Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know/Approved

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Template talk:Did you know

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Editør (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 5 July 2024 (→‎Special occasion holding area: move up non-Olympic request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}


This page holds approved nominations that are waiting to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. Following DYK approval, nominations are processed and moved into a Prep area, and from there, prep sets are promoted to a queue, and then to the main page.

To create a new nomination or to see those that are yet to be approved, see Template talk:Did you know. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Click on the link to go directly to the Special occasion holding area.

  If some of the nominations are not showing up properly at the bottom of the page, these alternative pages can be used to view a subset of the most recent nominations.
Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
May 27 1
May 30 2
June 2 1
June 3 2 1
June 7 1
June 8 1
June 9 2 1
June 10 1
June 11 1
June 13 1
June 14 2 1
June 15 2
June 17 2
June 19 2 1
June 20 1
June 21 3
June 22 2
June 23 4 2
June 24 3 1
June 25 2 1
June 26 8 3
June 27 2 1
June 28 6 3
June 29 4 3
June 30 6 5
July 1 8 5
July 2 5 5
July 3 9 6
July 4 9 5
July 5 8 4
July 6 13 10
July 7 11 5
July 8 10 6
July 9 8 4
July 10 10 6
July 11 9 3
July 12 8 4
July 13 14 5
July 14 12 6
July 15 8 3
July 16 12 8
July 17 9 4
July 18 5
July 19 10
July 20 2
July 21 7
July 22 5
July 23
Total 254 112
Last updated 02:28, 23 July 2024 UTC
Current time is 03:35, 23 July 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

This page is for those nominations that have already been approved and are waiting to be promoted. If yours has been approved but has not yet been run on the main page, it should either be on this page or will soon be moved here, or already promoted to a Prep area or Queue ahead of an appearance on the main page.

If you wish to create a new nomination, please go to the Template talk:Did you know page; there are instructions there in a section similar to this one on how to nominate an article for DYK.

Frequently asked questions

Backlogged?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until someone promotes it to a preparation area. To alleviate this problem, if the approved page has more than 120 approved hooks, then sets will change twice per day (every 12 hours) instead of once per day (every 24 hours). When the backlog falls below 60 approved nominations set frequency returns to once a day.

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to the nominations page, and it also isn't on this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is either in one of the prep areas, has been 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 other editors

How to promote an accepted hook

  • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
  • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
  • In the prep set...
    • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
    • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
    • Add an edit summary, e.g., "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
  • Back on DYK nomination page...
    • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • change |passed= to |passed=yes
    • Add an edit summary, e.g., "Promoted original hook to Prep 3", preview, and save

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 the nominations 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 the nominations 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.

Nominations

Special occasion holding area

Shortcut
Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section on the regular nominations page, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began, or it was listed as a Good Article; be sure to 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 between 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: [1]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [2].
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Note for promoters: please be sure to add an "invisible" comment after a hook when you've placed it in prep, noting that it's a special occasion hook and including the date it is supposed to run. This should keep the hook from being moved after promotion, as sometimes happens to hooks when a queue needs a slot filled or a prep set needs to be made more balanced by swapping hooks between preps.

Non-Olympics requests

July 17

July 26

Summer Olympics, July 26 through August 11

Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Olympic hooks table for potential timing changes.

July 19 (pre-Olympics hook)

July 23 (pre-Olympics hook)

July 24 (pre-Olympics hook)

Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics

(
)
The Philippine delegate holding the two flags for the opening ceremony
The Philippine delegate holding the two flags for the opening ceremony
5x expanded by Arconning (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Arconning (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I prefer ALT 1 TheNuggeteer (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNuggeteer, I've struck ALT1 as there are various problems with it. Both the source and the article say that the "Philippines were said to have sent athletes", hence we cannot say in Wikivoice that the "Philippines sent athletes". Secondly, you don't send athletes "at" the Olympics; you send them "to" the Olympics. Thirdly, when referring to people, you must use "who" and not "that". Fourthly, we do not use contractions in hooks apart from direct quotes. ALT1a fixes all those issues. Schwede66 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about alt 2? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once approved, please place this nomination in the Olympics: Special occasion holding area

