Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
v t e

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
February 28	1
March 2	1
March 11	1	1
March 12	1
March 14	1
March 19	1
March 24	1
March 25	4	1
March 28	1	1
March 30	2
March 31	1
April 1	2	1
April 2	4	2
April 3	6	6
April 4	7	3
April 5	7	7
April 6	7	6
April 7	8	7
April 8	7	6
April 9	6	3
April 10	4	3
April 11	1	1
April 12	3	3
April 13	18	12
April 14	7	2
April 15	12	9
April 16	8	4
April 17	9	7
April 18	9	4
April 19	10	6
April 20	11	8
April 21	9	5
April 22	4
April 23	6	1
Total	180	109
Last updated 20:46, 23 April 2024 UTC Current time is 20:46, 23 April 2024 UTC [refresh]

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.

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.

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

Handy copy sources:

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]

Articles created/expanded on February 28[edit]

Kirby: King of Comics

• ... that Kirby: King of Comics contains original artwork made by Jack Kirby (pictured) which Mark Evanier obtained while working for him? Source: [1], [2]
  • ALT1: ... that Mark Evanier was a good friend of Jack Kirby (pictured) which gave him access to lots of original art to include in his biography? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
  • ALT2: ... that while writing Kirby: King of Comics, once Mark Evanier hit a word count of 250,000 he considered the book "nowhere near finished"? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: QPQ not needed fifth nom

5x expanded by OlifanofmrTennant (talk). Self-nominated at 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kirby: King of Comics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

• Expanded 5x, from 319 to 1614 characters; long enough. Well-sourced, neutral, no plagiarism. I like the first hook; its source is reliable. Great image; I agree that's a better one than the book cover. Well done taking a stub to a short-ish and salvageable article. Good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled this nom from prep, as it fails to include a summary of the book's contents and thus fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. It also contains at least two errors, one which says Evanier "obtained" artworks from Kirby "while working for him" - he only obtained access, and not apparently while working for him, and another which says the book was met with "positive" reviews when in fact it was panned by The Guardian critic. The article clearly needs more work before it can be featured, if it should be featured at all given the apparent errors. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass I've begun working on a summary of the books contents, its been a while sinces I've read the book so I'll have to look over it again Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator OlifanofmrTennant, reviewer Figureskatingfan, and promoter PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no improvement of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I feel that their has been improvement of the article I've just been struggling to find content supported backed up by sources.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing policy I belive that it would be covered under WP:DYKCITEQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this. The summary is extremely short, to the point of remaining woefully incomplete. Still fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Time to pass on this as the nominator just isn't accepting what they are being told.4meter4 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I've expanded it a bit how much would be needed? I fear that to much would just be a mini biography of Jack Kirby. It took me a while to begin writing the summary as I didnt have my copy at the time.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant The summary needs to present a complete but not overly detailed picture of the book's entire plot. It should provide enough detail to give the reader a general picture of the book's contents. It should not be too vague (which it currently is) nor should it be overly detailed. It should be a summary. See MOS:PLOT and Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance. I would suggest removing the bulleted point by chapter. It isn't entirely necessary to break down the content into chapters. It would be better to concentrate on narrative. What is the story being told? Summarize that story. Since this is a biography it should be biographical. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article on summaries for non-fiction such as biographies. It might be helpful to think about how you would summarize the book if you were writing for a summary on the book jacket of the back of the book, or if you were having to write a book summary for an English class, or an abstract for a journal article book review in which a summary is provided as part of a review. All of those require narrative and details but still succinct writing with an overview scope. You should be able to craft one or two paragraps of prose that summarizes the book's narrative arc. 4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 2[edit]

One Chun

• ... that One Chun, a Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand restaurant, has black-and-white televisions, transistor radios, and antique clocks on its walls? Source: Srivilai, Kasidit (2021-11-05). "Behind The Bib: Retro Decor Meets Phuket Flavours At One Chun. Retro decor harkens authentic Phuket tastes, plus great locally sourced ingredients". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2024-03-02. Retrieved 2024-03-02.

  The article notes: "Chessadawan said while showing us a beautiful wall adorned with old clocks, transistor radios, and black-and-white television sets."

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Davis (police officer)

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 10:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/One Chun; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A finely put together article improving the coverage of food, Southeast Asia, and women. The article was new enough at the time of nomination, and it's long enough. There's a source at the end of every paragraph or quote (at the end of most sentences), and the hook is cited at its sentence. Earwig's detector comes back 20%, which from my reading is attributable to the quotations. The hook is interesting, since a Fifties aesthetic and Michelin fine-dining don't usually go together in one's mind. QPQ is done as well. There are only two minor problems—@Cunard: first, the text of the Time Out Shanghai article on its own doesn't actually make that Bai Liang Phad Khai includes eggs—it only makes clear the leaves and shrimp (the images don't load from where I'm reading, so if the information was in the images, that may be why I'm having trouble verifying that bit). Second, I think the summarization of the Frommer's source to say that both Raya and One Chun serve roast duck and crab curry is slightly off. Frommer's states, Raya’s sister restaurant, One Chun, also serves the famous crab curry along with a host of cheaper Thai classics, like roasted duck in red curry. The wording of "along with a host of cheaper Thai classics" I think means that while roasted duck is one of the "cheaper Thai classics" that One Chun also serves, alongside the crab curry that both Raya and One Chun serves (meaning Frommer's verifies that One Chun serves roast duck, but not that Raya serves roast duck; it does verify that both serve crab curry). If these minor problems are fixed, I will happily approve the nomination. Feel free to ping me when it's ready. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the detailed review and for catching these issues, Hydrangeans (talk · contribs)! I've implemented the suggestions. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent! With these matters resolved, I am happy to approve the nomination. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hydrangeans: A finely put together article improving the coverage of food, Southeast Asia, and women Have to disagree with you there, it reads like a press release to me. In fact when I came across it as part of NPP I had to check it wasn't written by a COI editor. Regards John B123 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and have tagged it as such. It's quite funny how the "Reception" section contains less reception (all positive, of course) than has beem inserted indiscriminately throughout the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I revised the article to shorten and have fewer quotes as recommended by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone, which says, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone." I hope this addresses editors' concerns. As the Wikipedia's article author, I do not have a conflict of interest with the restaurant. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". I have complied with this policy by fairly representing reliable sources' viewpoint about the restaurant. Regarding "all positive, of course", I conducted an exhaustive search for reliable sources about the restaurant. I did not find negative coverage of the restaurant in reliable sources. Adding negative information about the restaurant to the article when it is unsupported by reliable sources would violate the neutral point of view and verifiability policies. Cunard (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The minor edits you have made do nothing to make the article less like an advert or press release. IMHO the article needs a complete rewrite. The first major issue is the in-depth coverage of the menu. A good part of the lead and the largest section of the article is devoted to the menu. If you look at similar restaurant articles, the menu only takes up a paragraph at the most. Secondly, it needs to be written more objectively with less 'bigging up'. For example, Thai starlets in the source becomes Thai celebrities in the article. John B123 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two concerns have been raised: (1) the menu section is too long and (2) the article is not written neutrally. I find the premise of (1) to be inaccurate. I welcome feedback about (2).
          1. If you look at similar restaurant articles, the menu only takes up a paragraph at the most. – I do not know what the "similar" qualifier in "similar restaurant articles" means. There are featured articles and good articles about restaurants with "Menu" or "Cuisine" sections that are three or more paragraphs long. The only featured article about a restaurant is Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant, which has a three-paragraph "Food" section. There are numerous good articles about restaurants. There are good articles with a five-paragraph "Cuisine" section, a four-paragraph "Cuisine" section, a four-paragraph "Menu" section, a three-paragraph "Menu" section, and a three-paragraph "Cuisine" section.

             Alongside a restaurant's history and decor, its menu and cuisine is a very important part of its background. One Chun's "Dishes" section is three paragraphs, while its "History" and "Decor" sections are much smaller. That is because reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes, much more than they discuss other aspects of the restaurant like its history and decor. As such, a three-paragraph summary of what the sources said about the menu—and three sentences in the lead—complies with the due weight policy.

             Secondly, it needs to be written more objectively with less 'bigging up'. For example, Thai starlets in the source becomes Thai celebrities in the article. – when revising the article based on comments in this DYK nomination, I paraphrased the "Thai starlets" quote to be "Thai celebrities". As "celebrities" is "bigging up" compared to "starlets", I've modified the sentence to use "Thai starlets" again.

