Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 04:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 04:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
== Help requested ==
Requesting help with the review of the "[[Template:Did you know nominations/Get Him Back! (2nd nomination)|Get Him Back!]]" DYK nomination. It involves a bit of a unique situation with a prior AfD (which saw multiple votes influenced by [[Wikipedia:Four Award|Four Award]] rivalries) and probably won't be reviewed by the less-experienced. I hope we haven't reached the point where we allow blatant bad-faith sabotage to succeed.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 09:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:14, 4 October 2023
Error reports
Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Back to 1/day
We currently have 3 queues and 2 preps filled, under the threshold of 6 prescribed in the WP:DYKROTATE rules. There are about 90 approved nominations, so filling 4 more preps would get us below 60. Anyway, I think switching now makes sense to give people some rest again. Are there any date requests that I have missed? —Kusma (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an October 12, but nothing actively in prep.
This was a hard 12s. I don't like the idea of switching rapidly back there the moment we're technically over the limit. We currently have a mix of a bio shortage, a quirky shortage, multiple fronts of topic saturation, and multiple queries at DYKNA. The de facto number of promotable hooks is probably well below 60. Vaticidalprophet08:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidalprophet, we did wait a few days before switching to 2 a day this time, moving on 9 September rather than 6 September. I noticed that approved nominations were down from 130 on 9 September to 76 on 21 September, so this round of 2 a day did clear a lot of the backlog of approved nominations. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The count of approved nominations is now down to 54, so hopefully some of the less promotable hooks have been dealt with and the next run of 2 a day will be easier. TSventon (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0: ... that author Sarah Jane Baker(pictured) was so desperate for gender affirming care in prison that she cut off her testicles with a razor blade?
From my reading of this hook it seems both gratuitous and biologically incorrect; I may be questioned for saying this but women do not have testicles. This is a BLP and the opening line of the article is: "British transgender rights activist, artist, violinist, author, former violent felon, and long term prison inmate." Seems we are glazing over the person's significant crimes because the lead leaves out that the person was also a rapist. The person also kidnapped and tortured a man. The article describes the rape of another man by stating that she raped him.
This is all rather confusing since the person was not identifying as a woman in 1989 when they raped another man. I am no expert, but the person must have suffered from Gender dysphoria; that does not appear anywhere in the article. Also mutilating their own genitals? Is this what we want to promote on the main page? If we run we are choosing to promote a POV and to also promote a rather abhorrent criminal? We should not promote this mentally unbalanced violent career criminal. I do not think we should run the hook, nor the image.
Lightburst: There are so many points here that I have to object to, that I may have missed some. Not having testicles in order to be a woman was exactly the point of her operation. MOS:GENDERID requires that we refer to transgender people by their current pronouns, not by the one they used at the time. I have no opinion on that rule, I just follow it. If you don't like that rule, argue to change it, in the appropriate place, but that is not here; it is not fair to say "since I don't like it, I oppose running any DYKs that follow it." The first sentence is only so long, she committed four rather heinous crimes: in chronological order, kidnapping, torture, attempted murder, and rape. I'm grouping them as "violent felon" in the interest of length of the first sentence, but it not a matter of glazing anything over, as they are detailed in the very next sentences of the lead section. That she is a career criminal is strictly untrue, at no point is or was that her career. In fact, calling her ... the second half of your second to last sentence... is certainly worthy of the Daily Mail, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a direct quote, but on this page it is an uncited, demonstrably untrue, and significant personal attack against a living person, and I request you remove it. She was a very violent criminal, as above, and the article makes that quite clear, but she is not now, and even if she were she would be by no means be the first violent criminal on DYK. It is strictly not true that we only run DYKs about subjects we approve of and want to promote. We run DYKs about new and interesting articles, and if there is one thing she is not it is boring. In just the last week, DYKs have included
"... that the heavy metal band Cradle of Filth released a T-shirt that was so offensive that several people were arrested for wearing it?"
