Template talk:Did you know

DYK queue status

There are currently 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Einführung	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	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.

"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑

Count of DYK Hooks
Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
July 5	1
July 7	2
July 13	1	1
July 15	1
July 16	1	1
July 17	2	2
July 18	3
July 19	3	1
July 21	1	1
July 22	1	1
July 23	2	1
July 24	4	2
July 25	6	4
July 26	6	3
July 27	5	4
July 28	15	10
July 29	6	4
July 30	4	1
July 31	2
August 1	5	2
August 2	4	3
August 3	5	3
August 4	4	3
August 5	11	3
August 6	7	3
August 7	4	2
August 8	7	4
August 9	4	3
August 10	10	4
August 11	6	3
August 12	5	3
August 13	4	4
August 14	10	7
August 15	6	3
August 16	8	4
August 17	8	3
August 18	9	6
August 19	10	4
August 20	6	3
August 21	3	1
August 22	7	4
August 23	10	2
August 24	7	1
August 25	15	6
August 26	5
August 27	8	5
August 28	10
August 29	6
August 30	9
August 31	2
Total	281	125
Last updated 10:17, 31 August 2024 UTC Current time is 12:54, 31 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

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

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced procedures

How to promote an accepted hook

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area

See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for details on verifying a hook's acceptability. Promoters should not promote their own nomination or their own review. When promoting hooks intended for a particular date, keep in mind that when the number of available approved nominations exceeds 120 we switch to two sets per day, and when that number drops below 60 we return to one set per day. Check list for nomination review completeness Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: . Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed. Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed. Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated). Hook should make sense grammatically. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area. Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set. Steps to add a hook to prep In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote. In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to. Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue. Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number. Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end. Check that there's a bold link to the article. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom Check your work in the prep's Preview mode. At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake. Save the Prep page. Closing the DYK nomination page At the upper left Ändern Sie {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage Ändern Sie |passed= to |passed=yes At the bottom Just above the line containing }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> insert a new, separate line containing one of the following: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]] Also paste the same thing into the edit summary. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom. Save. For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources:

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

How to remove a rejected hook

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

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

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

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

• Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on June 22

To Prep 5

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on July 3

Ok, i've updated the template with the corrected source for the first one (I guess I mixed up the two scientific american articles, I think they bothy say that GPT-3 releases 552 metric tons of Co2, but only one talks about the comparison to cars. Thanks for catching that! Also fixed ALT1, thanks for fixing that as well! Apologies for incorrect info, I'll try to read a bit slower with these articles. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't dig to hard on that spammy site earlier, sorry. I agree that they stole from enwiki and not the other way around. All three hooks are good to go. I think ALT0 is the most compelling. awkwafaba (📥) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is this true? jp×g🗯️ 22:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The sourcing for the release of CO2 by a lot of AI models is well established, and it was a news item last week that Google's emission had increased by 50% or something cuz of their big AI push. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, I am a little concerned that statistics-heavy topics like this, when they're directly related to buzzwordy trending topics in the news cycle, tend to be very ill-suited to being patched out from headlines. That is to say, writing the shark attack and dog attack based solely on news coverage would give the impression that these were both uncommon things that do happen every once in a while, when in reality the yearly rates are eighty versus several million. This article quotes a bunch of figures from news stories back-to-back, and there doesn't really seem to be much attempt at comparison or context. For example, there is a paper cited that projects 85-143 TWh of global power consumption from neural networks by 2027, based on a conjectural optimistic scenario where NVIDIA/TSMC transition their entire manufacturing output to A100s (all of which are installed in data centers and used for nothing but LLM inference). By comparison, this paper estimated that video gaming consumed 34 TWh/year in the United States alone in 2019; this document from the DoE says that aluminum production in the US in 2000 consumed a total of 279.2 TWh/yr. The US consumes about 16% of the world's electricity, so a very rough approximation here would give a ballpark estimate of 212.5 TWh for gaming (the US does about 2% of aluminum production worldwide, giving us around 13960 TWh yearly for global aluminum production). It also seems like there is a lot of ambiguity between training (a fixed cost, as models are only trained once) and inference (the process that happens when running the model, which typically requires billions or trillions of times less computation). I am somewhat worried about having this on the front page. jp×g🗯️ 23:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

