was designed in the 1950s?
-
- Reviewed: Siege of Medvėgalis
Created by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nominated at 13:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
Battle of Tursko
- ... that although Mongols won the Battle of Tursko in 1241, at first the Polish forces managed to capture the Mongol camp?
-
- Reviewed: Nino Konis Santana National Park
Created by Tymek (talk), Piotrus (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 12:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Over 1600 chars, created on 24 July and expanded in the following days. Sources check out.
I may suggest, however, creating a section between the first paragraph and the remaining content. Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 06:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Over 1600 chars, created on 24 July and expanded in the following days. Sources check out.
TWG Tea
- ... that the Singapore-based TWG Tea is described as the "world's finest luxury tea brand"?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 06:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
-
You should include links to this article in other related articles; currently there is none. The proposed hook sounds a bit promotional. Cambalachero (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I also dont like this hook, not for being promotional, but for being some news reporter's opinion. Maybe something based on 1837 can be framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's a joker removing the negative aspects of the company (the lawsuits) and turning the article into an advertisement. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that while the year 1837 is inscribed on TWG Tea's logo, it was founded in 2008? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The second hook is acceptable Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that while the year 1837 is inscribed on TWG Tea's logo, it was founded in 2008? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's a joker removing the negative aspects of the company (the lawsuits) and turning the article into an advertisement. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I also dont like this hook, not for being promotional, but for being some news reporter's opinion. Maybe something based on 1837 can be framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 29
Augustos Zerlendis
- ... that Greek tennis champion Augustos Zerlendis still holds the record from 1920 for the longest Olympic tennis match played?
-
- Reviewed: Coming soon
5x expanded by Lajbi (talk). Self nominated at 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
Nenjathai Killathe (1980 film)
- ... that before making her acting debut through Nenjathai Killathe Suhasini Maniratnam worked as an assistant cinematographer to Ashok Kumar?
-
- Reviewed: Jim Motavalli
-
- Comment: 5x expanded
5x expanded by Vensatry (talk). Self nominated at 07:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
Powder flask
- ... that whatever they do on You Tube, you should never load a muzzle-loading gun directly from a powder flask (Indian ivory example illustrated) or horn?
Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nominated at 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
- The You Tube bit I think falls short of an assertion. In the article it is referenced only by two example You Tube videos (how not to do it, kids). There seems to a be a correlation with not wearing a shirt when making your video and this practice. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wildlife of Chile
- ... that the wildlife of Chile (Andean Condor, national bird, pictured) is res nullius?
5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 04:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Church of St. Francis of Assisi, Kraków
- ... that the Church of St. Francis of Assisi (pictured) in Kraków Old Town displays the exact replica of the Shroud of Turin, consecrated by Pope John Paul II at the Vatican in 2003?
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ira Lalaro.
5x expanded by Poeticbent (talk). Self nominated at 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Expansion from stub 314 characters of readable prose size on 28 July 2013; to 3,576 chars of r/p/s with bells and whistles by 31 July 2013. Looking forward to your QPQ. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 15:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Basics ok, but source in Polish. In "the exact replica" it should be "an", and "consecrated" needs a link (I'd let "Vatican" do without myself). Believe it or not, not everyone knows where Kraków is. So:
- ALT1: ... that the Church of St. Francis of Assisi (pictured) in Kraków Old Town in Poland displays an exact replica of the Shroud of Turin, consecrated by Pope John Paul II at the Vatican in 2003?
Johnbod (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Fenmore Baldwin
- ... that Max Ehrich listens to the music of John Mayer and Bruno Mars to get into the head space of his character, Fenmore Baldwin, on The Young and the Restless?
Created/expanded by Creativity97 (talk). Self nominated at 04:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Podmalinsko Monastery
- ... that on the last meeting of the Drobnjaci clan held in Podmalinsko Monastery in 1840 they decided to inform Njegoš about their intention to kill Smail-aga Čengić?
-
- Reviewed: The Idolmaster
Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nominated at 22:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Length, date and hook fact verified with reference. No copy vio. Good to go.--Nvvchar. 04:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Legend of a Rabbit
- ... that the 2011 film Legend of a Rabbit was made over the course of three years, with a crew of 500 animators involved?
5x expanded by EditorE (talk). Self nominated at 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article and the hook meet DYK criteria. I assume good faith on the Chinese references. A QPQ isn't needed. Expanded from a one sentence stub. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Is the good faith in the Chinese refs a problem? Glad it meets the criteria, but still? EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 20:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright issues. There is no good reason for the summary to be a direct quote, particularly of that length. Paraphrase the quote please if you have no access to the film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've simply replaced the copyvio plot with a shorter version of it, because trying to paraphrase it was too hard for me. Is the summary I replaced fine? EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's acceptable for now (though watching the film would help). Reinstating tick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've simply replaced the copyvio plot with a shorter version of it, because trying to paraphrase it was too hard for me. Is the summary I replaced fine? EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
NME's Cool List
- ... that former NME editor Conor McNicholas credits "the X factor" as the one thing that all the entries on NME's Cool List have in common?