"... that Catechumen, a Christian first-person shooter, was funded only in the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre?"
"... that The Last Hope: Dead Zone Survival has been considered one of the worst video games of 2023?"
and all in one day:
... that the slogan "One Nation, One Language" has been used to justify the imposition of Hindi?
... that Swedish naval officer Axel Lagerbielke was imprisoned in Lima for over a year, held in Callao and eventually escaped from Panama on an English packet boat to Jamaica? (Note that Lagerbielke was also not a career criminal.)
... that the title of Olivia Rodrigo's song "All-American Bitch" was derived from an essay by Joan Didion?
Surely you're not arguing that we were trying to promote any of those subjects, which range from the rude to the horrific? Finally, if you can't find the words "gender dysphoric" in the article, twice, in the hopefully appropriate section on "Gender transition", not just casually mentioned but the focus of multiple sentences, I will not question your expertise as you propose, but rather... --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mention a yellow source above, but this article uses two of them as references: Daily Mirror and Vice News. I am not sure why the examples/comparisons above are offered as some sort of justification GRuban. I am dismayed that you refer to a person mutilating their genitals euphemistically as her operation - but you actuually describe it in the hook as cut off her testicles with a razor blade?. This is a living person with a serious and horrific criminal record and other issues... it seems like a POV push to promote them - especially in the image slot. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mirror (and Daily Mail) are the specific articles that lied about her sex change being paid for by the government, when that was strictly not true. Our article says as much in the exact place they are used, they're not sources about anything except themselves. Similarly the Vice cite is an article by the subject about her love and sex life in prison, again WP:ABOUTSELF, and it seems (a) hard to imagine any source about her love and sex life that wouldn't be while (b) it was clearly a big part of her life and motivation, we can't just leave it out. Yes, I completely agree, this is a living person with a serious and horrific criminal record and other issues. But I'm pretty sure I did not write a promotional article. Nor, hopefully, a hit piece. She's a very complex person, and an interesting one, hopefully it is an interesting article to read, but if from reading it you think "wow, I want to be like Sarah Jane Baker" ... wow ... Or even the hook: this is just me personally of course, but speaking as a person with testicles, it's hardly one that makes me think - "Hey, I should do this too!". --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the MOS reference above GRuban. I did not mean to say that you wrote a promotional article, I meant we are promoting the person. I also looked through the other hooks you mentioned above and thankfully I had no part in those nominations. It seems I will be alone in calling this hook out as gratuitous. This nomination is much like a third rail here on the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the hook is gratuitous, honestly. I considered mentioning it when it was at DYKN, and I saw Bruxton also did. I'm not saying it's inappropriate to run the article at all, but the hook crosses into intentionally-gratuitous-extremeness and there is...rather more in the article that could potentially be on DYK if a hook is desired. Vaticidalprophet23:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I want tighter rules on gratuity as well, but as long as we're going to let through all manner of hooks as NOTCENSORED, I think that something that touches on the current state of trans medical care is absolutely relevant to her career as an activist (which is presumably why she included it in her book) and to the encyclopedic topic of transgender medical care.
In fact, the last hook I can remember that was shot down on gratuity grounds was Fucking Trans Women (nom). (I had a role in that, but I actually didn't realize that I'd significantly misread the hook until after the controversy was said and done.)
@Theleekycauldron: So saddened that you called me transphobic but I was expecting it from someone. Sad that it was you. We can go overboard with this NOTCENSORED and I see that we occasionally invoke it to suit an agenda. IMO there is simply no reason to promote a rapist kidnapper with a hook about them mutilating their own genitals. Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, I didn't say anything about you. You made a statement that women do not have testicles, and that is, at the very least, an invalidation of all pre-op trans women. It's your choice to incorporate that statement as a part of your identity, but it is open to criticism nonetheless. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the line between unwarranted censorship and avoiding outright obscenity is going to be subjective and Potter-test-y. I'll try to show my work. When judging if opposition to a hook is censorship or warranted, one moving part (imo) is how core that is to the subject. A hook about a sex worker, notable for being a sex worker, is not being gratuitous by being about sex work. A hook about someone notable for writing about drug use is not gratuitous if it mentions drugs. (None of the Fucking Trans Women hooks are gratuitous by this benchmark, imo.) A hook about a children's TV presenter who posted nudes in 2014 that's about the nudes is gratuitous, to give a rather extreme example.