you are literally using us energy gov stats to WP:SYNTH a whataboutism argument… by the same logic, the criticism section of any industries environmental impact can be called misleading because theres always another more polluting industry you can point to. the comparison you suggest is “missing” is literally that training ChatGPT training took as much energy as 123 gasoline powered cars yearly footprints. and suggesting that including examples from news articles headlining the carbon footprint is a bad thing for wikipedia is inane. most articles on here use secondary souces such as news articles. and most DyK hooks are eyecatching Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For the specific task of literally writing an encyclopedia article about a topic, I would say that answering questions like "why is this statistic relevant" or "what does this number mean" is probably its most important purpose. I gave a couple examples to illustrate what this looks like, obviously there is no reason why aluminum manufacturing in particular is more relevant than anything else. The most appropriate source here would likely be something like a textbook or monograph about electrical consumption by various industries, and how this related to environmental concerns in general. Since this is a subject of rather large significance, it is important that our writing on it be accurate, and not news. I am opposed to running stuff on the main page where vague insinuations are made by factoids of unexplained significance -- e.g. what's a terawatt-hour? what's a gram of CO2? why are some figures given in one and some as the other, and still others given in folksy derivative units like average midsize sedan gasoline consumption rates over average suburban commutes? jp×g🗯️ 01:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, ALT0 is not supported by the source. Indeed, OpenAI's well-known sleazy refusal to be transparent about any of its operations or research means that the source cannot say that, because the source does not know. The figure claimed as fact in this hook is, in the source, carefully and explicitly presented as an approximate figure derived by estimation (it's from https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350 -- note the methods they are using). jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing these bad faith arguments after this. The source link is literally right there for anyone to read. There are three links I cite with the 552 metric tons figure in the article. Most of the "environmental impacts of" are similar collections of "factoids" discussing various industry leaders. And by your logic of WP:NOTNEWS, we should remove most news articles discussing long term trends in any industry. WP:NOTNEWS specifically states no original reporting on wikipedia (we don't report the news ourselves, we cite it), and calls for enduring notability of information (we don't do an article if its just one or two articles). if you find a reputable source arguing that this is a false number or a false comparison, feel free to edit the article. I respect your work as an admin, and your experience, but this is silly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 4

I've removed the points I'd consider to be minor nitpicks and left a couple I do think should be addressed as they concern the factuality of the article. Apologies for going overboard. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't love the party fingers usage, but it'd be silly to hold back the DYK over it in isolation. Hook looks good now, so I'd give this a stamp of approval. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 5

David B. Gillespie

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that David Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the nature of a diploma from the University of North Carolina?

• Source: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.

• ALT1: ... that the first person granted a document in the nature of a diploma from the University of North Carolina was David Gillespie? Source: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
• ALT2: ... that David Gillespie was the chief surveyor under Andrew Ellicott on the commission to determine the thirty-first parallel? Source: Holmes, Jack D. L. (April 1966). "The Southern Boundary Commission, the Chattahoochee River, and the Florida Seminoles, 1799". The Florida Historical Quarterly. 44 (4): 312–337. JSTOR 30147229.
• Reviewed:

Created by Aneirinn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Aneirinn (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC).