July 25

Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics

(
)
5x expanded by Arconning (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Arconning (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

July 27


July 31

Dylan Travis

(
)
  • ... that in nine years, basketball player Dylan Travis played for nine head coaches?
  • Source: USA Basketball ("In nine years of playing basketball beyond the high school level, he played for nine different coaches.")
Created by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 191 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi BeanieFan11, review follows: article moved to mainspace on 11 June and exceeds minimum length; article is generally well written (I couldn't parse "was named first-team All-State, All-Metro and to the Lincoln Journal Star's Super-State Team" but might just be my ignorance of basketball?); sources cited look to be reliable enough, though I am not familiar with them; I didn't pick up any issues with overly close paraphrasing from a spot check; hook fact is interesting enough for me, mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited. My first review for a good few months but looks fine to me except that a QPQ is awaited - Dumelow (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Following up on the QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow: QPQ done; sorry for the delay. (Also, in the sentence you mention, those things mentioned are different all-star teams.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once approved, please place this nomination in the Olympics: Special occasion holding area


August 4

2022 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres, 2022 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles

( Comment or view )
400 metres hurdles final
400 metres hurdles final
2022 European Athletics Championships
  • Source: Dutch source "Missie geslaagd. Femke Bol heeft vrijdagavond in München voor een unieke dubbelslag op een groot titeltoernooi in de atletiekwereld gezorgd. Het 22-jarige supertalent liep naar de Europese titel op de 400 meter horden. Twee dagen eerder was ze al Europees kampioene op de 400 meter zonder hindernissen geworden. Geen enkele vrouw deed dat eerder." English source alternative
5x expanded by Editør (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Editør (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Yes
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: No - Personally I feel at 100px the current image is too wide to be useful for this nomination. I would suggest changing it for either the Brossier/Bol photo from the 400m semi or the Lehikoinen/Bol photo from the 400m hurdles final, but I will also leave this up to the promoter if they feel differently.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Both articles' prose meets 5x expansion. Readable prose on both also surpasses the target. Generally well sourced and well written, hook is also cited and interesting. Images are free, however some issues regarding the selected image (see above). 2 QPQs done to match the double bold articles. Besides potentially swapping the image out for another I'm happy to pass the DYK for these articles. Great job! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I would prefer the Lehikoinen/Bol photo as alternative. – Editør (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or a cropped version of the originally proposed photo if that is an option (cropped to a square, centered on Bol). – Editør (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a crop of the above. Not a square; this looks better (I looked at a square crop first). Schwede66 02:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'd prefer your crop. I think the hook and image caption should be changed to:
Femke Bol in the 400 metres hurdles final
Femke Bol in the 400 metres hurdles final
... that Femke Bol (pictured) won the women's 400 metres and 400 metres hurdles in an unprecedented double victory at the 2022 European Athletics Championships?
– Editør (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once approved, please place this nomination in the Olympics: Special occasion holding area

August 9

Manizha Talash

(
)
Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 193 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough and long enough. QPQ has since been supplied. All hook facts check out and are interesting in various ways, especially ALT0/ALT1. Dunno if we need quotes on the quote from the headline. No textual or other issues. Fine for the 9 August Olympic suggestion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Approved nominations

Articles created/expanded on May 12

Articles created/expanded on May 14

Articles created/expanded on May 22

Articles created/expanded on June 5

Articles created/expanded on June 9

Articles created/expanded on June 10

Articles created/expanded on June 12

Articles created/expanded on June 13

18th Lok Sabha

(
)
  • ALT: ... that according to the Indian Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, 33% of women MPs will be required although Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?
  • ALT1: ... that post enforcement of Women's Reservation Bill in India in the next few years, 33% of MPs will be required to be women although the new Lok Sabha has only 14%?
  • ALT2: ... that according to the Indian Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, 33% of MPs will be required to be women although the Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?
    • 5x expanded by Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 66 past nominations.

