Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DYK queue status

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.
"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 27 1 1
August 28 1 1
August 31 1
September 3 2
September 5 1 1
September 13 1
September 17 1
September 18 2 1
September 24 2
September 26 1
September 28 2
October 2 1
October 3 2 1
October 4 1 1
October 6 2
October 8 2
October 9 2 1
October 12 1 1
October 14 2
October 15 1
October 16 2 2
October 17 1
October 18 1
October 19 1
October 20 3
October 21 4 3
October 22 4 1
October 24 2 1
October 25 2
October 26 4 2
October 28 1 1
October 30 5 3
October 31 1
November 1 5 2
November 2 3 1
November 3 5 3
November 4 3 1
November 5 6 3
November 6 2
November 7 7 3
November 8 2
November 9 5 4
November 10 2 1
November 11 3 2
November 12 6 4
November 13 7 3
November 14 13 5
November 15 4 2
November 16 9 3
November 17 7 1
November 18 7 1
November 19 6 1
November 20 4 1
November 21 10 3
November 22 9 1
November 23 8 3
November 24 2
November 25 7
November 26 3
November 27 4 1
November 28 7 1
November 29 10
November 30 5 1
December 1 9 1
December 2 7 2
December 3 9 1
December 4 7 1
December 5 5 1
December 6 5
December 7 7 1
December 8 1
December 9 5 1
Total 286 80
Last updated 17:23, 9 December 2023 UTC
Current time is 17:26, 9 December 2023 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the supplementary guidelines.

Click here to nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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


Instructions for reviewers[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

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

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

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

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.
  • After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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

Advanced procedures[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Handy copy sources:

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • 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[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on August 31[edit]

Kathanar – The Wild Sorcerer

(
)

Created by Jupitus Smart (talk). Self-nominated at 12:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kathanar - The Wild Sorcerer; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Reviewer needed to do a full review, including of the proposed replacement hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long enough, new enough. No neutrality problems found, no copyright issues found, and I've taken the liberty of unclassifying this as a stub because it clearly isn't one. The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable per WP:RSP, and so I'd like to see a better source for any hook.--Launchballer 07:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jupitus Smart: Please address the concerns above. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, @Z1720: and @Launchballer: for the delay. Cinema Express (it is a part of The New Indian Express) also has an extended coverage of the items in the hook and the it can be viewed here - https://www.cinemaexpress.com/malayalam/news/2023/jun/02/kathanar-team-completes-first-schedule-44168.html. Jupitus Smart 18:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good. Now let's see it in the article and I'll approve this.--Launchballer 22:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the scrappiness, @Launchballer:. It has been a long time since my last DYK. The reference was already in the article, and I have now reordered it to reference the hook at the right place. Thanks. Jupitus Smart 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it is. Let's roll.--Launchballer 14:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jupitus Smart, Launchballer, and AirshipJungleman29: my apologies for yanking the rug out, but something came up that I thought merited more discussion. Secretlondon, at WP:ERRORS, suggested that the hook reads like ad copy – given that the source is mainly a parroting of the director's Instagram post, I'm inclined towards it having merit. What do y'all think? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The content also appeared in Cinemaexpress, for which I'm satisfied with Jupitus' rationale. At the time I approved this, it was only sourced to Cinemaexpress but I see that the Times of India made its way back in. I've taken it back out.--Launchballer 09:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 3[edit]

25 Water Street

(
)
55 Water Street
55 Water Street

There's an ALT hook I don't particularly encourage and haven't included as an option, but some sources claim that the building's design, including its narrow windows, was based on a punched card. This sounds too dumb to actually be true, though, so seems more like local lore repeated. Created by SnowFire (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by SnowFire (talk) at 05:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/25 Water Street; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @SnowFire and Epicgenius: New and long enough, Earwig detects no copyvios, QPQ done. What sources talk about the punched-card-like design? It's healthy to be skeptical, but if multiple sources say that and none explicitly question it, it shouldn't be excluded in the article since that's a form of original research. It would actually make a good hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I guess that's the penalty for mentioning it... [1] (same source as above) says "It was designed to look like a punch card and housed telecommunications offices and equipment", [2] says "The building was designed in the 1960s to look like a punched card, as a nod to the tech and telecommunications offices it housed" (a sentence so similar it might have been directly based on the Gothamist article). That said, we have editorial discretion here. These are two random sentences that could well be the result of a game of journalistic telephone. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and while I agree that it'd be cool to include if it true, I'm really not sold on it being true yet. Meanwhile, "biggest in the US" seems like a, well, bigger fact for a hook anyway. I'll go ahead and email the journalists and see if they are interested in responding as to where this fact came from, but even if it ends up included in the article, I'd personally lean toward the original hook anyway. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not an extraordinary claim, it seems quite reasonable that an architect would design a building in this way. Also, we don't have "editorial discretion" on Wikipedia, which would be original research, but we do assess whether sources are reliable or not. If those two sources aren't good enough for you, have you tried to find a contemporaneous source on the building's design (Newspapers.com is useful for this, which is free for experienced Wikipedians), or even one from an architecture-specific publication? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SnowFire and Antony-22: Just chiming in briefly, but newspapers.com doesn't have comprehensive coverage of Manhattan topics between the 1930s and the present; I'd say Newsday and the New York Daily News are the only two major publications on newspapers.com that cover Manhattan. The search results aren't great, since "4 New York Plaza" (the building's original address) is used on tons of advertisements and notices, including those for the Daily News which had offices there. However, I did find this source, which honestly has a ton of info that could be added to the article, including the windows' exact dimensions and the reasoning for the relative lack of windows. Epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that sounds about right and as expected, it was to make air conditioning more efficient not a weird fancy about punch cards. I've integrated the source; a great find! (Although as a side note, the article mentions that the "contract price" was 2.4 million under estimate - but that's kinda vague. Whose estimate? Who got the saved money - the architecture firm, the building owners, someone else?) SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also did some searching myself and didn't find anything contemporaneous about a punch card design. This was the most relevant source I found, which interestingly says that the bricks we chosen to blend with surrounding 19th-century structures, all of which were soon demolished anyway. Hook checks out, so this is good to go. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(de-indent) Nice find! I've integrated the 1979 source as well on the bricks. SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulled from queue after this discussion at Errors:

  • ... that the largest office-to-residential building conversion in the United States is underway at 25 Water Street?
    It sounds like spin, doesn't it? Two references for the hook. One (Gothamist) has the disclaimer "according to its owners", the other a site called New York YIMBY says it's the largest "per unit count". I expect this also comes from the developers. According to this these are only plans awaiting approval, and the large number of units would involve some units without bedroom windows (which isn't allowed in New York). We shouldn't be stating this as fact in wikivoice. Secretlondon (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The latter source from August 2023 says that the developers "have announced plans" for a building conversion. I share your concern and suggest we pull the hook. Premeditated Chaos, is that ok with you? Schwede66 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not a problem, I'm sorry I missed it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll put the nomination back into the unapproved pile. Ping Secretlondon and Premeditated Chaos for info. Schwede66 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I think the existing hook is fine. Of course it's sourced to the owners - but that is the nature of a planned change, and this would seem a very difficult thing to "lie" about. Describing this as merely "announced plans" is wildly misleading - I can literally see the workers going at it, and there are pictures in the article of the renovation underway. It is not a planned renovation, it is a currently underway renovation. There was a $536 million loan to make this go. It's happening.
  • The Debevois source brought up by Secretlondon says: Though zoning regulations and building code hurdles remain, including density restrictions and the requirement of windows in bedrooms, Mayor Adams has pledged to reexamine some of these restrictions. This is nothing like saying that the renovation won't still happen and be the largest in the United States. It just means that there will be challenges in the future. I suppose the argument is that this is the largest office-to-residential conversion by unit count, and maybe the zoning regulations will require fewer, larger apartments, to compensate the window problem... but I'm still not sold that even in this possible scenario, it's a major problem with the hook. It's just... thought experiment. Suppose a total disaster happens and 25 Water ends up unfinished and abandoned like the Ryugyong Hotel. Then this hook would still be accurate in retrospect, IMO. That would mean that someone tried to do the largest office-to-residential conversion, it was indeed underway circa 2023, but it failed. The same should be true if zoning regulations require reshuffling of how many apartments get stuffed in.
  • I'm open to suggestions, but per above, the hook is accurately describing the current situation as stated in reliable sources, with the usual proviso that we don't have a crystal ball to see the future. But that's true of lots of hooks. SnowFire (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know how to move forward here. I actually dislike overly promotional hooks myself at DYK but disagree this in particular was a promotional hook (you can't buy condos or rent there yet!). This isn't the kind of meaningless critical babble like "Did you know Some Reviewer said Some Media Work was Totally Badass". There was nothing wrong with the original hook and I don't see a better one. I'll ping Secretlondon again - do you agree with the argument above? If not, what would make this hook qualify in your view to avoid controversy? I stated my case a long time ago above, but if I did find a brave person ready to promote again, I don't want just another trip back to ERRORS. SnowFire (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The original hook failed at Errors, so I have struck it. Attempting to put it through again simply isn't going to fly, and will result in another trip back to Errors. If another hook cannot be proposed, then this nomination cannot proceed, and will be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Do you want to take over this and propose another hook? I honestly thought this had already closed permanently and didn't realize this was still considered live. I remain utterly baffled that a claim that is barely promotional at all (is number of apartments really a selling point? Wouldn't a promotional hook be more about how luxurious and fantastic it'd be?) is considered promotional, so therefore I'm unable to really fix this, because apparently any fact about the building is promotional or something. If you don't have any ideas either then we can just let it close, but up to you. (I mean, I guess I could go for a negative fact like the criticized windows, but that doesn't appear fair either, or really interesting.) SnowFire (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sure. I can propose something like:
      • ALT2: ... that 25 Water Street was designed to blend in with historic brick buildings that no longer exist? Tauranac, John (1979). Essential New York : A Guide to the History and Architecture of Manhattan's Important Buildings, Parks, and Bridges. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. pp. 226–227.
      • ALT3: ... that parts of 25 Water Street had few windows to make it easier to air-condition computers? Dixon, John Morris (January–February 1970). "Bulwark In Lower Manhattan". Architectural Forum. Vol. 132, no. 1. pp. 62–67.
    • Maybe I can take a stab at expanding the page a bit if these don't work out. Epicgenius (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)

(
)

Created by ElijahPepe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

Overall: ElijahPepe, great work. Thank you for creating this much-needed article on a cultural landmark of the 21st century. I had to check a few times that this article didn't already exist - I struggled to believe it. It is very well written and very well sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onceinawhile and ElijahPepe: In the article I am not sure the youtube video should be where it is per MOS:LAYOUT. Also I think we need to attribute the quotes in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure where you're getting either from. The placement of the videos is fine and the quote has been attributed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t mind re MOS:LAYOUT, but it isn’t a requirement for DYK. The article is up for GA, so should be covered there.
On the quote, it is inline attributed in the article. I don’t think it needs to be inline attributed in the hook, partly because it encourages clicks, but mainly because the statement is “sky is blue”, as most Key&Peele sketches are about this topic. What we could do is reword, remove the quotation marks, and replace the dual identity with a link to the article Double consciousness. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onceinawhile and ElijahPepe: I mentioned MOS:LAYOUT as FYI. But the quotation in the hook is from the podcast Code Switch. Maybe @Theleekycauldron: can help? Bruxton (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(here by request) NPR is reliable for its opinion, and constitutes due weight, but the hook will need to be attributed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is an option...
@Onceinawhile and ElijahPepe: What do you both think? Bruxton (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK here. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this hook could use more work. Even within the confines of DYKFICTION, we have secondary analysis of some of the sketch's distinctive quotes:

Qin also highlights the word choice used by Garvey, contrasting his slang with his use of words such as "insubordinate and churlish", "mischievous and deceitful", and "chicanerous and deplorable", the lattermost use of "chicanery" being an attempt to use parallelism.

