Template talk:Did you know - Wikipedia


Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Nominations
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
DYK AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
List of users...
By nominationsWP:WBDYKN
By promotionsWP:WBDYKP


Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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, purge it.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
January 7 1
January 28 1
March 9 1
March 15 1
March 16 2
March 17 1
March 19 1
March 20 1
March 22 2 1
March 23 1
March 25 1
March 26 1
March 27 1
March 28 1
March 31 1
April 2 1
April 3
April 4 2
April 5 1
April 7 5
April 8 1
April 9 2
April 12 3
April 13 1
April 14 3
April 15 1
April 17 3 1
April 18 2
April 19 1
April 20 4 1
April 21 9 2
April 22 3 1
April 23 3
April 24 11 3
April 25 7 2
April 26 3 1
April 27 5 2
April 28 7 1
April 29 8 2
April 30 8 3
May 1 8 4
May 2 12 5
May 3 12 7
May 4 8 3
May 5 5 1
May 6 12 4
May 7 8 1
May 8 5 3
May 9 13 4
May 10 14 7
May 11 6
May 12 10 1
May 13 11 3
May 14 9 4
May 15 3 1
May 16 9
May 17 10 1
May 18 2 1
May 19 7 1
Total 275 71
Last updated 18:21, 19 May 2022 UTC
Current time is 18:22, 19 May 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing.

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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.

Instructions for project members[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area
Check list for nomination review completeness
1) Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
2) Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
a. Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg needs to be addressed before promoting.
3) Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
4) 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.
5) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
6) Hook should make sense grammatically.
7) Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
8) 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.
1) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
a. Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
2) Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
a. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
b. Check that there's a bold link to the article.
3) If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
4) Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
5) Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
a. 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.
6) Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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[edit]

  • 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]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Tek Fog

  • ... that the web application Tek Fog was used by BJP to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: the app Tek Fog is used by users to "amplify right-wing propaganda to a domestic audience." The Indian news outlet also claimed the app had links to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Deutsche Welle
    • ALT1: ... that the web application Tek Fog was used to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: Same as above.
    • ALT2: ... that according to The Wire, the web application Tek Fog was used to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: Same as above.

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment This cannot go unattributed, AT ALL. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The contents of the article are currently contested, as the author is aware. It is requested that the DYK nomination is not accepted till outstanding issues are resolvedCaptain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure the last comment by User:CapnJackSp has been made in good faith. Several politically motivated IP users first tried to delete the article. AfD was closed as Keep. And now this guy is asking for an indefenite hold on on flimsy grounds. The article has 29 mentions of Wire and it is sufficiently attributed.Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't confuse me with other editors. You haven't added attribution to the very first sentence of the article. I can say more but this needs to be fixed first. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. No QPQ needed for a nominator with less than five QPQ credits. However, there are multiple issues with the article:
  • Firstly, several paragraphs in the article lack references or have a citation needed template.
  • Secondly, there is no clear description of exactly what the app even is, only what The Wire says about how it hacks. The article doesn't make it clear if Tek Fog is an app that is downloadable by App Stores and thus usable by an end-user, or a secret app that is not willingly or knowingly installed by users. It also doesn't state when it was first released or at least first known, as well as missing other basic app information.
  • Thirdly, the article doesn't seem to meet either WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. The article is almost entirely about criticisms about the app, which seems undue weight in my opinion. At the very least, apart from the aforementioned issue about a lack of descriptions about the app itself, there should be more inclusions about denials and statements (or lack thereof) by relevant people in the article. The article lede notes that The ruling BJP and the prime minister Narendra Modi were silent.; however, this statement is completely unreferenced and is not mentioned anywhere else in the body. The denials in the article (under the section "Reactions of BJYM, Persistent Systems and ShareChat") are limited to a single paragraph: are these really the only denials given thus far by people or companies involved? If that is all that is available then that would be acceptable, but this needs to be clarified, and in any case I think the article may need some trimming since it focuses too much about the reactions to the app rather than the app itself.
  • Fourthly, the article may need clarifications for non-Indian readers. For example, "BYJM" is mentioned in the article but is not defined anywhere in the text (the lede mentions a "BJP youth wing", but the connection must be made clear).
  • Fifthly, the article needs a copyedit. Mentions of media outlets, such as The Wire, The Hindu, or Washington Post, need to be italicized. The article text also needs revising for grammar and other issues.
  • Finally, multiple concerns have been raised on the article talk page, and as far as I can tell, most have not been addressed.
Right now the article needs a lot of work to be approved for DYK. Since I am largely unfamiliar with Indian politics, I would also appreciate any input from an uninvolved Indian editor or someone else familiar with the topic, but right now, in its current state, I think the article is not ready for DYK. I would also suggest that the article be brought to WP:GOCE or otherwise be copyedited by an uninvolved editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Citation needed tags fixed.
  2. It is a PsyOps software whose access is limited to the operators and their Org. I have included the link in the lead.
  3. What is available has been added. WP:FALSEBALANCE. I will work to add refs, as asked
  4. Fixed
  5. GOCE copyedit requested
  6. All major / relevant concerns raised on talk page have already been resolved. While reviewing the talk page, Be advised that many users with political POV just want this article deleted/bowdlerized etc. Please refer to the AfD discussion to understand.
I will ping the reviewer when I am done with #3 and others. Venkat TL (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to #2 needs to be clarified in the article itself, particularly in the lede and ideally in its own section. Rather than mentioning it in a section about The Wire's report, there should be a section about the app itself, perhaps using The Wire as a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added it in the first line, I will flesh that part more as suggested.Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits. I will do the rest of the review once the copyedit has been done. However, I am still unhappy with the tone of the article and would welcome any second opinions regarding how to handle it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nominator now has had five DYK nominations on the main page, so a QPQ will be required for this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset: I just donated a QPQ to move this forward. --evrik (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nominator has retired from Wikipedia, so if no one is able to adopt this nomination and resolve any remaining issues, this nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. I would also highly suggest rewriting the article to have a more neutral tone as currently it seems to have some tone issues and is also too focused on the criticism of the app rather than information about the app itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck the original hook and ALT1 per TrangaBellam's original objection. Note that the GOCE request made back on March 25 is listed after around three dozen earlier pending requests, and it could easily be several weeks before a copyeditor takes it on, with no guarantee that even if the tone is dealt with, the deficit of information about the app itself will be remedied. I don't think we should wait for the copyedit if the balance is problematic; if no one adopts this nomination soon—perhaps within the standard seven days?—it should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Symbol possible vote.svg Waiting for GOCE edit. --evrik (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 28[edit]

