To discuss the content or layout of the Template:Did you know page itself, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

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
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	TM: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	TM:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
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 fact). 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
April 15	1
April 18	1
April 20	1
April 22	1	1
April 23	1	1
April 25	1
April 27	3	2
April 28	2	1
April 29	1
April 30	1
May 1	1
May 2	2
May 3	1
May 4	1
May 5	2	1
May 7	1
May 8	2	2
May 9	4	2
May 10	1
May 12	5	2
May 13	2
May 14	1	1
May 15	1	1
May 16	3	1
May 17	2	1
May 18	1	1
May 19	5	5
May 20	1
May 21	3	2
May 22	5	2
May 23	4	4
May 24	5	4
May 25	8	7
May 26	12	11
May 27	11	8
May 28	10	6
May 29	2	2
May 30	10	7
May 31	4	4
June 1	1	1
June 2	5	5
June 3	4	4
June 4	8	8
June 5	6	3
June 6	8	6
June 7	12	9
June 8	5	4
June 9	7	6
June 10	7	2
June 11	5	2
June 12	3
June 13	9
June 14
June 15	4
June 16	4
June 17	4
June 18	3
June 19	6
June 20	3
June 21	4
June 22	1
Total	232	129
Last updated 01:52, 22 June 2025 UTC Current time is 02:22, 22 June 2025 UTC [refresh]

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). Because of WP:DYKTIMEOUT, a nomination should be reviewed within two months since the reviewer/promoter may agree to reject and close an unpromoted hook after that time has passed.

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.

Handy copy sources:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• ... that "Dilaw" was a dominant song in the Philippines and gained international recognition?

• ALT1: ... that "Dilaw" reached the top spot on Billboard Philippines Hot 100 and Top Philippines Songs chart and entered the Spotify Global Chart at 200? Source: Billboard Philippines
• ALT2: ... that the creator of "Dilaw" Maki is a leading OPM artist with the most listeners on Spotify? Source: ABS-CBN CORPORATE, TRIBUNE
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate in savory cooking

ROY is WAR Talk! 09:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment, I don't think any of the proposed ALTs are interesting enough - the first two basically say DYK that a song was popular, and the third isn't about the song, but the singer. Any alternatives? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eddie891! Here's my alt 3:

ALT 3: ...that "Dilaw" performed with Maki at LANY's concert at the Philippine Arena? GMA Network ROY is WAR Talk! 03:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this hook has a similar problem of interest- What is interesting about the fact that a singer performed one of their songs at a concert? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking something like ALT4: ... that Dilaw was number one on a final singles chart and on two debut singles charts?--Launchballer 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Royiswariii: Long enough, new enough. None of the first four hooks meet WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE and upon further inspection my ALT4 doesn't check out either (refs 19 and 20 do not explicitly say that they are the final issues). I can call for another reviewer on ALT4a: ... that "Dilaw" topped the first two weeks of two singles charts? or you can propose me a hook about its parody.--Launchballer 11:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer sure. I will create for another alt. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT5: "...that Filipino comedian Michael V. created a parody titled Hilaw, based on the song Dilaw by Maki?"Source: GMA Integrated News

Launchballer you can change it if you want. The ALT4a is great too, i will leave to the reviewer what they'll pick.ROY is WAR Talk! 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like Michael V's work on Bubble Gang, but I really don't think we should go with ALT5 as I don't think it would appeal to non-Filipino readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion of my ALT4a Naruto?--Launchballer 21:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit on the meh side, but I'm okay with it if there are no other better options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Would you mind approving it then?--Launchballer 14:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather leave this to another editor, as I don't really think ALT4a is that interesting, just the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It being the first song to top the relaunched Billboard Philippines seems interesting enough. Maybe something like along the lines of ALT5a: "...that "Dilaw" debuted at number one on the relaunched Billboard Philippines Hot 100, making it the first song to top the chart since its revival?" Though it could be argued that the emphasis kinda shifts towards the charts. — Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 05:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Multo (song)
• Comment: Got these two in mind. Don't mind other alternatives.

Ominae (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @Ominae: Just noting that this badly needs a copyedit and I have tagged this accordingly.--Launchballer 11:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• But on the other hand, I review oldest first, so it's this or something 5,000 words bigger, so I carried it out myself. This would still deserve {{lead too short}} but that's not a DYK issue. This is long enough and new enough. Earwig is clean. Your QPQ is sorely lacking in specifics, although as it seems to have gone through without a hitch I'll accept it. I don't consider ALT0 interesting (it's always going to be named after something) and ALT1 doesn't quite check out (it may have reduced imports but I don't see where either source says it was developed for that reason). I can suggest ALT2: ... that one police force tested the Trichy assault rifle in mud, rain, and saltwater before ordering? but I'd need to request another reviewer and I'll hear other suggestions.--Launchballer 12:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame though... and I thought at least ALT0 would work. I have no problem doing an alternate ALT. Though wondering if there's edits that need to be done, @Launchballer:. Ominae (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask for another reviewer.--Launchballer 21:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ominae (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for ALT 2: "... that one police force tested the Trichy assault rifle in mud, rain, and saltwater before ordering?" I had some technical issue accessing the source - I was partway through reading it and it glitched. I'm assuming good faith here, as it was matching what was in the article in that part of the source I could read.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: I want to rewrite as ALT 2 has "... the Central Reserve Police Force tested the Trichy assault rifle in mud, rain, and saltwater conditions for reliability and accuracy before making orders?" Ominae (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominae: sure thing!--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 05:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Thanks. Ominae (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 is really good (I like the original version by Launchballer better), but the article seems to cite a blog a few times? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to comment that the TFB is a good reference to use. At least it doesn't go heavily political. Ominae (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that according to one reviewer, to describe Lily Vorperian's work as embroidery was akin to "calling Coco Chanel a dressmaker"?