Any hook about this subject is going to be shocking, because the reasons the subject is covered in sources are shocking. For BLP reasons I'm unenthused about the idea there's a usable hook here at all, but...this specific hook crosses into "both shocking and not particularly central", which makes it raise a gratuity alarm more than it would be for a subject for whom autocastration is more load-bearing (there are subjects this is true for). Vaticidalprophet01:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to another hook; and only mostly agree with the "any hook about this subject is going to be shocking" bit. We could go with something like "was the longest serving transgender prisoner", that isn't shocking. It also isn't very interesting, but better any hook than no DYK at all. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with such a hook -- it's interesting (unusual or intriguing to a reader with no special knowledge or interest), a fairly significant part of the subject, and striking without intentionally-ratcheting-up-the-tone, I think is a good way to put it. Vaticidalprophet02:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is that I'm not sure Lightburst is good with any hook; their main point seems to be "articles about bad living people should not be on DYK", which that won't fix. GRuban (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that hook – I do think that the current hook isn't completely immaterial, since it directly relates to her activism on treatment of transgender people in prisons, but I recognize that it's a balance thing and that it is pretty visceral. We did just run a hook on police opening fire on university students, but I don't think I'll convince anyone that that's worse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find the hook rather disgusting and think that many will find it confusing - I would suggest it not run - I know there's WP:NOTCENSORED but that doesn't mean we need to be highlighting gross facts on the main page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a good move. I was debating doing it myself, but for a different reason. Once a hook hits a prep, the clock is ticking. This is obviously a topic which will engender a lot of discussion and having a ticking clock over your head isn't good for consensus forming. RoySmith(talk)14:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also be mostly off-grid until tonight. I know I've mentioned this before, but there's a number of DYK regulars who have the experience to do well at AfD RfA. I encourage you to run. We need more admins working here and the best ones will be those who already know the system. RoySmith(talk)12:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to delete anybody. That's not in the admin toolset. We can block users and delete pages, but we can't delete users :-) On the other hand, there have been discussions within the functionary group (and in more public places) lamenting the fact that the number of new admins keeps falling, and trying to figure out ways to reverse that trend. I was just doing my part.
One of the classic questions that gets asked at RfA is "Why do you need the tools?" It's a plus when you can point to a specific admin-only task which is understaffed and for which you have all the requisite experience. RoySmith(talk)13:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that the original design for the water playground at Chelsea Waterside Park (pictured) was criticized because local residents thought that the sprinklers resembled sex toys?