Beatriz Rico (neuroscientist)

Created by JuliaBrink (talk) and 199.111.226.78 (talk). Nominated by MrMeAndMrMe (talk) at 03:22, 31 January 2022 (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: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The cited EurekAlert source does not contain the word "inhibitory", but I assume it's an accurate paraphrase of the article. You may want to link to this article from some other article to get rid of the orphan tag. feminist (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg @MrMeAndMrMe, JuliaBrink, Feminist, and SL93: Per discussions at [3], I'm reopening this nomination as it there is some confusion about what the hook means, and it's not really accessible to a broad audience. I suggest it be reworded, or else another hook proposed in its place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for the long wait. I have reworded it slightly, does it make more sense now? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Feminist for their opinion. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not contain the word "neuron" in its prose, while the hook does, but I get what the hook is referring to. The relevant sentence in the article is In 2019, the Rico Lab uncovered a developmental mechanism for specification of inhibitory connections within the brain. I'm fine with this, though other editors may have different opinions. Symbol confirmed.svg feminist🇺🇦 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist and MrMeAndMrMe: sorry, I'm drawing a blank on what this might mean. Reading the sourced article, would a hook like this be accurate?
  • ALT1: ... that neuroscientist Beatriz Rico and her team discovered a link between a protein and short-term spatial memory?
    • ALT1a: ... that neuroscientist Beatriz Rico and her team discovered a link between Brevican and short-term spatial memory?
    • ALT1b: ... that neuroscientist Beatriz Rico and her team discovered a link between a protein called Brevican and short-term spatial memory?
At the very least, people will think they understand at first glance. If we end up going with this, it'll have to be added into the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist and MrMeAndMrMe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ALT1B. Just writing "a protein" is somewhat non-specific, writing "brevican" is also confusing, final one makes most sense in my opinion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 20:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg reviewer needed for ALT1b- thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg back to DYKN until consensus for a hook is found theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT1b, and while I do find it interesting, I have some reservations if it's clear enough for readers who don't have much of a background in science. Linking to spatial memory might help, but I don't know if it could resolve the issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps also link neuroscientist. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg @JuliaBrink and MrMeAndMrMe: The hook seems to be coming from [4], which is a press release from King's College London posted unedited by a third party. (It's sometimes hard to identify these, but they're written by university PR staff, aren't peer-reviewed, and are often scientifically unreliable.) For a discovery claim it would be preferable to cite an independent source like [5], or at least the actual peer-reviewed journal article [6]. Also, the hook fact needs to be in the Wikipedia article, but it doesn't mention Brevican or short-term spatial memory. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will do in a second. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: you seem to need a paid subscription for the science.org thing, which I do not have. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov does not mention anything about brevican neurons or whatever. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 9[edit]