             The sources are universally positive about the restaurants' dishes and decor. I believe the article complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in fairly representing the sources' viewpoints. I do not believe "the article needs a complete rewrite". I sometimes overlook things like the "Thai celebrities" issue you pointed out, so I welcome specific feedback about how to make it "written more objectively with less 'bigging up'".

          Cunard (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The articles you link to are generally larger articles, so the menu/cuisine sections form a proportionally smaller part of the article. Reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes, most of the references in the Dishes section are short mentions in 'Where to eat in Phuket' type articles or directory entries such as Lonely Planet. WP:NOTPRICE seems to be applicable here: An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. John B123 (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the featured and good articles I linked, there is plenty of coverage about the restaurants' history, decor, and menu, so the menu sections must "form a proportionally smaller part of [those] article[s]". For this article, there is less coverage about the restaurant's history and decor but more coverage about the menu, so the menu must form a proportionally larger part of the article. The decision of how much to cover should be done on a case-by-case basis reliant on how much reliable sources cover each area. The length of this Wikipedia article's menu section does not make it violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

              WP:NOTPRICE says:

              A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

              The information in the "Dishes" section is not a "A resource for conducting business". It is not a listing of "products and services". It is not "product pricing or availability information".

              It is information from "independent source[s]" with "encyclopedic significance for the mention". It is information from "mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". The "Where to eat in Phuket" type articles and the Lonely Planet book are not "just passing mention[s]". They provide a few sentences to a paragraph about the subject that includes "commentary on these details".

              This is why I provided in-text attribution of reviewers' commentary contextualising and critiquing the dishes.

              If the first paragraph of the "Dishes" section was written like this, it would violate WP:NOTPRICE for being a listing without any "commentary on details":

              "One's Chun's dishes include crab curry made with coconut milk, Nam Prik Goong Siab, Mu Hong, and roasted red pork."

              But the first paragraph of the "Dishes" section includes "commentary on details" through contextualisation and critiquing so does not violate WP:NOTPRICE:

              Lonely Planet's Isabella Noble praised the restaurant for its seafood, citing its crab curry made with coconut milk. One Chun serves Nam Prik Goong Siab, a spicy entrée made with shrimp paste and containing dried shrimp that has been deep fried, giving it a "savoury crunchiness". The dish includes vegetables to alleviate the peppery taste, which Kasidit Srivilai of the Michelin Guide said "balanc[es] the mixture's saltiness and sourness". Two meat dishes are Mu Hong, a pork belly stew made with low-temperature cooking and flavored with the spices pepper and garlic, and roasted red pork.

              The "Cuisine" section of the good article Gage and Tollner discusses in substantial detail that restaurant's cuisine and menu throughout the years, while its reception section includes critics' commentary about the cuisine and service. For the "Dishes" section of One Chun's Wikipedia article, I chose to have the menu section include critics' commentary. This is up to editorial discretion. Both approaches are policy-compliant editorial decisions.

              Cunard (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

              • I note we have gone from reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes to provide a few sentences to a paragraph about the subject that includes "commentary on these details", which is still overgenerous in a lot of cases. In my view the Dishes section is availability information so WP:NOTPRICE is applicable. No matter how you try and fit WP policies and guidelines to what has been written, the article still comes as a promotion for the restaurant. John B123 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is no conflict between my two statements. The "Where to eat in Phuket" type articles and the Lonely Planet book provide a few sentences to a paragraph about the restaurant's dishes. Collectively, the reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes. I explained why WP:NOTPRICE is not violated: "availability information" does not violate the policy when there is "there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention". I linked to a featured article and multiple good articles about restaurants that discuss their menu in a similar way to this article, showing this is standard practice for restaurant articles.

                  Although I consider the WP:NOTPRICE concern to be unsupported by policy or practice, I remain open to feedback about specific parts of the article that can be "written more objectively with less 'bigging up'". Cunard (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

                  • Adding 'collectively' before 'the reliable sources spend considerable space discussing and critiquing the restaurant's dishes' makes a huge difference to the meaning of your original statement. You explanation of why you think WP:NOTPRICE is not applicable is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, phrases like another crab dish the restaurant serves is crab spring rolls require a huge stretch of the imagination to be thought of as of encyclopedic significance. Secondly, many of the sources used just give the restaurant a passing mention.

I'd draw your attention to the SNG for restaurants WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. This establishes the types of reviews that are 'significant' and can be included towards notability. Most of the reviews used in the article fail the test to be 'significant'. The SNG goes on to cover independent reviews and states Often, sponsored nature of a review is not disclosed and not immediately apparent. In particular, a strong indication of a sponsored or other relationship is a review that is excessively positive or negative Later it is stated Once notability is established, non-independent reviews may be used to verify some non-controversial facts in the article (e.g. number of employees, number of tables in a restaurant, product models) This suggests to me that reviews needs to be demonstrably independent or just used to verify non-controversial facts. What somebody thinks is a good dish is subjective and therefore potentially controversial. John B123 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • • • It has the same effect with regard to proportionality of coverage within the article. Regarding WP:NOTPRICE, I've removed the sentence about crab rolls. I consider the sources in the article to be independent reliable sources. Which sources do you consider to be possibly sponsored or "non-independent reviews" that are being used to describe "What somebody thinks is a good dish"? Cunard (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the sources, and in the same order as the refs section:

1. Manager Daily - looks like a paid piece, no author given
2. Michelin Guide - Sound source
3. SMH - Brief mention extracted from Michelin Guide
4. Thansettakij - Churnalism based on the Michelin Guide
5. Thaiger - Obvious churnalism, the author, Ye Man Pyae, seems to specialise in 'best of' articles ranging from eateries to nursery schools to best best places to teach English in Thailand (teach not learn)
6. BK - Short listing, nothing there that's not on One Chun's Facebook which it links to
7. Lonely Planet Thailand - Single sentence listing
8. Lonely Planet Phuket - 3 sentence listing
9. Michelin Guide - Sound source
10. Manager Daily - Probably churnalism, no author given
11. SMH - single sentence mention
12. Nation - 2 sentence listing
13. Michelin Guide - Sound source
14. Manager Daily - Passing mention (half a sentence)
15. Michelin Guide - Sound source
16. Lifestyle Asia - Looks independent, information here that doesn't seem to be elsewhere. Probably too short to count towards notability, but still a reliable source IMHO.
17. Timeout - Looks independent, but again probably too short to count towards notability
18. CNN - Passing mention
19. Manager Daily - Passing mention
20. Frommers - Passing mention in (paid?) article about sister restaurant Raya
21. Manager Daily - 7 sentences in a long article promting the Nissan X-Trail. As this an obvious promotional article, I doubt it would be considered a reliable source.
22. Australian - Passing mention
23. Khaosod - Passing mention

John B123 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having your specific concerns enumerated is very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to review all the sources. Some of the sources were listed as short or being churnalism for reporting on the Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand designation. I do not consider either of those attributes as causing those sources to be unreliable so will not go into detail on those sources. The reliability of three sources—Manager Daily, Frommer's, and The Thaiger—was questioned, so I will discuss them below.

Manager Daily is a national business newspaper with a circulation of 300,000 in 2016. From my observations and a review of its articles, Manager Daily generally does not use bylines. A lack of bylines is standard for Thai journalism. According to this Routledge book, "Front-page political news stories in Thai language newspapers never carried a by-line; indeed, by-lines were rare for news stories anywhere in the Thai press, other than some weekly magazines. In part this reflected Thai traditions of journalism, but it also derived from the fact that these stories really did not have a single author."

I consider Manager Daily to be a reputable newspaper. From this working paper by Ramkhamhaeng University faculty member Suchart Sriyaranya:

Some newspapers pay a high monthly salary or even pay more for one article than their competitors. Many well-known academics write as columnists in Manager Daily on this basis. Manager Daily rose to become the most successful newspaper during an era of economic boom in Thailand. It was started as a weekly business magazine and later developed to be a daily newspaper. Its editorial direction is different from that of Matichon Daily. While Matichon represents mostly progressive readers, Manager Daily has targeted a rising group of younger urban professionals or Yuppies who work in business sectors. As it can offer the good-quality daily articles written by many famous intellectuals, as well as provide the news contents in focussing in the business sectors, Manager has succeeded in combining its globalized image with the contributions of academics and information demands of bussiness groups.

