Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

Christmas DYK sets

[edit]
A. krampus living in Brazil

With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?

If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used:

In addition, these articles are at WP:GAN and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks:

Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging @DoctorWhoFan91, Piotrus, DimensionalFusion, Thriley, and Grimes2: who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding Piri & Tommy for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--Launchballer 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). @Z1720: Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in WP:SOHA. I've done that.--Launchballer 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the WP:DYKN page. Thanks guys! Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the WP:DYKNA page (direct link: WP:SOHA), and only once they're approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the setZ1720 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

[edit]

For Dune (Kenshi Yonezu song), I added two new DYK hooks and pinged all the DYK admins, but two days have gone by and no one seems to ready to point me in the right direction, and I'm not quite sure what the next step in the process should be, so I'm now requesting help here. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 09:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokisaki Kurumi: I see this is your first nomination. The first person to ask is Launchballer, so I have pinged him. TSventon (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokisaki Kurumi: DYK rules get complicated. I would suggest looking at previous hooks going back from November and searching for "song" to see what has worked in the recent past. TSventon (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I replaced the image in Queue 5 with an adjusted version (geometry and exposure correction). It's not great, but better than what was there before.

I suggest we not use the Lizzie Esau image in Queue 6. It's quite poor from a technical point of view. I tried to apply some exposure corrections, but couldn't make any substantial improvement. I looked through the other articles in this set and don't see any great images in any of them. Maybe Light Weight Air Warning Radar, but that's not wonderful either. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using image

[edit]

While with most of my other DYK nominations I'm fairly indifferent about whether the image gets used, I think that the dual Third Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)/Hamm Building DYK in Prep 4 really could benefit from showing the before/after image used in the nom. I'd appreciate a second look/opinion but no skin off my back if it remains where it is.~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the DYK wizard's date check to prevent late nominations is imperfect

[edit]

See this link for details. Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Herman Allen managed to get through despite being a late creation, and even though the DYK wizard has a built in check that would block nominations from being created if an article was 10 days beyond eligibility. Maybe the the code needs to be fixed to prevent this from happening again? Courtesy ping to the nominator SammySpartan for details regarding how they were able to make the nomination using the wizard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious why the tool didn't catch that, but it's only two days and this is a newcomer to DYK, so I'm inclined to IAR allow it. RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created just after half past one on 23 November and nominated just before half past eleven on 2 December, so I reckon just over 9.9 days. I'd take it.--Launchballer 22:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tool gives a warning (but doesn't block) if an article is eight or nine days old, so maybe that's why it got through. I know if it's ten days or older it's a hard block. I can vacate the close given the responses above but I'd like to hear from the nominator first if they want to continue the nomination.
While we're here, this might also be a good opportunity to tighten up on the wizard's QPQ code since right now, despite some changes to the code, it still allows nominations without QPQs from QPQ-mandatory editors to get through. Given the change to requiring QPQs at the time of the nomination, we may need a more foolproof way to implement that since right now the current block is easy to bypass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the closure of this review. The rules specifically allow nominations to be a day or two late, so nine days is not only allowed, it should be granted as a matter of course, especially to someone who is new enough not to need a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go further, since there was pushback on the review page. I am formally requesting that any current or future nomination by a new user—one with fewer than five nominations, and hence does not need to provide a QPQ themselves—that is nominated a day or two late be granted an extension from the standard seven days to eight or nine days as needed. It's new users who are least likely to know that they need to request the extension (experienced nominators shouldn't have that problem, though I'm sure some will), and since the trend at DYK seems to be an increasing strict interpretation of every word of the rules rather than AGF, I thought it was important for there to be more give for the newbies rather than more biting. Unless there is pushback against this request, the next obvious step is to codify this in the the rules so that reviewers know that a little kindness and leniency is once again in the rules of the road for our newest contributors. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. RoySmith (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. The rules across Wikipedia are rather complicated. Rjjiii (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that, but only if we are willing to make it clear that this is primarily intended for newbie editors. For experienced editors, it should be more case-by-case rather than an automatic extension grant (although in practice we do tend to be lenient anyway). My only real concern is that we have to make it clear to the newbie that the extension is only granted because they're new and they may get the impression that the limit is nine days by default even for established editors, though I'm not sure how such an idea can be expressed to them clearly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be a bit careful with the code, I've had it block a nomination less than a day old for whatever reasons, getting more complex may mean more potential bugs. CMD (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Bot / Article Classification

[edit]