This is an interesting and famous sketch, but the current hook doesn't even clearly express what it is. Could we experiment with something off the analysis of the sketch's language? Vaticidalprophet 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I also gotta scratch my head at the submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sommer Ray as a QPQ. I know this is annoying, since we assume in good faith that anyone that writes a full review has done one, but not writing a full review (in this case, only the QPQ and hook were checked) can't count, especially when the article was subsequently maintenance tagged. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll also throw in my suggestion, the result of workshopping between myself, Vati, and Elijah at different times:
  • ALT1: ... that the Key & Peele sketch "Substitute Teacher" juxtaposes language like "insubordinate and churlish" with slang?
Given that it's a secondary interpretation of the plot, I think it clears the DYKFICTION bar. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onceinawhile: As the original reviewer, can you evaluate the new ALT hooks above? Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a fan of ALT1, as it is quite tangential to the topic. How about:
  • ALT2: …that the Key & Peele sketch "Substitute Teacher" has been analyzed for its racial commentary and educational insight?
I think it will surprise readers in a positive way. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ElijahPepe: Thoughts on ALT2? Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for ALT2 above. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT2a: …that the Key & Peele sketch "Substitute Teacher" was analyzed for its racial commentary and educational insight?

Articles created/expanded on September 13[edit]

SPICES (Scouting)

(
)

Created by Bogger (talk). Self-nominated at 14:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/SPICES (Scouting); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • I am afraid this article requires additional work, Bogger. Although it is technically long enough, much of it is due to the lead, which summarizes the rest of the article; and a section has been tagged as incomplete since September. Furthermore, I am concerned about the sources: for example, I do not see where citation #4 verifies the sentence. The article relies almost exclusively on sources which are not "independent of the subject", which throws into question the subject's notability and the article's neutrality. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bogger: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Surtsicna:I've removed the incomplete template, and added more sources. Happy to let this nomination go due to the sources being two dependent/inter-related. Thanks for the review -Bogger (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 17[edit]

Mel Bartholomew

(
)
A basic, 4x4, 16-unit square-foot garden
A basic, 4x4, 16-unit square-foot garden

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mel Bartholomew; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General eligibility:

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was nominated on 27 Sep, which I think is ten days after it was moved to mainspace, but I'm prepared to let it through if the promoter agrees to bend the rules.

  • Sources - all good, taking the NYT ones on AGF as I cannot read them. Reference 5 needs tidying up, it is a bare URL and needs converting to cite news template or similar, with a date.
  • "Square" of square foot gardening has been capitalised in places in the article - it shouldn't be, going by the style in the linked article about it (and therefore also needs lowercasing in hook).
  • Hook - I was actually able to read the paywalled NYT ref through Earwig (forgot about that as a trick!) but it reports the quote as "I garden with a salad bowl in mind, not a wheel barrel". That's a bit odd (I've never heard of a wheel barrel) but is apparently a common mistake in English according to Google so is possibly an accurate quote....can you confirm if original article says wheel barrow or barrel?

Otherwise all good, and I find the GIF eye-catching. DrThneed (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) DrThneed (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thriley: Have the above been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to make a new hook that flows a bit better. Thriley (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thriley: Have you been able to propose that new hook yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT1 that Mel Bartholomew, who developed the time-saving Square foot gardening method, said that he gardened "with a salad bowl in mind, not a wheelbarrow"? Thriley (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Source: "He said of his philosophy, “I garden with a salad bowl in mind, not a wheelbarrow.”"Reply[reply]

Have you fixed other issues noted in my review, Thriley? The s of square foot should not be capitalised (affects hook) and a ref format needs fixing. Otherwise OK. DrThneed (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thriley: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup. All has been fixed up. Thriley (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging reviewer DrThneed to return to this review when they can to see whether all issues have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reformatting ALT1 as ALT1a to deal with the hook issue raised by DrThneed and fix other formatting; striking ALT1 (and the original hook that ALT1 replaced). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Articles created/expanded on September 18[edit]

Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman

(
)
  • ... that six years after Sydney Land was shot to death together with her boyfriend, her mother and a judge friend both committed suicide? Source: But on Aug. 10, 2022, Connie Land committed suicide with a single bullet ending her misery. Then, on Jan. 20, Andress-Tobiasson, 55, joined her friend in death when she shot herself at her $2 million Vegas mansion. [3]
    • ALT1: ... that after Sydney Land was shot to death together with her boyfriend, her family publicized the unsolved case on digital billboards? Source: Since the killings, the Land family has spoken to local and national reporters, and even placed Sydney’s portrait on electronic billboards in the Las Vegas area. [4]
    • ALT2: ... that a Las Vegas judge who was forced to resign over her involvement in the investigation of the shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman later committed suicide? Source: A former Las Vegas judge who resigned from her elected position in 2021 to settle a state ethics and discipline investigation has died, according to authorities. The Clark County coroner’s office confirmed Saturday that Melanie Andress Tobiasson, 55, died Friday from a gunshot wound. The coroner ruled the death a suicide, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. [5]
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Selene Mahri
    • Comment: Although I submitted 3 hooks, I support the promotion of either ALT0 or ALT2, being that they appear to be more compelling than ALT1. On second thought, I think each hook has its merits, so I have no preference. StonyBrook babble 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by StonyBrook (talk). Self-nominated at 05:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Article meets new requirements at the time of nomination and is long enough. Citation is verifiable and I see no glaring errors in the article. Good work! I recommend ALT0, but suggest changing the details a bit to specify that the judge was related to the case (which makes the events more shocking): "that six years after Sydney Land was shot to death together with her boyfriend, her mother and a judge involved with the case both committed suicide?" Panini! • 🥪 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for that review Panini! Based on your input, may I propose the following for ALT0, with slight stylistic changes (feel free to provide any additional feedback): ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who got involved in the investigation committed suicide? StonyBrook babble 08:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Approve the modified alt. Kudos for tackling such a subject! Panini! • 🥪 19:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @StonyBrook, Panini!, and AirshipJungleman29: This one got bumped back at errors – ping when issues are resolved :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Theleekycauldron, Panini!, and AirshipJungleman29: per the feedback at errors, I went ahead and excised the deprecated sources from the article, and modified the text to reflect existing sources. If you examine the above diff, you will see that I also added some information, such as regarding the manner of death, and related events that occurred on October 8. Regarding problems raised with the hook, may I suggest the following modification to ALT0, which is also under the character limit: ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who took an interest in the investigation were found dead of gunshot wounds? StonyBrook babble 03:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @StonyBrook: I would venture that the Toronto Sun is, as a sensationalist tabloid, also not a reliable source. I'd also be concered about whether the incident is notable if it doesn't have significant non-local coverage in RSes, but one thing at a time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StonyBrook: Please address the Toronto Sun concern above. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I am not from Canada, it is not at all clear to me that TS should be characterized as a tabloid instead of simply as a broadsheet. I don't think it would be correct to place it in the same basket as the British tabloids. After reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265 § Is Toronto Sun a reliable source?, I don't see any indication there that TS cannot be used for regular news reporting. There is probably a good reason why TS is not listed at WP:RSP, and not even mentioned at WP:THESUN for that matter. And most of the facts presented in this source have been reported in other sources cited in the article. StonyBrook babble 05:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, what else needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: I would disagree with StonyBrook – the lead of Toronto Sun describes it as a tabloid, reading the source article and front page of the Sun also point towards it being tabloid journalism. It is part of The Sun media network, and I don't see a reason to reject the null hypothesis that it's just as unreliable as the rest of them. On a direction-of-the-project level of thinking, I certainly think that crime should be one of the last places where we indulge the media's desire for "if it bleeds, it leads". So for me, I don't see how I could approve this with the paper still in the refs section. If that's not doable, then i'm happy to let consensus decide if the article can pass as is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on September 24[edit]

Die Kuranten

(
)