•  : Article is new enough, and long enough, and predominantly soured with public domain content so no apparent copyright issues. However, I find none of the hooks interesting to a wide audience (an increasingly common issue with DYK). And despite the article title, no reliable sources seem to use the middle initial "B.": where does this come from? And spot checking sources, Battle 1890 does not seem to have a page 170, nor mention David Gillespie anywhere. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I originally used the wrong book as the source. The source I was using had combined the two books in one pdf and I had missed that. Also, concerning his middle name, I suppose you are saying that "Death at Red Springs". The Weekly Star. Vol. XXIX. Wilmington, North Carolina: North Carolina Newspapers, Digital North Carolina. June 10, 1898. p. 1. is not a reliable source for this? If so, could you please clarify if that is correct? Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If that newspaper obit (including its earlier printing on June 5, 1898) is the only source using "B", and no scholar has used it since, then it's most likely a one-off error (typos, misspellings, and incorrect info is common in short obits from the time): note there was a Dr. David B(ryson) Gillespie of Bladen County who died in 1905 mentioned in NC newspapers, and may have caused conflation. Find a Grave uses the middle B, but it's an unreliable user-generated source and the tombstone image does not corroborate it. Since David Gillespie (politician) already exists, David Gillespie (surveyor) oder David Gillespie (American politician) may be more appropriate titles in line with predominant form of name. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Dr. David B. Gillespie (February 24, 1815–January 2, 1905), who attended the Medical College of South Carolina, [Source:Catalogue of the Students Attending Lectures in the Medical College of the State of South Carolina, Session 1837–'38. Charleston: James S. Burges, 85 East-Bay. 1838. p. 6 – via Medical University of South Carolina, Waring Historical Library.] was a son of Major David B. Gillespie. [Source:"Descendants of David Gillespie" (PDF). NCGenWeb.] I think it is likely that the writer of the twice-published obituary wrote 'Major' David B. Gillespie for a reason, and that Dr. David B Gillespie is named after his father, which would have them both with middle names that start with the letter 'B'. This point of contention is not really an issue; however, I find it hard to believe that people would find the initial proposal or ALT1 dull or uninteresting. It is significant and interesting that, according to Kemp P. Battle, David B. Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States. This would also make David B. Gillespie the first person in the United States to receive a document in the form of a diploma from a public university. If more alternative hooks are necessary, I'm willing to provide additional options. Aneirinn (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States, was David Gillespie?
Sources: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kapur, Geeta N. (2021). To Drink from the Well: The Struggle for Racial Equality at the Nation's Oldest Public University. Durham, North Carolina: Blair/Carolina Wren Press. ISBN 9781949467529 – via Stanford University Libraries.
ALT4: ... that David Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States?
Sources: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kapur, Geeta N. (2021). To Drink from the Well: The Struggle for Racial Equality at the Nation's Oldest Public University. Durham, North Carolina: Blair/Carolina Wren Press. ISBN 9781949467529 – via Stanford University Libraries.

• Aneirinn (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aneirinn: What does this need an additional reviewer for that @Animalparty: can't do themself?--Launchballer 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Launchballer, thank you for your response to this and my apologies for abandoning my nomination for Red Brown (politician). I had not realized that only prose characters are counted for the 5x expansion requirement. To answer your question, it seems as if the primordial reviewer has abandoned this nomination. I should also note that an additional source for the initial of the subject's middle name has been added to the article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever source you were using for his middle name, you weren't citing it, so I've taken it out. I am happy to take over this review, except I don't find any of the hooks interesting either (ALTs 3 and 4 are bloated versions of ALTs 0 and 1 and ALT2 is just confusing).--Launchballer 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are currently citing his middle name to Weeks (1887). I don't see where his initial appears in that source.--Launchballer 06:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations for this in the lead are unnecessary per MOS:LEAD. Two sources cited in the body of the article mention the initial of his middle name. One even has it written in its title. Saying it "fails verification" is a bit outside of the box here, so I have returned it. I changed one word on ALT2, hopefully it is an improvement at the very least. Aneirinn (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

His initial isn't in the body anywhere.--Launchballer 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Why must it be? Aneirinn (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:V. The lead is only allowed to be unreferenced if all its content is backed up in the body. As written, it would deserve {{not verified in body}}, which would disqualify it here.--Launchballer 07:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am entirely at odds with the previous sentence. MOS:NAME says "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information. Inclusion of middle names or initials... can be a useful form of disambiguation if there is more than one person known by that name." Which is the case here. MOS:LEAD supports the status quo. Would you please quote how WP:V supports that? It also mentions, "A source 'directly supports' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of WP:NOR. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material." Aneirinn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aneirinn: Launchballer is correct that the material needs to be either cited in the lead or mentioned and cited in the body. The paragraph of WP:V says only that there might exist a source that directly supports the material, which isn't relevant here. For DYK purpose, the material does need to be verifiable to its source in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you theleekycauldron, I have updated the article. Aneirinn (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aneirinn: Apologies for dropping this. This needs a new hook; ALT2 is still confusing, and they will have your guts for garters at WT:DYK with any open-ended first hook.--Launchballer 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Aneirinn: There is less than a week to go before September 5th, in which case WP:DYKTIMEOUT may apply, so please address any remaining issues by then. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 6

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: Good to go with main or ALT - both verified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 7

Mary Jane Patterson

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mary Jane Patterson, descendant of previously enslaved mother, was the first African American woman to gain a BA degree, having taken a 'gentleman's course'?