These articles are positive restaurant reviews written by Manager Daily's travel and food team. I do not think Manager Daily would publish sponsored articles without disclosure.

Frommer's is a reputable travel guide publisher. The Frommer's review rated One Chun's sister restaurant two out of three stars. I think a paid article would give three out of three stars, not two.

The Thaiger is a source with a less established history and the concerns about the author, a junior journalist, are valid. I've removed the content based on The Thaiger from the article.

Cunard (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the website mgronline.com is the same as Manager Daily? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manager Daily's website is mgronline.com. This article (citation details) from the Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Sciences says:

"'Somsak' Poet Sun Phak Ko Mo Mo Khorat Chuenmuen-Prachachon Nakrop Mue Top Ruam Nueangnaen." ['Somsak' Opens the Party’s Branch. Committee Happy–A Lot of Hand-Clapping People Joined the Event]. 2009. Manager Daily Online, August 10. Accessed February 21, 2016. https://mgronline.com/local/detail/9520000090638. (in Thai)

This article from S&P Global says:

The Bank of Thailand and the Thai Ministry of Finance allowed U.S.-based PayPal Inc. to continue providing services for Thai customers until the end of 2022, Manager Daily reported.

Cunard (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with sources here is well illustrated by Belinda Jackson's article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Things to do in Phuket, Thailand: One day three ways, in which she states: Lunch is a chance to rub shoulders with Thai starlets at One Chun restaurant: order the rich, creamy crab and coconut curry. Does this mean she has visited One Chun and ate the curry with Thai starlets, or does this mean she has read somewhere about this? Given the number of articles she writes, I doubt the Herald's budget stretches to jetting her around the world almost continually to write these articles. If she hasn't visited One Chun, where did she get the information from? We have no idea whether these sources were reliable or not, nor do we know when the source(s) she used were published. The article was written in 2015, 9 years ago, although the information may have come from before then. As 'in' places change over time, we have no way of knowing if what was correct 9+ years ago is still correct today, the Thai starlets may well now frequent a different establishments. Restaurants change their menus, so rich, creamy crab and coconut curry may no longer be available. (When I lived in the UK, our local Jamie Oliver restaurant changed it's menu several times a year.)

Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations that you referred to above goes on to give criticism of the Thai practice of using multiple authors to produce articles, leading to poor articles. Although the criticism was specifically about political articles in Thai Rath, the shortcomings raised would seem to be equally valid for other article types and publications, including Manager Daily, using this type of reporting.

John B123 (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Jackson is a travel writer for The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's newspaper of record. From Belinda Jackson's website, "I have travelled every continent and lived on three". She has written numerous pieces about Thailand for The Sydney Morning Herald (1, 2, 3, and 4). It is clear from her article that One Chun is one of the places she visited during her time in Phuket. The feedback about the information being nine years old is noted. I've updated the article to add the date this statement was made.

Regarding Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations, the book says:

Political rewriters were not always satisfied with the quality of news material sent in to them by reporters. In an internal memo sent to all members of the political team on 24 April 1995, Weerajak Konthong (better known as the columnist 'Chalam Khiao', or Green Shark) set out his criticisms of reporters' material. The memo contained five points. Weerajak first observed that since parliament was opening, politics was becoming more complex, and there were lots of different issues every day. People who wanted to get into the news were speaking at great length, but the problem Thai Rath faced was that the newspaper did not have much space for political news.

The second point from Konthong's memo: "Political news had to be tightly written, and reporters had to be news-hounds (suakhao, literally news-tigers) rather than simply sending in what they taperecorded." The third point: "it was a shame reporters felt they did not know what the main issue was, and sent in long stories accordingly". The fourth point: "reporters might well ask why it was that rewriters did not do the job of shortening their material". The fifth point: "reporters needed to read the newspapers before starting work, so that they would be familiar with the development of particular issues".

I do not think that any of these points detract from the reliability of the Manager Daily reviews. The reviews show a good understanding of the restaurant and are not "simply sending in what they taperecorded".

Cunard (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new review is necessary for an uninvolved opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too worry about the amount of content that could date. Dishes go on and off menus all the time. If any of them should be mentioned, they should be attributed. There are a few other sentences that stand out; "All the dishes are beautifully cooked using herbs and freshest seafood" is something I'd expect to see on a press release, "When it is the right season" tells me the square root of jack.--Launchballer 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "All the dishes are beautifully cooked using herbs and freshest seafood" sentence was quoted from the Michelin Guide. I've removed it. Thank you for the feedback. I've implemented your feedback. Cunard (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I kept rewording my sentence. I think "CNN travel writer Kate Springer listed One Chun among Phuket Town's "top restaurants".[5]" should also come out as well. Arguably the rest of the History section should be merged with the 'Decor and ambience' section and put in chronological order, but that's not really a DYK issue. Once you've done that, you can take the tag off and I'll approve this.--Launchballer 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article again. I've removed that sentence. It's unclear to me how to combine the "History" and "Decor and ambience" sections owing to their focus on different aspects of the restaurant, so I've left the two sections as is for now. Cunard (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I don't plan on promoting this as it will likely get pulled up at WT:DYK or ERRORS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the source. It says "wall", not "walls", and "old clocks" rather than "antique clocks". I propose the following:

ALT1: ... that upon awarding One Chun a Bib Gourmand, the Michelin Guide complimented a "wall adorned with old clocks, transistor radios and black-and-white television sets"?--Launchballer 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: thank you for pointing this out. I've modified the article. The Michelin Guide article calls the decorations "beautiful", so the hook's wording of "complimented" is accurate. I like this hook, but I'm worried that editors would consider that hook too positive and promotional owing to the concerns raised in this discussion. Here is an alternative hook:

ALT2: ... that One Chun, a Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand restaurant, has black-and-white televisions, transistor radios, and aged clocks on a wall?

Cunard (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only just saw this because I don't tend to check the Approved list with any regularity. I'm not comfortable with 'has', as it could change, and I'm not really convinced 'aged' means the same as 'old'. ALT3: ... that One Chun, when awarded a Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand, had black-and-white televisions, transistor radios, and old clocks on a wall?--Launchballer 13:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's get a new reviewer in here to look at the ALT hooks, since one was proposed by the previous reviewer (I've struck the previously approved original hook due to the issues raised, which leaves ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 12[edit]

Forever Young (horse)

• ... that Forever Young (pictured), who won the Saudi Derby, is owned by Susumu Fujita, who is known for a horse racing mobile game called Uma Musume Pretty Derby? Source: https://www.nikkansports.com/keiba/news/202402250000020.html
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Thank you everyone for revising the article. If Forever Young wins the UAE Derby on March 30, 2024, it may be good to change the hook from Saudi Derby to UAE Derby.

Created by NinetyNineDragon (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Forever Young (horse); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

• • Comments: Well done for creating such an article. However, to make this article more presentable as I mentioned in the Talk area of the article that the Japanese references in the article need to be replaced with English. Both JBIS and Netkeiba have English and can readily be used as references.
  • The statistics needs to conform to what is used in the English wikipedia space. There are columns with abbreviations which as specific in Japanese form reader but for the US/English make no sense. Also the odds are not displayed as payout coefficients. Margins are in lengths or part of horse's posture (head, neck, nose etc...) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, thank you very much for revising the article. The quality of the article cannot be decent without your help. Second, may I know whether there are any rules stating that English references are better than those which are not in English? For articles about Japanese stuff, isn't that Japanese references are more accurate and relevant?
    • Third, for your comment about the abbreviations in the statistics section, could you provide some good articles for my reference? You may guess that I am not that familiar with horse racing from my contributions (but obviously someone with limited knowledge cannot write this article). NinetyNineDragon (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a comment and not a review, but even as someone who's watched Uma Musume, I'm not a fan of the hook. It's more about Fujita or even the game itself than the horse, and the guidelines say that hooks that are only tangentially about the bolded article should be avoided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the hook is definitely not tangentially about the article. The information in the hook is completely mentioned in the headline of the source (the Nikkan Sports article) I put above. I guess not everyone here knows Japanese so let me put a rough translations of the headline here: "[Saudi Derby] Uma Musume's Fujita Susumu Got First Overseas Graded Race Victory, Owns Forever Young '[I] won'". If you google Japanese news articles about Forever Young, you will find it is not rare for them to mention Uma Musume at the same time.
  • If you think it is not generally interesting enough, is this better to you:

  ALT1: ... that someone wants Forever Young (pictured), the winner of the Saudi Derby, to be turned into a horse girl because he is owned by the CEO of CyberAgent? Source: https://www.inside-games.jp/article/2023/12/13/150914.html

  • NinetyNineDragon (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, even the source you provided (or at least the quote) focuses on the owner and not the horse itself. Having said that, ALT1 might be better and address my concerns, but the wording isn't the greatest given how vague the word "someone" is in this context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review needed, including hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - ?