5x expanded by Kazamzam (talk). Self-nominated at 19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Die Kuranten; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Not a review, but you might want to link the target article from your proposed hook. Schwede66 19:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Still not a review, but I've been wondering where "Die" in the title comes from. It's a definite article in German, but the Dutch don't use that. I'm wondering whether your reading of this German source somehow convinced you that the title should be Die Kuranten. Because if that's the case, well that's the source of your error / misunderstanding. Schwede66 21:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Schwede66:, thank you for your comment, I have linked the target article. To your second point, I didn't name or create the article. The Die of the title is the Yiddish definite plural article, although it is more commonly written today as di (Yiddish: די). Given that it's a Yiddish-language paper that seems appropriate, particularly different that the title is Kuranten (a plural noun) and that there are two forms of the publication, one published on Tuesdays and one on Fridays. It is also a title that has been used for the publication in English-language print since, per Google Books, 1985, if not earlier. I don't see how this is pertinent to the scope of the DYK review but I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. Kazamzam (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. The target article is supposed to be linked in bold font. And given that it's a newspaper, it should be in italics, too, as per MOS:NAMESANDTITLES. Good to have clarified that "Die" is a definite article in Yiddish. It's not strictly necessary as part of the DYK review to sort out naming issues, but in a roundabout way, it is. When an article is on the main page, it gets thousands of eyes on it and if it's wrong, somebody will no doubt come along and fix it. Firstly, there's WP:DEFINITE and that suggests that "Die" shouldn't be part of the title. Chances are that someone will move the article while it's on the main page, and that would trigger WP:MPNOREDIRECT. Hence the item would turn up at WP:ERRORS, as only admins can fix redirects on the main page. As such, it's best to ensure that the title is correct before we put something up via DYK. With that in mind, do you believe that the article should be moved?
  • And given that I'm commenting on all sorts of issues, I might as well do a proper review of this nomination. Schwede66 01:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think it needs to be changed given there are exceptions to WP:DEFINITE and one of these is The New York Times. Since the guideline explicitly mentions that newspapers are an exception to this, I think the current title is okay. I will double check in the archival material to confirm and get back to you. Thank you for your other suggestions and for being thorough. Kazamzam (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's absolutely not a problem to leave it the way it is. In that case, I will move-protect it for the time that it's on the main page – problem solved. Schwede66 02:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Expansion started yesterday and the article has gone from a short paragraph to a lot of prose; it's plenty long enough. The language is neutral. Referencing is not sufficient; I have tagged all paragraphs that are uncited but there is more content that ought to be referenced apart from those three instances. Earwig is clean. There is one prior DYK credit, hence a QPQ is not required. I cannot sign off on the hook; the source talks about the oldest known Yiddish newspaper in the world whereas the hook says the oldest Jewish newspaper – those are different things. The hook is easy to fix; referencing will require a bit more work. Schwede66 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. I have added references for each of your tags but I agree there could be more - the majority of the information came from the Pach thesis (2014) and I didn't want to over-cite the same source but there are limited references because it's such a niche topic. I will continue working on this throughout the week.
The question of 'oldest Yiddish' vs. 'oldest Jewish' is contentious, but I think the sentence I have moved to the lede and the accompanying references make an argument for why this is the case, as opposed to Gazeta de Amsterdam. That is the oldest Yiddish publication is, as far as I have seen, undisputed in the scholarly literature and I am fine updating the hook to reflex that as more neutral language that would not be disputed. Kazamzam (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way we deal with DYK hooks is that we propose alternatives as ALTx. If you’ve got a different wording in mind, please write it down as ALT1. Don’t amend hooks previously proposed. Schwede66 15:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam: Do you have any ALT hooks you would like to propose below? Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam: has not responded to the ping above, even though they have been editing on Wikipedia. I am marking this as rejected unless they or another editor wishes to proceed with this nomination and propose additional hooks below. Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720:: thank you for your message. I would like to keep the hook as the original 'oldest Jewish newspaper' as I feel that this is supported by the references currently in the article. Is it possible to keep the submission with the original hook, particularly if I include more references?

I will say that, while I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner to your original ping, I was rather put off from continuing with this nomination by the comments above which were quite condescending. It seemed to imply that I didn't know basic information (i.e. the correct definite article) about the topic that I was proposing for a DYK despite having done hours of research and reading on it which the reviewer, if I may presume, has not; the mistaken suggestion about WP:DEFINITE, etc. My first experience with DYK for Wagner Natural Area was very positive and the reviewer was really helpful, so it was surprising to get these comments that did not seem intended to improve the article at all. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam: I have removed the rejected symbol above. I won't comment on the Die concern, but I think the intention was to figure out if it should be included or not. I think the Jewish/Yiddish concern is that the informaiton from the hook does not match the source used to verify the information: This needs to be addressed before this hook can be approved. If any wording is changed from the hook, please do not change the proposed hook above but instead post a new suggestion below as "ALT1" (this helps reviewers follow the discussion. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you refer to the comments above which were quite condescending, you can only mean my initial queries. I have looked over that once more and fail to see why that could be perceived as condescending. I asked questions, gave a reason why I asked those questions (I note that in the German source that I quoted, it says "Die Kuranten", i.e. the definite article was not part of the newspaper's name as it wasn't included in italics), and you replied with a good explanation. Problem solved. Isn't that a totally normal part of editor interaction? Schwede66 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The very first sentence of the article states that it is a Yiddish-language periodical, not a German or Dutch one. You assumed that I had an "error/misunderstanding" and had been mistakenly convinced by one article, rather than the possibility that you were not familiar with this subject. And that's a surprising assumption to make, given that a) you seem to be unfamiliar with Yiddish definite articles, otherwise the grammar of Die in the title would have immediately be clear and b) I effectively rewrote this article from scratch which would require me to know basic information like the name. If you had asked why the article was Die, rather than assuming right away that I had a misunderstanding about the most basic part of an article I spent hours writing, I would have gladly explained that without any hard feelings. That would have been a totally normal part of editor interaction. Kazamzam (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This needs a different reviewer. I won't be signing off on the "oldest Jewish newspaper" claim as I stated above. Somebody else might be happy with the sources. I asked for an ALT hook but nothing's been forthcoming. Schwede66 20:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neighbours 30th Anniversary

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Therealscorp1an (talk). Self-nominated at 22:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Neighbours 30th Anniversary; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Therealscorp1an: Good article. Not exactly a fan of alt0 but the other hooks are decent enough. Though, i'm not seeing where alt1 is cited in the source (also the source is youtube which is something). Nor does the source for alt2 seem to mention that over 44 cast members starred in the anniversary. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kilkelly, Daniel (18 March 2015). "Neighbours producer shares 30th anniversary gossip and teasers". Digital Spy. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
  2. ^ Fletcher, Alan; Mason, James; Dennis, Stefan (4 March 2015). Neighbours Backstage - Erinsborough Festival Disaster!. Neighbours via YouTube. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
  3. ^ Klompus, Jack (27 February 2015). "MasterChef Australia judge Matt Preston to appear on Neighbours". Digital Spy. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
@Onegreatjoke: Hi, thanks for reviewing this! The sources were a long shot because the source only covers Matt Preston's appearance. The over 44 cast members is actually an amalgamation of a bunch of primary sources (the episodes themselves), which wouldn't actually cover all the cast members because a lot of the guest characters (like the Driver or Constable Ian McKay – see the article) were never going to be covered in media sources since, well, they're guest characters. These characters are mentioned in the article, but the episodes themselves serve as the reference. So, yeah, I was a bit iffy on that source, but it served well for Matt Preston and the episodes themselves serve as sources for other 43 cast members. Is there any way we could get around this or anything? Thanks a heap. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: That's definitely interesting of a source choice. I'm not exactly sure if how good of a source that is, especially with the other youtube sources (still not exactly sure how that youtube source fits with alt1 to be honest). It might be good enough to approve though it depends. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: were you able to resolve Onegreatjoke's sourcing concerns? Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I'm so sorry for the late response. No, I wasn't. But perhaps this reference might still work? The issue is, the information in this DYK is not information from one particular source. The information in this DYK is an amalgamation of information found in the article, supported by numerous sources. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, what needs to happen to get this hook approved? Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: So does this mean it will be on DYK? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too have concerns about the excessive reliance on YouTube videos. These are a problem because there is no way of verifying whether the information cited to them is WP:UNDUE. As it stands, I don't think the article meets WP:DYKPOL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: What about the references makes it WP:UNDUE? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their very existence. If the information they contained was DUE, it would be cited in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 26[edit]

The Story Teller (painting)

(
)

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Story Teller (painting); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment only - Please convert the money out of just crore, per MOS:CRORE. I suspect this should be "highest-priced modern Indian artwork", and what work is "globally" doing in the sentence? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Thanks RV (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: @RAJIVVASUDEV:
    • Convention is to refer to subsequent use of the artist's name as "Sher-Gil". This can be observed in the sources, as well as in Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts: "Use full name in the first sentence, and surname after." However, there may be exceptions to this, and if I'm missing it here, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You don't refer to years or dates. For one of many examples, you write, The Story Teller set a record as the highest-priced Indian artwork globally. When was this? Also, see the body of the article where you don't mention any time periods. A few examples: in the description section, you don't mention when the setting of the painting was supposed to take place. Is it 1937 as we are meant to assume? Also, you mention that Raza's Gestation set a new record. When was this? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • English Wikipedia generally doesn't use "Overview" sections, as section 0, the lead, is supposed to be an overview. There are many alternative descriptions to choose from. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Although not necessary, as a matter of convenience, it is helpful to provide an external link to the painting somewhere in the article. For example:
      External image
      image icon The Story Teller, 1937, oil on canvas, Private collection
    • Articles like this one say the painting "fetched a staggering $7.45 million". It might be helpful for English Wikipedia readers to see that amount in dollars, such Rs 61.8 crore ($7.45 million) Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs fresh review. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will review...Whispyhistory (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New enough, long enough, no copyvio issues. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Whispyhistory: Is this okay now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QPQ provided. The proposed hooks might be okay if they state that the record is price at auction as of September 2023. The article was very focussed on the price. I was pleased to see RAJIVVASUDEV create it, and I have enjoyed reading about the painting.. hence expanded it. Please feel free to adjust or add alts.
ALT2 ... that Amrita Sher-Gil's multimillion dollar painting The Story Teller depicts a man peeping at a baby cow nosing among a group of village women performing menial tasks?
ALT3 ... that The Story Teller by Amrita Sher-Gil, depicting a group of Indian village women performing ordinary tasks, fetched $7.45 million at auction in 2023?
ALT4 ... that The Story Teller is the highest-priced modern Indian artwork to sell at auction in India as of September 2023? based on original hooks Whispyhistory (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Whispyhistory: Thanks for the review and the suggested hooks. ALT3 is interesting and also provides the required information. Regards RV (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added commas and a space and "that". Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New reviewer needed for the ALT hooks proposed above. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on September 28[edit]

Sealord Group

(
)

Created by Panamitsu (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sealord Group; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Source: https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/mo-te-puni-kokiri/kokiri-magazine/kokiri-31-2015/sealord
—Panamitsu (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT2:
"... that New Zealand fishing company Sealord Group is half owned by 57 iwi?"
—Panamitsu (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really sure if the hook as currently written is interesting to a broad audience but I'll leave this to another reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - See below
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hello @Panamitsu: I'm happy to take over this review 🙂 Overall, the article has no issues I could find in terms of DYK requirements and reads well, so the only (minor) issue I have is with your hook. ALT1 is my favorite, but could you re-word the end a little bit? I don't know if it's just me, but "through 57 iwi" reads kind of odd. Maybe you can take out the "57" or reword it somehow else? Once you decide, I have no problem with passing, cheers! Johnson524 16:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yup, the hook doesn't flow the best. I'll create another hook later, thanks! —Panamitsu (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Panamitsu, it's been over a week without a new hook. If you wish to continue this nomination, please provide a new hook in the next few days. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...that the New Zealand fishing company Sealord Group is half owned by iwi?
I've also omitted "Māori", as all iwi are Māori, but if you think that is a bit far, let me know. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT3 looks good to me, cheers! Johnson524 14:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Panamitsu, Johnson524, and AirshipJungleman29: Pretty decent hook! I have a couple of things I want to clear up first: first, it seems like the ownership percentages are sourced to the government and the company; I'd wonder if there are better sources out there. Second, it seems like a very significant proportion of the article is focused on Sealord Group screw-ups – while I'm not one to argue that we're >:( being too mean to the poor companies, I suspect that a fuller article would be less focused on one-off incidents, leading to a due weight problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just added added a few better sources for the shareholding (eg this one). I've also added a minimal amount of non-"screw up" content. Please let me know if this is not enough, and I'll be happy to add more.—Panamitsu (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoàng Thị Minh Hồng