• ALT1: ... that embroiderer Lily Vorperian refused to sell her works in favor of loaning them to museums? Source: But despite being offered tens of thousands of dollars for a piece, Vorperian's art is not for sale. She loans pieces to museums and cultural exhibits, but saves the rest.Hamilton, Denise (1995-07-27). "Stitches in Time : Through Her Elaborate, Intricate Works, Lily Vorperian Keeps Alive a Centuries-Old Art Form". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2025-04-19 – via Newspapers.com.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Spaceship House
• Comment: Article has her listed as a possibly living person, but trawling social media reveals that she likely died in 2008. However, the NEA didn't have her marked as deceased in a recent publication, so I'm currently scouring the internet for a RS to confirm one way or the other.

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• I will do this review. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• 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: Done.

Overall: I have some concerns about the sourcing (outside the hook sourcing which is fine).
1. There are personal details sourced to a masters' thesis, which would not be considered a reliable source (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). I looked into this a little as I was concerned that her husband and father have the same first name, certainly not impossible but it caught my eye.
2. Reference 6 makes mention of a piece of art depicting a logo for the, but I did not see this mentioned in the cited newspaper article. Perhaps one of the pictures shows this logo, but that would be original research.
3. Reference 8 is a clip from newspapers.com, but the clipping does not mention Volperian's work.
4. I also don't think it's necessary to cite her daughter's dissertation to indicate the family connection (reference 10).

The article has some sentences that could use editing. For example, 'She carried on embroidering in her adult life and after her move to the United States and, in 1986, took part in a folk arts program in Los Angeles', has and odd combination of 'and' and commas that make it hard to follow. @GreenLipstickLesbian: - can you address these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffodilOcean (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreenLipstickLesbian: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaffodilOcean: Urgh, computer crashed after I'd finished writing this. Hopefully I can re-construct my work:

• Ah, I was wondering if somebody might bring this up! I agree that the fact it's a master's thesis isn't ideal, but if it helps, I'm not treating it as one - I'm treating it as the interview with Vorperian that it is. Crap for notability, obviously, but hopefully reliable enough for the uncontentious claims that Vorperian makes about herself and that were paraphrased by the student. So that means no claims about the impact of her work on Armenian art, no claims about who nominated her for the award, and no more broad facts about Armenian embroidery itself - but saying that she had three siblings, her parent's names and occupations, and who she married? Again, hopefully reliable enough, as long as I keep one eye on what is DUE given that is is roughly one level up from a SPS as far as that goes. The fact that her husband and father both had the same fairly common name doesn't raise any red flags for me, though the name is more typically romanized as Harutyun. Does this help?
• Reference 6: Ah, you're totally right on this; accidentally swapped two sources! It was in the 1982-1996 biographies of award winners compiled by the NEA. PDF numbers are a little off (there it's listed as 54 through 55), sorry, but on a related note I actually managed to find a Facebook post by the ARS showing the embroidery itself! Sorry, I know one of your other concerns was over-referencing, but I mean... it's gorgeous and it has the date she made it.
• Refence 8: Mind reading this again? Second column, second paragraph, lists Vorperian as one of the artists in the exhibit and details the time, location, and hosts that the other source omitted to mention.
• Reference 10: I see your point here, and I can remove it if you'd like. However, I would prefer to keep it in, as it's just another source confirming that Rita and Lily are related. Not that I have a mistrust for passing mentions in the captions of newspaper photographs or anything...

And yeah I know my writing sucks, sorry. I attribute it the fact that I learnt half my English grammar from Spanish and Japanese classes, and the other half through osmosis. If I can figure out a less awkward way to put things, I'll try, but, being honestly, my ulterior motive for any DYK submission is that it gets me a few free copy editors. I've split the example you listed into two sentences, hopefully that makes it better? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreenLipstickLesbian:

1. For the master's thesis, I would find better sources than that for the statement about 'several exhibits in the California area'.

2. Thanks for updating the reference for the logo. However, Facebook is not a reliable source, so I would remove that. Please also correct the sentence that now says '..though om 1990...'.

3. This is my mistake, I did miss the brief note about her exhibit.

4. I would remove the dissertation. Her daughter's dissertation has no bearing on Lily's work and its presence here just seems to promote Rita's work.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: What else needs doing?--Launchballer 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've got some thoughts here; I'm sorry I'm being a bit slow, IRL responsibilities have had to take precedence over Wikipedia editing for the moment. @DaffodilOcean:

1. I've taken the sentence out until I find sources from the time/newspapers.com uploads more 1980s/1990s Californian newspapers.

2. Fixed the typo, but no, I'm not going to take out the facebook source on that basis. Facebook isn't a generally unreliable source - WP:FACEBOOK has the current community consensus on it. Facebook hosts a large amount of user generated material which is by and large somewhere between unreliable and very unreliable, but individual posts are only as reliable as the poster. In the case of the ARS, they should be reliable for the date a piece of artwork that was made for them. The sentence's previous construction was clumsy, with the "as of x date" styling, and citing the actual year allows me to avoid that.

4. I've thought about this one - readers aren't going to look at an unlinked referenced that is auto-collapsed for most viewers now, and on one of those articles that (while important!) will maybe only get five or so non-bot views a year, so I'm not too worried that it'll have any promotional effect on her work. That being said, a passing mention in a newspaper caption, especially one that's not really about Rita, isn't sufficiently reliable, from my POV, that I wouldn't want to try and confirm it in a better source. Especially given that the newspaper was published well before Rita did anything noteworthy! I know, when I first saw that connection, I spent quite a bit of time figuring out it it was the same Rita, or just another Armenian women from the same area with a similar last name, and I'd like not to make other editors follow the same path. I'd obviously like to replace the dissertation with a higher quality source, but given that she's a borderline notable academic (the award pushed her over the line for me, but the 2013 AFD no consensused for a reason), I don't think such a source is going to be available. For BLP reasons, I'd like to keep Rita's self-identification as Lily's daughter referenced for now. Alternatively, I'd remove the reference to her having a daughter at all - but then it's very likely that somebody would add the fact back in anyway, and given that it's true, I can't really in good faith revert such a change. Lesser of two less than ideal situations, in my book. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian:. Thanks for continuing to work on this.