When I first read this, I took it to mean that this was a design, that was never put into place. But from what I can see in the source [1], the sprinklers were actually built and active. Don't know if the hook can be made clearer in this regard. Also, it would be nice to know (in the article) what the fate of the sprinklers was. Pinging @Vaticidalprophet, Corachow, and Epicgenius: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, thanks for the heads up. I think we could just remove "original" from the hook. Sadly I can't find any sources about what happened to the original sprinklers, but I think they were removed or are being removed during the ongoing renovation. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not so much the tense of the "robbed", it's that the original hook suggests he did all his ninja robbing at the age of 74. Your alteration fixes this issue but introduces a new one—it could be that he had done the robbing at the age of 20, and had simply aged. Perhaps "... that the Ninja of Heisei, who robbed places in Japan while wearing a ninja costume, was caught at the age of 74?" or something similar? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Mhm, you're right, the sourcing is rather unclear about this. I'd change it from "was placed near the top of the" to "was nominated in the" (and remove the word "ballot"), if that's alright (I've edited the article accordingly). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing how the source supports that. The source says, "Democrats [...] also ran John A. Kennedy, a Winnetka businessman who was no relation to the president slain less than a year before." All that says is that the two weren't related. It doesn't say anything about being nominated because of the name similarity. RoySmith(talk)22:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do not know if it is just me, but i had interpreted the current hook to mean that the hromada is currently split between russia and ukraine, in the same way that hans island is split between canada and denmark, while the hromada is actually fully ukrainian territory. would it be helpful to replace "divided between Russia and Ukraine" with "divided between Russian and Ukrainian control"? dying (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As promoter, divided referring to de facto control is, to my mind, evident from the reference to the counteroffensive and general knowledge of Russia/Ukraine's "interactions" over the past year, but if de jure territorial concepts need to be clearly excluded, the change is perfectly acceptable. As an aside, how do you produce your nomination/involved user template above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, that makes sense. i think my mind may have assumed that the hook was not referring to de facto control because there presumably are a lot of ukrainian hromadas currently split between russian and ukrainian control, so any specific one may not be interesting due to this fact alone. after reading the hook, i was wondering if there was some unusual political quirk to explain it, like how it isn't clear whether egypt or sudan has de jure sovereignty over the halaib triangle, or how moscow's kremlin is the property of ukraine's national postal service according to a decree by the head of ukrposhta. as a result, i was very confused when the map in the infobox showed me that the hromada was entirely within ukrainian territory, and i ended up trying to understand how i was misreading the map.the code i used above isn't really produced via a template on wikipedia, though i have been meaning to create one. you are welcome to copy the code and use it however you wish, though i should warn you that the version above does not take into account varying cases at the start of a bolded link (e.g., "Dvorichna settlement hromada" versus "dvorichna settlement hromada") or article titles using characters that have special meaning in lua regular expressions (e.g., '%', ')', and '*'). dying (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prep 1 political hooks
Prep 1 has two hooks on the same day that portray left-wing groups in a negative light:
"... that climate change protesters vandalized and glued themselves to a version of Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup I?"
I agree this is a bit of a topic concentration (I don't think the topic itself is unusable), so I've swapped the Campbell's one to p6. I'm involved with the Moloise one so won't touch that, but Viriditas's tweak sounds good. Vaticidalprophet00:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I don't see the hooks as portraying left-wing groups negatively, but I would switch the wording around on the second one to make it clear that they were extremists before the name like this: "...that after Benjamin Moloise's execution, the extremist group Direct Action bombed two Paris companies linked to South Africa in protest?" Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page moves aren't supposed to be an issue with regards to notability. Indeed, it's not uncommon for articles to be moved even during the review process. What isn't allowed is moving the nomination page; even if the article is moved, the actual page should not be renamed as that would break things. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination can be passed while there is an active move request, but it would be best to settle the article title before promoting the article to a prep set. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to that is to move-protect the article so that only an admin can action the move. If the article is at that point on the main page, that admin can then also fix the resulting redirect in accordance with WP:MPNOREDIRECT. Schwede6604:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reinsertion of links on MP