(
)

Created by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hoang Thi Minh Hong; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @Chidgk1: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. I think the article needs more prose work as it is awkward in places like you might expect from a translation (three examples below). I am looking at this article and finding the hook uninteresting because it begs the question "how" or "why". More information about Hồng's body of environmental work/activism would really help this hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "a dynamic local non-profit organization" seems you translated a WP:WEASEL word there
    • Ms. Hồng we don't use "Ms." and "Mr." in this context
    • about the arrest of a well-known environmental campaigner in Vietnam We know who this is; why does this text dance around it?
I will edit the article further - if you or anyone else has suggestions for a better hook I will be glad to hear them Chidgk1 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hmm... The structure of the article makes a good hook hard because there's things that would be BLP vios in a hook and things that would be really puffy. Maybe maybe... I can't verify this as a hook as the source is in Vietnamese. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1: ... that environmental activist Hoàng Thị Minh Hồng was the first Vietnamese person to set foot in Antarctica?

@Sammi Brie: I don't have any Vietnamese either. I have added a little more about Hồng's body of environmental work/activism as you suggested. How about

ALT2: ... that Hoàng Thị Minh Hồng's environmental activism inspired Barack Obama? Source: In 2018, U.S. President Barack Obama described Hong as one of the young people worldwide who inspired him https://apnews.com/article/vietnam-climate-activist-prison-jailed-5f18dcbcbc839de4c479c475b8b552f6
@Sammi Brie: Another ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No wonder I missed it, it was a ping without a timestamp. I am...not happy with the way this article reads still. It's just not Main Page-ready, even if one of the hooks (I prefer ALT1) is workable. It needs a copyedit, preferably from someone familiar with the Vietnamese original. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I will do a copyedit - ping me if I have not done it in 3 or 4 days. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I have copyedited and changed a couple of Vietnamese cites for English. If there is anything else I should do please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am...still chewing. The prose is fine. But the hook fact is the next concern. I'm going to leave this for someone else to see if ALT1 in particular is workable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on October 2[edit]

Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon

(
)
  • ... that Michael Lewis accused the author of a competing book of "trying to torpedo" Going Infinite, comparing the rival author to accused fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/06/business/michael-lewis-going-infinite.html In a new book about the crypto bubble, Zeke Faux, a Bloomberg investigative reporter, recounts watching Mr. Lewis “fawning” over Mr. Bankman-Fried during an onstage interview at the Crypto Bahamas conference in 2022. (Reviewers, including at this paper, have compared the two books, giving the advantage to Mr. Faux.) When I mentioned this anecdote over lunch, Mr. Lewis leaned forward. “Here you have a person who’s written a book, and he’s trying to torpedo a rival book before it comes out?” he said. “That’s shocking. Talk about corrupt! So who do I think is more skeevy, Sam or him? I’d have to think about that.”

Created by Thriley (talk). 5X expanded by Coretheapple (talk). Nominated by Coretheapple (talk) at 21:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @Coretheapple: Thank you for nominating! Would a link to Number Go Up in the hook be a good idea? Or is it not worth it as it’s just a stub? Thriley (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good idea. I didn't notice that stub. Added. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The current hook is 230 characters, way over the limit of 200. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed now, I think. Coretheapple (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, it's 198 now. Thanks for taking care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've added myself as second author based upon my writing most of the current text. This is the first time I've nominated an article I've expanded that was recently authored by someone else, so kindly advise if I've handled that correctly. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Everything was handled correctly. You nominated the article less than a week after it was created. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. I wasn't clear, as I think this may have been the first time I ever nominated a new article that I hadn't created myself. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 3[edit]

Switch Disco, Bou (musician)

( Review or comment )
( Article history links:
)

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Switch Disco; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Both articles meet the technical requirements for DYK. I didn't find any close paraphrasing for either article, and QPQs have been provided. Switch Disco meets the referencing requirement, but Bou's sampling and it charting needs to be referenced.
My main concern is the hook. I'm not sure if it would be interesting to people unfamiliar with any of the artists mentioned. I've taken a look at both articles and I think there's some potential here for separate hooks for both artists. Particularly in the case of Bou, and how his firing eventually lead to his music career.
If I may, can I propose separate hooks for both Bou and Switch Disco in the meantime?
  • ALT-A: ... that musician Bou went from being fired from an IT apprenticeship for producing beats during company time, to having songs rank on the UK Singles Chart?
  • ALT-B: ... that Switch Disco's song "Everything" saw an 185% increase in its Spotify streams after it was used in the seventh series of Love Island?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both hooks are fine by me. Bou's sampling and charting were both sourced, though I've added an extra ref before (Dale Smith) just to make it obvious.--Launchballer 05:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. Since I proposed new hooks another editor will need to sign this off. For now I've struck the original hook, but if the reviewer thinks the original hook is better than either solo hook they are free to unstrike it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 6[edit]

Roman Ratushnyi

(
)

Created by Ата (talk) and Toadspike (talk). Nominated by Toadspike (talk) at 20:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Roman Ratushnyi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • This is not a review but a comment, but I would suggest revising the article, as I feel it might not fit NPOV. In particular, the article seems rather laudatory to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ата and Toadspike: Has Narutolovehinata5's concerns been addressed? Is this ready to be reviewed? Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there, I'm not currently able to finish this up, I'm very sorry. I will do it when I can, it will likely be at least a week. Toadspike (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toadspike: I see that you are editing other parts of Wikipedia but haven't edited this article since October to address the above concerns. Are you or @Ата: able to address the above concerns, or should this nomination be withdrawn? Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: You may withdraw the nomination. My apologies. Toadspike (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the above, this nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. Unless someone else steps forward to take over this nomination, this will be closed as unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malayalam softcore pornography

(
)

Created by Thilsebatti (talk). Self-nominated at 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Malayalam softcore pornography; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • This is not a review, but I have a few comments about the hook. It's a good one, but you'd better cite to the DOI as a scholarly paper, because we otherwise can't be sure of the kibd of source we are dealing with. Secondly, the paper says that The year 2001 marked the high tide of soft porn production, when out of the 89 films released, 57 were soft-porn sizzlers, but this is 64% and not "more than 70%". I also modified the hook so that the "Malayalam cinema" wikilink is less WP:EASTEREGG-like and closer to what a reader will expect to click. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thilsebatti: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thilsebatti: This is a reminder to address the above concerns. The nomination may be failed if the issue remains unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: and @Szmenderowiecki:, I have updated the article accordingly. Please do the needful. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Full review needed, since previous commenters have not returned in two weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long enough, new enough. ALT0 short enough, cited, and interesting. No maintenance templates found, no neutrality problems found. QPQ unnecessary and image unsubmitted. I'm concerned about plagiarism; in many cases, sentences are almost identical to the source; as an example, "sexuality are at the heart of the film and every other character is insignificant" appears in both films, and so does "of the women in these films are stereotypically […] similar situations where the heroines are […] to be at least 25 years old". I'd like to see these and others addressed.--Launchballer 07:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thilsebatti: Can you address the above please? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720:, the article is undergoing a major edit by guild of copy editors. I hope Wracking will eventually fix the plagiarism issues. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 8[edit]

Ligue de défense de la race nègre

(
)
  • ... that French Ligue de défense de la race nègre spawned the founding of a German counterpart in 1929? Source: Robbie Aitken (October 2008), "From Cameroon to Germany and Back via Moscow and Paris: The Political Career of Joseph Bilé (1892–1959), Performer, "Negerarbeiter" and Comintern Activist", Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 597–616, doi:10.1177/0022009408095417, ISSN 0022-0094
    • Reviewed:

Created by Denis Barthel (talk). Self-nominated at 23:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ligue de Defense de la Race Nègre; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - There's a lot of interesting stuff in this article, but this is not an interesting hook. Organizations often have affiliates in other countries.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Denis Barthel: First of all, thanks for writing about a neglected area of history like this! With some copy-editing and a bit more detail about the main French chapter, I think this could be a GA. As to the two matters at hand: The copyright issue is an easy fix. And if you're looking for a new hook, might I suggest

ALT2: ... that a founder of the Ligue de défense de la race nègre created a successor group free of dogmatic communism, and was then expelled by dogmatic communists who took over?

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: - thank you very much for your encouragement. I have fixed the copyright issue and I would like to suggest as a new hook (based on the former):

ALT3: ... that the French Ligue de défense de la race nègre spawned the first political organisation of Black Germans in 1929?