3. The link you provide justifying Facebook is for external links, where Facebook may be appropriate. However, Facebook is user-generated content and is not appropriate as a reliable source (see WP:RSSELF). Please remove the link.

4. You have a detail from a reliable source about Lily's daughter. There is no reason for user-generated content to support the statement.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: Please address the above.--Launchballer 14:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreenLipstickLesbian: The nomination is already over two months old, so WP:DYKTIMEOUT already applies. The nomination may be closed without warning by another editor if you do not respond promptly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the pings @Launchballer @Narutolovehinata5, and @BlueMoonset! I've got sporadic internet access and availability this month as it turns out, hence the 1am response.

DaffodilOcean, yes but if you scroll down, you'll note that it actually explicitly says that Facebook is sometimes appropriate as a reliable source - it doesn't just deal with external links. Similarly, if you read the 2020 RSP discussion on Facebook, the closing statement noted that several experienced editors noted that Facebook posts can actually be useful, we just use them with extreme caution and most newbies don't know when that is. Not that it's universally terrible. If this was posted by the ARS on a site other than Facebook, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Looking at it as a SPS (which it is!), the publisher is a section of the ARS (the organization the art was made for ). The claim is about as milquetoast as possible (a piece of art made for the organization that published a post about it was made in a year the artist was known to be active), and nobody has raised serious concerns about the authenticity of the publisher. I mean, I suppose I could revert to the awkward sentence - but I'm going to keep the link to the Facebook image as an {{tl}external media}}. And if somebody comes along, clicks on it and says "oh look, this source has a date" and adds it to the article, then I certainly shall not revert them.

Similarly, for BLP reasons, I'm not taking out the source confirming that Rita Vorperian the academic is related to Lily Vorperian the artist. I am unfortunately well aware that many Wikipedians would find the newspaper captions sufficient for identification; given previous life experiences with newspaper writers (including one who gets cited in AFDs as a way of proving subjects notable), I most certainly do not (especially if the person is an immigrant, or it's an American newspapers and the subject is not of Northern/western European descent). And thats if the ID wasnt a ligtle muddled-Lily because notable well before her daughter did - those news sources confirm that she had a daughter called Rita who is roughly the right age to be the same Rita Vorperian we have an article on. It would be classic original research to decide that it's obviously the same person. The newspaper confirms to me that mentioning her daughter is DUE, but gives me half the story of their relationship. I need the thesis to properly confirm that they're the same person. I'm not going to take it out without a better source. If that causes this nomination to fail DYK, then so be it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that when Matthew Wild directed Wagner's Tannhäuser, he made its main character gay?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huning
  • Comment: Driveby nom per tipoff at ERRORS.

Launchballer 17:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

What I said on ERRORS was that I was afraid something like this would happen. How is that interesting? I don't believe he would have been awarded "best staging of the year" for something that harmless. Matthew told a complex (fictive but based on real lives) story of a man fleeing the Nazis, becoming a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor of literature in California c. 1960, suffering a creative crisis and leaving everything, returning and then coming out causing a scandal at that time. This complex story-telling in analogy to the medieval character in a crisis and expelled by society (invented in the 19th century) won him the award, but is too complex for DYK rules. Therefore I intentionally did not nominate. Readers might rather be interested in Wild coming from from South Africa and the production at the Frankfurt Opera, again voted "best opera house". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1: ... that critics described the South African director Matthew Wild's production of Tannhäuser at the Frankfurt Opera as a "staging of the year"? (Source: BR Klassik: "Several productions have won the title of "Performance of the Year": Richard Wagner's "Tannhäuser" by Matthew Wild (Frankfurt Opera), etc.." (using Google Translate). Note: the WP article's editors have translated it as "staging of the year", which is likely to be more accurate than Google). Storye book (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's more to my liking, but it isn't just some critics, but an annual award from Opernwelt that gets to the news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  like this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1a: ... that Opernwelt gave the South African director Matthew Wild's production of Tannhäuser at the Frankfurt Opera its Staging of the Year award? Storye book (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a comment and not a review, but honestly I do think that the original (and now struck) hook was the most interesting option and perhaps the one most likely to get non-specialist readers. I'm fine with ALT1a, but in terms of attracting readership it is admittedly weaker. @Launchballer: Do you find ALT1a fine, or is a new direction needed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the original was far better, though can live with ALT1a.--Launchballer 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that while auditioning for the first episode of Ted, Scott Grimes (pictured) was told to "[think of] All in the Family"?

• Reviewed:

Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• New enough and long enough. Nominator is QPQ-exempt. Hook fact is in article and reasonably interesting (needed adjustment in hook presentation as the quote includes brackets from source). Image is appropriately licensed for Main Page use. Good to go. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crystal Drawers and Sammi Brie: I have no idea what this hook is trying to get at, and I doubt many non-Americans would either. Could we have a couple of ALTs suggested? (Also, the hook fact doesn't need to be in the lead per WP:LEADREL, but that's beyond DYK's purview.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AirshipJungleman29: Sure, here’s one I think could work
    • ALT1: ... that actress Alanna Ubach had to audition several times for the first episode of Ted?
    • Source: https://www.thewrap.com/ted-cast-auditions-max-burkholder-alanna-ubach-seth-macfarlane-peacock/ Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 implies there was something wrong with Ubach's first audition, which feels unduly negative.--Launchballer 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really? I never thought of ALT1 as negative, and there doesn't seem to be any context in the hook that suggests it is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auditions are usually unsuccessful for a reason, though I'm probably not going to hold this up for that reason.--Launchballer 14:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I'm sorry, I didn’t receive notifications about these replies for some reason and just randomly stumbled upon them. I don’t think her having to audition a few times insinuates her doing a poor job, but if needed I can rephrase it. Maybe to …that actress Alanna Ubach had to audition several times to ensure she was right for the part of Susan for the first episode of Ted?. This might still hold the same issue, so let me know if it’s still not sufficient :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there’d need to be a new main page image since the old one is of another actor, so I think the one seen here is good Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that artist Simmie Knox and President Bill Clinton both grew up in poverty in the American south?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Collection for the Holy Places