    §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC). General eligibility:[reply]

    Policy compliance:

    Hook eligibility:

    • Cited: Yes
    • Interesting: Yes
    • Other problems: Yes
    QPQ: Done.

    Overall: Approved only for ALT hook proposed by me. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Willthorpe:! ALT1 & 2 have suggested now. @AirshipJungleman29:, your response is also awaited. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Dharmadhyaksha, glad to help! Will Thorpe (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This hook feels really wordy, which is why I think it hasn't been promoted yet. Is there any way to trim it a bit? What about this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ALT3 ... that although the Indian Constitution has required 33% of MPs to be women since 2023, the Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?
    @Premeditated Chaos: Well, ALT3 will be factually incorrect as the Reservation Bill is not really implemented yet. It was passed in 2023 and the date of implementation is yet to be decided as there will be delimitation of constituencies after the next Census is completed. Both these major steps (census & then delimitation) are still pending. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So wait, basically the hook is that the percentage of female MPs is less than what's mandated by a law that isn't even in force yet? I'm not sure I find that particularly surprising or intriguing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.... its way less that what would be required by maybe next elections. I understand the hook is becoming un-interesting as we are being factually correct. Hence i was using "will be required" and skipping the part of "when will it be required". If you have any other suggestions, we can think of those too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dharmadhyaksha and Premeditated Chaos: how's an ALT4: ... that India will need to more than double its current number of women in Parliament under a new law? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine by me. In fact, much better than what i had framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles created/expanded on June 14

    Articles created/expanded on June 15

    Timeline of Partygate

    (
    )
    Boris Johnson's 56th birthday party
    Boris Johnson's 56th birthday party
    • Source: "Mr Johnson is the first serving PM to be sanctioned for breaking the law." BBC News
    Moved to mainspace by A Thousand Doors (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 25 past nominations.

    A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment not review As this is an article featuring election candidates, it should not appear on the main page until after 4 July, see WP:DYKELECT. TSventon (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • New enough and long enough. QPQ present. This is a unique contribution to DYK as it is three paragraphs and a list; even though one paragraph does not end in an inline citation, I am treating it as a lead-section paragraph. All the list bullet points contain at least one inline citation. The hook fact checks out and is included. Image is OGL-licensed and acceptable for the Main Page. Good to go after 4 July per above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite what the sources say, I find it hard to believe that in the hundreds of years there have been prime ministers in the UK, not a single one of them before Boris Johnson has ever broken some law. In fact, it only took me a couple of minutes to find in Robert Walpole: In 1712, Walpole was accused of venality and corruption in the matter of two forage contracts for Scotland. Although it was proven that he had retained none of the money, Walpole was pronounced "guilty of a high breach of trust and notorious corruption".[16] He was impeached by the House of Commons and found guilty by the House of Lords; he was then imprisoned in the Tower of London for six months and expelled from Parliament.

    @RoySmith: I believe the distinction is that Johnson is the first serving Prime Minister to be found to have broken the law – the Walpole incident that you're describing occurred nine years before he became Prime Minister. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A Thousand Doors and Sammi Brie: I have unpromoted this, becaue I now feel the hook violates WP:DYKHOOKBLP. I recognise that this is a currently-fraught subject, and other promoters might see differently, but I don't intend on promoting this hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. I am not taking a chance. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ambivalent. I think that any hook is DUE as long as it is not unduly negative compared to the article. But I'm not sure if there are BLP problems with this article existing in the first place. If there aren't, I'd be okay with promoting it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community feels that the current hook is too contentious, then I've added in some alts that I hope might be preferred instead. I still feel that the original is the most interesting and "hook"-y, but I'm happy to go with consensus on this. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles created/expanded on June 16