• Sources: 1. Bishir, Catherine (2018). "Patterson, Henry J. (1805-1886) and John E. (1804-1880)" North Carolina Architects and Builders: A Bibliographical Dictionary and

2. Blakemore, Erin (2017-05-23)' How the Daughter of a Slave Became the First African American to Earn a Bachelor's Degree.' Time

• • ALT1: ... that Mary Jane Patterson was the first Black principal of a famous high school in Washington DC? Source: Stewart, A (2013) First Class: The legacy of Dunbar, America's first Black Public School. Chicago. Ill: Lawrence Hill Books p 32

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Balance person (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Balance person (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

• Article was promoted to Good Article within the last couple of days, is easily long enough, well written and copiously referenced. In my opinion the original hook, about being the first to get a BA degree, is best - very interesting indeed. The fact is cited immediately after it, in the lead introduction, to a page hosted on the university website. If I was being picky I'd say the info about achieving a BA degree should be included in the main body of the article too, because the lead intro is normally a summary of the main article. But the GA reviewers didn't have an issue with this, so I'm happy to say good to go to the next stage. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Balance person "First person to do X" hooks are tricky, because we've found quite a few end up at WP:ERRORS with someone saying "well actually this person did it before". Is any other hook viable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
    • ALT0a: ... that Mary Jane Patterson, African American descendant of previously enslaved mother, gained a BA degree in 1862, having taken a 'gentleman's course'? proposed in this diff

• @Balance person and Sionk: Does the ALT0a hook work for you? Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALT0a hook is fine by me Balance person

I'm afraid I find ALT0a extremely clunky @Balance person:, and this would need to be rewritten. I also don't see how this passed WP:GA given that it fails MOS:PARA (I literally cannot read the first paragraph of Early life and education, and single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided).--Launchballer 12:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The article has been passed for GA status. If others do not feel ALTOa is right, perhaps we could go with ALT1. Or someone, perhaps you, could suggest an alternative wording for the clunky one? I actually don't know if I am supposed to be the only editor who should write the hooks or if others can help too, User:Launchballer Balance person (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

ALT0a looks fine to me. I can understand Airshipjungleman's concerns about the factual accuracy, considering it seems to be a claim from the college ("claimed to be" would not go amiss in the first paragraph). The date is a good addition. Unless someone challenges the GA status I would assume the article is legible enough for DYK. Good to go at last. Sionk (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lauchballer is right in saying the prose quality of the first paragraph has been substantially degraded since the GA review, and is now difficult to parse. ALT0a is also just ... weird: the phrase "descendant of ... mother", the missing definite articles, etc. Would suggest instead ALT0b: that Mary Jane Patterson, whose mother was an African American slave, gained a BA degree in 1862 having taken a "gentleman's course"? The issues with the article's prose still need to be resolved before the hook can run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ALT0b is better. I have substantially edited the first paragraph which had been altered to include new info and think it reads fine now. Open to more comments of course, as ever. Balance person (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and Balance person: This nomination is just over a week from timing out, are there still issues that need to be addressed or are they resolved? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All fine with me. Balance person (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just becoming frustrating. Let's get this fascinating DYK published in some form before we lose it. Sionk (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

ALT0b is a rewording of ALT0a with no new information and should be approvable if you already have. I've taken out some stuff that wasn't really relevant, but it's a bit better now. @AirshipJungleman29:, your thoughts?--Launchballer 10:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• • @BeanieFan11: thanks for the review! QPQ has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    • BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

See also: WP:SOHA

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.

Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.

April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.