Please let me know, if that works. Thank you! Denis Barthel (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Denis Barthel: I think that works, yes, although I think it might be better without the "in 1929", and "spawned the founding" may be redundant... I would think either "spurred the founding" or simply "spawned". But I'll leave that to the promoter. with slight copy-edit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I deleted "the founding of" and hope this is fine now. Denis Barthel (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs a new hook after discussion at Errors. Schwede66 23:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any ideas left and as I oppose ALT2 as it focuses on communism instead it's historic importance of early anti-colonialism, there is no hook available any more. I'd appreciate any ideas, else I guess this is just not right for DYK. Thanks for your efforts though, Denis Barthel (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC) P.S.: ALT1 has been struck though it is well sourced and mentioned in the article (beside this is not as common as Tamzin stated, neither in the anti-colonial movement nor in general at the time). Maybe it could be reconsidered? Denis Barthel (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Denis Barthel: If you would like, I can refer this to another reviewer for a second opinion as to whether ALT1 is sufficiently interesting. Personally I still do not see why it is interesting or unusual for an organization to have an affiliate in another country. That may well be the aspect of the article that is most interesting to you, but I don't think it will be interesting to Main Page readers. Alternately, as you say, we can end the nomination for want of a suitable hook. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To avoid confusion, the original hook, if given an ALT number, is generally called ALT0 at DYK, not ALT1; there has never been a hook actually labeled ALT1 here ("ALT1" means the first alternative hook to the originally proposed hook). Denis Barthel, I do agree with Tamzin that an organization having a German counterpart isn't necessarily interesting. In addition, that hook has the "spawned the founding of" wording that was at issue in ALT3; reading the article and the source mentioned above, I'm dubious that "spawned" is the right word, as there isn't true clarity in the source about cause and effect and "spawn" in the meaning of "generated" has contemptuous overtones according to Webster's which I'm sure aren't intended here: perhaps "inspired" or "spurred" would be better, or something a bit stronger. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin:, @BlueMoonset:, thanks for your thoughtful replies. And while it was at any time before the end of WWII pretty unusual for an organization (even more an emancipation org) to have affiliates in another country, I agree, this indeed expects to much of a 2023 main page reader. If anyone has an idea for a proper hook, I'd be so glad, else I am fine with closing the proposal. Denis Barthel (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Denis Barthel, Tamzin, I'm not sure whether the following is sufficiently interesting, and sourcing would need to be supplied for the relevant sentences (rather than at the end of paragraphs), but here's a possible hook:
  • ALT4: ... that the anti-colonialist Ligue de défense de la race nègre, which at one point had around 1,000 members, was suppressed by the French Government in 1937, ten years after its founding?
Note that I can't check the source for the 1,000 figure; it may be more specific as to when the "about 1,000" figure was reached by the LDRN—which was the same number (with the same "about") as the predecessor CDRN had in 1926—and could add some extra interest...or perhaps not. The hook runs 184 prose characters, so there's little room for expansion, but "at one point" could be replaced by "in 19xx", and "around" could be "about" if saving a character is needed—we need to be careful to keep some qualification as to when the 1,000 was achieved, lest the readers conclude that the 1,000 was at the time of the suppression, which is not a claim made by the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like that a lot. The number seemingly was a continuous one, but wandered through the history of splits and divisions with the then biggest ones. "[...] three anti-imperial organizations that loosely succeeded one another from 1926 to 1939: the CDRN, the Ligue de défense de la race nègre (League for the Defense of the Negro Race, hereafter LDRN), and the Union des travailleurs nègres (Union for Negro Workers, hereafter UTN). These groups had branches in each of the major port cities and headquarters in the capital, and generally grouped a thousand members at a time.", Jennifer Anne Boittin (2009), "Black in France: The Language and Politics of Race in the Late Third Republic", French Politics, Culture & Society, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 26, Wikipedia Library, http://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/42843598 Denis Barthel (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dalí Atomicus

(
)
Salvador Dalí jumping while three cats fly through the air Dalí Atomicus (1948)
Salvador Dalí jumping while three cats fly through the air
Dalí Atomicus (1948)
Unretouched version of Dalí Atomicus, with wires visible Dalí Atomicus, unretouched
Unretouched version of Dalí Atomicus, with wires visible
Dalí Atomicus, unretouched
  • ... that before photographer Philippe Halsman decided to photograph three cats flying through the air (pictured), surrealist artist Salvador Dalí had wanted to blow up a duck with dynamite?
    source: https://archive.today/20231008234446/https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tiktok-cancel-salvador-dali-2313418
    ... a collaboration between Dalí and the photographer Phillippe [sic] Halsman, in which three cats are seen flying through the air .... "Dalí said, 'I have an idea. Let's take a duck and put some dynamite up his derriere and blow him up.' And my father said, 'Oh you can't do that. You're in America. You might get arrested,'" Irene Halsman recounted ....
    • reviewed: mourning stationery
    • comment:
      i declare that i am not aware of having any conflict of interest with dalí atomicus.
      i'm not sure if a descriptive caption would be better than one that simply stated the name of the work, so have provided a few alternatives for discussion.
      i did not provide links to the articles on the artists as that seems to be the current practice at dyk.
      the unretouched version appears to be in the public domain, as noted by the library of congress here. i believe the final version is too, as it was printed in life with a copyright notice ("© 1948 PHILIPPE HALSMAN"), and i found no evidence here that halsman renewed the copyright.
      i am admittedly still working on the article, but wanted to nominate it before the deadline passed.

created by dying (talk). self-nominated at 23:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I shall have a look. Schwede66 00:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Created seven days ago and nominated today, i.e. that's just on time. Neutral. Suitably referenced. Earwig is clean. The problem is that the article is a stub with hardly any prose (385 B) and a very long off the 1,500 B that is set as the minimum for DYK eligibility. Hence, short of a major expansion, this nomination will have to be rejected. The other problem is that the hook fact does not appear in the article! Schwede66 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    apologies, Schwede66! i've already done the research to expand the article to the appropriate length, but am still typing it up. i just wanted to nominate the article before the deadline, as i mentioned above. (i admittedly ended up spending entirely too much time researching whether halsman renewed the copyright.) i should have the article properly expanded within a day, at which point it should include the hook fact. is that alright? dying (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sure; that'll be fine. I suppose I reviewed it "as is". Schwede66 01:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Schwede66, i have now expanded the article. please let me know if you encounter any issues. thanks for your patience! dying (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What a great article. Thoroughly enjoyed reading that one! Earwig appears to be down. Otherwise, the article now passes all the required checks. A minor content issue is that the two photos are described as being side-by-side, but on any of the three screens that I've checked (cellphone, laptop, big screen), they are on top of one another – please fix the caption. QPQ has been done. Hook is certainly interesting and the hook fact is referenced. The other snag is that the main photo is currently up for deletion; I suggest we park this until that issue has resolved itself as it's certainly a strong contender for a lead hook. Schwede66 02:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    thanks, Schwede66! i'm glad you enjoyed reading it. yes, i agree that the nomination should be put on hold due to the deletion discussion.
    also, thanks for pointing out the caption issue! i completely forgot about the possibility that one photo could appear above the other instead of next to it. i was trying to figure out if replacing "(left)" with "(left or top)" would be appropriate when i realized that there was actually no need to state that the photos were juxtaposed to allow for easy comparison, as this should be self-evident.
    i believe i've now reformatted the gallery so that it is platform independent. please let me know if this is not the case. dying (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Earwig is clean. Caption is resolved. Dying, could you please keep an eye on the deletion discussion and give me a ping when that's been resolved? Schwede66 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    of course, Schwede66. dying (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schwede66, Dying: Commons deletion discussions routinely take several months. Given that fact and that there's a definitely-PD image, is there a preference to run the PD version or to wait it out? Vaticidalprophet 06:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Halsman took the photo in 1948, so what's a few more months? It's such an incredible photo; in my view, this should definitely be the lead hook. Hence my preference is to wait it out. Schwede66 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, the former version of the photo is unambiguously in the public domain (and is a featured picture on Commons). The retouched version with the brighter tones is the one to which the DR applies. This can be approved now and run as an image hook. Vaticidalprophet 16:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i'm in no rush, and don't mind waiting it out. also, as the unretouched version has previously appeared on the main page, i think it would be nice to give the final version a chance to be featured on the main page as well. dying (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 14[edit]

Perry Hartnett

(
)

5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Perry Hartnett; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Georgia Twinn

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 13:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Georgia Twinn; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on October 15[edit]

Turbo Dismount

(
)

Created by Captain Galaxy (talk). Self-nominated at 10:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Turbo Dismount; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Would this alt work, as the Delorean was a real vehicle? CaptainGalaxy 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still feel it violates the DYKFICTION policy. The game could add any sort of vehicle they want with no regard to the constraints of reality. I'll welcome second opinions though. Bremps... 01:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if it violates house style and guidelines, but User:Captain Galaxy should consider coming up with more hooks to choose from in the event that we need them. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do although I am a bit busy at the moment so you can expect them by the end of next week. CaptainGalaxy 00:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on October 17[edit]

Twenty new MPs for 2023
Twenty new MPs for 2023

Vanessa Weenink, Ryan Hamilton (New Zealand politician), Suze Redmayne, Katie Nimon, Dana Kirkpatrick, David MacLeod, Grant McCallum, James Meager, Mike Butterick, Miles Anderson (politician), Rima Nakhle, Carl Bates, Greg Fleming (politician), Jamie Arbuckle, Casey Costello, Tanya Unkovich, Reuben Davidson, Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, Scott Willis (politician), Darleen Tana, Tākuta Ferris, Laura Trask, Cameron Luxton, Carlos Cheung, Todd Stephenson, Takutai Moana Kemp, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, Kahurangi Carter, Nancy Lu

( Review or comment )
To reviewers: This may look daunting, but it's as simple as any other nomination. Pick one article from the box below, place a note in the large table in the column 'Review status' that you are reviewing that one, and leave the review comments at the bottom of this nomination form. Review one at a time. The hook fact needs to be reviewed once only.
  • Reviewed: see table below
  • Comment: It's New Zealand election time, which means mass DYK nomination time also! Last time we managed a 19-article hook (see Ibrahim Omer), this time we're aiming a little higher. Special votes are still being counted, however, so we will finalise the numbers in the hook as the numbers shake out over the next couple of weeks.

We will add a table below to mark off QPQs as we go (I can't figure out how to do that on this new submission template!). As we are still sorting out some of the stubs, may I suggest people don't review anything until it has a QPQ against it? We will also likely add an image. Cheers, DrThneed (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Created by DrThneed (talk), Schwede66 (talk), Idiosyncritic (talk), Pokelova (talk), Kiwichris (talk), Villian Factman (talk), MerrilyPutrid (talk), Moondragon21 (talk), and MW691 (talk). Nominated by DrThneed (talk) at 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Weenink; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. DrThneed and I worked on a nomination statement at the same time, not knowing that we were working in parallel. Let me post what I wrote; this also addresses the issue raised by Kiwichris. One of the things I did is organise a table with all new MPs plus sources for that; I come to 38 40 new MPs.Reply[reply]

We've had a general election in New Zealand and just like in 2011 and 2020, we'd like to make a mass-nomination for some of the new bios of incoming members of parliament. I don't think we made similar nominations after the 2014 and 2017 elections. The election results aren't final yet and some things will change. However, it'll no doubt take a wee while to look through these nominations and therefore, I propose that we take our time and wait for the final results to come in on 3 November, adjust the nomination to suit, and then run this on the main page. I shall also outline how the electoral system works, how that in turn changes the results once the final votes come in. That's important to understand for verifying the hook facts.