Greetings. I see that at the bottom of every nomination, there is an article classification that is introduced by DYKToolsBot. e.g., American biographies. I am assuming this information is aggregated somewhere to run some sort of analytics? How is this classification by the bot done? Is there a place where can I see the classifications? Context: I am thinking that this classification can be quite useful at WP:ITN to classify the nominations there too. While I am not a scripting ninja, I would like to hear some inputs and if there is someone here who can help -- would love that! Tagging RoySmith who has been marked as the owner / operator of the DYKToolsBot. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ktin. The code that does this is on github. It uses some simple heuristics; see Article.is_biography() and Article.is_american() for the details. The intent was to help prep builders who needed to find specific types of articles to help maintain balance. I'm not familiar with the ITN internals, but my guess is it wouldn't be too hard to add some similar functionality there if somebody wanted to do the coding work. RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, speaking with my prep-builder hat on, would it be possible to add a third metric for "has an image"? Would be useful in thinking about what proportion of possible image hooks should run in the main body. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty trivial, I'll see if I can crank that out the next time I'm deploying some new code. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Codex Monacensis (X 033)

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Stephen Walch, and Tenpop421: I'm not sure we can say "wrong order" in wiki voice. That implies that there is some canonical correct order. I know very little about this topic, but New_Testament#Book_order says there are several possible orderings, depending on which authority you believe. RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There came to be "some canonical correct order" in the Western Church (Matt, Mark, Luke, John), but that still had exceptions around 800, & what the Greeks did I don't know. It's not a case of "which authority you believe" but of where and when. Our section isn't very clear or complete. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @RoySmith: how about "wrong intended order", as the article points out the current order John, Luke, Mark and Matthew of the codex is not the one that it was meant to be (Matthew, John, Luke and Mark). Would that suit? Stephen Walch (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Gail Damerow

[edit]

This is more of a sanity check or a strawpoll rather than raising an issue. This was the promoted hook, while the alternative was:

  • ... that Gail Damerow's book described by the New York Times as the "authoritative book on ice cream" was created because of the lack of good recipes in her ice cream maker's recipe booklet?

Which is 190 characters, but is beside the point. The reservation I have is I'm not sure if the first hook works if people don't know who Cesar Millan is. I personally know who he is, but many readers may not. So this is more of a strawpoll from the others here: does the hook work without knowing Millan? And is the promoted hook more interesting or a better option than the alternative? Courtesy ping to promoter AirshipJungleman29 and reviewer Toadboy123, although input from uninvolved readers is appreciated. In the interest of transparency: I prefer the other hook, but this is a strawpoll to test consensus, and if consensus is in favor of the promoted hook then I won't object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Do you know of a way to trim ALT1? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that Gail Damerow wrote the "authoritative book on ice cream" because of the lack of good recipes in her ice cream maker's recipe booklet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at the source, I see that it actually says "one of the most authoritative books on ice cream making", which is quite different in a couple of ways. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original. It's more clicky. Also, it becomes hilarious once you know who Millan is, because the idea of someone being a 'chicken whisperer' is wonderfully absurd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox entry domain expired

[edit]

The Character Counter from the DYK toolbox currently states that the domain has expired. Departure– (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to just delete that from the toolbox. AFAIK User:Shubinator/DYKcheck has taken over that functionality. RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: as someone who's been on DYK for years I wasn't even aware that particular link existed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb I see you replaced this with wordcounter.net/character-count. The very next entry, wordcount.toolforge.org, does exactly the same thing. Why do we need both? RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed this convo/didn't check out the links closely enough. I'm fine with them being consolidated, although the label should perhaps be changed so that it indicates it's both a character and word counter. And I'd suggest checking out both links to see which one seems to function best/be most stable and choose it. Sdkb talk 15:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i just removed the word counter because word count is irrelevant for DYK purposes, but I can restore it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have User:Shubinator/DYKcheck, I don't see that we need either of wordcounter.net or wordcount.toolforge.org, but if there's a desire to keep one, I'd certainly opt for the one that's hosted at toolforge. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend leaving one of them in the box, as not everyone will have/want the User:Shubinator/DYKcheck mod if they are not a regular DYK contributor. We should have options for new DYK contributors outside of saying "Well to do that you need to downlaods this mod to your account that you may never use again.--Kevmin § 17:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is both of these tools give you the wrong answer. It's not going to be a fun experience for a new contributor (or reviewer) if one of those tools says it's long enough and then somebody else comes along with, "No, you dummy, you're not supposed to count infoboxes, image captions, block quotes, references, etc. It really is too short." RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone make and host a small tool for the purpose? I could host it if someone would code it. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently (but slowly) working on a dyk-tools update. I'll add that as a todo. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually managed to whip this up real quick: https://penguinpaul.github.io/DYK-Prose/
Example: https://penguinpaul.github.io/DYK-Prose/?page=William%20Hamm%20Jr.
Github repo: https://github.com/PenguinPaul/DYK-Prose ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's already happening though, I've seen a couple instances in the past month or so, and saying having NO option is at all to use is better experience doesnt parse. inaccurate (and noted as such) but present is better then telling new reviewers to hand count or download a random addon. I used the character counters for a decade before shubs tool came and rarely had issues with getting accurate enough counts.--Kevmin § 18:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 16. We have a total of 289 nominations, of which 174 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has decreased by 29 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

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) 20:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Rivaldo

[edit]

I would like to request second opinions regarding the suitability of ALT1 and its hook facts, which for context reads:

  • ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo "used to think that all gay people were hairdressers"?