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thank you for this positive article about a racehorse. The picture is nice, too. Just two issues:

• (1) Earwig picks up only one phrase: the track record for the distance by about two seconds. Please rephrase it, to avoid copyright violation..
• Hooks: ALT0 is fine. We are talking about a racehorse here, which is not a person or a pet. In this context it is a sports icon and the property of an investor (Some of us may not like that, but that's not the point. The point is the facts). So we must compare it to articles about racing cars, racing bikes etc. where riders, owners and winnings get all the attention.
• (2) In ALT1, the word "someone" is a bit weird, even a bit creepy. Maybe name them - or at least their trade or position?
• Re article content: notability for this subject seems to be about the winning record, which is a good one in this case. and the winnings are tabled in full in the article. So no problem of content there.
• I have given the article a minor copyedit, which does not affect DYK.

If you can resolve the above two issues, then this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @NinetyNineDragon: As of this edit on 16 April 2024, the article has had a number of new edits, but the above issues have not been addressed. Please resolve this? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @NinetyNineDragon: Points (1) and (2) above have still not been addressed. Please do that? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 14[edit]

Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark

• ... that King Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark were the parents of a Danish king, a British queen, a Greek king, and a Russian empress? Source: ^[1]
  • ALT1: ... that Queen Louise of Denmark was instrumental in advantageously marrying her children with King Christian IX into various European royal families? Source: ^[1]
  • ALT2: ... that King Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark would welcome their children and grandchildren across six different European royal houses in the summer? Source: ^[2]
  • ALT3: ... that the popularity of King Christian IX of Denmark recovered in his country after his children married into multiple European royal families? Source: ^[3]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is a list, so I am unsure if this DYK is eligible. That being said, here is my "elevator pitch":

The executed Nicholas II of Russia. The queen that never set foot in her country, Alexandra of Yugoslavia. Accomplished Olympian Constantine II of Greece. The last king of the Congo, Baudouin of Belgium. An heir forging his 21st-century path, William, Prince of Wales. What do all of these people have in common (besides being royals)? They can claim descent from the Father-in-law of Europe, Christian IX of Denmark!

If this DYK is approved, readers will be enticed to learn about how the royal families of Europe are biological relatives to a closer extent than some may think! Created by AndrewPeterT (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

@AndrewPeterT: Hi, there! I will be reviewing this Did You Know nomination. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review checklists

DYK eligibility scan results: (See here for details.)

• Prose size (text only): 7669 characters (1201 words) "readable prose size"
• Article created by AndrewPeterT on March 9, 2024
• Article moved from Draft:Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark on March 14, 2024
• Article has not been expanded 5x since it was created
• Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (27 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Yes Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

@AndrewPeterT: Well done for nominating this article, a topic that is of great interest to me. The hook I prefer is ALT0. As you'd know, there are a few criteria for DYK:

• This article was moved into the mainspace on 14 March and nominated on 18 March. Therefore, it is new enough.
• My immediate primary concern for this article was the overwhelming amount of tables in its use. However, good use of background information for each child ensures that there are around 6800-6900 characters of original prose. This makes the article long enough.
• These hooks, of which I prefer ALT0, are adequately sources, so there do exist cited hooks.
• As you have less than five DYK nominations, there is no quid pro quo required.
• Finally, the article's prose is well cited. Information within some tables, however, is not. Though it is clear that effort has been made to source information in some tables, some tables lack sourcing entirely. I am not too concerned with lack of sources for their birth and death dates as that can be found on their respective articles, but it is moreso their children. For example, three of Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland's children lack sources.
• The article has good spelling and grammar. There are a few fixes that could be made:
  • "would go on to have" ➜ "had"
  • "would go on to fight" ➜ "fought"
  • "would go on long sea voyages..." ➜ "went on long sea voyages..."
  • "Also, Alexandra and Edward's eldest..." ➜ "Additionally [or Furthermore, Moreover, etc.], Alexandra and Edward's eldest..."
  • After addressing him, he no longer needs to be repeatedly called "George I", he can just be called "George". Same goes for anyone else with ordinals. If it is a new paragraph, feel free to restate the ordinal. I would suggest however, you write "Christian IX" instead of "Christian" the whole time.
  • "Dagmar took the name Maria Feodorovna" ➜ "Dagmar took the name "Maria Feodorovna"". Italics not needed here. Quotation marks around her name is optional and up to you.
  • "Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael were killed during the Russian Revolution." ➜ "Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution." Yes, only talking about the children are being talked about, but it is best to include them as they were also closely-related relatives who also died as a result of the Revolution.
  • In the ALT0 hook, I would change it from "the parents to" ➜ "the parents of".

So, in summary, all that needs to be addressed is the sourcing within tables and a few spelling and grammar mistakes. I am also a bit concerned with the amount of WP:WHITESPACE. If this can't be fixed, it is not too much of a concern. Please let me know if you need any assistance or clarification. I hope this helps and I look forward to hopefully having this in DYK. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an: Thank you very much for your detailed evaluation and feedback. I have no objections to the ALT0 hook being used on the Main Page. Could you please let me know when I should make the suggested changes? As you noted, I am still in the process of citing some of the information in the tables. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: As soon as possible. The quicker these are addressed, the quicker we can place it on DYK. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All suggested spelling and grammar corrections have been made. I am prioritizing citing sources for the great-grandchildren of Christian IX and Louise. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: Great job. There's one other thing I would change. In the caption of the photo that will be used for the hook, I would change "Christian IX with various children and grandchildren at Fredensborg Palace." to "1886 portrait of Christian IX and his family by Laurits Tuxen." It's best the artist is probably credited. Also, in the actual article, in order to aleviate some of the WP:WHITESPACE, I would remove the two protraits of Christian IX and Louise in the background section as there are paintings of them given in the table below so. Once you're done sourcing the table information, please let me know! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Centurion C-RAM

• ... that the Centurion C-RAM (pictured) can fire more than 4500 rounds per minute? Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/pdf/2110-factsheet-c-ram.pdf
  • ALT1: ... that the American Centurion C-RAM (pictured) was developed during the Iraq war to shoot down mortar shells? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091231120809/http://defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news2105_c_ram.htm

• • Reviewed: [[]]

(Ping me)  On hold for merge discussion. Geardona (talk to me?) 04:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I've watchlisted the article's talk page and will review this when it's kept.--Launchballer 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 24[edit]

2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina

• ... that the 2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina took place at 21:00, instead of noon? Source: Javier Milei, en la apertura de sesiones 2024: las repercusiones del discurso del presidente
• (ALT1) ... that the 2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina took place at 21:00, instead of noon?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Louisa Mak and Template:Did you know nominations/Mattie Edwards

Cambalachero (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The link is too long, even if it contains the article title; I recommend splitting it and only bolding "2024 opening of regular sessions" and linking separately to the National Congress of Argentina. An ALT hook that mentions why the opening was held later might also be good to have.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hook is interesting and the article is in good shape. I'll leave it up to the nominator or promoter to change the hooks in the way I suggested, but won't fuss over it. Added clarification tags where needed. SounderBruce 04:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cambalachero: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720 and SounderBruce: Courtesy ping. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 25[edit]

Enchylium limosum

• ... that Enchylium limosum (pictured) is considered a pioneer species, commonly colonizing bare, calcareous soils in habitats disrupted by human activity, such as quarries and spoil heaps? Source: 1 2 3
  • ALT1: ... that Enchylium limosum (pictured) has had a taxonomic journey spanning centuries, undergoing numerous name changes before finally receiving its current accepted name in 2013? Source: 1 2 3
  • ALT2: ... that Enchylium limosum (pictured) loves lime? Source: [1] [2] [3]
  • Reviewed:

X (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I'll review this. Article length and eligibility checks out, and is generally quite presentable. I see no evidence of copyvio. Out of all of these, I think ALT2 is the best; but I don't really see evidence that it "loves lime" beyond its name, and the article is a bit vague about what the "loving" portion of "lime-loving" means. Unfortunately, I think the other two hooks are lengthy and not very interesting to a non-specialist audience. Can you find any sources about why it's a lime-loving lichen? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:

@Generalissima, Hey thanks for reviewing the article. The term "lime-loving" in the common name "Lime-loving Tarpaper Lichen" refers to the preference of Enchylium limosum for habitats with alkaline or calcareous substrates. Limestone, which contains calcium carbonate, is commonly referred to as "lime," hence the name. Lichens like Enchylium limosum thrive in environments where calcium-rich minerals are present, such as limestone or dolomitic rocks. This particular fact is mentioned throughout the sources that are used in the article. Common names given to species are pretty much self-explanatory in most cases, including this one. These sources, although not particularly about the article's subject, will give an idea of why such species of the genera are called "lime-loving." 1, [2].