I've noticed a trend lately of admins re-adding intentionally excluded links to hooks once those hooks are already full-protected and on the main page. Hookwriting practice under most circumstances is to minimize links outside the bold link, including many words that would be worth linking in an article, to avoid diverting traffic; links that would be made in articles are routinely both intentionally omitted and intentionally removed from hooks. This has been overruled a few times lately, with predictable view-diversion consequences:
This is a tricky problem, because it suffers from the "you can't mark things as good" issue -- twenty people can look at something and think it's fine, but there's no way to mark it as "no action needed", so the twenty-first person who thinks an action is needed unknowingly bucks consensus (also well-recorded with maintenance tags, blocks, etc). At ERRORS this is semi-resolvable (a lot of ERRORS queries need to be told "this isn't a problem" rather than acted upon), but unilateral changes are much harder to prevent. Is there some way to make it clear that link omissions are a feature rather than a bug? I'm under the impression the number of editnotices on the MP is already way into banner blindness, so the obvious route probably won't work. Vaticidalprophet07:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No intent on calling either of you out -- you're both people I have a high opinion of -- but it's hard to hash out how to resolve these and useful to get thoughts of people involved. Hidden comments might work (after seeing two consecutive hooks linking anthropodermic bibliopegy get absolutely bodied by that article views-wise, I am absolutely adding a hidden comment when I nominate the third). It may also be worth revising the ERRORS introductory spiel a little to include something about "things that look like errors but aren't"? I'm not sure most people at ERRORS...read it...but at the very least it'd allow pointing to "see the bold text on this page, that's not an error". Vaticidalprophet07:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So in some cases this is definitely workable, but I'm not sure it scales indefinitely -- people request all sorts of unpredictable links, and it's the addition that can't be anticipated that's harder to prevent. Where in the pipeline do you think the latter problem can be addressed? Bot at ERRORS that reverts link requests? Vaticidalprophet16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Force of habit? Also, sometimes it would be weird not to link if the hook involves two equally important people, but only one of them is a recent GA. —Kusma (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if you keep linking some things, no matter how few, that aren't the target article, people will inevitably think that there are some that got missed and will (understandably) post to ERRORS. Primergrey (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "why link anything?" is a valid question. There could and need to be exceptions to it, as suggested by Kusma. But as a basic premise, this could form the basis of a useful discussion. Schwede6622:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, it's to add context. Remember that DYK readers are not a monolith and their experiences and knowledge may not be the same. For example, terms that some groups may take for granted may be alien to others; this tends to happen for example in sports-related articles. Of course, there has to be a balance; ideally you'd want to limit the number of links whenever possible, but there are also times when they're necessary to explain more niche or technical ideas. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should worry less about "diverting traffic", and more about serving our readers. If a wikilink is helpful, it should not be excluded just because the nominator is worried about their page views being diluted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the primary examples is the anthropodermic bibliopegy article, which needs to be rewritten from scratch and does an actually worse job of explaining the practice than either Dark Archives or List of books bound in human skin. The other is "urinate while sleeping" piped to Nocturnal enuresis, which is a definitional link for a common term, and also has what could lightly be called "MEDRS issues". I'm not convinced there's encyclopedic value in linking either in a hook, which by its nature requires strictly triaging what's included. Vaticidalprophet00:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan, Damien Linnane, and Lightburst: Even if I agreed that the hook were interesting in some circumstance – which I'm not wholly certain I am – I don't think I can get behind using this hook for not just a single artist, but the list of a single artist's discography. This hook could conceivably be used for 39 other people – maybe that'd be a fun multi hook, but I don't see the case for it here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I share the concern. But I will let uninvolved people weigh in and maybe come up with suggestions for alternate hooks from the list.--NØ10:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, there isn't much to go on. However, if there's a desire to have a hook specifically about her music, maybe some of the mentions about one of her albums being like going through the stages of grief, or fighting insecurities over writing music alone, could work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tack I took for "List of Alexander McQueen collections" was to summarize his entire body of work - "...that across his thirty-six collections, fashion designer Alexander McQueen contemplated religion, told fairy tales, and criticized the fashion industry?" A similar approach could work here - "...that Alessia Cara has recorded songs about [thing], [thing], and [perhaps a surprising thing]?" ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something I came up with, that hopefully satisfactorily takes both yours' suggestions into account:
ALT3: ... that across her first three albums, Alessia Cara co-wrote 43 songs ranging in themes from teenage, her insecurities about writing music alone, to the five stages of grief?