Although the more interesting hook among the two options proposed, I am worried that it might be considered offensive without the context provided in the article. Given that I am not LGBT, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to determine if the hook as currently written is suitable or not. I would like to ask for second opinions and suggestions on the hook, particularly from our LGBT regulars, if the hook as currently written is acceptable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

Seunghan

[edit]
  • ... that Seunghan (pictured) was forced out of his band because of a cigarette and a kiss?

Does this hook as currently written not violate WP:DYKBLP, especially with the context given in the article? Pinging nominator RachelTensions, reviewer Prince of Erebor, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you agree that a cigarette and a kiss are “negative aspects of a living person” instead of just normal human activities. The story and the public’s reaction to it are a major part of his notability and a large portion of the article. RachelTensions (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, his notability comprises nothing other than his membership and unfair dismissal. I don't think a hook about his dismissal is unduly negative.--Launchballer 12:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rachel and Launchballer. I do not think his dismissal should be perceived as negative, since it was not related to misconduct (like drug abuse or something), and the article clearly states that it was widely seen as an unfair decision by the company, and he received support from other celebrities, the press, and fans. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This was intended to be an inquiry, so my concerns have been resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze (SZA song)

[edit]

The references that are cited for this hook in the prep's quirky slot have to do with various people saying thing like "at that point, nobody can sleep on that song anymore", referring to the song's climb up the charts. However, the clear implication from such a statement is that there were people out there who were sleeping on it before then—indeed, that's where the "sleeper hit" designation came from—so the "no one slept on" claim in the hook is dubious at best. Pinging nominator Elias / PSA, reviewer Thriley, and promoter Royiswariii. Looking at the nomination page, both this hook (ALT1) and the original hook have this same problem; the choices left seem to be replacing the hook in Prep 6 with ALT2 or finding a new hook altogether.

  • ALT2: ... that SZA's "Snooze" happens to be a sleeper hit?

—BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlueMoonset! I think ALT2 can work. hold a moment.  Done Royiswariii Talk! 14:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Bob Hainlen

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29: I noticed you promoted Bob Hainlen (Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Hainlen) to prep area 2, scheduled to run on December 12. I had previously requested in an above section ("Date request") that it appear on December 18 as a special occasion hook, which received support from the only two commenters (Launchballer / Narutolovehinata5). Do you think this could be swapped out so that it appears on the 18th as requested? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked it back as requested.--Launchballer 23:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyle Hotel

[edit]

@Epicgenius, Cardofk, and AirshipJungleman29: I was surprised to see that this hook was the one promoted, because I find it to be the least interesting of the nomination's (it depends on knowing who Laurence Olivier is). I suggest swapping with ALT4.--Launchballer 22:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shows how tastes differ—ALT4 is the least interesting for me. I'd be surprised if any major Manhattan hotel hadn't hosted royalty over the years. I'd suspect that more people than you think know of Olivier—I remember chatting to a few elderly Taiwanese women who spoke no English but still managed to get across their undying adoration for him to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the hooks are all roughly the same level of interesting, which is mildly, being somewhat hampered by plainness. If I can propose some alternatives:
... that an intersection outside the Carlyle Hotel became named after a pianist who frequently performed there?
... that Rona Jaffe's mother suggested a luxury New York hotel be named after a controversial Scottish essayist?
... that even though the Carlyle Hotel gained tenants throughout the Great Depression, it was foreclosed upon multiple times?
... that while maintaining low rents helped save the Carlyle Hotel in the Great Depression, they were massively raised shortly after the Second World War?
... that the Carlyle Hotel is an Art Deco skyscraper, but has parts variously designed after Westminster Cathedral and Topkapı Palace?
  • And do we have any more information on A new law limited the heights of apartment buildings in the area, although Ginsberg's structure was exempt from this legislation, ensuring it would be taller than all of the other structures, because while "... that a legal exemption meant the Carlyle Hotel could be taller than all other buildings in the area, at a time when New York City was limiting skyscrapers?" is pretty interesting, I'd want to properly fact check it – and more info on the exemption (hotel ordnance rather than apartment?) could also prove interesting. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif, thanks for the suggestions. Regarding the last hook, actually, the neighborhood (not the city) was limiting skyscrapers at the time. I had chosen to not propose this hook since height restrictions are a typical aspect of zoning. NYC still allowed skyscrapers but they were subject to the 1916 Zoning Resolution, which still allowed towers of theoretically unlimited height as long as they were not restricted by neighborhood zoning.
    . Epicgenius (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first, second and fifth hooks proposed by Kingsif above all have an acceptable level of interest IMO, the others not so much. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yangginu/Wan (khan)