1917 Minsk City Duma election

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg A full review will follow, but right now I have reservations if the currently-proposed hook is interesting to a broad audience. The connections aren't made clear to those unfamiliar with Belarusian politics and history, particularly what the significance of Vaynshteyn becoming a city council chairman is. Can another hook be proposed here, one that would be interesting or at least clearer to those unfamiliar with the history of Belarus? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get your concern, but at same time the factoid that a Jewish socialist party won the chairmanship in the city seems to be the most DYK-worthy element in the article? --Soman (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is not clear at all and does not meet the broad interest criterion. Readers will not immediately get the socialist or Jewish connection. Please propose a new hook with a completely different hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - I think the Jewish connection is clear (and the socialist connection implied) from just the name General Jewish Labour Bund. Besides, it's wikilinked! I'm not sure a complete rejection of this hook fact is merited here, though I agree the hook needs some workshopping. How about these:
Pings for Soman and Narutolovehinata5. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the direction still feels rather niche, but I think ALT1 is the best option among the hooks proposed so far. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 looks good for me also. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I no longer have time to review this nomination so I would request that a new reviewer take over. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg new enough at time of nomination (65 days ago?) and long enough; I'll have to AGF on source quality, neutrality is okay (being mostly a factsheet), no plagiarism detected (AGF on foreign-language sources). I'm... hesitant to approve ALT1, though. Is it all that unusual that two not-too-distant political parties would elect a chairman from one of the parties? I am interested in the fact that the leader was elected from the smaller party in the coalition, though... QPQ has been done, but we still need a viable hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Soman for feedback... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 15[edit]

Wings over Kabul: The First Airlift

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 16[edit]

Bald's eyesalve

Recipe from Bald's Leechbook
Recipe from Bald's Leechbook
  • ... that an Anglo-Saxon eye medicine (recipe pictured) has proven effective against MRSA? Source: "Our interdisciplinary team, comprising researchers from both sciences and humanities, identified and reconstructed a potential remedy for Staphylococcus aureus infection from a 10th century Anglo-Saxon leechbook. The remedy repeatedly killed established S. aureus biofilms in an in vitro model of soft tissue infection and killed methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in a mouse chronic wound model ... One of Bald's remedies, a salve for a “wen” or lump in the eye (Fig. 1), is particularly interesting to the modern microbiologist." from: Harrison, Freya; Roberts, Aled E. L.; Gabrilska, Rebecca; Rumbaugh, Kendra P.; Lee, Christina; Diggle, Stephen P. (September 2015). "A 1,000-Year-Old Antimicrobial Remedy with Antistaphylococcal Activity". mBio. 6 (4). doi:10.1128/mbio.01129-15. ISSN 2161-2129.