No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• ALT1 ... that both Bill Clinton and the painter of his official portrait, Simmie Knox, grew up in poverty in the American south? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• QPQ is done. Article is new enough and long enough and within policy in regards to referencing, neutrality, etc. Earwig did detect a possibility of close paraphrasing but this was due to quoted text in the article which was properly attributed and to some lengthy official names which really can't be changed so I think it's fine. The original hook does not work as it pipes to something completely unrelated to the bolded text, and doesn't feature the subject of the article. However, the alt hook proposed by Antony-22 solves this problem, and is both interesting and verifiable to the cited reference. Hook Alt1 may be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reopening this nomination following discussion at ERRORS raising concerns about the line saying Clinton was raised in poverty. A new hook is required, and also the line needs to be amended in the article itself. PINGING @No Swan So Fine, Antony-22, 4meter4, SL93, Fram, Bagumba, and Kusma:  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2 ... that Simmie Knox was recommended to paint the official White House portraits of Hillary and Bill Clinton by Ruth Bader Ginsberg?

No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewer needed to check ALT2 and whether the article has been properly amended as requested. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Italian surrealist AI-generated images of creatures are popular on TikTok in Europe?

• Reviewed:

Thegoofhere (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Not a review, but I'd like to point out some things for the benefit of the first-time nominator here. The article in question is linked in bold from the hook, which I've done. Thegoofhere, there is also a failed verification tag that will need addressing before the page is passed. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The failed verification tag has been remedied, albeit with a questionable source. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done I will review this nomination. This is my second one, so I will request a second opinion. NeoGaze (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2025 (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: - ?

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: The article was created on 26 April, and was nominated for DYK on 3 May, which is a few hours after seven days. It is long enough with 5853 characters (896 words) of readable prose size. No copyright violations, plagiarism or close paraphrasing have been found in the article. The issue with this nomination is the provided hook, which in my opinion is not particularly interesting or intriguing, and its cited source at no point mentions this trend is particularly popular in Europe, just popular in general. Since the picture used is AI generated, it holds no copyright. It also looks good and clear at a 100px. A QPQ is not required for this nomination. I suggest the editor provides a new hook(s), if you need help or want suggestion for hooks, you can contact me in my talk page. NeoGaze (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: Hello, are you planning to continue with this nomination? NeoGaze (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uh-huh --Thegoofhere (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: You will need to propose a new hook if you want to continue pursuing this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ...that Tralalero Tralala is considered haram by Muslims? (https://screenshot-media.com/culture/internet-culture/italian-brainrot-dark-origin/)

ALT3 ...that Tung Tung Tung Sahur might become a flim? (https://www.kompas.com/hype/read/2025/05/12/104147466/viral-di-medsos-meme-tung-tung-tung-sahur-dikabarkan-akan-dibuatkan-film)

--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoGaze: @Narutolovehinata5:. --🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: The content of ALT2 doesn't appear in the article, and its source doesn't specify Tralalero Tralala as being haram, but the whole Italian brainrot trend. It is also based on the opinion of a single tiktok user, which is no person of authority in the religion. ALT3 is problematic as well because its speculative. The film has not yet been completed, and so the proyect may come to nothing. I propose the following alts as alternatives, and if you approve them then we can proceed with these. NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 ...that several Italian Brainrot characters have been used to sell toys, NFTs and Meme coins? (Zhan, Jennifer (29 May 2025). "The Italian Brain Rot Ren-AI-ssance, Explained". Vulture. Retrieved 1 June 2025.) ("Meme coin trapralaleo tralala surges 17000%, experts caution investors on volatility". CHOSUNBIZ. 2025-04-29. Retrieved 2025-04-29.)

ALT5 ...that according to Polskie Radio, Italian Brainrot is popular among Generation Alpha "because it's stupid, funny and veeeery addictive"? ("Czym jest brainrot? Trippi Troppi i Ballerina Cappuccina - tego nie ogarniają nawet zetki". Polskie Radio. Polskieradio.pl. Archived from the original on 22 May 2025. Retrieved 3 June 2025.)

ALT6 ...that some Italian Brainrot characters have been accused of being Islamophobic? (Ferraris, Matilda (2025-04-26). "From Ballerina Cappuccina to Tralalero Tralalà, we unpack the darker undertones of Italian brainrot". SCREENSHOT Media. Retrieved 28 April 2025.)

@NeoGaze:. I approve. I suggest either ALT5 or ALT6--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then I'm going to cross out the previous alts and request a second opinion, to make sure everything is okay. NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the chocolate crinkle (pictured) was invented by Helen Fredell from Saint Paul, Minnesota, and its recipe was first published in a Betty Crocker cookbook during the early 1950s?

• Reviewed:

MaPhilIndo (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm convinced there is a lot of room for improvement in this hook. Most types of food were invented by someone and ended up in cookbooks. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: How do either of these options sound?

ALT1 ... that the chocolate crinkle (pictured) was the subject of a study by the Philippines' Department of Science and Technology?

ALT1a ... that Philippines' Department of Science and Technology made a study on the chocolate crinkle (pictured)?

ALT2 ... that although the chocolate crinkle (pictured) was invented in Minnesota, it is most popular in the Philippines?