    Articles created/expanded on June 17

    Articles created/expanded on June 18

    Articles created/expanded on June 19

    Articles created/expanded on June 20

    Articles created/expanded on June 21

    Union for Democracy and Social Progress (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

    (
    )
    • Source: Burke, Jason (11 January 2019). "Why Kabila may be real victor of DRC's contested election". The Guardian. Tshisekedi is the leader of the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS), DRC's oldest and largest opposition party. Critics say he is unproven, inexperienced and lacks the charisma of his father. 'His father was a man of the country. The son is very limited,' Valentin Mubake, former secretary-general of Tshisekedi's party told the Guardian last month.
    Created by Yue (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

    Yue🌙 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Overall: Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Vanderwaalforces: Thank you for taking the time to do this review! I will note that I did have to do a QPQ, which I did. You can double check and, if you see no issues, please modify your review to reflect this. Cheers. Yue🌙 21:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    Articles created/expanded on June 22

    Articles created/expanded on June 23

    Wong Sau Ying

    (
    )
    Wong Sau Ying wearing her hair in a bob cut
    Wong Sau Ying wearing her hair in a bob cut
    • ... that after Wong Sau Ying (pictured) attempted to assassinate a British colonial official, the police and press began to associate the bob cut with anarchism?
    Improved to Good Article status by Grnrchst (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 37 past nominations.

    Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • @Orchastrattor: Here's a couple excerpts from the text. It goes further into this in preceding and subsequent paragraphs:

      The colonial public was chilled by her [Wong Sau Ying's] exacting premeditation. The ‘bobbed-hair woman’ had arrived in Kuala Lumpur only that morning. Some reports said that she came from Canton; others that she was from Penang, and fluent in Malay. They were, above all, obsessed by the way she looked. [...]
      The year 1925 was when the ‘Modern Girl’ became a global phenomenon, and in this the women of Asia took the lead. [...] There were stories of ‘bobbed-hair riots’ as far away as Mexico City, of rival ‘anti-bobbed-hair leagues’ and ‘bobbed-hair defence leagues’. [...]
      The ‘Modern Girl’ was increasingly linked to a dangerous, disordered modernity; to nihilism and to anarchism. As one expatriate journal put it: ‘The now notorious “bobbed-haired” lady might just as well have turned up in Venezuela or Tibet for all the relation that her “mission” had to events in Malaya... Politics virtually do not exist in this country.’ The Straits Times brayed for a system of ‘identity tickets’ to indicate who was a loyal subject of His Majesty King George V and who was not. There were suddenly other sightings of ‘strange’ young women in Kuala Lumpur. [...]
      At the root of the case was her ‘new style’.

      --Grnrchst (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cobra Crack

    (
    )
    Climber standing at the distinctive 'Cobra' silhouette groove at the start of the Cobra Crack
    Climber standing at the distinctive 'Cobra' silhouette groove at the start of the Cobra Crack
    Improved to Good Article status by Aszx5000 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

    Aszx5000 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Articles created/expanded on June 24

    Articles created/expanded on June 25

    Ashin Munindabhivamsa

    (
    )
    Created by Battlesnake1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

    Htanaungg (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Overall: The article appeared in the news before, and the hook does not seem interesting because these types of killings are common. Considering the reply of the nominator. I feel life ALT2 is more interesting. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheNuggeteer: Thank you for the review. Per WP:DYKNEW, I’ve mentioned in the comment that the subject is listed only in RD section of the ITN, not bold link.
    Although this type of killing may be common elsewhere, it is a rare case in the highly religious country that a prominent religious figure was shot dead by the ruling junta’s soldiers. Plus, it is very few that the junta apologized publicly; he would never show his weakness in public.
    I’d like to nominate another ALTs:
    Regards, Htanaungg (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Articles created/expanded on June 26