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 16:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • REJECT!!! Any claim for a medical treatment, in this case antibiotic-resistant staph infection of the eye ("has proven effective"), requires that evidence meet the standards of WP:MEDRS, meaning, briefly, a review of more than one human trial. In Bald's eyesalve, all of the evidence is in vitro. In the cited reference, bacteria-infected mouse wounds were removed from the mouse and treated with the test product for four hours. This reduced the number of bacteria, i.e., killed bacteria, but there was no testing of actual wound healing. There is no live animal evidence, no infected eye evidence in an animal model, and a complete lack of human testing. The DYK should be rejected and the article radically revised to remove any implication that it is a potentially functional treatment rather than a historical curiousity. David notMD (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Hi David notMD, thanks for your message here and at my talk page. As you surmise I write mainly on history and came at this from that angle. I have no medical knowledge and have never written in that field (nor intend to in the future). I must confess to not being familiar with the part of WP:MEDRS that generally prohibits the use of research such as this, many thanks for bringing this up. I think I will go through the article and remove the majority of the "Studies on efficacy" section because of this. Placing on hold for now, if you could bear with me, I would appreciate your input once I have made changes. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the first trim. How does it look now? Striking the original and suggesting an ALT hook below - Dumelow (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... the Anglo-Saxons may have used a mixture of garlic, another Allium, wine and bovine bile to treat styes?
  • IMPROVED ALT1 is properly historical. Consider inserting "may have" before "used", as not known how widespread the use of the salve was. I recommend removing the sentence "Most modern styes are caused by Staphylococcus aureus and several studies have investigated the performance of Bald's eyesalve against this and other bacteria in laboratory conditions. No live animal or human tests have been carried out.[1][3][4][5]" from the article, as it still implies possible efficacy. You don't want home remedy people asking at slaughterhouses for bovine gallbladders! I also recommend not using references 4 (Furner-Purdoe) or 5 (Anonye). Also, remove the bacteria image. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David notMD, I've amended the hook to "may have", deleted the passage you suggested and added in the source on corneal blindness. I've shifted Furner and Anonye to further reading - Dumelow (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Furner and Anonye from Further reading. I recommend more effort to remove specifics about this having potential modern-day medicinal value. The Brennesssel ref should be upgraded to a reference. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale for removing the "further reading"? I have trimmed the description of some of the specifics. I don't have access to Brennessel but would welcome you adding content if you do? - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am back to Reject. As it exists on 24 March, the article still has too much medical/health content not supported by WP:MEDRS.

  • "The eyesalve us described as a treatment for a "wen" (lump) in the eye, likely a stye, a bacterial infection of an eyelash follicle."[1] The authors of a 2015 science journal article are making an assumption of what was meant by a thousand-year old description of an ailment.
  • "Anglo-Saxon physicians may have used observation and experience to design anti-microbial treatments such as the eyesalve.[1]" A scientific concept of microbes and anti-microbial treatment did not exist until centuries later. See Microorganism.
  • Naming ingredients as containing anti-microbial compounds presumes the illness being treated was microbial.
  • "Bile is a surfactant and may also hold anti-bacterial properties; it is generally thought to prevent bacterial growth in the small intestine." This (unreferenced) statement has no connection to the types of bacteria that might be present in the eye, if in fact what the medievalists were treating was a bacterial infection.
  • "Wine may also contain small quantities of plant-based anti-microbial compounds" This is (weakly) based on our knowledge of present day wine. There is no information on the composition of 10th centufy wine.
  • "The copper-based vessels in which the salve was prepared may allow the leaching of copper salts into the mixture, which are known to limit bacterial growth. There is some evidence that Allium-derived anti-bacterials may work synergistically with copper." The metallic composition of the period-piece containers is not known. The "some evidence" is from present day in vitro research, clearly not WP:MEDRS. Same for speculation of purpose of a nine day storage.

All in all, I see no redemption for this proposed DYK. David notMD (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've cut out all mention of styes and any mention of the ingredients performance against microbes. What remains is basically a description of the remedy and its preparation. Much reduced but still just above the minimum DYK length. Proposing another hook - Dumelow (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ... the Anglo-Saxons may have used a mixture of garlic, another Allium, wine and bovine bile as an eye medicine?

I will look at again, with a fresh eye. Would anything be gained by having a translation of the text? David notMD (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I've added a transcription of the original text and the British Library's translation - Dumelow (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay. With the transcription and translation this has become a historical article versus a medicinal one. I will mark this as possibly aceptable pending an evaluation of the copyright situation. David notMD (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol question.svg Article is new, long enough, Alt2 hook is interesting and citation supported by ref #1, QPQ met. Outstanding issue: the facsimile, reproduction of the text and translation are from ref #1. That science journal article describes this content as copyright by British Library Board, Reproduced with permission. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the copyright issue unresolved and above my pay grade. Reference #1 has an image of the text, the same script copied, and the translation. All three are used in the Wikipedia article. That journal describes this content as copyright to the British Library Board, Reproduced with permission [in the journal article]. I question the use of same at Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll weigh in here since copyright is what I focus on. File:Balds-eyesalve-recipe.png is allegedly not in the public domain in the UK, but is in the United States because of different copyright standards. WMF legal counsel has previously weighed in and we take the side of the US regarding old public domain stuff - see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag if you want the gory details. So the license tag isn't quite right (and I'll work on that in a bit), but it is PD and certainly usable here. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The script copied is also fine, for the same reasons as above. The translation, however, is not completely free. Translations are derivative works, which means they're subject to the copyright claim of both the original text (PD, so not a problem) and the translator (appears to be the British Library). Now it looks like the British Library puts everything out under CC-BY-4.0, which isn't quite compatible with us, but there's certainly a strong argument to be made that the translation satisfies our non-free content requirements. I'll do some more research into the British Library angle for my own edification, but I'm not inclined to call the use in the article a copyvio. I just looked it up and I had remembered it wrong--we can use that license just fine. We can probably cite it a little better, but it's decently attributed as is. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 17[edit]

Pytest

Pytest logo
Pytest logo
  • ... that technology projects from across the internet, including those of Mozilla and Dropbox, are switching to Pytest from other frameworks for software testing?