ALT1/ALT1a is technically imprecise as it is not the DOST itself that made a study about it but rather one of the agencies under it: I will leave it to you if ALT1/ALT1a remain suitable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer ALT2. ALT2 is better than the other ALTs. MaPhilIndo (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination placed on hold pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate crinkle. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was closed as keep. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:42, 4 June 2025 (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: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough at time of nomination, long enough (just), sourced enough to pass through AfD, neutral and plagiarism free. Hooks are discussed above with ALT2 favoured, so I struck the others. ALT2 would be cited by the Metroscene article which says "We think it’s safe to say that we’re pretty much the Crinkle Capital of the world", but it doesn't actually say more popular than Minnestoa. I think if more was changed to most in ALT2 that would work and fit with the sources content. No QPQ required as this is the author's first nomination. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed per above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MaPhilIndo: Please address the above.--Launchballer 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore: Please respond to the recent changes of Narutolovehinata5. ALT2 was already changed from more to most. MaPhilIndo (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I forgot the put the page on my watchlist, hang on while I remind myself Lajmmoore (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks MaPhilIndo good to go Lajmmoore (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have pulled this from the queue as the sourcing is very thin. Almost all the sources are little more than recipes, and the one source which has a little more information - and upon which the hook is based - does not look like a reliable source. Additionally, I have not been able to find any better sources. Quite frankly, I can't see this nom going anywhere. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that when tackling, "Jarring Jim" was "mean, very mean, very mean"?

• ALT1: ... that Jim Lankas began wrestling in Wichita, Kansas, after someone at a fight did not show up, and Lankas decided to take the wrestler's place? Source: Wichita Beacon
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dimitar Agura
• Comment: To do QPQ within 24 hours.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2025 (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: @BeanieFan11: Article was recently 5x expanded. Sources verify hooks. No copyvio detected. Hooks are interesting and cited. QPQ done. I do think ALT1 is more interesting though. I would rewrite ALT1 as "that Jim Lankas began his wrestling career after someone at a fight did not show up, and Lankas decided to take the wrestler's place". It doesn't matter that it was in Wichita. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @WikiOriginal-9: OK, see ALT2 ... that Jim Lankas began his wrestling career after someone at a fight did not show up and Lankas decided to take the wrestler's place? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • iiiii'm not sure that ALTs 1 and 2 are a faithful interpretation of the source. The Witchita Beacon just says:

      Lankas has impressed Wichita fans this season by defeating all opponents including tough Jack Suzek. He made his introduction in the ring here when a wrestler failed to show last winter and he entered the ring as a sub. He showed his grid knowledge stood him in good stead as a wrestler.

      That doesn't necessarily sound like Lankas was in the audience and decided to hop in the ring on a whim – it sounds like he already wanted to be a wrestler and his debut match happened to be subbing for someone else, given that he then played the full season (presumably signups would have closed before the season started). I don't think ALT0 passes DYKINT, but I wouldn't stop someone else from promoting it, but striking ALTs 1 and 2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled per a WT:DYK discussion regarding the hook's interestingness. A new hook will be needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Please propose a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to come up with something by Sunday. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the first North Carolina senator from Columbus County, James Bunbury White, was the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meg White

Aneirinn (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (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: The hook says, he was the founder of Whitesville, but the lead speaks of Whiteville. - A typo? Munfarid1 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook said Whitesville because Whiteville was originally established as Whitesville, however, the hook has now been changed to say Whiteville. Aneirinn (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up. Now the review is . Munfarid1 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn and Munfarid1: This comes nowhere close to meeting WP:DYKINT unless there's something I've missed; a new hook is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn and Munfarid1: Please address the above.--Launchballer 18:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0: ... that the memorial for James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death?

ALT1: ... that the memorial in honor of James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, and the first North Carolina Senator from Columbus County, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death?

• Source: Smith, Justin (December 20, 2019). "James B. White memorial standing again at courthouse". The News Reporter. Whiteville, North Carolina. Aneirinn (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your new ALT0 seems better to me than ALT1, as it is shorter and more precise. But which source does this refer to? Munfarid1 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added now. Aneirinn (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that 100 men can beat a gorilla?

• ALT1: ... that people think a single gorilla can kill 100 men? Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2025/04/30/experts-discuss-100-men-vs-gorilla/83367073007/
• Reviewed:

Thegoofhere (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• DYK is not for any random fact—it's to direct readers to relatively new articles on Wikipedia. Your hook needs to contain a link to an article that is new enough to be eligible for the "Did you know" section. See WP:DYKNEW for the eligibility requirements. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added links to the article in question nowThegoofhere (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that to defeat a gorilla, 100 men may "envelop the gorilla and create a human straightjacket"? Bremps... 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full review needed.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • As fun as the article is, I'm not sure it can survive AfD. I'll leave that to a reviewer though. Bremps... 01:01, 6 May 2025 (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: ALT2 is the only hook approved. ALT0 takes it a bit farther than the article (pretty much all statements on who wins in the article are attributed to some expert), and ALT1 doesn't really appear in the article (no info about public opinion overall). I'm not really sure where the concern for notability comes from: this is pretty far from WP:ROUTINE, and it's got plenty of secondary sources. Despite the orange tag at time of writing, all sources look fine. New reviewer. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: ALT2 won't fly either; you've got one opinion in wikivoice. New hook needed.--Launchballer 00:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If none of the hooks will fly, this shouldn't be on the Approved page. Marking that there's an issue, and moving the nomination back to the Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that the quotes would've made it clear enough that it wasn't in wikivoice, sorry about that. ALT3: ... that according to a Zoo Miami staff member, to defeat a gorilla, 100 men may "envelop the gorilla and create a human straightjacket"? Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that according to one hypothesis, Torta caprese was first created for the Italian-American mafia? Source: Davies, Emiko (25 October 2016). "The Crazy Good Flourless Chocolate Cake With an Even Crazier Backstory". Food52. Archived from the original on 24 January 2025. Retrieved 16 March 2025.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Brooklyn County District Attorney election
  • Comment: Another cake DYK.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2025 (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: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As flagged at WT:DYK, I am uncomfortable with the sourcing for this DYK hook. It's hardly a "hypothesis" but rather more like an "urban legend" that no one will seriously "test". When you go back to the sources, they discuss the claim very vaguely and unconvincingly. This is precisely the kind of claim that lands at WP:ERRORS. It's really confusing within the article itself as well – are we saying that the cake originated in Capri, but that it's possible the Italian-American mafia might have invented it in the United States? @Vacant0, BeanieFan11, History6042, and Chiswick Chap: Pinging. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle, BeanieFan11, and Vacant0: How does this ALT sound? ALT1 ... that the Torta caprese (pictured) has been referred to as "one of history's most fortunate mistakes"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 hook looks OK but the article is still not OK. It currently says, "It originates from the island of Capri, however its story is disputed." We are stating in wikivoice that the cake's origins in the island of Capri are a FACT (citing just one source, an Australian foodie channel). And then we're saying the origins are "disputed" and uses words like "hypothesis". It's clumsy and misleading, almost like we're saying this is a deep academic debate between historians when in fact it's just food journalists and recipe writers writing breezy magazine stories – which is fine but then let's revise to present it more like it is (urban myth? pop culture? meme? but not science and not serious history). And if the encyclopedic entry is stating as fact that the cake originated in Capri, are there other sources we could cite? Until it's fixed I frankly am not sure it's main page or even GA-worthy. Maybe that's harsh but that's what some critics will say at WP:ERRORS on the day...and it's a picture hook so it gets extra scrutiny. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Cielquiparle:. Could you take a look at the article again? I've rewrote that part and added attributions where applicable. For the origin, I've added sources from The New York Times and La Cucina Italiana. I've removed Cookist but kept Food52, considering that the article was written by a cookbook author. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vacant0. The sourcing seems a bit better. Could you revise the lede and make sure it actually says what you mean it to say? "Conjecture" maybe? Surely not "hypothesis". What does it mean that its story is "disputed"? Are your sources saying "no, the claim that this originates in Capri is incorrect"? I'm not sure they are. Maybe they're saying "here are some other popular stories that people like to tell about its origins"; they simply exist as alternate word-of-mouth explanations...that I think you're suggesting are completely unreliable and untrue since you're certain the cake originated in Capri? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I phrased that incorrectly. No one is disputing that the cake originates from Capri. I've forgot to update the lede, should be good now though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Is this approved? If not, what else needs doing?--Launchballer 14:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is better than before. My big objection has been addressed. Might be good to have someone else look at it. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Jose Hermosillo was detained for 10 days by the United States for entering the country illegally despite the fact that he hadn't entered illegally and was an American citizen?

• Reviewed:
• Comment: This was submitted a little over a week (created on May 4 but submitted on May 12) but I wasn't sure was any flexibility on that. But it has expanded 5x since May 5 so maybe that is good enough to qualify.

Remember (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Support, and thanks. Btyner (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Remember: I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the submission date as the major problem. The article needs a lot of work to meet DYK and I wouldn't pass it in its current state. You could try to do a marathon cleanup session like you did before, but you would have to put a lot of time and energy into fixing this from where I stand. Perhaps you can start by replacing the massive number of quotes with simple paraphrasing. I would say that half of the quotes should not even be there because they should be easily paraphrased. Then you've got the problem of the small sections with one or two sentences. The sourcing is high quality, so that's good, but the content needs to be written for Wikipedia using house style. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Ok. I think I can do that. Is there a time frame that this needs to be accomplished by? Remember (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DYKTIMEOUT. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Ok. I think I have time. Remember (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: What about now? Remember (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: Using a hatnote, the lead section, or a series sidebar, try to figure out how to immediately tell the reader how this fits into the larger topic. You've currently got deportation of Americans from the United States but it should be linked at the top in the lead or as a hatnote or as a series template. In turn, it should be made clear right away that this is part of the larger topic, deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump, which depends on the interpretation of the laws discussed at deportation of Americans from the United States. You may also want to compare this to other kinds of deportations linked at activist deportations in the second Trump presidency and possibly list of immigration raids in the second Trump presidency. All I'm trying to say is place the entire subject you are writing about in the appropriate context for a reader who knows nothing about the subject. The background and the lead section might be a good place to briefly do this. Your background section uses voice that is less than ideal and represents a kind of breaking news rather than encyclopedic house style. Try to reframe this as if you are writing about it 20 years from now (even though it is happening now). Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Will do!

@Viriditas: Tried to fix the issue you raised. Remember (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: You're definitely on the road to improvement and you're headed in the right direction. However, please go back and read the article again. It needs more revisions. Focus on one section at a time. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Tried again. Remember (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: The article is looking much improved and presentable. I think you're at a new stage now, where you just need to pluck and prune and you should be done. So go back through now and delete anything that looks like it doesn't belong. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Will do! Remember (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Ok. I think it looks good now, but I can prune more if you think some sections are too big.Remember (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: You're missing a citation in the first paragraph of this section. I suspect it was previously sourced, in which case you need to re-add the citation that disappeared. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Done. Remember (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: Take a close look at the series of edits I just made and try to implement that style across the board. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Made further edits. Remember (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: Just removed move unsourced material.[1] Add it back with citations if you can. I don't want to fail this nom, but I might if this continues as it doesn't look like it is ready at this time. Please clean it up and make sure everything is cited. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Sorry. I hadn't added that material and thought it was cited. I'll look for anything that isn't cited. Remember (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: Please read through and review the entire article, not just the material you authored. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Done. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Remember (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2025 (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: - n