-
- Reviewed: Vatnsmýrin Nature Reserve
Created by A Thousand Doors (talk). Self nominated at 22:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC).
Articles created/expanded on July 30
Astoria Theatre, Brighton
- ... that the Astoria Theatre (pictured) in Brighton—one of the south coast's largest "super-cinemas"—showed its last film in 1977, and permission to demolish it has been granted?
-
- Reviewed: Matthew Ashton (review #3) from the six-part nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Gathy, Athanasios Polychronopoulos, Marco Johnson and Matthew Ashton
Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nominated at 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Linnea Henriksson
- ... that Swedish singer Linnea Henriksson (pictured) became the first live act to perform inside the new Tele2 Arena in Stockholm?
-
- ALT1: ... that Swedish singer Linnea Henriksson's (pictured) song "Enastående" was part of the soundtrack to the Swedish movie Once Upon a Time in Phuket?
- Reviewed:bookless libraries
Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self nominated at 11:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
In a World...
- ... that Lake Bell (pictured) wrote the female protagonist-driven In a World... after being intrigued that the prototypical movie trailer voice was male?
-
- Comment: We may want to run this in conjunction with the August 9 opening.
5x expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 06:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Reviewing: Template:Did you know nominations/William Walter Leake (1 of 2 QPQs)
Good to go. Article is long enough and meets the 5X requirement. Hook verified. Picture copyright free. QPQ done. All DYK requirements good. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone comment on my date request for August 9th or 10th (UTC).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Idolmaster Dearly Stars
- ... that of the three playable pop idols in the video game The Idolmaster Dearly Stars, the sole cross-dresser has been called the cutest?
-
- Reviewed: Psychos in Love
Created by Juhachi (talk). Self nominated at 05:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Good to go. Article big enough and new enough. It appears to be well written. Accept hook reference WP:AGF since I have a little trouble with Japanese letters. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide
- ... Henry Morgenthau (pictured), who gave testimony of the Armenian Genocide, stated that the massacres of the past "seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915"?
-
- Reviewed: Kanchi Kailasanathar Temple
Created by Yerevanci (talk). Self nominated at 04:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Delphine Parrott
- ... that the first female professor at Glasgow University, Delphine Parrott, was especially good at vivisecting mice?
-
- Reviewed: tbd
Created by Andrew Davidson (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 23:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
Belgian Congo in World War II
- ... that the Belgian Congo played a major role supporting the Allied cause in World War II?
Created by Brigade Piron (talk). Self nominated at 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Reviewed Mali Federation.
Franz Joseph Bridge
- ... that Prague's Franz Joseph Bridge (pictured) became the first bridge built using the Ordish–Lefeuvre system because the construction of its London counterpart was delayed, but no longer survives?
-
- Comment: I would like the hook to be saved for 23 August, when the article about the bridge's London counterpart will likely appear on the Main Page as TFA.
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
Sonja Schlesin
- ... that Sonja Schlesin was slapped by her boss, Mohandas Gandhi, in South Africa?
-
- Comment: there are several alts available if this one fails to please. I have reviewed Felley Priory. Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 11:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
Felley Priory
- ... that Felley Priory received charters of confirmation from three popes: Alexander III, Celestine III and Gregory IX?
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/David Gage
Created by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 10:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- very well researched article. Should wikilink the Pope names in the hook maybe. Could you add a ref to the closing paragraphs please? Victuallers (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Woops missed the end when adding references :S. All done now --Rushton2010 (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- seems to be some doubt over when Mr Millington died, but looks OK to me - lots of refs (I added one), no obvious cut and pastes etc. well done. Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Psychos in Love
- ... that the 1987 film Psychos in Love, about a couple who are murderers, was adapted into a play at Broom Street Theater?
-
- Reviewed: Carmel Borders
-
- Comment: The article doesn't have much content, but even the DVD release of the film is rare.
Created by SL93 (talk). Self nominated at 10:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- New enough, long enough, hook cited and verified. The only thing is that while the fourth ref confirms the claim, the third ref does not say Broom Street, but Bleeker Street Theater in New York.--十八 05:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Allen Theater (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
- ... that for over 70 years the now demolished Allen Theater (pictured) showed second-run films at low admission, earning the slogan "Wait until it comes to the Allen"?
Created by Bwmoll3 (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Checks out on length and creation, AGF on the offline sources for the hook as I found an online source to corroborate it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Logo of PetroChina
- ... that the current PetroChina logo was adopted in 2004?
Created by QatarStarsLeague (talk). Self nominated at 03:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
-
The article is new enough (created on 30 July) but only barely long enough (currently a mere 1552 characters). At first glance, I do not think that the subject warrants a separate article, the content could well be merged into PetroChina instead. Then, I see POV issues: The whole article is based on self-published sources, with a major part being composed of word-by-word quotations.