[edit]

@Generalissima and Di (they-them): I can't find the hook fact in either article, am I missing it?--Launchballer 22:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yangginu "While under Hada authority, Yangginu and his brother schemed to avenge Cukungge, and grew their power."
Wan (khan) "Cukungge's sons, beile Yangginu and Cinggiyanu, sought to regain the independence of the Yehe and avenge their father. They gradually began to assert their autonomy, until Yangginu managed to firmly break off both the Yehe and the Ula from the Hūlun confederation." Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sentence beginning "But as the brothers" in the source, right? Should be fine.--Launchballer 23:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Dance (2024 film)

[edit]

@Prince of Erebor and Crisco 1492: I see close paraphrasing in the article that should be fixed.--Launchballer 22:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, I ran the article through Earwig and checked all 10 sources listed there. It appears that the only potential close paraphrasing is the phrase "vivid depiction of Taoist funeral rituals" from the Screen International review. If this is what you are referring to, I have fixed it by adding the missing quotation marks. If you are referring to another source, could you please let me know which one contains the issue? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 00:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Ghalib

[edit]

@Sahaib and Dwkaminski: Really not liking some of the sources being used in this BLP; Fox News and Rolling Stone are red at WP:RSP for politics, and the bible's listing of Newsweek doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I also see some CLOP in the article.--Launchballer 22:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: fixed the sources. Earwig shows that the article is fine in terms of paraphrasing. Sahaib (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I was seeing then, I can't see now. Resolved.--Launchballer 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child Law Project

[edit]

@Bogger and MaranoFan: This hook uses an unattributed quote. This should be rewritten.--Launchballer 22:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about ALT0A:
"... that the Child Law Project reports on Ireland's child care system?" Source: https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/1104/1478889-child-protection-report/
? Bogger (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me; howver I can't edit that set any more. I'm pinging the admins at WP:ERRORS anyway so I've pointed this out there so I only have to ping them once.--Launchballer 11:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

Wang Hanlun +1

[edit]

These are mine, so new eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the article Wang used some of the profits from Revenge of an Actress to finalize her divorce, then left the film industry needs a citation. I'm guessing its the same as the one at the end of the paragraph, but we need one for the sentence. Also, the hook says used the proceeds which makes it sound like she used all of the money, as opposed to the article's some of the profits. RoySmith (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the Wei reference to the end of the sentence. As for "some", I believe that the proceeds is not misleading ("I used my lotto winnings to buy a house" doesn't preclude one from also buying a car, for example, or groceries) and better meets the terms of WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE ("... do keep hooks short and to the point.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to note that this is the last one holding things up.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern has been resolved, however it may be worth changing it to "proceeds from" instead of "the proceeds of".--Launchballer 11:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An American Overture

[edit]

Hook fact needs a citation immediately after the statement. Pinging CurryTime7-24, hahnchen, and AirshipJungleman29 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CurryTime7-24, if you could just repeat the paragraph end citation immediately after the hook sentence, it would fulfil the WP:DYKHFC criteria. Feel free to remove it after DYK. - hahnchen 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Disrespect

[edit]

2011 Cordova–Blountsville tornado

[edit]

Tetris (Spectrum HoloByte)

[edit]
@Crisco 1492: Worked on the lede some, is this better? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7th National Eucharistic Congress (United States)

[edit]
The date of 1935 is given, so I think this is fine. But a "later" could be worked in somewhere. Please link to the nom, not the article! Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did approve all the hooks. The others lacked the date, which I felt was important. As I said, "later" can be worked in, or "had been used". Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with any modifications like that. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled hook

[edit]

Hi Gatoclass, I see that you pulled the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Third Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) from Prep 4 for "multiple issues" - what issues were there and how can they be remedied? Right now the nomination is in limbo, not appearing in Approved, Awaiting Approval, or preps, and I want to make sure it doesn't vanish. (cc: Generalissima, AirshipJungleman29) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it took me two hours to verify that set and I had to take a break. I will restore the nom to the awaiting approval page shortly, but if you want to know what the issues are now, they are 1/ that the Hamm article is only a x4 expansion by my count (needs to be x5), and 2/ there are discrepancies in the sources, with at least two of them, including the NRHP listing, stating that the Hamm building was built on the site of the second cathedral rather than the third. So you will need to find a way to either reconcile the sources or rewrite the hook and Hamm article appropriately - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will reply over there. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

[edit]

Jordan Watkins

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Thriley: the hook verifies, but it's long and complicated. Can we come up with something simpler? RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1262480374"