We use a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) system in New Zealand. The overall composition of parliament is determined by the party vote, where party lists are used to achieve proportionality. The other way of getting into parliament is to win an electorate outright. Some electorate votes are incredibly close (there are seven electorates where the difference in vote between the preliminary winner and the second-placed candidate are below 500 votes, with something like 33,000 votes being cast per electorate and 20% of the vote not having been included yet in the preliminary results). Those electorate results are thus uncertain. And the overall composition may change, with the special votes generally favouring the left block. There has always been change for as long as we've had MMP between preliminary and final results, and that won't be any different this time either.

In terms of the hook facts, what will change is:

  • how many new MPs we get, and
  • who they will be

What we nominate now is based on the preliminary results. I'll indicate below whether it's a close race and the candidate isn't 100% confirmed. That could be because the electorate vote is close, or the candidate is the lowest-ranked one on the list who got in. The definition that we use for "new MP" is someone who has not been in parliament before (as opposed to someone who has but wasn't there during the last term).

At this point, we have 38 39 new MPs. That is referenced in four articles by The Spinoff:

I've prepared a couple of tables but as hard as I try, I can't get them to display here. Find those tables in my sandbox. Oh, and I've currently got 7 QPQ in credit; happy to chip them in. But let us first get that table right (30 vs 39 new MPs). Schwede66 03:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, slight brain fart. Yes, 38 40 new MPs, but 8 of those had articles already. That means that up to 31 32 bios are eligible. My table identifies "who is new in parliament" and "who is new to Wikipedia". Schwede66 03:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The final results were published on 3 November. As predicted, there were some changes. DrThneed and I have moved the table of new MPs to Google Docs and here's a link. Here is everything that matters:

  • Te Pāti Māori has now gained a second overhang seat, hence the size of the parliament is 122 seats instead of the 120 seats that is 'normal'
  • We now have 41 new MPs (up from 40), i.e. just over one-third of the parliament has turned over
  • There is no change to the number of new MPs who had a prior bio on Wikipedia; this remains at 8
  • That is, we now have 33 new MPs who are new to Wikipedia (up from 32).
  • We previously released 5 of those new MPs as individual nominations, i.e. there are now 28 bios in this mass-nomination (up from 27).
  • The National Party has lost 2 of the new MPs; Blair Cameron and Angee Nicholas had (narrowly) won their electorates based on preliminary results but the final results show that the Labour Party incumbents held those seats; both Cameron and Nicholas have been removed from this nomination
  • Te Pāti Māori candidates managed to win two more electorates from the Labour Party incumbents than the preliminary results had shown; Takutai Moana Kemp and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi are both new to parliament
  • The Greens won an additional list seat due to a higher party vote share; Kahurangi Carter is new to parliament
  • 2 new MPs out and 3 new MPs in is the change from preliminary to final results, hence the number of new MPs went up by 1; the 3 new MP bios got moved to main space today; we propose that these changes (2 losers out; 3 winners in) get reflected in the amended nomination.

I've thus amended the DYK header and DYK nompage links. ALT2 now provides the list of 28 new MPs that remain with this mass nomination, including the 3 new MPs who got confirmed today and whose bios got published today. I will update the 2023 New Zealand general election#New MPs section so that the hook fact can be verified.

And just in case you read something about 123 MPs and Nancy Lu being a new MP, well, that's something that is going to happen on 25 November. A by-election is scheduled, which will turn one of the existing list MPs—Andrew Bayly—into an electorate MP, which creates another overhand seat, and Nancy Lu will then become the replacement list MP. Lu will be the 42nd new MP of a parliament of then 123. But that's still three weeks away and by then, this nomination will hopefully be done and dusted. Schwede66 04:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a wee update:

  • Well, the three weeks mentioned in the last post have nearly come and gone. The by-election is happening tomorrow and there won't be any surprises; Nancy Lu will become the 123rd MP as a result of that exercise. That's old news.
  • The new news is that we are in the final stages of getting photos for all current National Party MPs signed off by the Commons permission team. That'll add quite a number of images to this exercise and if I've got my numbers right, we can make a collage with 20 photos. We have an editor on standby to produce that collage. Schwede66 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As foreshadowed above, the "final act" of the general election has now happened and Nancy Lu has become the 42nd new MP in the process. Her article was published to mainspace on 25 November. The National Party photos have come through and have been verified by the Commons permission team. That means that we'll have 21 photos to go with the new bios and TheLoyalOrder has volunteered to produce a collage (yet to be done). I've written ALT3 reflecting the new photos and Lu, and struck ALT2 (which was outdated as not all the bios that have already run had been removed). Lastly, I've now fully documented the new MPs in 2023 New Zealand general election#New MPs, which serves as the hook fact. The electoral system that we use (mixed-member proportional representation) is not the most straightforward electoral system that one can think of, and if you have trouble following the description in the prose, maybe the Google Sheet (tab "changes with final results") makes things easier.

Great to see that the review process is well underway; DrThneed and I appreciate it! Schwede66 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number Article Review status QPQ status QPQ by
0 hook fact n/a n/a
1 Vanessa Weenink Nunuk Nuraini DrThneed (talk)
2 Ryan Hamilton Olga Onuch DrThneed (talk)
3 Suze Redmayne Falnama DrThneed (talk)
4 Katie Nimon Ni'isjoohl totem pole DrThneed
5 Tim Costley Individual nom Sarah Wentworth DrThneed
6 Catherine Wedd Individual nom Raymond Bushland DrThneed
7 Tom Rutherford Individual nom The Cedars, Sunninghill theleekycauldron
8 Dana Kirkpatrick ready to be reviewed Samson and Hercules sculptures Schwede66
9 David MacLeod ready to be reviewed Chapel of St. Roch, Vienna Schwede66
10 Grant McCallum ready to be reviewed Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State Lightburst
11 James Meager ready to be reviewed Brian Merrett Lightburst
12 Angee Nicholas On final results, Nicholas was not elected
12 Mike Butterick ready to be reviewed Myriel Davies DrThneed
13 Miles Anderson ready to be reviewed Mel Bartholomew DrThneed
14 Hamish Campbell Individual nom Skinpah Schwede66
15 Rima Nakhle Smin Ye-Thin-Yan theleekycauldron
16 Carl Bates ready to be reviewed Dalí Atomicus Schwede66
17 Greg Fleming ready to be reviewed 1936 Paraparaumu train wreck Schwede66
19 Blair Cameron On final results, Cameron was not elected
18 Jamie Arbuckle ready to be reviewed Heather Phillips ‎theleekycauldron
19 Casey Costello ready to be reviewed Yulia Tolopa theleekycauldron
20 Tanya Unkovich ready to be reviewed Goody goody gum drops DrThneed
21 Reuben Davidson Georgy Dokuchaev theleekycauldron
22 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel Humpbacked limia Schwede66
23 Scott Willis AK-47 (cannabis) theleekycauldron
24 Darleen Tana Melissa Fumero theleekycauldron
25 Tākuta Ferris Paddy Morgan theleekycauldron
26 Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke individual nom Lindsey Halligan DrThneed
28 Laura Trask 1917 Minsk City Duma election theleekycauldron
29 Cameron Luxton Susanna and the Elders in art theleekycauldron
31 Carlos Cheung Milverine Lightburst
32 Todd Stephenson Die Kuranten Schwede66
33 Takutai Moana Kemp Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume Lightburst
34 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi New MP through final results; ready to be reviewed Jod Gumbaz Schwede66
35 Kahurangi Carter Julie Cliff DrThneed
42 Nancy Lu New MP through 2023 Port Waikato by-election; ready to be reviewed Sarah Thomas (centenarian)

DrThneed

Extended content
General discussion

Comment: Perhaps this is WP:TOO SOON for some of these MPs-elecect? Vanessa Weenink has just an 83 vote lead prior to specials, Blair Cameron has just 54 and Angee Nicholas only 30. None of them are likely to be elected off the list either. Perhaps the DYK nomination could be put under the name of an MP more certain of being elected such as Tom Rutherford whose provisional majority is 13,182 votes? Kiwichris (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will say (while looking to review a couple of these soon) that we have a really bad shortage at DYKNA right now, and it would be better for the project's functioning to do some fresh reviews and use the banked credits later when we're not running at 40–50 approved hooks for weeks on end. Vaticidalprophet 08:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And of those who are both new to parliament and new to Wikipedia, four of them have photos. My suggestion is that we produce a collage of those four, just as we produced a collage of the 9 in 2020 who we had photos for:

Two of the four articles are as yet short of 1500 bytes of readable prose, but we'll fix that. Would someone with the right software be so kind to produce a collage of those four? Schwede66 03:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All four of those photo articles are DYK-ready by now. I've found another new MP; Rima Nakhle is listed in the source but I somehow skipped her when compiling the new MPs into a spreadsheet. Comparing my amended list (32 new MPs) against the 31 that have been nominated here, I see that Todd Stephenson is missing from the nomination. Schwede66 00:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not a review but more of a comment. I do appreciate the hard work that you and many editors here have done to all of these articles. However, the DYK guidelines do say that hooks should be interesting to a broad audience, and more importantly, the hooks themselves should be about information about the subject that can be perceived as being unusual or interesting by general audiences. That is, the hook tells something about them that others might find interesting. I'm not really sure if a hook that says that 30+ people from such-and-such party were elected to Parliament meets the spirit of the criterion.
I understand the idea behind the hook, about wanting to break last election's records. I really do. I also appreciate the efforts being done here and I think it's great that all these articles have been written. However, I wonder if this is a case where quality would be better than quantity. As in, instead of having all these names being featured at once on DYK, which is cool but perhaps going against the spirit of the guidelines, it might be better to focus on just a few of these MPs and come up with really interesting or really catchy individual hooks about them.
Perhaps it's also a case of not wanting systemic bias. After all, readers may wonder "why does New Zealand get this treatment but not other countries? What makes New Zealand so special to warrant such a hook? How about a multi-person hook about the US? The UK? Australia? India? Nigeria? etc."
Of course, this is just my opinion, and if consensus states that this hook can go on in its current form, perhaps under WP:IAR, I won't get in the way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, to repeat my WT:DYK take in a centralized spot – I think the "quarter new" and "x many parties" variants are workable. I am skeptical about mass-hooks by default, but when the work to arrange one is already so far into completion, I think it's for the better to let it be the case. I also note we have had a lot of New Zealand hooks lately, and a single hook for thirty NZ politicians is going to be markedly less inclined to contribute to visible overrepresentation than tons of hooks for individual NZ politicians (which introduces other issues, like the fact you can't really put multiple politicians from the same country in one set). I am strongly inclined to recommend that next election runs individual hooks, but we're already here. I'm willing to review a handful of these, though emphatically not the whole set of thirty (there's more than enough people at DYK who could use the QPQ credits, anyway). Vaticidalprophet 08:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will also say, though, that all the past-length-minimum articles I've looked at have a viable individual hook (not always the best hook ever that'd tear up the charts, but something viable). It's possible to just split them out in this existing nomination with their existing QPQs, though this does cause some trickiness with PSHAW when promoting (you have to do it manually, so far as I can tell). Vaticidalprophet 09:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One concern I do have is that the combined hook may have so many names involved that not all of them will benefit from Main Page featuring since I doubt our readers will all want to click on every single name and learn about them, and there's a concern that the featuring may backfire and cause each individual article to get less readership than what would normally be expected under a multi-hook. This could be an argument in favor of the best options being split off into separate individual hooks, with perhaps only the "not-so viable" ones being part of a multi-hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DrThneed, Schwede66, I've been thinking about this. This is just playing with ideas, but I agree with NLH, more or less, that megahooks of this sort are tricky. I've also read all the articles in the set, and noticed the 1500+ character ones that are reasonably comfortably winners all have viable standalone hooks, some good enough it'd really be a shame to put them in a multi. Given we already have QPQs sorted for almost all that subset, it is possible to just break them out within this nomination, if that's a thing there's any enthusiasm for. There's obviously a lot of articles still to work on, and there might be good hooks that emerge for those. Not all these hooks are the-best-ever, but they're all at least "minimum viable hooks" and some are genuinely great.