To me, this looks like an attempt of main page advertising.--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I can assure you that is not the case. You must assume likewise, in adherence to WP:GF. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, the last part of my statement was unprofessional. Sorry for that.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can assure you that is not the case. You must assume likewise, in adherence to WP:GF. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Charles Alexander Bruce
- ... that Charles Alexander Bruce is considered the father of the tea industry in India?
-
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shpitalny Sh-37
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
- By whom? The book citation reads who may be rightly called the father of the Indian tea industry. This sounds like opinion piece of the scholars. The Legend of Zorro 12:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you guys have to follow me everywhere? It is not opinion as he is commonly called that, "C.A.Bruce without any doubt can be called the Father of the Tea Industry in India" Role of women workers in the tea industry of North East India p15 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have already de-watchlisted your talk page and only came here because you popped in my watchlist while editing Template talk:Did you know.
- I do note that two academic sources call him pioneer. However I think a alternate hook "... that Charles Alexander Bruce, with his brother Robert first discovered the indigenous Assamese tea plant in 1837?" might be a better alternative. The Legend of Zorro 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not care what you think, you are in constant conflict with me and I do not want you following my edits, the hook is cited and is fine, just leave me be. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot help if you see constant conflict everywhere. In any case that was a suggestion not a review. The Legend of Zorro 12:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not care what you think, you are in constant conflict with me and I do not want you following my edits, the hook is cited and is fine, just leave me be. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you guys have to follow me everywhere? It is not opinion as he is commonly called that, "C.A.Bruce without any doubt can be called the Father of the Tea Industry in India" Role of women workers in the tea industry of North East India p15 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT Hooks: "... that Charles Alexander Bruce is considered a pioneer of the tea industry in India?" or
-
- "... that Charles Alexander Bruce is considered one of the fathers of the tea industry in India?" Just throwing these out there as alternatives. Shearonink (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thinkwell Group
- ... that the Thinkwell Group helped create a Harry Potter studio tour and the US theme park?
-
- Reviewed: Mimana
Created/expanded by Casspsu14 (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 18:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Articles created/expanded on July 31
Xerocomellus
- ... that mushrooms of the genus Xerocomellus (X. armeniacus pictured) are often brightly coloured?
-
- Comment: Hold as I think I can expand the species pictured as well
5x expanded by Casliber (talk), Sasata (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 20:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Tuyuhun invasion of Gansu
- ... that two dancing girls lewdly performed an obscene dance (statue pictured) in front of Tuyuhun soldiers, while Chai Shao attacked them in the rear with his cavalry?
Created by Typing General (talk). Self nominated at 09:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Special request: Please keep this in the queue until the picture of the statue can be posted as the lead hook. I wanted to highlight the statue as much as the actual article. If that means a delay of a few more days, I'm fine with it, but I really want the picture to be posted.--Typing General (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Phil Robertson
- ... that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty (pictured) played first string quarterback ahead of NFL hall-of-famer Terry Bradshaw in college at Louisiana Tech University?
Created/expanded by Carwile2 (talk). Self nominated at 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
The Idolmaster Live For You!
- ... that it would take about 300 billion years without sleep to view every possible combination of content in the video game The Idolmaster Live For You!?
-
- Reviewed: Transammonia
-
- Comment: Article expansion began on July 31.
5x expanded by Juhachi (talk). Self nominated at 11:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Now I know what to do during my idle time... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Britt Westbourne
- ... that actress Kelly Thiebaud, known for her role as the antagonistic Britt Westbourne on General Hospital, previously appeared in music videos for French disc jockey David Guetta?
Created/expanded by Arre 9 (talk). Self nomination at 09:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
Expanded more than five-fold, text of qualifying length plus. The hook is referenced to a RS, refers to real world aspect of the actress playing the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
First Presbyterian Church (Coldwater, Michigan)
- ... that because of its large seating capacity, Coldwater, Michigan's First Presbyterian Church also served as a public auditorium?
-
- ALT1:... that speakers at Coldwater, Michigan's First Presbyterian Church included Sojourner Truth and Elizabeth Cady Stanton?
-
- ALT2:... that the steeple of First Presbyterian Church in Coldwater is one of the tallest in southern Michigan?
-
- Reviewed: IOU
5x expanded by Chris857 (talk). Self nominated at 00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
2013 Pocono IndyCar 400
- ... that although Andretti Autosport drivers started 1–2–3 for the 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400, Chip Ganassi Racing drivers finished the race 1–2–3?
-
- ALT1:... that six drivers were penalized for unapproved engine changes prior to the 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400?
-
- ALT2:... that the 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400 was the first IndyCar race held at Pocono Raceway since 1989?
-
- ALT3:... that Chip Ganassi Racing's 1–2–3 finish at the 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400 was the first time a team swept the podium at a Triple Crown race since 1979?
-
- ALT4:... that Scott Dixon's win in the 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400 was Honda's 200th IndyCar win and Chip Ganassi Racing's 100th?
-
- ALT5:... that although Scott Dixon led only one lap in 2013, he led 38 laps in the 2013 Pocono IndyCar 400?