Quote: In fact, projects all over the Internet have switched from unittest or nose to pytest, including Mozilla and Dropbox.Okken, Brian (September 2017). Python Testing with Pytest (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 9781680502404. Retrieved 19 March 2022.

Created by Thomas Meng (talk). Self-nominated at 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg An interesting topic and clearly notable. However, the article is correctly tagged as being in need of rewriting, to be less like an instruction manual, and more like a NPOV article. And in that should make hopefully make the article understandable to a normal reader- I understand the article and its details, but only because I work in the field. This will need to be fixed before this DYK can proceed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Thank you for your feedback. In the past few days, I took up an effor to fix those issues you mentioned. Now I think the article is in better shape. Please let me know how far it is now from DYK's standard. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, this slipped my mind. Reviewing properly now:
The article still has multiple paragraphs without citations. The minimum amount of sourcing I'd expect is one source per paragraph- if the sources already in the article support the text where I've added citation needed tags, then that should be quick to fix
The text is better, but it still very technical (which does seem to be the case for a lots of computing articles I've noticed). I understand that it's a technical topic, but there's almost nothing in the article that an average reader would understand. Some articles like Node.js for example has a "History" section, which would be beneficial to a less technical reader. There's still so much code in this article that it's too technical and confusing, and still feels to me like it's a manual on how to use it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Here's what I've done to address the problems you pointed out:
  • Modified every section so that each section's first paragraph(s) would only include pytest concepts, and implementation details are saved for the end. Additionally, wording/explanations are improved where possible.
  • Added a History section for less technical users to read. The lead section should also be understandble for them.
  • Added ~20 wikilinks for programming related concepts.
  • The citations problem is also fixed.
  • Unecessary code templates (e.g. for file, project names) that hinder readability are removed.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