    Windy Zhan

    (
    )
    Zhan in 2024
    Zhan in 2024
    • Reviewed:
    Created by Will629 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

    Will629 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]


    Articles created/expanded on June 27

    Teri Ore

    (
    )
    • Reviewed:
    Created by KunalAggarwal95 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

    KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]


    Articles created/expanded on June 28

    Cannonball (LIRR train)

    (
    )
    The Cannonball
    The Cannonball
    • Source: [7] The only named train operated by the L.I.R.R., the Cannonball first traveled these tracks in the 1890s as an express train between Long Island City and Southampton.
    Improved to Good Article status by ComplexRational (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

    Complex/Rational 14:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    General: Article is new enough and long enough
    Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
    Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
    Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
    QPQ: Done.

    Overall: for ALT1 as I think folks will want to click on parlor car and it meets the criteria. For ALT0, the name bit didn't really make me want to read more into it. I'm also not convinced that the source for ALT0 fully backs up the claim, as it says it's the only one known by a name, not necessarily that it is still known by the same name. Seems a bit synthy. Grk1011 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Grk1011: Thanks for the review. There are a couple of other sources throughout the article indicating other named trains no longer run, plus the 2024 timetable and press release that mention the name, but I'm cool sticking with ALT1. Complex/Rational 14:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ABC Cinema, Brighton

    (
    )
    The former ABC Cinema, Brighton, in 2016
    The former ABC Cinema, Brighton, in 2016
    • Source: Allen Eyles (2003), Brighton and Hove Cinemas, p.71. "At midnight on Thursday 8 January 1948, the world premiere of Brighton Rock took place at the Savoy (no other cinema was in the running, as it was made by ABC's associated production company)." (First sentence from a full paragraph about the premiere. The Savoy was the name of the cinema at the time, as noted in the article.)
    Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 99 past nominations.

    Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Articles created/expanded on June 29

    National Coordination Committee Against Corruption and Crime

    (
    )
    Created by Vinegarymass911 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

    Mehedi Abedin 03:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • Interesting article. All parts of the article are cited with no problems with copyright. The stated hook is also mentioned in the article with proper sourcing. Good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
      • Reverting promotion to prep; the hook is 223 prose characters including its "equivalent" parenthetical, way too far about the 200-character maximum. Vinegarymass911, please propose a shorter hook. The current hook's "from corruption suspects which the court deemed was illegal" has confusing antecedents; it's not the suspects that were illegal, but presumably how they acquired the funds. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALT: ... that ৳6.5 billion (equivalent to US$150 million in 2023) was collected from corruption suspects by a Bangladeshi government agency which the court deemed was illegal in 2017?
    @AirshipJungleman29: Done. Mehedi Abedin 13:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles created/expanded on July 1

    TESCREAL

    (
    )
    Moved to mainspace by Bluethricecreamman (talk), GorillaWarfare (talk), and JoaquimCebuano (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 21 past nominations.

    GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • Was a draft until today so new enough and, as I now realise, also long enough. I can't see any problems in the article around copyvio, POV or OR. Sourcing looks good overall and the hook citations appear to be sound and reliable. The hook is certainly interesting because it caught my eye immediately when I was checking my own nomination. QPQ has been done. I think this is fine and it should be promoted. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose this nomination: An article on this subject was deleted 7 months ago because of weak sourcing. There haven't been any new sources added other than a paper by the two proponents of this theory and lots of other really weak sources. Wikipedia's job isn't to promote anti-vaxx conspiracy theories or other conspiracy theories, of which in my and other people's opinions, this is one. The only people claiming that ANYONE adheres to these multiple philosophies is Torres and Gebru. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Original admin who closed AfD undeleted it after i proposed appropriate changes. the AfD never came to consensus of conspiracy theory (just u), and deleted it due to lack of WP:N. if u want to delete this again, use AfD again or bug the original admin.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that that would be a conversation for AfD, not DYK. The article is neutral and adequately sourced. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The LEAD is well written and neutral, thanks for that.---Avatar317(talk) 03:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was aware when I did the DYK review that the article is about ideologies, but I don't consider the article to be promoting those ideologies because it is neutral. The subject, in my opinion, is notable. I can't say I'm knowledgeable about TESCREAL but the article does appear to be adequately sourced. I've been reading it again and I still think the hook should be promoted. But, as I say, I am not an SME in this area so I will happily step aside if an SME is needed. Incidentally, the lead is the primary location of the hook material and its two sources. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to second the concerns brought up above: this article was merged in November for poor sourcing and the fact that it seemed to lean very heavily into the op-ed angle of the source it did use. To be clear, I certainly have a great personal distaste for the majority of people who run the majority of software companies, and ethical objections to a good portion of the United States' GDP (I am a diehard Linux user with all of the political implications that entails). However, the implication that "global tech elites" are engaged in a deliberate scheme to carry out eugenics (as one of the sources said from the previous version of this article), based on a collection of op-eds and blog posts where people who hate them say this a bunch of times, seems to raise some rather significant BLP issues. It is somewhat concerning to vaguely imply this in wikivoice as though it's settled fact, and then the citations are to a journal of biosemiotics. jp×g🗯️ 02:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Posting on here same stuff as in the Talk Page section:
    A) This article was merged for lack of WP:N. If you consider it still an issue, use WP:AfD or bug the original admin who deleted, merged, than undeleted this. It isn't a valid argument to suggest that it's settled that it deserves to remerged if we've added a ton of sourcing and improved on it. Settle it by starting the process to delete it if you want.
    B) Are there reliable sources indicating that TESCREAL is a significantly derogatory epithet similar to Libtard/Chud? Marc Andreessen self-describes as TESCREAList. Many of these folks regularly ascribe to multiple of these philosophies as transhumanists, ethical altruists, long-termists, etc. Sourcing here does not necessarily imply that every TESCREAList is also a eugenicist, nor do we use WP:SYNTH to suggest that these folks are all eugenicists. There is no mention of eugenicist claims in the third section. Also, we have Big Tech as a wikipedia article along with criticism, which is also a similar "perjorative" against tech companies, and other significant "perjoratives" with negative connotations such as Democrat in Name Only and Cuckservative. These all explain what opinion writers and commentators mean, and why. This article is far more tame than many of those.
    C) That more than a dozen opinions use a term like this should be notable enough. I suspect that any sort of article about philosophies will require opinionated sources or commentaries. Effective altruism includes sourcing from Centre for Effective Altruism and by extension the Effective Altruism Forum, study centers specifically invested in effective altruism and founded by leaders, as well as many opinions.
    D) WP:OPINION applies here, especially for philosphical arguments. I looked for criticisms of TESCREAL. If more are published, we can include them. These sources are WP:SECONDARY, they contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources.
    E) If you want to settle WP:BLP, please post in the section on WP:BLPN. We've already started and done this argument. There are multiple sources on WP:PUBLICFIGUREs here alleging that many of these folks use TESCREAL to justify their tech projects, and we make sure to use the word "allege" correctly, as per WP:OPINION, along with the correct sourcing
    Conclusion:) TESCREAL is unliked by some portion of folks on here for some reason. I'm happy to listen to arguments, but I want an argument about why we are suddenly so sensitive about criticism of Elon Musk/etc. for using human extinction for every time someone criticizes his behavior or cars or products. If you are just an elon musk/nick bostrum/etc. fan, than say it and stop throwing mud on an article that contains a criticism of philosophies that occurs often enough that we can gather 20+ sources, including 10 using the term in severe detail to directly dissect the argument that yelling extinction every 15 minutes doesn't mean you've justified your next mega project. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: In the interests of not duplicating every comment, I'll just note that there is a parallel discussion happening at Talk:TESCREAL#Neutrality (to/from which some of these comments have been copied). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lewis Worthington Smith

    (
    )
    Created by SL93 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 409 past nominations.