Created by NFLisAwesome (talk). Self nominated at 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Addleshaw Tower
- ... that Addleshaw Tower (pictured) in Chester is the first free-standing bell tower to be built by an English cathedral since the 15th century?
-
- Reviewed: Lufthansa Flight 615
Created by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nominated at 14:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Everything checks out, good to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
George Livermore
- ... that although George Livermore dropped out of school at the age of 14, he was given an honorary degree of master of arts by Harvard College?
Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self nominated at 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Reviewed In a World...
Date, size, hook neutrality and refs all ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible
... that after Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible was issued in 1643 his soldiers always beat the enemy in any battle they fought?Withdraw original hook, see ALT1.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self nominated at 12:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
- Reviewed The Idolmaster Dearly Stars
- (#5 ref) Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that was founded to build an Internet library. Its purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. Its wording is: In 1643 appeared this little manual for the English army. Cromwell declares, Accordingly, I raised such men as had the fear of God before them and made some conscience of what they did. And from that day forward they never were beaten, but whenever they were engaged against the enemy, they beat continually.
- (#6 ref) The Boston Athenæum, a membership library is an active institution that serves a wide variety of members and scholars with more than 600,000 titles in its book collection. The Boston Athenæum functions as a public library for many of its members, with a large and distinguished circulating collection.
- (#7 ref) Christian Work Company has been publishing Christian related books since the middle of the ninteenth century. Alexander McConnell and William Revell Moody have written several reference books. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't matter where the sources are deposited, it's the sources themselves that matter. A claim from Cromwell himself that his armies were never beaten after they were issued with Bibles is clearly not a reliable claim, and a Christian press ca. 1900s is also at the very least questionable. So I think you would at least have to modify the hook to clarify that this a claim not an established fact - either that or find some better sources or a different hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- ALT1 ... that every soldier in Cromwell's army was provided in 1643 with a soldier's pocket booklet version of the Geneva Bible, with just 16 pages of verses which pertained to war? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that every soldier in Cromwell's army was provided in 1643 with a soldier's pocket pamphlet version of the Geneva Bible, with just 16 pages of verses which pertained to war? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- The alt hook looks fine, but I think the article is lacking in solid secondary sources which provide significant coverage per WP:GNG. Here is one source you could add that would clearly demonstrate notability - it also contains some additional info you might like to add to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Gatoclass for the Daniell source suggestion. I have expanded article using the source and added some additional inline references pointing to this source.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Have added several additional secondary sources for references.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- The alt hook looks fine, but I think the article is lacking in solid secondary sources which provide significant coverage per WP:GNG. Here is one source you could add that would clearly demonstrate notability - it also contains some additional info you might like to add to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
Spiritual Milk for Boston Babes
- ... that Spiritual Milk for Boston Babes is the first known children's book published in America?
Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self nominated at 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
Accepted. King Jakob C2 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewed International Velvet (album)
WBSC (AM)
- ... that WBSC (AM) was featured in a 2008 South Carolina Educational Television documentary about the plight of local radio stations only to fall silent three years later?
-
- Comment: I expanded the article, but Dravecky found the documentary information, hence the co-nomination.
5x expanded by Neutralhomer (talk), Dravecky (talk). Nominated by Neutralhomer (talk) at 08:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
Bookless libraries
- ... that bookless libraries are libraries that do not have books?
Created by Libraryowl (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 05:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
- ALT1: ... ... that bookless libraries consist of all-digital collections instead of printed works? Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
1970 Colombia earthquake
- ... that the 1970 Colombia earthquake, which measured 8.0 on the Richter scale, was the largest earthquake with a deep focus until the 1994 Bolivia earthquake?
-
- Reviewed: Sonja Schlesin
Created by Ceranthor (talk). Self nominated at 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
- ALT1: ... that the 1970 Colombia earthquake reached as far north as Mexico City, despite being at a depth of 651 km (405 mi)?
-
for the initial hook. Prose length exceeds 1,500 characters. Not finding any copyright violations. Information in the hook is sourced in the article. Every paragraph (sans the lead) has at least one citation. Note that ALT1 above does not appear to be sourced within the article, so this review is only in approval of the original hook at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Geoffrey Davis (doctor)
- ... that Geoffrey Davis compared the mass rapes during the Bangladesh Liberation War to the Nazi Lebensborn program?
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 15:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Addleshaw Tower Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on August 1
Royal Pavilion Tavern
- ... that Brighton's Royal Pavilion Tavern (pictured) was home to the town's Hundred Court in the early 19th century?
-
- Reviewed: Michael Gathy (review #4) from the six-part nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Gathy, Athanasios Polychronopoulos, Marco Johnson and Matthew Ashton
-
- Comment: Fact is referenced by ref [12]. I am aware that a previous version of this article was deleted at AfD in 2006. I have not seen, and am not able to see, the old article's content, but I suspect it was unreferenced. I believe I have now done enough to establish the subject's notability, so hopefully the old AfD is no longer relevant.
Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nominated at 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Les Revenants (album)
- ... that Scottish band Mogwai began work on the soundtrack of French drama Les Revenants after reading only a few translated scripts?