When Jews Were Funny, Being Canadian

10× expanded (When Jews Were Funny) and new article (Being Canadian) by Reidgreg (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Thanks for the review! I've done some additional paraphrasing. For WJWF, one source still has over 10% Earwig score due to proper names and the quote from the TIFF jury, which I'd prefer to keep. For BC, the 13 and 14% scores are from proper names; the 17% score is from an illustrative review quote which I'd prefer to keep. As for citations, I feel it's up to DYK standards. The Synopsis sections are essentially the same as Plot sections for a non-documentary, using the work itself as the source. Are there any specific places you would like to be cited? (or in general if you feel there's a lot) – Reidgreg (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: There may need to be additional citations for the hook fact(s), depending on which hooks we go with. We can eliminate the hooks you feel are problematic and concentrate on what's left. What do you think? What should I be working on? – 23:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I approve the first hook and 2a and 2b.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I've struck ALT1 and ALT2. Could you give it a tick so it can be moved to the approved page? Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still see uncited paragraphs in each article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Whoops! Sorry, I saw "approved" and got excited. I went over the articles for uncited material:
  • The Synopsis sections are verifiable to the work itself, like plot sections. I tried to add RSS where I could.
  • The interview lists are also verifiable to the work itself, with on-screen text when they first appear and also in the credits. I have some RSS which give partial lists (usually the more famous names) if you'd like me to add those.
  • I am inclined to let the interview lists slide as WP:PRIMARY sourced when you don't have WP:RSs. These are very objective facts so there is no room for interpretation in this regard. Those subjects that you can source, you should use RSs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a line in Financing of Being Canadian which had in-text attribution to the Indiegogo fundraising website. I literally couldn't cite this because the editor wouldn't save it – Indiegogo is blacklisted – so I removed it. It's too bad, because this provided contextual information for the delay of the film's release.
  • Also in BC, I removed some uncited film festival appearances.
  • In the Inverviews section of WJWF is an uncited line: among the last filmed interviews or appearances by Shelley Berman, Jack Carter, and David Brenner. I believe that these are their last filmed interviews before their deaths (Berman died in 2017, Carter in 2015 and Brenner in 2014). I wasn't able to find anything else, but didn't have a source to specifically state that and so I put among. Let me know and I'll remove it if you feel it isn't good enough.
I believe those are the only problem areas. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I've cited the interviewees where I had secondary sources, cited quotations, and removed the 'last filmed appearances' line from the lead of WJWF (but kept it in the body for now). BTW, I found this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Documentaries: Documentary films require a modified approach for their articles. Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't just concerned about the last filmed appearances in the WP:LEAD. I don't know how relevant the "among the last filmed interviews or appearances" content is for people who went on to live for a couple of years after this was filmed and aired.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's important on a couple points: It's the last known interview with a couple, and likely several, of these legendary comedians. In some cases, their last filmed performances (ie: telling a joke). That they have died also underlines how this older generation of Jews is disappearing. I feel like this gives the film a place in the history of comedy, as well as discussing it. Not every in-depth source mentions this, but a couple do, and I feel it's worth including even if it might not be of interest to every reader. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is relevant to a particular individual the phrase "among the last filmed interviews or appearances by Shelley Berman, Jack Carter, and David Brenner" should have some sort of WP:RS should it not?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concede. Removed. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming here per a note left on WT:DYK. From what I recall before, plot summaries/synopses do not seem to be excluded from the "all hook facts must have a footnote" requirement. One possible way to get around this, especially if an independent source can't be found, could be to simply cite the documentary itself, perhaps with a timestamp. I think there's a citation template for AV media so that could work. Synopses/plot descriptions are excluded from the "all paragraphs must have at least one footnote" requirement provided that the synopses are neutral and do not have any interpretation, but this does not apply if hook facts themselves are based on the synopses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Narutolovehinata5 suggested using timestamp. I am not sure that the method of adding a {{RP}} format timestamp is what is kosher here. I have never seen this and am not sure the reader will understand. I think the timestamp needs to somehow get inside the WP:IC rather than fly next to it. Does someone know what template we are looking for?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of using Template:Cite AV media, which has a "time" (as in timestamp) parameter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the hook fact is dependent on the synopsis. The question, I believe, was about uncited paragraphs in the synopsis. That's done, I think, and I don't believe citation formatting is a reason to hold up the nomination.
If {{rp}} is acceptable/understandable for book pages, I don't know why it would be unacceptable/confusing for time in a video. I'm sure I've seen formatting like this used somewhere, though I may not have executed it the proper way (it's not the easiest thing to search for). I'd rather not clutter the references with a separate cite AV media template for each of the 8 uses (especially when most of them aren't necessary per MOS:FILM). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an independent source confirms the hook fact, it could just be added to another section and have that be used as the hook fact cite. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Reidgreg, the reason that I feel that {{rp}} is a suboptimal solution is that when one looks at the inline citation, one would miss the timestamp. The less expert reader might get confused with a separate timestamp not embedded in the WP:IC. User:Narutolovehinata5 responded above with the clarification that Template:Cite AV media was his intended suggestion. That is a specialized template for this exact use. Let's use it so that the formatting comes out right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added a half-dozen cite AV media templates for that. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, have your concerns been addressed? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 20[edit]

Electricity sector in Turkey

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I actually like the hook, but as far as I can tell it's not directly mentioned in the article. I also checked the source and it doesn't really say that electricity in Turkey in general flows from the east to the west, merely that in that case electricity was unable to "flow westwards". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made an ALT1 a bit more precise with a more up to date source Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any other possible suggestions? ALT1 is not really that interesting of a hook in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can let me know which are interesting I will cite them.Chidgk1 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option is ALT6; however, all the hooks and the article itself may need some copyediting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited ALT6 and requested copyedit. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 22[edit]