Sources that mention Enchylium limosum's calcareious habitat and common name are abundant and used throughout the article hence I felt it's redundant to mention them here.

I hope I was able to provide some ideas. Let me know if you have other questions/suggestions. Regards.

Edit: If you feel necessary, I can try to add more information explaining/shedding some background behind its common name in the etymology/taxonomy section. X (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COSMOS field

• ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) is the largest contiguous survey of the universe ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope? Source: https://esahubble.org/images/heic0701g/
  • ALT1: ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) was the result of a collaboration between over 70 astronomers worldwide? Source: https://esahubble.org/images/heic0701g/
  • ALT2: ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) image contains over 2 million galaxies? Source: https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2007/01/2025-Image.html
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I've changed the sources and hooks around a bit due to some miswording on my part.

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page. ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure if this is the right way to add a comment, but the information given above is largely incorrect. The COSMOS field is not one of the deepest images ever taken of the universe and it is definitely not the deepest Hubble image ever taken either. It is also not really accurate to say that it's one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. The esahubble.org page cited as the source doesn't make these claims either. It is one of the largest (maybe the largest?) contiguous fields ever mapped with Hubble, but that is different from the statements made here. Aldebarium (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I mixed up the sources. [[3]https://esahubble.org/images/heic0701g/#:~:text=COSMOS%20%2D%20the%20Cosmic%20Evolution%20Survey,international%20team%20of%2070%20astronomers.%7Cthis]] source is the right one for the "Biggest survey" claim (which isn't a claim, it's a fact stated by Hubble/ESO) and is one of the largest surveys of the universe ever conducted (stated by HubbleSite among others, if you want links use my talk page, as I'm not too good with links). The 2 million+ galaxies statement has been said by multiple credible sources, including Caltech. ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Still, most of the items listed above are incorrect. It is definitely not correct to state that this is one of the deepest images ever taken (either by Hubble, or more generally). There are many Hubble images that go deeper than this one. It is the largest contiguous survey field ever observed by Hubble, but that’s different from stating that it was one of the largest surveys of the universe ever. Partly this depends on what you mean by “largest”: if referring to angular area covered, other surveys like SDSS are vastly larger. Aldebarium (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relooking at some if the sources, you are actually right, it is the largest contiguous survey, however, so I'll just reword the Hooks ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. But again, it’s important to clarify this was the largest contiguous area observed *by Hubble* for a distant galaxy survey. It is not even close to being one of the largest contiguous survey fields ever: many other surveys (such as SDSS) have covered vastly larger survey areas. The area of the COSMOS field is 2 square degrees, while the original SDSS covered something like 10,000 square degrees. Aldebarium (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, thanks for the help. Everything should be good now. Again, thanks! :) ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thank you for this fascinating article. It has two issues, plus I think we still need final confirmation that the hooks are all true:

• Two of the article's paragraphs contain no citations. They should at least have one citation at the end of each.
• This bit is copyright violation (plagiarism). You need to either rephrase it completely and cite it, or put it unchanged in quotation marks and cite it: Is the Hubble Space Telescope's largest ever contiguous survey of the Universe and was carried out by an international team of 70 astronomers on July 1, 2013. In making the COSMOS survey, Hubble photographed 575 adjacent and slightly overlapping views of the universe using its Advanced Camera for Surveys' (ACS) Wide Field Camera. It took nearly 1,000 hours of observations. The distances to the galaxies were determined from their redshifts, using ESO's Very Large Telescope, the Subaru and CFHT telescopes in Hawaii and the Magellan
• Please do the same with this one: covers a 2 square degree equatorial field, with spectroscopy and X-ray to radio imaging. Over 2 million galaxies are detected, spanning 75% of the age of the Universe.
• Aldebarium Please would you kindly confirm that the above hooks are now all true?

When the above issues are resolved, This nomination could be passed.

Positive notes

• I have copyedited the article, but that does not affect DYK.
• According to DYK check, the article was created on 25 March. According to the article history, it was nominated n the same day (so no problem with timing).
• Normally, an image like the one above would fail DYK assessment, because a glance at the thumbnail version says that it is just a black square. However in this case, I believe the public will understand that you have to click on it because it is obviously a night sky with stars in it. Storye book (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues have been fixed as of now. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listed information appears correct now, except for the final point about “identified galaxies". I don’t think that the statement “over 200,000 identified galaxies” is really meaningful. What does it mean for a galaxy to be “identified”? This isn’t specified. The online catalogs contain measured photometry (magnitudes) and other information for a larger number than this, and according to the COSMOS web page at Caltech the data provide morphological information for over 2 million galaxies. The number of 200,000 seems to be taken from the COSMOS field article, and the citation for this fact in that article links to a paper by Darvish et al., but I’m not sure where exactly in that article the number 200,000 appears (if at all). In the paper (section 2) they say that their analysis used a sample of about 40,000 galaxies with accurate photometric redshifts, which is a small fraction of the total galaxy count in COSMOS. In any case, I don’t think that the concept of “identified galaxies” is really useful or meaningful unless a more specific definition is given and citation is found to back up this number. If that line is removed, the remaining information all looks ok. Aldebarium (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll just remove ALT3, you are probably right MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Aldebarium and MemeGod27. I understand that the hooks are now acceptable, but I see that the article still has the contested phrase “over 200,000 identified galaxies” as a caption to the picture. Please could we have that removed, so that I can give the green tick? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, I just replaced it with "thousands of galaxies". Thanks :P MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MemeGod27 for those corrections. However, now that those issues have gone, some other problems have become more visible:

* The paragraph beginning, "The area, corresponding" has no citation at the end. Please either provide a citation, or remove the uncited sentence.

* Earwig now finds two sections which must be rephrased to avoid copyvio: "Hubble Space Telescope has a narrow field of view, which is only a fraction of the angular diameter of the Moon.", and "covers two square degrees of sky. By comparison, the Earth's Moon is one-half degree across. The field is being imaged by most major space-based and ground-based telescopes".

* Note that the technique of copying and pasting material into an article, then trying to rephrase it in situ, just doesn't work. You always end up with sections of it which are unchanged. The best way is to read the source, then put it out of sight, and write the information in your own words into the article. If you tell yourself that you can write it more clearly and concisely, that usually works. Only proper names (words beginning with capitals) and short, common phrases, can be safely transferred into the article. If you really cannot rephrase a section, put it in quotation marks, with the citation at the end. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done , I reworded the FOV part but just phrased the second one you pointed out, as there is no way I can reword it but keep the same integrity (and the source is cited and mentioned). I also added the citation that you mentioned. Thanks Storye book! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, MemeGod27 for rephrasing the first citation mentioned above. You had not dealt with the missing citation at the end of the para mentioned above, so I removed the uncited bit to the talk page. It can stay safely there until you can find a citation. Re the second citation: if you don't put it in quotation marks, it is still copyright violation even if you have added a citation. You still need to add quotation marks, because the phrasing itself is copyrighted. I have added the quotation marks for you, because we cannot just leave copyvio in the article. The article is now cleaned up, and can go forward.
• Good to go, with ALT 0, 1 or 2, and the picture. Note to promoter: I believe that the readers will understand that a sky-at-night picture will look black as a thumbnail, but will be well worth clicking on, to see the stars. However, that is ultimately a matter for the promoter to decide. Storye book (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just one more comment- after reading through the COSMOS field article, I have to say that it is very poorly written, unclear and confusing in many aspects of its content, and contains some errors (such as the implication that the entire field was imaged in 1 day, which I will fix now). It would benefit from a complete rewrite. (not that I have time to do this, but the article is really not in good condition at present.) Aldebarium (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• . Thank you, Aldebarium. I have changed the green ticks to a "no", for the present.
• Note to admin: Please give this nomination a set period of time for the article to have a full rewrite, before closing it down, in the hope that someone might re-write the article. Can you give it a month? Storye book (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm working on it right now. :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, MemeGod27. Please let us know when you have finished the re-write? Storye book (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, got it. MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, MemeGod27
• @Aldebarium: Please would you kindly look at the article and let us know if it is ready for DYK reassessment? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Malchow