-
- Comment: Probably the best thing I've seen on television in years, and I've been listening to this album on loop for the last couple of days. I intend to expand this one further later, but, for now, I hope you'll agree that this makes a nice DYK.
5x expanded by J Milburn (talk). Self nominated at 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Ohlange High School
- ... that Nelson Mandela went especially to Ohlange High School to see a grave and to place his vote in South Africa's first free election?
-
- Comment: help yourself if you have another alt - I reviewed Broadholme Priory
5x expanded by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Disappearance of Charlene Downes
- ... that Charlene Downes, a fourteen-year-old teenager from Blackpool, United Kingdom, disappeared on 1 November 2003?
Created by Grandiose (talk). Self nominated at 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar
- ... that The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar is a late 15th-century manuscript recording the histories of England and of Bristol, the civic customs and list of mayors?
- Reviewed: Britt Westbourne
Created by Jezhotwells (talk). Self nominated at 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
- ... that The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar is a late 15th-century manuscript recording both the history of England and the history of Bristol, its civic customs and a list of its mayors? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I like this, hook improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
- ... that depending on the circumstances of exposure, tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (structure pictured) can cause hypotension, hypertension, or an increase or decrease in heart rate?
-
- Comment: It seems interesting that one compound can cause opposite symptoms depending on circumstances.
Moved to mainspace by King jakob c 2 (talk). Self nominated at 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Transportation of animals
- ... that a 400-pound (180 kg) tapir was transported by being sent in the post?
Created by Seal Boxer (talk). Self nominated at 12:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
-
Article is not new enough, nor has it undergone a recent 5x expansion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - WikiDan61, Hi. I would just like to point out that this article was in the process of going through the procedure for Did You Know and was rejected for reasons that seem unusual to me - namely that I was absent on a WikiBreak. The original nomination was made just after the article was created - are you saying that this beurocracy has caused the article to lose any chance it can have of being part of a Did You know??? Seal Boxer (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - In taking your WikiBreak when you did, you effectively abandoned the prior DYK nomination and so it was closed. This is not the bureaucracy's fault; you are the one who took the break, not the reviewers. The new nomination is invalid because the article is no longer eligible for a DYK nomination. Others may disagree with me -- mine is not the final word on the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Response - Thank you for clarifying. I did not realise that I would have to nurse the article through each step of the nomination. If this nomination is indeed rejected, is there a way to reprise the previous one? Seal Boxer (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Reply Unknown (I'll defer to others who are more familiary with the DYK process), but doubtful. The whole point of the DYK process is to highlight the newest content of the encyclopedia; this article simply no longer counts among that population. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- For reference, the previous nomination was: Template:Did you know nominations/Animal transportation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Transammonia
- ... that Transammonia is the world's largest private company in fertilizer trading and merchandising?
Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self nominated at 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
I suggest that the "History" section be expanded slightly along with the addition of at least one more section (such as "Operations") to make it a more complete article. Alex ShihTalk 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- While that would be nice, and in time will likely occur, the above expansion criteria doesn't appear to be part of the DYK Rules, Eligibility criteria or Supplementary guidelines. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
-
History of the Jews in Namibia
- ... that the first Jews settled in Namibia in the 1800s?
Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nominated at 04:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
History of the Jews in Zambia
- ... that the Jewish population of Zambia was about 1,000–1,200 people at its peak, but is only about 35 people right now?
Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nominated at 05:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
-
Barely passes the qualifying characters, but the article length in terms of content does not seem to be long enough. Lack of lead section along with a few close paraphrasing from pretty much the only source. Alex ShihTalk 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
- ... that the makeup for Johnny Knoxville's character in Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa took three hours to apply?
Created/expanded by Koala15 (talk), LuK3 (talk). Nominated by Beerest355 (talk) at 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
Articles created/expanded on August 2
Toby Saks
- ... that cellist Toby Saks was one of the first female members of the New York Philharmonic?
Created by CAWylie (talk). Self nominated at 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
K-232 (Kansas highway)
- ... that the Post Rock Scenic Byway is so named because of limestone fenceposts?
-
- Comment: Under 5 DYK exception for reviewed article.
Created/expanded by Ks0stm (talk). Self nominated at 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
Special occasion holding area
- Please do not nominate new articles for a special time in this section. Instead, nominate them in the nominations section above, under the date when the article was created or moved to mainspace, or when the expansion began, and indicate your request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
- Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within five days of creation or expansion, as usual, and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
August 31
Diana Russell, Duchess of Bedford
- ... that Lady Diana Spencer (pictured) failed to secretly marry the Prince of Wales because the Prime Minister found out about the scheme?
5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
-
ALT1: ... that Diana, Princess of Wales, was named after another Lady Diana Spencer (pictured), who was also a prospective Princess of Wales and who also died young?- ALT1a: ... that Diana, Princess of Wales, was named after another Lady Diana Spencer (pictured), who was a prospective Princess of Wales and who also died young?