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

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Adding preliminary review to get the ball rolling. I know I won't be able to approve a hook because I've made far too many edits trying to clean this up, but I do at least want to try moving this forward. @Remember: as much as I want to see you succeed, this nomination was not ready at the time it was submitted. You've still got issues in the article. Right now, the Earwig report shows problems.[2] Try to get in a habit of running that at the beginning. That report shows a failure to paraphrase Insha Rahman, so rewrite that. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for submitting something that was not ready for DYK. Won't happen again. And thank you for all your help in making this a much better article. I really appreciate it! If it fails DYK, so be it. Just trying to do my best to make it a good article. Also, I fixed the Insha Rahman issue. Remember (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: I see the article is rapidly changing. Please run Earwig's Copyvio Detector linked above. You will see two minor issues. Verbatim passages like "The criminal complaint against Hermosillo" and "The arrest report states that Lopez-Gomez said he was in the country illegally" should probably be paraphrased instead of copied from the source in toto. I suspect that others won't see this at a problem, but an effort should be made to write the material in our own words. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Understood. Done. Remember (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: There's a new problem with the Elzon Lemus section that was just added. Too much quoting and the phrase "on his way to work" is taken directly from the source. Try paraphrasing as much of the quotes as you can and rewrite "on his way to work" in your own words. Fix that, and then we are looking at only one hook, which frankly isn't all that ideal. Also, try coming up with other hooks as there's no guarantee others are going to like it. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that champion sprint musher George Attla spent years of his childhood hospitalized with tuberculosis?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chalandriani

Annwfwn (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment — Uninteresting as written when it's well known that his leg was fused as a result of the tuberculosis and he still went on win tons of competitions in spite of the disability. Also, using a paid obituary for the source when there's seemingly no end to actual reliable sources discussing his life? Similarly, using a non-free image scavenged off the web when there are numerous publications with expired copyrights containing photos of Attla? To the latter point, as we continue to claim to be a collaborative environment, all you had to do was ask. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a different source, there are plenty. Perhaps you can find an image? This is, as you pointed out, a collaborative project. I did not find numerous publications where the copyright had expired and so left the image placed by a previous editor. Annwfwn (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Almost a month since the last work on this nom and there has been no improvement to the image or to the hook. @Annwfwn: Please have both matters remedied in the next 48 hours or I think we should pass on this for DYK. Consider RadioKAOS's suggestion for an ALT hook. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to locate a free image, perhaps one exists but not one I can undoubtedly prove is no longer protected by copywrite. Per WP:DYKIMG, fair use images are not permitted on the main page, but I do not see anywhere that they cannot be used in the article itself - if this is the case, I can remove it. As far as the hook, I can rewrite the hook, but frankly I'm surprised that anyone outside of Alaska or the dog mushing world would be familiar with this. I'm also surprised to have a vote for decline as this DYK has never been formally reviewed. Annwfwn (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a disconnect on the two issues here. The first is that you're correct about fair use images being permitted in articles, but that fair use is only for when we don't have access to images that are outside of copyright. I'm not sure why RadioKAOS is certain there are images of the subject outside of copyright, but I'll let them explain if they'd like. The second issue is that the hook, as is, is uninteresting. A more interesting detail of this subject is that which RadioKAOS highlighted above regarding overcoming a significant childhood disease. If you require further explanation, please ping me! ~ Pbritti (talk)

• ... that Star Trek: Day of Blood is the first crossover event between ongoing comic books in the Star Trek franchise?

• ALT1: ... that the comic book Star Trek: Day of Blood includes a tie-in starred by Shaxs from Star Trek: Lower Decks? Source: Lovett, Jamie (September 24, 2023). "Star Trek: Lower Decks' Shaxs Has His Best Day Ever In New Preview". Comicbook.com. Retrieved 7 May 2025.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Regina George (Mean Girls)

Cambalachero (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - whoever reviews this, please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Moratorium_on_"first"_hooks?; while the project hasn't yet enacted any sort of restriction on "first" hooks, this is going to be under scrutiny so the sourcing and the evidence for the above claim will need to be strong (I haven't looked yet so I have no idea if it is or not). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Cambalachero All sources that I can find verify the hook fact. The reading order section needs to be referenced. I am not approving ALT1 as not interesting. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article right now and nothing stands out as a hook that works for non-Trekkies. If no agreement on a new hook can be made, or no new hook can be proposed, we may have to fail this one unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. As for the hook, "first work of its kind" should be interesting enough. Cambalachero (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so also. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Is the hook really all that interesting if you aren't a Trekkie? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 Is Template:Did you know nominations/The Interstellar Song Contest any different? It is in prep 6. SL93 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a different case. For one, that hook makes sense even if someone isn't a fan of Star Trek. A character going that long between appearances is at least going to raise eyebrows among an average reader. ALT0 seems to be appealing more to Trekkies: I'm not sure if a non-Trekkie would be as interested in knowing about crossovers or things like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossovers are a type of comic book publication, usually used by Marvel Comics and DC Comics. You can expect them to "raise an eyebrow" Spock-style when they notice that someone else is stealing their thunder. And, as said, first work of its kind. Cambalachero (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93:, remember to finish the review. As I pointed some time ago, the "Reading order" has been referenced. Please mark it as ready if ready, or point if there is something else that still needs to be done. Cambalachero (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready. I was waiting for the hook thing to be straightened out, which it didn't. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I still don't think it's all that interesting to anyone who isn't a fan of Star Trek. It's very interesting to Star Trek fans, definitely, but if you're not a fan of the series, then having a crossover event within that series does not seem like much of a big deal. If it was a crossover between, say, Star Wars or Star Trek, it would be a different story. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of Naturo's constant attempts to derail this nomination with non-actionable complaining. I would like someone else to provide a 4° opinion on this, or to endorse SL93's review. Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if a hook is at best marginally interesting, it is actionable by proposing a different hook (for what it's worth, I agree with SL93 that ALT1 is not interesting, so it doesn't count). If there really is nothing else in the article, I could maybe live with ALT0. I personally just don't think that the hook has much appeal outside of non-Star Trek fans, which isn't exactly the kind of broad audience that DYK is looking for in hooks. It would be like having a hook about having a Pokémon crossover between two different generations: if you're into Pokémon, you'll find it interesting, but less so if you aren't into Pokémon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the pilot to Arrested Development has been compared to Plato's Allegory of the cave?