Was just limiting to what was already in the article. I have now added a sentence corresponding to her debut album and updated the hook accordingly.--NØ13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: given that plenty of colleges both (a) play it pretty fast and loose with athletic scholarships and (b) are more than a little kind to legacies, is this hook really all that unusual? I'm sure Spiers is good, but if I had to guess, I don't know that a college athlete from a family of college athletes is all that surprising to me... especially since it doesn't really make it out of the local newsosphere. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(driveby) I think this is unusual-or-intriguing as someone who has no-special-knowledge-or-interest, but that might be from that same paradox I alluded to earlier (that college sports are a Weird American Thing completely outside the sociological Overton window everywhere else). "Colleges admit disproportionately many sports players as legacies because it's so big a deal" gets "wow, that's super weird!" just as much. There are certainly interesting, unresolved, and unresolvable questions about what "no special knowledge or interest" is. Vaticidalprophet09:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that our readership pretty frequently turns up its nose on college football hooks, I'm not sure I see a broad-based topical argument for interestingness – and if we're going for that angle, we certainly don't have the sourcing to talk about it in this article. But, as always, we can come back to check how it does. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hook seems complicated as is. Would it be advisable to have two separate suggestions: one about him being blinded then being elected, and the other suggestion solely focusing on him being elected by soldiers? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the combination that caught my attention; the fact that he was blinded in battle, and then elected to one of the special seats in the Assembly. (1) TheLeekyCauldron, yes, soldiers don't normally have special trouble getting elected. That's not what I think is interesting here; I think it's rare for someone with such a serious disability to get elected, especially a century ago, where about the only aid for the blind was Braille and a white cane. And yet, he had a significant political career. (2) I also found it interesting that he was elected by his fellow soldiers overseas, and that he topped the poll, which indicates major support from his fellow soldiers, knowing that he had suffered such an injury, and yet they trusted him to represent their interests. (3) It's also interesting that the constituency he represented was so specific: Saskatchewan soldiers serving in Belgium and France. There normally aren't special ridings for soldiers; didn't happen again until WWII. I imagine a lot of people would be intrigued by that. (Query: Do US states ever have soldier representatives from overseas?) (4) I think when you put it all together, it's an interesting hook, that will attract readers for different reasons: some might be interested in the disability, some that he was elected by fellow soldiers; and some might be intrigued by the election occurring overseas. I think if we break it up, we lose some of those intriguing aspects. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with the intriguingness aspects, but hooks generally have to be catchy and snappy whenever possible, and complicated hooks tend to underperform compared to expectations based on previous experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One way to fix that is to substitute Battle of Mont Sorrel. The Battle of Sanctuary Wood was part of that battle, and is where Turner was wounded, but there's no wikipedia page on it. The article on Battle of Mont Sorrel mentions Sanctuary Wood as part of the larger battle of Mont Sorrel; just a larger area covered, so it does include where Turner was wounded. Would that respond to your concern? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Let me toss a few ideas out and see what sticks:
ALT1: ...that Pacific First Centre's developer courted the Japanese? But this might be too simplistic.
ALT2: ...that U.S. Bank Center's lobby was a third place? Without the link, so people will wonder "Third place what?"
ALT3: ...that a death at the Pacific First Centre caused a fine for the Erection Company? Yeah, this is childish humor, but honestly I can't think of anything else.
To be honest, after reading the article, I don't see anything hook-worthy. This is basically the eighth-largest generic office building in any city. RoySmith(talk)17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't count on eighth-largest generic office buildings not being hookworthy. After all, the eighth-largest generic office building in NYC had a hook about a whole Broadway theater at its base... If there's anything more that can be said about the design, perhaps someone can write a hook about the design features of this building? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except in the most egregious cases (which this certainly isn't) I see my role as a queue promoter as commenting on problems I see. I leave it to others to figure out what to do about it. RoySmith(talk)23:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alt4: ... that, after being called "U.S. Bank Centre" for nearly 30 years, a building in Seattle was renamed, to "U.S. Bank Center"?