ALT2: ... that Lady Diana Spencer (pictured), undestined Princess of Wales, had a prematurely born son whose death was kept secret from her by replacing him with another baby?- ALT2a: ... that Lady Diana Spencer (pictured), once a prospective Princess of Wales, had a prematurely born son whose death was kept secret from her by replacing him with another baby?
Which of the hooks would be most attractive to readers? Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I just realized that I missed the birthday of the Princess of Wales by one day. Would saving the hook for 31 August (anniversary of the Princess's death) be a good idea? Surtsicna (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, fully referenced. Pic fine. QPQ done. Hook verified against online sources. AGF on ALT hooks with offline sources. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the review! What about the choice of the hook? The original one and ALT2 rely on the likelihood of associating the earlier Lady Diana Spencer with her much better known namesake, while ALT1 directly refers to the Princess. Which one would generate most interest? Anyway, I've decided that it would be best to save it for 31 August. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just realized that I missed the birthday of the Princess of Wales by one day. Would saving the hook for 31 August (anniversary of the Princess's death) be a good idea? Surtsicna (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
I initially moved this back from the special occasion holding area because the requested date, August 31, is outside of the six-week limit for such requests. Is there another date that could be used in the next six weeks (the Diana this is about was born July 31; it'd be her 303rd birthday), or might it just run normally? I'm not sure the modern Diana's death date of August 31 is sufficient to be worth making an exception. However, I have a problem with ALT2: the word "undestined" is not in merriam-webster.com nor in oxforddictionaries.com, so I think it's inappropriate (not to mention confusing) to use in a hook. I also wonder about ALT1, since the modern Diana was an actual Princess of Wales, not merely a prospective one, making "also" somewhat misleading. I do have no objections to the original hook, however, and will happily remove my "?" icon once the ALT hook and special holding issues are settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Oh, no. I did not know that the limit was only 6 weeks! If I knew, I would have kept in my user space for another week. The idea was to launch the hook on the 16th anniversary of the Princess's death, when the article about her gets tens of thousands of views (over 49,000 on 31 August 2012, and it was not even featured on OTD). The birth of the Princess's first grandchild will likely increase the interest in her even more, and therefore also in her namesake. People appear to like reading about her on that day, and this hook would make a really nice tribute (as well as a surprise for the readers). I sincerely hope an exception will be made in this case. Regarding the word "undestined", I too was unsure, having found it in very few dictionaries. I suggest replacing it with "once a prospective". As for ALT1, wasn't the Princess also a prospective Princess of Wales before becoming an actual one? That was what I had in mind, but removing "also" would not be such a big deal, I suppose. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yeah, the only website I found "undestined" at was dictionary.com, but they didn't bother to define it or explain which of the "destined" definitions it worked with, which makes it pretty useless as a listing. ;-) I've struck ALT1 and ALT2 and replaced them with ALT1a and ALT2a using Surtsicna's proposed changes to each. I think, since Surtsicna wasn't aware of the six week limit (the article would have needed to be held until around July 19 before being moved out of user space), I'm more inclined to support an exception. Should we get one other person (maybe an admin like Crisco 1492 or Orlady) to opine on this matter? I'm satisfied with ALT1a and ALT2a wording, though like you, Hawkeye7, I think the original hook is the most effective. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't mind holding it (although yes, next time note the 6 weeks limit) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Consensus seems to be that a hold for August 31 is allowable under the circumstances. Restoring earlier tick, and moving to special holding area. Original hook is preferred by reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- May I suggest using the hook on MainPage on July 29th, the anniversary of the not-so-secret and PM-approved wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer, please? No need to break the 6-week rule, and it would be a better occasion to have some fun, methinks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would much prefer saving it for the anniversary of Diana's death (31 August). The interest in her spikes on that day and is very likely going to be even higher this year due to the birth of her first grandchild. The reviewers kindly accepted my petition for an exception to the 6-week-rule (which I wish I had known about before) because the hook would certainly do best on 31 August. That is the day when people flock to Wikipedia to read about Diana, so it would be nice to present them with something they did not know – this, is after all, the "Did you know" project :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was not thinking about your article per se. I was just considering when it would be a better occasion (anniversary of her wedding vs anniversary of her death) to have some fun on MainPage. I don't want people to flock to Talk:Main Page to complain that we are being disrespectful to the dead. The proposed hook is more related to her wedding than to her death, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing disrespectful in it to either of the two dead women. I understand what your point, though. It would be interesting to have this hook right next to the "On this day" blurb that says that Lady Diana Spencer married the Prince of Wales on that day, but it would also be very confusing to many readers and that would certainly lead to complaints at Talk:Main Page. While the proposed hook is more related to her wedding, both the chosen date and the hook are more related to Diana than to Charles and Diana. The anniversary of the latter's death is more prominent than the anniversary of their wedding. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The hook itself is not disrespectful. But picking the anniversary of her death to do something cute on MainPage? I don't know... Her name is there in the hook, but it's not really about her. I'd be more supportive if we are doing sth to commemorate her or something directly related to her. Deliberately confusing hooks designed to get readers of MainPage to click and read a particular article is something we often have at DYK. I just don't think the anniversary of someone's death is a good occasion for such fun. --PFHLai (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never intended it to be fun. I simply thought this Diana was someone people would like to learn about when they come to read about the Diana. Anyway, I nominated another article related to her and suggested 29 July as the appropriate date 10 minutes ago. Would that work well on 29 July? Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think both hooks are good for 29th July (maybe back-to-back hook-sets? but the other one needs to be approved by 28th July). --PFHLai (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- The user who reviewed the other article suggested using both on 31 August. I think one (this one) should be used on 31 August and the other one on 29 July, but if both should for some reason be used on the same day, I'm more inclined to agree with the reviewer who suggested 31 August. Surtsicna (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd recommend the failed secret marriage hook to be used on the wedding anniversary (July 29th), but the dress hook would be good for either anniversary (July 29th or August 31st). I'd avoid being playful on a relevant death anniversary. I think I've written enough on this point. I'll let the hook promoter decide the dates. --PFHLai (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The user who reviewed the other article suggested using both on 31 August. I think one (this one) should be used on 31 August and the other one on 29 July, but if both should for some reason be used on the same day, I'm more inclined to agree with the reviewer who suggested 31 August. Surtsicna (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think both hooks are good for 29th July (maybe back-to-back hook-sets? but the other one needs to be approved by 28th July). --PFHLai (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never intended it to be fun. I simply thought this Diana was someone people would like to learn about when they come to read about the Diana. Anyway, I nominated another article related to her and suggested 29 July as the appropriate date 10 minutes ago. Would that work well on 29 July? Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- The hook itself is not disrespectful. But picking the anniversary of her death to do something cute on MainPage? I don't know... Her name is there in the hook, but it's not really about her. I'd be more supportive if we are doing sth to commemorate her or something directly related to her. Deliberately confusing hooks designed to get readers of MainPage to click and read a particular article is something we often have at DYK. I just don't think the anniversary of someone's death is a good occasion for such fun. --PFHLai (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing disrespectful in it to either of the two dead women. I understand what your point, though. It would be interesting to have this hook right next to the "On this day" blurb that says that Lady Diana Spencer married the Prince of Wales on that day, but it would also be very confusing to many readers and that would certainly lead to complaints at Talk:Main Page. While the proposed hook is more related to her wedding, both the chosen date and the hook are more related to Diana than to Charles and Diana. The anniversary of the latter's death is more prominent than the anniversary of their wedding. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was not thinking about your article per se. I was just considering when it would be a better occasion (anniversary of her wedding vs anniversary of her death) to have some fun on MainPage. I don't want people to flock to Talk:Main Page to complain that we are being disrespectful to the dead. The proposed hook is more related to her wedding than to her death, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would much prefer saving it for the anniversary of Diana's death (31 August). The interest in her spikes on that day and is very likely going to be even higher this year due to the birth of her first grandchild. The reviewers kindly accepted my petition for an exception to the 6-week-rule (which I wish I had known about before) because the hook would certainly do best on 31 August. That is the day when people flock to Wikipedia to read about Diana, so it would be nice to present them with something they did not know – this, is after all, the "Did you know" project :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: Please take extra time to ensure that Gibraltar-related articles are free from COI and POV concerns before approving for the main page.
Note: No more than one Gibraltar hook should appear on the main page in any 24-hour period
Note: Please place new articles at the bottom of this section. Thank you.
Footpaths of Gibraltar
- ... that the footpaths of Gibraltar (Douglas Path pictured) were originally created to enable cannons and troops to ascend the Rock of Gibraltar?
Created by Prioryman (talk), Gibmetal77 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 10:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
- Notification to reviewers
- Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews. When you have completed a review, please update the respective table below to change the background color to green and note that the review has been completed.
First review required |
So there were no footpaths in Gibraltar before this? This seems extremely unlikely, as most inhabited places in the middle ages were filled with footpaths, not for cannons and troops, but for the people who lived there. Fram (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- People lived (and still live) at the bottom of the Rock of Gibraltar. There's nowhere to live on the heights of the Rock, which is where these footpaths are. They were created for military use, not to allow people to go to where they lived. That's why they lead to fortifications, not houses - a fact which is quite obvious to anyone who's walked on those paths (as I have). The hook fact is cited and the source is quite explicit on that point. Your objection is a classic argument from ignorance and I note that you've not bothered to assess the article against any of the DYK criteria. This is quite clearly POINTy behaviour motivated by your long-standing opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you are going to abuse the process like this, you should not be reviewing any Gibraltar-related nominations. Prioryman (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
At most that requires a change to the hook, regarding "footpaths on the rock of Gibraltar". Fram, don't be so quick to use the X symbol when we can still fix the issue easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- If the article is about the footpaths on the Rock only, then both the hook and the article need a lot of work to indicate this. The "footpaths of Gibraltar" are not just a bunch of selected non-notable footpaths on the rock (note that e.g. the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath was recreated nearly verbatim in "footpaths of Gibraltar"; this is now a copyvio by Prioryman. Talking about "abuse of process"... Fram (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- It takes a retitle and attribution in an edit summary (or I could do a history merge, easy enough). That being said, if you were looking for an issue with the article, you could point that out and see if there was a 5X expansion from the existing material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, the hook issue that Fram raises can be resolved very simply by adding "many of" to the hook, which I've now done.