• ALT1: ... that the pilot to Arrested Development has been described as an "early adapter to the changing economic mood [towards America] in the 2000s"? Source: https://www.pastemagazine.com/comedy/arrested-development/arrested-development-turns-20-now-the-story-of-a-wealthy-family-who-lost-everything
• Reviewed:

Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• GA status, length, hook, close paraphrasing check ok. No QPQ needed. I prefer ALT0. --Soman (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Crystal Drawers and Soman: per discussion at WT:DYK, I've pulled this one out of queue because of unresolved sourcing questions. I'll come back around in a bit to summarize where my thoughts are :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal Drawers: Thanks for waiting, and sorry for a long message in advance! So, you mentioned this draft of a possible addition to the Manual of Style – I would say that even if it were part of the MoS, it still wouldn't supersede the basic principles of what goes into an article. Neither does the fact that some or even many other articles aren't written to the same standards – lots of articles were written at a time when standards were lower or in a topic area where enforcement of policy is less rigorous, but that doesn't mean that policy shouldn't be enforced rigorously.

As to what discourages using DVD extras: I would argue that a core principle on Wikipedia is that our coverage of a topic is shaped by independent, professional sources. They're the people we trust to separate what's important and true from what isn't, and overusing self-published material gets in the way of that ideal. The guideline I'll cite here is WP:SELFSOURCE, which says that people can be reliable sources of information about themselves as long as the source does not involve claims about third parties; it also says that use of self-sourced material should be minimal; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. I do see some self-published sources being used for claims about third parties, and I wouldn't say that the use of non-independent sources in the article is minimal.

I do think that correcting the first one would go a long way towards addressing the second, so I hope I'm not pushing too much of a burden on you! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :) also, I kinda wanna get around to watching this show now. it's been on my list forever...theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: What makes citing DVD extras different to citing the episode itself, which is allowed per WP:PLOTSOURCE?--Launchballer 21:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I'd say that plot is different from real-world information. PLOTSOURCE is a specific carveout from our general policy of prioritizing secondary and independent sources, in recognition of the fact that the plot of a work is self-contained and easily accessible, so all we have to do is summarize the information the same way we would any other source. If we required a professional org to do that work first, we just wouldn't have plot sections in most book articles (even though I do like secondarily-sourced plot summaries where available). Still – we wouldn't, for example, cite a DVD extra for interpretation of the work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, @Crystal Drawers: please address the above.--Launchballer 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: @Launchballer:, I apologize for my lateness, I have a lot of testing this week so I have been studying instead of doing my usual Wikipedia editing. I will have it done by the end of the weekend Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, Crystal Drawers, best of luck on your tests!! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Agnes Gallus fled Hungary during the 1956 revolution and moved to Canada, where she became a respected artist while raising children as a single mother? Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/agnes-szentgyorgyi-gallus/article568112/ (the obituary covers the timeline of her leaving Hungary in 1956, going to Canada in 1957, separating from her husband in 1968, and becoming a successful artist)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hedonism

BuySomeApples (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Noting that there is a pending AfD nomination on this page. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK closed as no consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Ukrainian mathematician Mykola Chaikovsky wrote the first Ukrainian-language science fiction novel? Source: https://fantlab.org/blogarticle37223 and https://archivsf.narod.ru/1887/nikolay_chaykovskiy/index.htm
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hiskia Ndjoze-Uanivi

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• This is not a review, but how well-attested is the claim that the novel was the first Ukrainian-language sci-fi novel? That's quite a bold and exceptional claim, and per the guidelines such claims require exceptional sourcing to make sure that it's actually true. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I agree the current sourcing is so-so; the cited source (FantLab) is not listed as unreliable, but it also does not strike me as scholarly. Unfortunately, if better sources exist, they are in Ukranian/Russian, and searching in these languages is hard for me (I've asked AI to search for scholarly sources in ru/uk; if I find anything better I'll update this post). I've proposed a safer ALT1 below, backed up by a reliable English ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT1: ... that Ukrainian mathematician Mykola Chaikovsky wrote one of the first Ukrainian science fiction novels and published it in Poland? Source: https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/ukraine

• I would steer away from "first" and focus on other aspects of the book's early focus on solar power (I think that meets WP:DYKFICTION?). Also, the Wikipedia content is verbatim from SFE. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Viriditas: This is why I said "one of the first". As far as I can tell from my research, this is correct - and the work is also called THE first work of SF in Ukrainian language. Anyway, "one of the first" should really be not a controversial claim. As for SFE - possible, since I write it (the SFE entry), just like I wrote our entry (I was working on both at the same time, in fact) and I retain the copyright to the original (SFE does not require copyright transfer; no document was signed to that effect). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are writing and citing yourself? That’s a separate problem altogether. I will let others address it. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Viriditas: The source is reliable, and this has been passed by COIN, where I've asked about this in the past - and was told this conforms to WP:SELFCITE (it has also been discussed in some prior DYK noms (ex. here) and found to be fine). So there's no "problem". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: What @Piotrus: is doing conforms to WP:CITESELF, do you plan on returning to this?--Launchballer 07:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I can, but I would like additional input on the use of "first" here. Piotrus says this isn't controversial, yet must also be aware that the wording is discouraged on DYK because it often turns out to be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: To address this I proposed the ALT1, with weaker "one of the first". That is pretty safe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not avoid the issue altogether by using wording that avoids "first", such as early, etc? We know the problem, so why return to it? It was an early example of science fiction in the Ukrainian-language. Isn't that good enough? Also, there's probably so many more interesting things to say, why return to this? Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The nomination may be marked for closure if a new hook is not proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Perhaps you should caution other editors who don't with ping others? Proposing a new hook is easy, but I was not aware that there was a reply here; my watchlist has long ago ceased to be useful. Anyway, thank you for the ping, new hook is below. Oh yes, ping @Viriditas:, I am not sure if they are actually reviewing this, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2: ... that Ukrainian mathematician Mykola Chaikovsk