i'm not sure if it works better without the comma after "renamed". also, i couldn't decide where to put the link: on the former name, the current name, or "a building in Seattle". note that this hook fact isn't currently explicitly stated in the article; i am relying on wp:calc and trusting that the dates mentioned in the article are accurate, as i do not have access to the cited sources. dying (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that adding "on the 23rd floor" to the Montessori school hook doesn't work? That was my first thought with "Erection Company" being my second. Vaticidalprophet02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the hook per the above suggestion. I still think it's not very interesting, but it's less uninteresting than it was before :-) RoySmith(talk)22:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but the article doesn't say "high school" anywhere. Perhaps we could infer that the "Gualberto Villarroel School" is a high school, if indeed they have such a concept in Bolivia, but should explicitly clarify that somewhere. And actually, on that topic, the link in the article and hooks is to Spanish Baccalaureate, but is that really what she gained? The source doesn't seem to explicitly say it's a qualification from Spain. @AirshipJungleman29, Gobonobo, and Krisgabwoosh: — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish Baccalaureate is the model used in most Latin American countries – [a] I linked it because "baccalaureate" is a more precise term than high school diploma, the English equivalent. To receive one's baccalaureate exclusively denotes that they completed secondary school or equivalent. E.g. someone who received their high school diploma can be said to have graduated high school, even if the institution they attended doesn't have "high school" in the name (the Kirov Academy of Ballet, for example). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, "high school" isn't really a term I typically use when talking about Latin American education – preferring the term "secondary school". However, for the hook, I figured "high school" would be more understandable to a broader audience. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^The article could stand to mention that other countries use the same system.
@AirshipJungleman29, Gobonobo, and Krisgabwoosh: sorry to be difficult, but I am seeing this as not meeting the DYK rules at present. Per WP:DYKHOOK, "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change, and citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook". Currently the assertion that she received a diploma from a high school, and also the fact that this was a Spanish baccalaureate, are both uncited in the article. This will need to be fixed up before the hook goes live, currently scheduled for Wednesday. If more time is needed than that, we can always push it back. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A simple fix would be to change "high school baccalaureate" to "secondary school baccalaureate" and, if need be, de-link the word. I do apologize if I come off a bit frustrated, but I personally think it's quite counterintuitive to discount certain facts simply because they're not explicitly spelled out – we must be able to infer at least some meaning from surrounding context. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru The Spanish Wikipedia has an article for the generic baccalaureate (es:Bachillerato), but we only have an article here for the degree from Spain. As far as I can tell, Gualberto Villarroel only offers secondary school level degrees. I think Krisgabwoosh's suggestion of unlinking the baccalaureate and changing it to secondary school baccalaureate should address the concern. gobonobo+c21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is this one, which states, "Despite the end-of-the-season slide, the overall success of the four years - two WAC titles, three bowl appearances and a 35-11 overall record - quickly turned Roach into a legend in Wyoming sports history. Heck, he even got a few votes for governor in the 1990 election." I would be fine with the re-wording. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it now, but technically that doesn't support the hook. Both the current hook and my suggested rewrite assume he was not an official candidate and thus the votes were write-ins. I'll admit that's a reasonable assumption, but the source doesn't actually say that. RoySmith(talk)16:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. In this context, it means "the only one", i.e. she was the only contributing artist to the soundtrack. Open to suggestions for tweaking this hook... -- P 1 9 9✉15:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minuscule 1582
Queue 6: Minuscule 1582 (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @Stephen Walch @Frzzl There's two issues here. One is that I don't see the connection between the hook fact and the article. I see where the article discusses Mark 16:9 starting at After Mark 16:8 is a colophon... but I can't work out how that "casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses?" Maybe it's obvious to a biblical scholar, but I'm not seeing it.
Please do not pull this - you seem to have misunderstood the discussion. I was not the review, that was @Narutolovehinata5, who was previously unrelated to the article. I was the one who ultimately stuck a tick on it, as I ended up offering an alt after the discussion went stale. @Gerda Arendt and I both interacted with this nomination, but this did not make us reviewers; my putting-the-tick-on was only a result of Gerda's courtesy to check approval of the selected hook by all participants, and me being late to reply. There is therefore no violation of WP:DYKRR.