• ... that Hal Malchow briefly worked as a securities lawyer, but left because writing contracts defending against fraud was more boring than scheming them? Source: Issenberg, Sasha (2013). The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. ISBN 9780307954800. p. 2: "except for a brief detour into securities law that ended when he realized that writing the contracts to guard against complex financial schemes was less fun than trying to hatch them."
  • ALT1: ... that Hal Malchow was detained in a Lima, Peru, airport because he was accused of smuggling cocaine in his arm cast? Source: "Three Americans held in Peru pending drug investigation outcome". The Greenville News. Vol. 113, no. 25. AP News. January 25, 1987. p. 3A.
  • Reviewed:

SWinxy (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Will be reviewing this one... el.ziade (talkallam) 11:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did some more searching for some minor biographical facts and came back with a news clipping saying that was too good to pass up. Added as an alt. SWinxy (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article presents a comprehensive overview of Malchow's life, career, and contributions to political consulting, and meets the newness, length, sourcing, neutrality, and copyvio-free criteria. Offline sources were accepted in good faith. he article and hook meet all the required criteria for inclusion in the DYK section of Wikipedia, with no subjective issues identified. el.ziade (talkallam) 09:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• unpromoted per Special:Diff/1219998585 RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking ALT1 due to WP:BLP issues; original hook struck because "scheming them" is confusing given the context: what does scheming a contract even mean? Please propose a new hook. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with you that ALT1 is "negative" and a BLP issue. The wording is clear that he was accused, not convicted, of smuggling cocaine. It plainly does not violate BLP because it's sourced to the Associated Press, considered generally reliable at WP:RSP. Being accused of smuggling narcotics in an arm cast is unusual, quirky, absurd. ALT1 can be modified slightly to say that Malchow "was once detained" to lessen a perception that crime is Malchow's MO. But I find it odd to read it this way. SWinxy (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • SWinxy, it isn't just me: the consensus I'm seeing in the WT:DYK thread is that ALT1 is both negative and a BLP issue. "Accused" and "detained" both sound bad, and to add "once" would simply be read by most people that it happened in the past, not that it happened to him only once in his life: either way, he's painted as a drug smuggler on Wikipedia's front page. I strongly advise you to come up with an ALT2 that features a different set of facts, since ALT1—though you clearly like it—isn't going to be accepted at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The two concurring with you made their replies before I addressed your claim of it being a BLP issue. It's unfair to mark "consensus!" at the time right before I made my rebuttal to allow my point to be considered, and without responding directly to the rebuttal of the argument you made. I liked it and think it's interesting, yeah. el.ziade seemed to think so too in approving it, PrimalMustelid promoted it, and RoySmith said that I don't see anything in particular that's a problem here in opening it up for discussion. Pinging Schwede66 for completion. Sorry for dragging this out, but I just think it's a fine premise for a hook. Could it be reworded in a way that retains it? SWinxy (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since I got pinged here, I'll just note that when I raised my original query at WT:DYK, I only had a vague feeling that this might be a problem, but BlueMoonset's response clarified the issue in my mind and I agree with him that ALT1 is unsuitable. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Needs ALT2. Schwede66 16:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 30[edit]

Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki

• ... that the Bangladeshi and Japanese Islamic State leader Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki, believed responsible for a bakery attack, had previously served as an associate professor at Ritsumeikan University? Source: Meet the mastermind of the Holey attack "Sajit Debnath aka Muhammad Saifullah Ozaki, the Japanese-Bangladeshi jihadi and former associate professor of Ritsumeikan University, is most likely the elusive ameer of ISIS in Bangladesh, responsible for a series of jihadi attacks in the country including the July 2016 massacre at the Holey Artisan Bakery."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vostok 2022

Anonymous 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• 

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - issue
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - issue
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and is well-sourced, but the source used here has an issue (see Buxton comments below). Possibly hook could be improved (see comment below), a really interesting article John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I changed the review status thanks to Bruxton for flagging the issues. John Cummings (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding this nomination. It is a BLP so I am cautious about promoting a hook that seems to imply guilt before conviction. Also the bit in the hook about him being an associate professor... it appears in the lead uncited. In the body it just says "He began teaching at Kyoto's Ritsumeikan" - since it is a hook fact it should be stated in the body directly followed by a citation. The hook is 197 characters so it is 3 under the limit, but also gives too much info. (I also made this reply at DYK). I think we need a new hook that because this is a BLP. Bruxton (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros football

• ... that the UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros football team were members of the United Athletic Conference but left before ever having played a game there? Source: [4] - the team has not played yet (it starts next year), and originally was a member of the United Athletic Conference, but it was announced last month that the school was moving to the Southland Conference - let me know if I need to make this more clear in the article
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/United States' Telegraph & pending

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• The article is all sourced and has no copyright issues. Regarding the hook, I suggest making the change in the article so that readers can see it and understand when it appears in the DYK. Other than that, the hook is good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I still have to do the QPQs... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without QPQs, this can't be given a tick. Giving more appropriate icon for present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • One QPQ done; this is next in line. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 31[edit]

Exdeath

• ... that Final Fantasy's "first great villain" has been compared to characters like the Green Goblin and the Joker? Source: [5] [6]
  • Reviewed:

detria^skies 22:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• The article is new but not long, thanks to the presence of that maintenance template demanding a section expansion and a lede merely consisting of an opening sentence. It has an image licensed for fair use but lacks a suitable caption, as well as a few questionable sources, such as RPGamer (cite 14). Furthermore, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns (assuming good faith on non-English language sources) and the hook is cited and is fine. Nominator is exempted from doing a QPQ, but they should be credited on this DYK as the "nominator" as opposed to mainspace mover, who is actually User:Kung Fu Man (diff). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be an expand template on this any more. Lede would still deserve {{lead too short}}, but updating icon.--Launchballer 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Can there be some movement on this please?--Launchballer 16:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DetriaSkies: - didn't ping properly.--Launchballer 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and expanded the lead section with information pertaining to his Reception. I hope this is alright since I'm not too closely involved with the Exdeath article, but I hope it helps in any case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, passing back to Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. I do notice he mentions RPGamer being questionable and that's still in the article.--Launchballer 07:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I was actually called out by Kung Fu Man in my talk for calling that source unreliable (and deservedly so): apparently, WP:VG/S says otherwise. So, mea culpa. Granted, the claim about the character receiving a "mixed reception" needs a reliable, third party source before I can pass this. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a go, but did not find any sources mentioning any mixed reception. Any commentary on the character I did find was hardly mixed. Coverage of this character seems to be mainly positive, the only criticism calling him a cliched villain. (Retro Gamer issue saying this.) Kung Fu Man is better versed in this subject than I am, they may know of a source for this that I missed. Also I already mentioned this on Nineteen Ninety-Four Guy's talk page, but apologies for misattributing myself as the article author. If I knew where to discuss the nomination form, I would request the field to be moved closer to the actual article fields, as it just seems like a poor design choice to have the article credit not with the status field. detria^skies 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of that topic sentence works also; it's synthesis anyway. Let's see if Kung Fu Man concurs. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally with character articles it's the norm to include a starting line explaining a summary of the reception a character received be it positive, negative, or mixed. While there is some praise, sources [11] and [12] (particularly 12) are more critical of the character, and even more positive sources also voice criticism. This is similar wording I've used in many other articles without any issue of synthesis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this only proves that it does badly need an RS; using other articles to justify an edit not in conformity with WP's guidelines is bad practice. Either back that up with a source or get rid of it. Your call. Otherwise, my nom rejection stands. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove it, when I get to GAN I'll just have the reviewer requesting such a statement be present, I've written enough of these to expect that. Removing it to appease you then add it back later to appease the majority defeats the point, no offense meant. So if it fails DYK, it does.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there is a much larger issue at hand if one editor is calling it synthesis while another says GAN reviewers request it. detria^skies 16:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, as someone who write a lot of reception sections on various media. I think we have to remember what "mixed" means. It does not mean "medium". It means "it varied". So, it's not really that tall of a hurdle to warrant its use. Any time you have some both positive and negative sentiments you can pretty much rightfully include it. And honestly, with the way many editor tend to POV-push positive sentiments for things they like (or the opposite for things they dislike) I think its honestly commendable that a more neutral route was taken here. Unless there's actually good-faith confusion on whether or not there is both positive and negative sentiments present in the section, I don't believe its WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'm not convinced, however, so I shall update the icon in light of these developments. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 1[edit]