Judiciary of Poland

  • ... that in Poland a mean court judge processed almost four cases per day? Source: 14.38 million estimate given by GUS; 10,000 judge estimate can be seen in table, divide this per 365 per WP:CALC, which is in the text
    • ALT1: ... that in Poland the courts processed 14.38 million cases in 2020 while having fewer than 10,000 judges? Source: Same as above, just not divided
    • ALT2: ... that the ECHR found three of five chambers of the Supreme Court, Poland's top court, not to be properly constituted within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Source: See "Partisan control of the National Council of the Judiciary" part, last para
    • ALT3: ... that the Constitutional Tribunal, Poland's top court, ruled it was not a court? Source: Notes from Poland
    • ALT4: ... that the State Tribunal, the Polish court tasked with trial of the highest politicians, only convened three times in the past 40 years? Source: In text
    • Reviewed: User:Szmenderowiecki/Sort of recognised contributions
    • Comment: Please refer to the (exhaustive AFAIK) list of all of my DYK reviews and submissions for the purposes of QPQ. Feel free to add an entry to the list once the nomination is processed and (hopefully) accepted. 4 cases per day may be substituted by 1,500 per year, as verified here. ALT3 could actually go to April 1 if possible, though the problem might be that the ruling (unfortunately) exists and that the argument relies on the technicality of the Polish Constitution described in the lead (about tribunals in general).

5x expanded by Szmenderowiecki (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - You need to link the specific review that you're claiming credit for
Overall: Symbol question.svg I don't think that ALT0 checks out because you don't have figures for the "average (median?) court judge", but are just dividing the cases by the number of judges. I don't consider ALT4 to be interesting because due to the small number of top politicians, it doesn't make sense for the court to convene a lot. For ALT2, the precise findings were that these courts were not "established by law", mainly because of irregular appointments. See here for an explanation of the exact provision and how it's applied by the ECHR. See below for another version. For ALT3, I think it could be reworded but is confusing as it stands (it would be clearer with "itself", but still confusing). (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for ALT0/ALT1, the quote being verified is translated from Polish as: "Polish judges (there are about 10,000 of them) process approx. 15 million cases, which means that an average [mean, not median] judge processes about 1,500 cases per year," which was verified using 2018 data. I've used 2020 data and the same methodology. It was fact-checked as true back in 2020. Yes, it is a number of cases divided by judges (with all the problems that appear with measuring mean not median values, but this does not invalidate the hook as such, as I properly state that I calculate an average. I do have that data.
I don't see what's confusing about ALT3. Granted, it is apparently contradictory, but that's the point of DYKs (be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content). Additionally, I don't actually see how I can reword it using "itself". Will you propose the rewording for this one, considering the article to which this is sourced?
ALT2a is OK, but I'd consider other options first.
ALT4 is at the low end of my priorities, so I'll drop this one to expedite the process.
Re QPQ requirement, that's not my reading of the QPQ rules. It merely says that I must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍ and provide proof of that for examination. The full registry is available there, with my submissions reviewed (6) and my reviews (18). How is that not sufficient? Besides, I don't want to accidentally duplicate the QPQ claims, which AFAIK are not logged anywhere (unlike credits for reviews). If the newest review must be claimed for QPQ and I'm misreading the policy (not you), take my Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin A review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about Polish, but in English many people are going to see "average" and think it means "median" in this context. It would be clearer to talk about the mean number of cases handled per judge. Not to mention, each day is unclear whether we're talking about all days or working days...
Looking at ALT3 and not knowing the details of this case, I wouldn't know "what is it". Admittedly, right now I can't think of a good rewrite.
The reason most DYK participants link which DYK hook they are counting for QPQ is because otherwise it's impossible to tell if they claim the same review twice (I've done this by accident). (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. The relevant ruling (summary) for ALT3 is here. In Polish (see full case here). The funny thing is, the English version says that the trial must happen in a tribunal established by law, while the Polish version talks of sąd ustanowiony ustawą. The ruling heavily relies on the technical distinction between what the Constitution calls a "court" and a "tribunal". The ruling basically says that the ECHR did not properly analyse the legal position of the Tribunal, and, since the Constitutional Tribunal is only a judicial organ but does not determine the outcome of cases like most courts do, it does not administer justice and therefore is not a tribunal/court within Article 6, which they argue only applies to the courts which administer justice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second opinion requested as this review has stalled for a month and there have been some changes by Micga to the article in the meantime, which might impact the new assessment. Consider him as a co-nom to this nomination due to these changes.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 23[edit]

Normandy massacres

Private Charles Doucette, who was one of the first victims of the Normandy massacres
Private Charles Doucette, who was one of the first victims of the Normandy massacres
  • ... that during the Battle of Normandy, one out of every seven Canadian soldiers killed June 6–11, 1944, were murdered after surrendering? Source: One out of every seven Canadian soldiers killed between June 6–11 were murdered after surrendering — a figure that rises to one in five if the range is reduced to June 7–11, when Canadian units started engaging with elements of the 12th SS Panzer Division.[1]}