- Second, the article is not simply a recreation of the deleted Devil's Gap Footpath; I have reused only some of the content from that. I was already working on a separate article on Royal Anglian Way when the deletion discussion happened and decided to combine all of the footpaths into a single article. It's not a 5x expansion from any previous article and given that Devil's Gap Footpath was deleted, it would be inappropriate to use that as a baseline anyway.
- Third, talk of a "copyvio" is absolute bullshit. Gibmetal77, the author of the Devil's Gap Footpath content, has absolutely no problem with it (I asked him).
- Fourth, a history merge sounds fine to me. I had already credited Gibmetal77 in this nomination to recognise his contribution to it, but I was already discussing with TheOverflow how the other article's contribution history could be reflected (see User talk:Prioryman#DYK Nomination of Footpaths of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Prioryman, attribution still needs to be given (CC-BY-SA, right?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I just wasn't sure what the best way of giving attribution would be. I specifically credited Gibmetal77 to acknowledge the three paras that he wrote and I reused. If you think a history merge would work, then please do so. Prioryman (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hist merge completed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that the rejected hook is not the hook at the top of this nomination, it was changed after the rejection instead of adding an Alt1. Anyway, if the article is only about footpaths in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, it should change its name to reflect this. If it is about all of Gibraltar, it should change its contents. And recreating a deleted article verbatim is bad practice, no matter if you have permission of the original author. To recreate a non notable article nearly completely and verbatim as part of an overview article of non notable subjects (and one which may be notable, the Mediterranean steps) is just an end-run around community consensus. Fram (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I will make it an ALT1 if it will keep you happy (fat chance!):
- ALT1: ... that many of the footpaths of Gibraltar (Douglas Path pictured) were originally created to enable cannons and troops to ascend the Rock of Gibraltar?"
- Second, the footpaths are not wholly in the nature reserve and I wanted to leave scope for local editors to add other footpaths. Third, the deleted article was not recreated "nearly completely and verbatim" - I reused three paragraphs which I edited further. This discussion would be a lot more conducive if you avoided lying about my contributions, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Original article[34] vs. your unattributed recreation[35]
- The Devil's Gap Path commences at the eastern boundary of the Upper Town at the junction of Devil's Gap Road with Baca's Passage. It proceeds in a mostly southerly direction until it reaches a viewing point where a flight of steps link it to Green Lane just south of Devil's Gap Battery in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve.
- The path commences at the eastern boundary of the Upper Town at the junction of Devil's Gap Road with Baca's Passage. It proceeds in a mostly southerly direction before reaching a flight of steps which link it to Green Lane
- Although difficult to say for sure, it is thought that the path has been in existence since at least the early 18th century but definitely since the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-83). Older maps of the area show paths leading from the town to the Upper Rock but none seem to follow the current route. Luis Bravo de Acuña's 1627 "Plan of Gibraltar" shows that the eastern limits of the town were well below the current level. The natural route from the town to the Upper Rock at the time would have been via Charles V Wall.
- Although difficult to say for sure, it is thought that the path has been in existence since at least the early 18th century but definitely since the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-83). Older maps of the area show paths leading from the town to the Upper Rock but none seem to follow the current route. Luis Bravo de Acuña's 1627 "Plan of Gibraltar" shows that the eastern limits of the town were well below the current level. The natural route from the town to the Upper Rock at the time would have been via Charles V Wall.
- As part of the refurbishment works, the path was widened by pruning overgrown trees and shrubs and the drains were unclogged to prevent the path from puddling after rains. Information display panels carrying historical information about the path and on the wildlife that can be found there, together with a picnic table and waste bins designed to keep out Gibraltar's Barbary macaques were also added along the path. The project was announced by Minister for Health and the Environment Dr. John Cortes and led by Carl Viagas with the Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society and the Gibraltar Heritage Trust overseeing it to ensure the project was carried out in a sensitive manner.
- As part of the refurbishment works, the path was widened by pruning overgrown trees and shrubs and the drains were unclogged to prevent the path from puddling after rains. Information display panels carrying historical information about the path and on the wildlife that can be found there, together with a picnic table and waste bins designed to keep out Gibraltar's Barbary macaques were also added along the path. The Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society and the Gibraltar Heritage Trust oversaw it to ensure the work was carried out in a sensitive manner
You reused three paragraphs, of the original four... Fram (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Comment History merge completed, so that issue is settled (as it relates to this article... if it is a habit of Prioryman's, that requires discussion elsewhere). My count indicates that 5X from material derived from that article has been attained, so no worries about length there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Second review required |