Sonja van den Ende

• ... that Dutch activist and journalist Sonja van den Ende has been described by Western mainstream media as a "fake journalist" promoting Russian disinformation and propaganda? Source: Short mention in https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/business/media/russia-fake-journalists.html , in-depth coverage in Dutch: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1035246140/poetins-marionetten-in-nederland-burgerjournalist-fanatiek-verspreider-van-totale-onzin and https://www.parool.nl/wereld/hoe-een-nederlandse-burgerjournaliste-betrokken-raakte-bij-het-russische-leger~be2905ce/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Stewards Society
  • Comment: 2nd QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Gambling in Georgia

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A good, thorough, and necessary article. Thank you. Good to go.

• Earwig finds only a quotation, which is properly quoted in the article. So there is no copyvio. Storye book (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book and Piotrus: this definitely feels like it fails WP:DYKHOOKBLP, right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that In March 2022 Sonja van den Ende was the only Dutch journalist to report from the Russian-occupied Donbas on the war in Ukraine? (all sources in Dutch, so taken AGF).

@AirshipJungleman29 and Storye book: Fair point. But that is IMHO very boring. How about a balanced hook - ALT2 below: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that Dutch activist and journalist Sonja van den Ende has been criticized by the Western media but praised by Russian and Chinese outlets?

ALT2 would work. Storye book (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Rodolfo Pallucchini

• ... that Italian art historian Rodolfo Pallucchini was made the director of the Institute of Art History of the Giorgio Cini Foundation of Venice in 1972? Source: https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Rodolfo-Pallucchini/2235
• ALT1 ... that the theory put forth by Italian art historian Pallucchini that Venetian painter Giambattista Pittoni studied under Veronese painter Antonio Balestra is widely discredited?
  • Reviewed:

Brudelman (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: the nominator is currently blocked from new mainspace or category creations over concerns regarding competency; however, as they are not fully blocked I am not sure if this will affect the nomination or not. This is just something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't blocked at the time, and can still edit the page, so should be fine. I'm a bit irked by the fact that none of the accessdates are recent, which implies that they've been copied from somewhere.--Launchballer 09:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Looking at their talk page, it appears they have already received a warning for copyright violations. For what it's worth, while Earwigs gave a largely okay score, there are at least two sentences that are very close matches with another source, but I don't know if they're acceptable given they're relatively minor, or this still counts as a copyvio or close paraphrasing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's severe enough to warrant quick-failing/WP:G12ing, but something must be done about it. Pinging Brudelman for immediate attention.--Launchballer 10:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I merely copied and pasted the text for the Rodolfo Pallucchini article from its Italian language counterpart, its original sole article. Also, @Narutolovehinata5 I'm curious, what are access dates? Why are you irked that they aren't recent? Thanks.Brudelman (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access dates are the date the reference was accessed, web pages sometimes change and they're useful for establishing which version is being cited. My beef is that older references are usually an indicator of "this has existed elsewhere", which could mean this is a split, which could affect eligibility per WP:DYKLEN. Translations are fine though, per WP:DYKNEW.--Launchballer 12:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was based on the Italian article, then the translation must be attributed, either by using {{Translated|it|Rodolfo Pallucchini}} in the talk page, or by explicitly saying so in the edit summary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done. Full review needed.--Launchballer 02:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Might as well give this a preliminary review while I'm here. I think the main elephant in the room is that the current hook isn't actually all that hooky. It doesn't really make it clear why him being a director is such a big deal, nor would it catch much attention. There are also multiple uncited statements in the article, such as several entries in the Administrative positions section (which might work better in prose rather than as a list). The last sentence of the Career section is unreferenced, and is also missing a space before it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Central Kitchen drone strikes

• ... that the attack on World Central Kitchen convoy in the Gaza Strip, which killed seven aid workers, was a result of three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone? Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-02/ty-article/.premium/idf-bombed-wck-aid-convoy-3-times-targeting-armed-hamas-member-who-wasnt-there/0000018e-9e75-d764-adff-9eff29360000
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jumu'atul-Wida + Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship by copyright

Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My objection is now outdated. Events and sources are moving. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Objection - the content in the hook three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone cannot be presented in Wikivoice using this Haaretz source, which said that the information comes from Israeli defense sources. Haaretz has not independently reported the information (without attribution). starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Starship.paint: The same material has been covered in RS including NYT, Al Jazeera, BBC, and Bellingcat; and in visual investigations not just reporting articles. All RS have provided the same information about three missiles being shot. I don't see why information from RS requires attribution, especially given that all these RS agree on the same exact point. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] They agree on the same point, but they don’t seem to have independently verified it. Perhaps something like “three separate vehicles” will be closer to having verified coverage? FortunateSons (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] @FortunateSons: They did verify it themselves -i.e independently- using visual data, please read the Bellingcat, AJ and BBC investigations. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Source article links please. starship.paint (RUN) 10:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Starship.paint: They are in the article [7], [8], [9]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Makeandtoss: - you are assuming too much of the sources. (1) Bellingcat does not say three consecutive strikes, they simply say Israeli airstrike, Bellingcat cannot confirm that it was missiles or that they were even fired by a drone: Although not possible to be certain without fragments of the munition itself, the WCK vehicles bear the hallmarks of a precision strike by inert or low-yield missiles ... In order to successfully accomplish a laser guided strike it is necessary for a platform, such as a drone, to “illuminate” the target with a laser while the missile is launched. (2) BBC writes that the evidence suggests there was more than one strike, but this is not confirmation, BBC's experts also do not confirm that it was a drone strike: Chris Cobb-Smith, a former British Army officer and ex-UN weapons inspector, said the attack was probably the result of drone-launched Spike missiles ... Justin Crump, a former British Army officer who runs Sibylline - a risk intelligence company - agreed. He says the attack "was likely drone-launched and targeted". He added the strike had probably been caused by a missile, rather than a bomb or mortar. (3) Al Jazeera goes the furthest, their article text says The shelling targeted three vehicles belonging to WCK, one at a time, but if you read the article text, there is no mention of drone missiles, instead they say: Analysis of images of the second and third targeted vehicles showed signs of a projectile entering from the top and exiting through the bottom, suggesting that the cars were targeted from the air. Now, Al Jazeera's image does mention "drone strikes" and missiles, but I find it peculiar that they didn't mention (or even attempt to explain) it in the article text. The sources are simply weaker than you portray them to be. None of them confirm, all of them are simply suggesting / probably / likely etc. starship.paint (RUN) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest some edits to the hook to make it clearer what happened? I'd suggest something like Humanitarian and aid organizations suspended their operations in the Gaza Strip after seven World Central Kitchen aid workers were killed when their marked cars on a preapproved route were bombed by Israeli drones. I think its really important to make clear they were in marked cars, they were also on a route approved by the Israeli military. Makeandtoss what do you think? Also have any additional sources been published that would resolve the dissagreement above? If not maybe a third party could be involved to help resolve if the sourcing meets Wikipedia's rules. John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is also nominated at ITN. It can only reach the main page through one of the possible venues. At this point, there isn't consensus to post to ITN, but that can change. Schwede66 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: @John Cummings: Thanks for commenting. Starship.paint, building on our discussion on the talk page, I think we can both agree to this ALT1 version: ... that the attack on World Central Kitchen convoy in the Gaza Strip, which killed seven aid workers, was likely a result of three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the discussions at both Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham, it might not be a good idea to run the proposed hooks as currently written. Courtesy ping to 4meter4 regarding this matter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything more than what starship.paint and John Cummings have said. Any hook we run on this topic should be widely supported across a cross section of media, and be independently verified. Otherwise its likely to be challenged at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. We need a hook that won't get pulled. John made some good suggestions.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss, 4meter4, John Cummings, and Narutolovehinata5: I've hatted my objection above due to recent events: the IDF's admission, which I believe supports this hook: starship.paint (RUN) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)@FortunateSons: - forgot to ping. starship.paint (RUN) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Thanks for the ping, I agree that the objection is now out of date. FortunateSons (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that the Israel Defense Forces have accepted responsibility for killing seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in targeted drone strikes that destroyed the aid workers' cars, one by one? Source 1: Associated Press Source 2: CBS News Source 3: BBC News starship.paint (RUN) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with this as long as there are no objections to featuring violent content at DYK. There has been some pushback of late against featuring potentially disturbing hooks. That said, this hook appears to have wide support in media, and is so widely reported I don’t think an argument for censoring would be successful.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our main page constantly features potentially disturbing content, so I don't see why this can't be, either. Right now, our ITN section: A severe earthquake strikes near Hualien City, Taiwan ... In Syria, an Israeli airstrike kills 16 people at the Iranian consulate in Damascus, including brigadier general Mohammad Reza Zahedi ... A bus falls from a bridge in Limpopo, South Africa, killing 45 people ... The Francis Scott Key Bridge in the U.S. city of Baltimore collapses after being hit by a container ship. starship.paint (RUN) 06:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and ITN have different goals. In addition, the issues with IP hooks have never really been about violence but rather tone and POV. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One might consider, is the problem Wikipedia's "tone and POV", or does the event inherently make one side look bad? I'd say the answer is provided by the BBC: There are also moments, like the last few days in the Middle East, when events leave belligerents and their allies at a crossroads with big decisions to make ... The killing of foreign aid workers in Gaza might finally exhaust the considerable patience of Israel's allies, led by the United States. and Reuters: the killing of a group of aid workers by an Israeli air strike summed up both the dire humanitarian crisis and the lack of a clear way out of a conflict that is leaving Israel increasingly isolated. The attack on Monday night that killed seven staff of the World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid group, including six foreigners, has angered even some of Israel's closest allies, adding to growing pressure for an end to the fighting. starship.paint (RUN) 07:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: ALT2 doesn't really sound interesting, but more like a news headline; do you have any other alternatives? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss I don't think it's going to be possible to run a different kind of hook without being accused of trivializing the event. This would probably pull the hook into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Optics for an event like this are going to force us to keep the main event front and center in the hook. As such I don't see there being any meaningfully different hooks passing DYK review. Alt2 is probably our best option.4meter4 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admission to killing seven aid workers in targeted strikes ... not interesting?! It is no less interesting than the originally proposed hook, Makeandtoss. starship.paint (RUN) 12:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: @4meter4: If there is support for ALT2 then I would go for it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approving hook ALT2 per WP:CONSENSUS opinion. Article appears to be compliant with all DYK review criteria (newness, length, inline citations, NPOV, etc.) Hook fact is widely supported and independently verified in many sources. Promoter will need to check whether this gets featured at ITN. If it does, we can't feature it at DYK because it will have already been on the main page.4meter4 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. This article has been moved twice in the last 24 hours. It should probably stabilise first.--Launchballer 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, the Israeli explanation of events hasn't been fully added to the article. I didn't have time to do it yesterday. But, I can probably add it now. starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is stable and was moved without consensus. As for the Israeli explanation of events, its already in the article, the expansion of it doesn't affect moving forward with the DYK anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss Page moves whether with or without consensus are a clear sign of instability. I would suggest not getting in a back and forth over issues like this, because if you argue its only likely to tank the DYK approval. @Launchballer I hear you, but from a DYK reviewer standpoint this is ready to go. There's nothing more on our checklist for the reviewer to do, and the nominee has done everything they need to do. Obviously, the promoter will need to evaluate stability because it is a current event. Due to the backlog there will be a natural signigicant delay anyway before this gets put into prep. I think it best that we leave it to the promoter to determine when its stable enough to move it into the queue. That's not something we need to worry about from the DYK evaluator standpoint. We can trust in the promoting admin to evaluate that. If it hangs out in the approved hook area for a while everything should be fine.4meter4 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: There is no back and forth here; I reverted the latest page move because it was undiscussed and because multiple editors on the talk page agreed as well. The article is stable but one or two more days of waiting will not hurt as you said. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Makeandtoss, the article's Israeli explanation is incomplete. This will become apparent when I add the content (I am writing it right now). starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of you need to quit or I will have to pull the DYK tick. The article has had some instability issues as is typical of a current event. The article is likely to be edited heavily as new information is released. Any promoting admin will need to monitor the stability of the article before promoting. This means that if there are content disputes, edit wars, page moves, etc. the article will have to remain in the approved section until all that settles. I would suggest a minimum of two weeks of calm (ie no content reversions in the article's editing history, no arguments on the talk page, no page moves) before the article is featured at DYK. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the concerns about stability above and the other issues, it probably wouldn't be safe to mark this as approved until at least a couple of weeks from now. Once the article has stabilized, it can probably be given a fresh look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 Have your concerns been assuaged?--Launchballer 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has stabilized then, yes, this is ready for a fresh review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and Narutolovehinata5 currently tagged for a formal title change discussion. Stability is therefore still an issue. I don't think this needs a formal re-review. I already did a competent review. Someone just needs to check for stability and once that has been established, Alt2 can be ticked.4meter4 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

Dick Harris (center)

• ... that Dick Harris was selected in the first round of the 1949 NFL draft, with the second pick of the 1949 AAFC draft, in the 1950 NFL draft, and in the 1951 NFL draft, but never played professionally? Source: Pro Football Archives (archived) (note that it says fourth overall for the AAFC but that's wrong, as you can see here)
  • ALT1: ... that football player Dick Harris was selected in professional drafts four times, including twice as a first-round pick, but never played professionally? Source: same
  • ALT2: ... that Dick Harris was a first-round NFL draft pick and was chosen in three other drafts but declined each offer so he could enter the oil business? Source: same + [10] (oil)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/pending
  • Comment: Realized I'm a day late in nominating this; requesting an extension per Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. Prefer either ALT0 or ALT2; open to other ways of wording this as well.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Newly written, long enough, cited throughout. The ironically titled "Professional career" section details the four times that he was drafted, and yet didn't play professionally. I think I like ALT1 the best. ALT0 is a bit clunky. ALT2 is fine. QPQs are pending. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ross (Suits)

• ... that the Suits character Mike Ross was originally developed as a stockbroker and not a lawyer? Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/suits-originally-set-wall-street-205066/
  • ALT1: ... that Mike Ross is played by Patrick J. Adams in America, Yuto Nakajima in Japan, and Park Hyung-sik in South Korea? Source: https://deadline.com/2018/08/suits-being-remade-by-japans-fuji-tv-after-nbc-universal-strikes-format-deal-1202438685/, https://www.chosun.com/english/kpop-culture-en/2017/09/25/Z7HRT5BZXEMXLLOXHEGDRRBIYE/, https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/suits-renewed-season-8-meghan-markle-without-patrick-j-adams-1202681820/
  • ALT2: ... that Patrick J. Adams left his Suits role because he felt that his character arc was finished? Source: https://www.countryliving.com/life/entertainment/a45589090/why-did-patrick-j-adams-leave-suits/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Canadian Dental Care Plan

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Full review to follow, but I'd like to see more hook proposals before proceeding. I'm not that big of a fan of ALT0 as currently written as it requires reliance on familiarity with Suits, and ALT1 isn't really that interesting either. My suggestion would be to propose a hook or multiple hooks targeted towards those who may not know anything about the series. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you potentially have anything? Heres something sillier Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC):[reply]

• • ALT2: ... that Patrick J. Adams did not want his Suits character to get shot? Source: https://www.countryliving.com/life/entertainment/a45589090/why-did-patrick-j-adams-leave-suits/

Yes, that's a much better hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was about to continue the review, but I noticed that there are still several incomplete sentences or writing in the article. Multiple sentences in the article, for example the last sentence of the lede, are lacking periods and seem to be unfinished. The article does meet newness requirements at least so it should be eligible for further review.