If you put the tick on it, you were the reviewer of record. If Gerda wants to give a tick, she knows how to do that. But there's still the issue of the casting doubt which needs to be addressed. RoySmith(talk)16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What RoySmith said, Frzzl: if you ticked it, you are saying you reviewed it and have made sure it meets the criteria, something that a GA reviewer is not allowed to do. Gerda's been doing DYK for well over a decade, and knows how to conclude her own reviews; you are free to ping her on her talk page to get her attention on a needed approval. You can always edit the article or post to the review, if you wish, but cannot pass final judgment on its fitness as a DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From there, Berman joined the NHL, where over the course of 13 years -> She then spent 13 years at the National Hockey League
In 2019, Berman became -> In 2019, she was named
making her the first woman to hold that title in a men’s professional sports league -> becoming the first women to hold the position of deputy commissioner of a men's professional sports league.
Thanks. I was going to pull this, but if you say you're working on it, I'll hold off on that to give you some time. Please don't take too long, however. RoySmith(talk)15:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two facts here - that Louis the Fish was inspired by The Metamorphosis, and that it's a children's book - are fully cited and correct. However, I'm slightly concerned about the use of "despite" here. The sources don't appear to connect these two things in particular, so for us to do so here appears to be an element of WP:SYNTH. The article also doesn't say that it's inspired by the work despite anything. @MonarchOfTerror, Vaticidalprophet, and Onegreatjoke: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: So I had a look to see where I might've gotten the despite from and Children's Books and Their Creators (source number 2 in the article) has this line: "Yorinks’s inspirations come from many sources, including, a bit unexpectedly, Franz Kafka’s Metamormorphosis. In Louis the Fish (1980) ...". It might still be too WP:SYNTH however since it doesn't mention that Louis the Fish is children's book directly either, I'm fine with either modifying the hook to something like "... that Arthur Yorinks's children's book Louis the Fish was inspired by Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis?" or switching to the original hook/ALT1 instead. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror19:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, you've omitted the italics for The Metamorphosis, which is required for a book title and was properly formatted that way in the original hook. Can you please restore them before the hook hits the main page in just under twelve hours? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11, Bloom6132, and FormalDude: I know that it's a rare transition from what BeanieFan11 has said (although I had to cut that from the article), but I don't think it's likely to be perceived as unusual by the reading audience. (The trouble with smaller articles is that often you don't get the high-quality sourcing that draws those connections, and you have to instead work off of primary sourcing.)
Is it also possible for there to be another hook option here? The old supplementary guidelines did say that we shouldn't assume that the whole world is aware of the intricacies of sports, and I imagine most of the world doesn't even know what a quarterback is, let alone how changing positions in American football can be uncommon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that guideline wasn't about interestingness, it was just making sure people provided context for their hooks. We can make it interesting, but I'm not sure it's really worth it to basically just tell our readers "trust me, this is cool". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like:
... That Dylan Cook is one of only N players in history to switch from playing quarterback to the offensive line?
... that there are Jewish tartans made for the Jewish community of Scotland?
@Bohemian Baltimore, CJ-Moki, and Vaticidalprophet: I think we could buck up this hook by mentioning the length of time in between Jews arriving in Scotland and the first tartans being created and canonized. Something like:
ALT2: ... that the first Jewish tartan was designed over 300 years after Jews first began arriving in Scotland?
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list the first 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 22. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 66 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has decreased by 2 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help requested
Requesting help with the review of the "Get Him Back!" DYK nomination. It involves a bit of a unique situation with a prior AfD (which saw multiple votes influenced by Four Award rivalries) and probably won't be reviewed by the less-experienced. I hope we haven't reached the point where we allow blatant bad-faith sabotage to succeed.--NØ09:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything more that can be said about the design, perhaps someone can write a hook about the design features of this building? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Done both. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