These are absolutely just playing-with-ideas, not at all a hard suggestion, not at all a statement that a multihook isn't viable. But, did you know...

  • ... that New Zealand politician Reuben Davidson (pictured) is a former children's television producer?
  • ... that Scott Willis (pictured) helped build New Zealand's first climate-safe house?
  • ... that the Māori environmental scientist Darleen Tana (pictured) speaks Flemish and French?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Tom Rutherford is a firefighter and hockey umpire?
  • ... that when he was in the Royal New Zealand Air Force, future politician Tim Costley starred in a YouTube video that joked about having sex with sheep?
  • ... that despite being active in politics, Laura Trask has almost no social media presence?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Hamish Campbell is a cancer researcher and runs a flower delivery business?
  • ... that Jamie Arbuckle started a farmer's market after his application for a different market was rejected under suspicions he didn't grow his own asparagus?
  • ... that when she was elected to the New Zealand parliament, Catherine Wedd defeated her former coworker at a marketing company?
  • ... that Ryan Hamilton was the only member of the Hamilton City Council to vote against requiring a COVID-19 vaccination certificate to enter council facilities?
  • ... that Suze Redmayne is the first female Member of Parliament for the New Zealand electorate of Rangitīkei?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Rima Nakhle campaigned for setting up military academies for youth offenders?
  • ... that Tākuta Ferris's win in the 2023 New Zealand general election was one of that election's biggest surprises?
  • ... that Casey Costello was the first woman to be vice president of the New Zealand Police Association?
  • ... that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, aged 21, is the youngest Member of Parliament in New Zealand since 1853?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Cameron Luxton compared a member of the House of Representatives to Marie Antoinette?

Campbell needs a QPQ, and Costley's isn't quite in the article yet (it's in the source, but the article is very unclear on what the video was). Otherwise, they're all eligible hooks. Some of them – Costley, Campbell, Maipi-Clarke, Luxton, Arbuckle, probably Davidson/Rutherford/Trask – are good enough it really stands out to me that we aren't running them. I'm not saying the multihook doesn't work, but, playing around with ideas, I think there are a lot of paths forward both running a multihook and running individual hooks, and they have their pros and cons. Vaticidalprophet 11:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't speak for everyone in the team, but I am not interested in breaking up this hook into individual noms. Vaticidalprophet you've identified some great potential hooks above, but for me the purpose of being involved in the multihook was the fun of it, the fact that it is by virtue of its size something out of the ordinary, and that it involves a whole bunch of editors in both prepping and moving the bios on election night and then getting them ready for DYK. The last NZ election multihook was only my seond ever DYK nomination, and it was somewhat of a baptism of fire. But it was really fun, and the experience of prepping the bios and reviewing and working together to sort out problems was positive and I stayed involved in DYK afterwards when I otherwise might not have. I don't see nominating 30 individual politician bios as fun in the same way, and I suspect it would be less likely to get interest from other NZ editors not already involved in DYK. Another aspect that puts me off is because to avoid having more than one in a set they'd end up so spread out that I'd be having to think about politican bios for weeks and weeks. No thanks! DrThneed (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the eagerness to do the multihook, but the way I see it, there are a few issues with the multihook, some brought up by me and others by Vaticidalprophet:
  1. According to the DYK criteria, hooks need to be perceived as unusual or interesting to people without special knowledge. That means, a hook should encourage readers to read more about a subject: that's why they're called hooks. The currently written hook, assuming it was just a single article hook that said "Did you know that [person] was elected to the New Zealand Parliament?", isn't really going to fly by DYK standards.
  2. About a year or two ago, there was an RfC regarding the interest criterion for DYK. The result was a tightening of the rules, so unlike before where hooks had to be "interesting to a broad audience", a criterion that almost no one could agree on its meaning, now hooks need to basically appeal to people without specialist knowledge. A hook including so many bolded links might technically be considered interesting to many, but it arguably violates the spirit of the criterion, which was intended to make sure that hooks about subjects highlight something about them that would interest even non-specialists.
  3. There's a concern that having so many names in a hook might backfire in terms of readership. That is, there are so many names involved that readers may be impressed but less willing to actually look up every name in the hook. Sure, that doesn't mean they need to read everything, but that's a possibility if reader resources are being spread thin. Basically, the more names in the hook, the less that each individual article may actually be read by readers.
  4. Some of the proposals given above are actually really good in their own right and would probably do bonkers or at least do pretty well as standalone hooks. I think it would be a shame to put them to waste since I think just having a multihook where the names get a passing mention rather than their own hooks where they are a star would not give them and their careers justice.
As for the concern about spreading out, that shouldn't be much of an issue. The hooks are already provided above, you don't have to come up with your own. We're already having a biography shortage already and hooks running a month or more after approval isn't uncommon, so it's not necessarily a problem.
There could also perhaps be some form of compromise. Perhaps only the "best of the best" of the MP hooks could be split off into their own hooks, while the others could be left in the multihook. The tricky part is that a lot of Vaticidalprophet's proposals are actually pretty good and it would be a shame to leave any of them out. I'm not entirely against multihooks in general, and I think under the right circumstances they can work, but I think the current proposal goes against the spirit of the current guidelines, particularly the ones about interest to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Echoing my comments at WT:DYK here so everything is in one place, I believe the best course of action would be to try and tweak the multihook so it meets the interesting criterion. I brought up the possibility that the new MPS make up over a quarter of parliament, and that all six parties have new MPs. That said, if there is a desire to pull out individual MPs from this list into their own nomination, and if there is someone who actually wants to undertake that effort themselves, then Narutolovehinata5's suggestion should work too. I don't think there is a need to fear weeks of thinking about politicians if they are split off! Generally once approved DYKs sail off into the wind, you can let them live their lives.
While individual splits could be considered now, the final shape of the multi-hook can only take place once the real-life dust settles. Perhaps the length of vote counting is another thing that might hook people! CMD (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That might make a good compromise: some of the best of the best could have their own hooks, while the rest could remain included in a multi-hook if desired. It could be the best of both worlds, allowing those with very interesting stories to shine in their own right, while also avoiding the concerns about "flooding" DYK with New Zealand politicians by keeping some form of a multihook around and acknowledging the work and desires of those involved in wanting a multihook. For example, I'm really partial to VP's proposed hooks for Davidson Rutherford, Costley, Campbell, and Wedd and think they might do well on their own, while the others have okay-to-decent hooks but may not be as big of a loss if they were grouped under a multihook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it could be a good compromise to pull out a few of the more interesting ones and run the rest as a multihook, if the community is agreeable. I am certainly open to rephrasing the multihook itself too, which as noted by Chipmunkdavis is likelier to be easier once the full count has been completed, and there will be new sources detailing all the new MPs and noting things like what proportion of the new parliament they make up etc.
Narutolovehinata5 suggested Davidson, Rutherford, Costley, Campbell, and Wedd as possible stand-alones. My view would be that being a volunteer firefighter/umpire isn't so unusual (at least here) and also that four out of five of those are National Party MPs, so perhaps replacing Rutherford with either Scott Willis or Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke would be better? DrThneed (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also open to running say a handful of articles standalone if that's what's needed to get the multi-hook over the line. I suggest, however, that the multi-hook would go well with a collage of new MPs. We have exactly four images, and the only good collage (that I can think of) is a 2x2 arrangement. Therefore, the four pictured articles cannot be standalone DYK nominations; that means that Scott Willis is out. Schwede66 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops sorry Schwede66 I forgot about our paucity of photos this year (not for want of trying). So yes Willis needs to stay in the multihook. Hana would still be a good option to pull out though, being the youngest in 170 years (and female and Māori) is pretty cool! DrThneed (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And only the second-youngest ever because the youngest cheated! James Stuart-Wortley got his solicitor to confirm that he was 21 and thus eligible to be elected. It only came out later that they had lied, and he was 20 years and 7 months at the time of the election, thus not eligible to even stand under the rules back then. This isn't even stated in Stuart-Wortley's bio. Schwede66 23:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of the firefighter thing, Wikipedia has a broad, global audience, so they might not even know that New Zealand politicians often have or had side gigs, so regardless of how common it is they might still find it unusual. I don't necessarily think the party issue is going to be a problem because what happened was proposing based on hooks rather than party, and so if one party ends up being more represented, it wasn't on purpose and was more of a side-effect of the overall effort rather than an intentional effort to promote one party over the other. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volunteer firefighting is just a common thing in rural communities, as without it there is no fire service. And it isn't a sidegig of an MP as such, there's no way he would be able to keep that up now he's in Parliament and has to be in Wellington! But regardless, if we can build a hook for Hana around her being the youngest legal/non-lying NZ MP ever (sources permitting) that would have to be more interesting, surely? DrThneed (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My view is that things are interesting either because of their content or their style. Here, like with Template:Did you know nominations/That, playing with the expected form of a hook is interesting. WP:DYKINT places no restriction on interestingness to content. Urve (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second this sentiment. I rarely click through DYKs on the main page, but seeing the sea of blue with last year's multihook definitely sent me down a rabbit hole of NZ politics. I think this is an excellent tradition and drives participation that otherwise may not happen. Unique novelties like this are what drive editor retention and recruitment, in my opinion. However, I do think that a formal, centralized discussion on the topic could be fruitful in the future. Fritzmann (message me) 21:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, there's been some discussion at WT:DYK saying that if the multihook is to be accepted (and right now, consensus on whether to go ahead with it is ongoing), then it would probably need to be revised so that it would be interesting in its own right. That is, ALT0 might not be possible, but a different formulation like focusing on how at least a quarter of the MPs are new, might be possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, please see ALT1 above. Schwede66 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That could work if consensus determines that the multihook can go ahead, though personally I'd still prefer the compromise option. Though I suppose discussion can continue on that front as well: which articles to go individual and which ones will remain in the multihook. The thing that urgently needs to be discussed right now, I think, is to be if the multihook should go ahead in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we going with this compromise (running up to say 5 articles standalone; the rest as a multi-hook)? I'm asking because I managed to source what happened in 1853. This would offer us the following standalone hook, which I reckon is pretty cool: Schwede66 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT(Maipi-Clarke) ... that if James Stuart-Wortley had not falsified his age for the 1853 general election, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke would now be New Zealand's youngest-ever member of parliament?
That sounds good, but I'd like to hear DrThneed's thought on what articles she is willing to allow being standalone hooks before we discuss which hooks will be standalone and which ones will remain in the multihook. There doesn't seem to be much consensus really in favor or against the multihook running at all, but given the lack of opposition I'd say that that's probably a sign of allowing at least some kind of multihook to push through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think pulling out five individuals is a reasonable compromise, and one that both Schwede66 and I are happy with - it still leaves us with a decent-size multihook, but allows a few of the more interesting bios to shine, without overwhelming DYK sets with NZ politicians. My opinion is that the best individual hooks are Davidson, Costley, Campbell, Wedd, and Schwede's Maipi-Clarke hook above. If that seems like a good path forward, then some suggestions on the mechanics of it would be appreciated! Would I just make fresh nominations for the individual articles, with a reference back to the multihook as being the actual date of nomination? DrThneed (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the mechanics, I would think:
  • strike those articles from this nomination
  • remove the relevant credits
  • make individual nominations for those bios, with a link back to here to demonstrate that we nominated in time
  • move the QPQs across as they stand