    SL93 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • Hook is interesting and appropriately sourced. Article is both long and new enough. No copyvio concerns. QPQ done. I'd wager that The Mechanism of English Style is either suitable as a redirect or an article. Great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Articles created/expanded on July 2

    Capital Bicycle Club

    (
    )
    Sketch of Capital Bicycle Club uniform, 1883
    Sketch of Capital Bicycle Club uniform, 1883
    • Source: Bloom, John (2015). "The Extraordinary History of Cycling and Bike Racing in Washington, DC". In Elzey, Chris; Wiggins, David K. (eds.). DC Sports: The Nation's Capital at Play. pages 3–5
    Created by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 57 past nominations.

    Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    General: Article is new enough and long enough
    Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
    Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
    • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
    • Interesting: Yes
    Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
    QPQ: Done.

    Overall: Looks good. Nice work. AGF on hook source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Riley Gale

    (
    )
    Riley Gale in 2019
    Riley Gale in 2019
    • ... that a critic compared vocalist Riley Gale (pictured) to a "rabid wolf"?
    Converted from a redirect by Kimikel (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

    Kimikel (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • Kimikel Article meets DYK standards – well-sourced, neutral, and free of plagiarism (the article is a defo must-read, pretty nice writing for a short article). The source comes from a reliable source which is... the bare minimum but yeah it works! The image supplied works as well, pretty nice quality. Original alt works. Arconning (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Articles created/expanded on July 3

    Scott Jarvis (actor)

    (
    )
    Created by 4meter4 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 83 past nominations.

    4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • This looks good! Long enough, eligible, no evidence of copyvio, QPQ done. Hook is cited in-article. I'll have to AGF on the source itself, but otherwise everything seems good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cocoa production in São Tomé and Príncipe

    (
    )
    Cocoa harvested in São Tomé and Príncipe
    Cocoa harvested in São Tomé and Príncipe
    • Source: Drew, Keith (6 July 2023). "How the Chocolate Islands are rediscovering their roots". BBC. Retrieved 28 June 2024. The trees thrived in the rich volcanic soil, and by the early 1900s, São Tomé and Príncipe was the biggest exporter of cacao in the world, earning it the nickname of 'The Chocolate Islands'.
    • ALT1: ... that São Tomé and Príncipe was known as "the Chocolate Islands" in the early 1900s, when it was the world's top exporter of cocoa (samples pictured)? Source: Same as above.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Emmanuella Atora
    • Comment: Technically, São Tomé and Príncipe is a singular country (a Portuguese colony at the time mentioned in the hook). The hook should therefore use singular conjugations of verbs, but it sounded too odd upon my initial reading. I thus changed the verbs to their plural conjugations, as if the islands themselves are being described rather than the modern country or the former colony. I have nonetheless included my original wording as ALT1, in case the reviewer or promoter wants to compare the two.
    Created by Yue (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

    Yue🌙 07:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    • Hi Yue, review follows: article created 3 July and exceeds minimum length; I reworded one sentence slightly to move it further from the source, but otherwise I don't think there is an issue with overly close paraphrasing; article is cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources for the subject; hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited (BBC); a QPQ has been provided; image is properly licensed and looks fine. I changed from single to double quotation marks in the hooks to match the article and, I think, our MOS. In terms of plurals I think English_plurals#Geographical_plurals_used_as_singular discusses this; either alternative sounds OK to me but British English tends to be a bit more flexible than US English on this (see eg. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals) - Dumelow (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumelow: Thank you for taking the time to do this review! On second thought, maybe ALT1 is the better choice because ALT0 implies that there were two exporters instead of one. Yue🌙 02:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles created/expanded on July 4

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved&oldid=1232757061"