That should cover it all, I think. Unless somebody can think of other aspects. Just one issue – we can't use Reuben Davidson as a standalone nomination as he's one of the four bios where we have a photo. Schwede66 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh for heavens sakes, that's the second time I've put one with an image in the list! Gah. Alright, so Costley, Campbell, Wedd, Maipi-Clarke and one other...I note Narutolovehinata5 liked Rutherford, I think Arbuckle or Trask might be better but no strong feelings, Vaticidalprophet you came up with these individual hooks, do you have a preference for a fifth? DrThneed (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Trask can probably stay in the multihook. The hook is just fine but it's not a standout hook like the other proposals. Is five the agreed number, or can the number change further? I think five is a minimum but perhaps as many as seven could be possible depending on if there are any additional standouts. Though if there's just a desire for a "best-of-the-best", five is fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I enjoy both Arbuckle and Trask's hook and would prefer to see both of them if possible. (I think Rutherford is fairly remarkable to people not from rural NZ. Volunteer firefighters are common enough in rural Aus too, but most people here aren't rural, so it's a distant concept even to me.) Vaticidalprophet 00:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I don't think either Schwede66 or I want to take out more than 5 (to avoid repetition, that's for all the reasons given above in defence of the multihook! Plus the fact that people have donated QPQs and put effort into expanding bios for a multihook, which they wouldn't necessarily do for individual ones.). So we are discussing which ones rather than how many. Seeing as you're both keen on Rutherford that looks like Campbell, Costley, Wedd, Maipi-Clarke and Rutherford to me. Schwede66 do you want to confirm you're happy with that? DrThneed (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with 5 individual nominations but wouldn't want to see any more than that. Like DrThneed, I'm rather lukewarm about the volunteer firefighter but if that spins the wheels of people outside of Oceania, then so be it. Any hook with "sex" in it will do famously well, and "sex with sheep" will go off the scale, so that's all good. I predict that 80% of Australian readers will click on that one. DrThneed, before we do individual nominations, can we have a look at credits for those together? Schwede66 04:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair. With regards to the five individual hooks, are you fine with Vaticidalprophet's proposals or do you have any other ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't mind beyond none of the four photo bios, and I would really like to feature Maipi-Clarke. Schwede66 09:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the question was more are we happy with the hooks as proposed or do we have other ideas? I think it might be easiest if I split them and then anyone with alternative hooks to suggest can discuss them on the individual noms. (Will split tomorrow, am currently working through to make sure I have the page creation/contribution credits accurate for the individuals and the remaining multihook). DrThneed (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maipi-Clarke has now been nominated individually. I've struck things where appropriate, removed her from ALT1, and removed credits. Schwede66 12:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DrThneed has nominated the other four individual nominations:

We should thus be all good. Let the review of the remaining bios start. Thanks to all who have commented and moved this along. Schwede66 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviews[edit]
0 Hook fact
  • Bremps, as noted above, the hook fact is now fully referenced. Please refer to the note above for the details. Schwede66 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Schwede66 I am still concerned. I'm checking the citation for National, and it states that 23 new MPs were elected. Looking closer, at least two (Nicholas + Cameron) were projected winners that were ultimately not elected, and another two served in parliament before (Bidois + Garcia). That would come out to 19 (at most) elected National MPs that have never served in parliament before, but the article currently states that there are 21. Bremps... 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bremps, have you checked out the Google Sheet? That lists them all, plus the ones that the original Spinoff article counts as new MPs that were actually returning. And what happened when the final results came out isn't that straightforward to follow; again, the spreadsheet makes much clearer what's going on. Schwede66 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, the spreadsheet clears things up a lot. After reviewing the sources, I think I can give this a Pass Bremps... 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 Vanessa Weenink
Review:
  • New enough: created on the 14th of October, nominated on the 17th
  • Surpasses 1,500 characters of prose
  • Action needed: Spot check reveals okay sourcing, but citation 6 (electoral commission) is broken. Archived edition seems to not mention the flip being the first time in 20 years.
  • Earwig spits out "Violation Unlikely" with an impressive 2.0%
  • Article is presentable
  • No images, so no copyright issues there
  • User:DrThneed seems to have donated a QPQ
  • No other issues
Fix the concern about the dead link and the 20-year-flip and we're good to go on this one. Bremps... 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've attended to those issues. Schwede66 23:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pass Bremps... 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2 Ryan Hamilton
Approved Recently created, long enough, well referenced, no obvious close paraphrasing, QPQ provided. There's a single bare URL in the citations but this can be easily fixed. 97198 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review 97198, have fixed the bare URL. DrThneed (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3 Suze Redmayne
Review:
  • Just over 1,600 characters of prose
  • Created on the 14th, nominated on the 17th
  • Action needed: Spotcheck seems to check out. However, citation 7 (NZ Herald) states that "She has also served as a trustee of the Whanganui Community Foundation and is a trustee of Sport Whanganui." That suggests she may not be serving as a trustee for the first group anymore, so the tense will need to be changed.
  • "Violation Unlikely", 9.9%
  • Article is presentable (fine for display on main page)
  • No images, so no copyright issues on that front
  • DrThneed seems to have donated this
  • No other issues
Fix the issue above and we're good. Bremps... 21:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review Bremps, have changed it to 'is or has been' a trustee. DrThneed (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I can pass this Bremps... 22:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4 Katie Nimon
Review:
  • Squeaks over the 1,500 characters prose requirement
  • Created on the 14th, nominated on the 17th
  • Citations seem fine. Her education is cited to her campaign website (citation 3), but I can let it slide.
  • "Violation Unlikely" at 7.4%
  • Article is presentable
  • No images, so no copyright concerns on that front
  • DrThneed donated this QPQ
  • No other issues
This is a pass Bremps... 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8 Dana Kirkpatrick
9 David MacLeod
10 Grant McCallum
11 James Meager
12 Mike Butterick
13 Miles Anderson
15 Rima Nakhle
Shivashree, you marked off Rima Nakhle as approved in the table above but you did not provide a rationale here why the bio is meeting the DYK requirements. Could you please attend to that? Schwede66 01:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whilst Shivashree marked the article as reviewed, there is no breakdown here how the article meets the requirement as is stipulated by the DYK review rules. As the reviewer hasn't responded to the request of providing the detail, someone else will need to review this. Schwede66 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article length: Article is not expanded x5 in the past 10 days. The article had 1026 characters in September 2021. Present length is 2171 characters.
It is biography of a living person, with significant notability as Member of Parliament. Article is well cited. The hook is long with too many names, but that should be okay. GD (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Shivashree. Two things. Regarding the article, you need to look at its history. It was moved into mainspace on 14 October and nominated for DYK on 17 October, i.e. it is new to mainspace. Regarding your signature, I have struck your time stamp as it shows you having made this comment 5 days ago, when in fact you commented a few minutes prior to my reply. Schwede66 04:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake. I didn't check the move log. Regarding the signature, I had posted my review on Template:Did you know nominations/Rima Nakhle and just copy-pasted from there. I see it doesn't work that way.
The article qualifies on newness, notability, verifiable. GD (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
16 Carl Bates
17 Greg Fleming
18 Jamie Arbuckle
19 Casey Costello
20 Tanya Unkovich
21 Reuben Davidson
Approved Meets requirements. Though education seems to be missing and could add margin of victory in 2023. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review Hameltion. Have added his broadcasting degree (I don't think we know anything else about his education), and the margin in the final results. DrThneed (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
22 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel
Approved Removed one seemingly trivial detail, otherwise quite well done. Lede could at least mention broadcasting and sports administration. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Hameltion, have attended to that. DrThneed (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
23 Scott Willis
Approved Resolved mild OR with copyedit. Could use broader statement of what his activism/service career has consisted of/benefit from more independent sourcing. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review Hameltion. I've added a couple of extra sources (there's been surprisingly little further coverage of him since the election). The Willis-authored articles were there to provide some info on issues he cares/writes about - I would rather have sourced to a summary by a third party but as yet haven't found one. Maybe there's a better way to include them, though - in an academic bio, I would have a selected pubs section, but that isn't usual in a politician bio. I could move them to External links perhaps if you think that would be better? DrThneed (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DrThneed: Selected publications would work. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. DrThneed (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
24 Darleen Tana
Very close Ref5's URL (Ling) is a search result, but other sourcing OK. Questions on prose: worked on projects is fairly unspecific, and in the role of Kaiārahi could use explanation. New to mainspace, long enough, neutral. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)