Created by CplKlinger (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Red XN - photo's attribution is somewhat unclear. It was originally published in a Canadian history blog without apparent editorial oversight. Though its public domain status labeling over on Commons looks good, I am concerned about its origin and its labeling/title/name/ownership.
  • Used in article: Green tickY
  • Clear at 100px: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Though many aspects of this DYK? nom are good - interesting hook/no copyvios/length is fine/QPQ is NA for this editor/etc - the article in its present state is ineligible for DYK? as it now has a single source maintenance template (placed on April 4th). The template is valid/appropriate — out of the article's 98 inline citations, 95 are to a single source. Shearonink (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have one last final due this week, and after I submit it I'll work on the citations. The book provides extensive footnotes, so it shouldn't be too difficult for me to track down alternative sources. CplKlinger (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Margolian, Howard (1998). Conduct unbecoming : the story of the murder of Canadian prisoners of war in Normandy. Toronto [Ont.]: University of Toronto Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-4426-7321-2. OCLC 431557826.

Articles created/expanded on March 26[edit]

Handstand (song)

Created by Infsai (talk). Self-nominated at 01:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg Article was a redirect prior to creation as a standalone on March 26. It's well written, neutral, and sourced throughout. Nominator is QPQ exempt. The hook is a problem, though. The source says A video has already been shot and may have been the reason why French’s album was delayed, according to Doja. Emphasis mine. Any other ideas for hooks? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 27[edit]

Whistleblower Aid

Source: "The Facebook whistleblower whose disclosures have shaken the world’s largest social network has drawn behind-the-scenes help from a big player in the online world: Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire tech critic who founded eBay."

"Omidyar’s financial support, which was previously unreported, offers one of the most striking examples yet of how Frances Haugen’s disclosures have generated enthusiasm among critics of U.S. tech giants — offering a potentially crucial boost as she takes on one of the world’s most powerful companies. This gives her an edge that many corporate whistleblowers lack as she warns lawmakers, regulators and media organizations on both sides of the Atlantic that Facebook is endangering society by putting “profits before people.”"

"Omidyar’s global philanthropic organization Luminate is handling Haugen’s press and government relations in Europe, and his foundation last year gave $150,000 to Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit organization that is providing Haugen’s legal representation and advice."

Politico

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk) and Jaredscribe (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 04:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC). Symbol question.svg[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Eligibility looks good - long enough and hook is sourced. The article feels a little promotional, especially the second paragraph of 'History.' I would also edit the article to make it more clear how Haugen's actions and Omidyar are related, since that's what the hook focuses on. Once those things are fixed, we should be good to go! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ll add a bit more and perhaps make a second hook. Thriley (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 28[edit]

Hydroelectricity in Turkey

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Presumably the fish are threatened by dams, not by the use of hydroelectricity... (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Wikipedia the cite uses a hyphen so search for "Kiss-lip himri". Page 73 of the cite says "hydropower hazard high". But as the hook says not enough is known - fish could be just fine I guess - I hope someone will read it and give some money to scientists to find out. Whether dams would have been built just for irrigation if there was no possibility of hydropower I don't know - certainly proponents say it is the hydropower which has repaid cost. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: (a) Buddy's making a point about English grammar. Hydroelectricity is an abstract principle and a subset of electricity when differentiated by source. Dams are walls thrown across rivers. It's impossible that the fish are being hurt by the concept. (b) Similarly, I don't know if it's the result of a typo or mistaken edit by someone else but the current hook makes no sense. It has the abstract form of "the dinner needs to be found, because of the guests coming over." The verb needs to be changed to something on topic and a more logical connection established.

On the other hand, you just need a new hook. "We should go check and see if these fish are OK because maybe they aren't" isn't an actual statement. The provided cite above needs some info from p. 43 to work as support, but you're really trying to say something about the Turkish hydropower authorities shirking their duty to check on the consquences of their actions.

Relatedly, before this can be approved, you'll need to go to somewhere on the community portal and get some copy editing done. Sentences like "Large hydropower may be bad..." and "...dammed hydro can be dispatched within 3 to 5 minutes..." will need reworking. — LlywelynII 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: I have requested copyedit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Hydroelectricity_in_Turkey If you or anyone else have a better hook suggestion I will be happy to hear it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1... that the kisslip himri has disappeared: can you find out whether dams built for hydroelectricity in Turkey were responsible? Source: "Restricted to the Euphrates and Tigris river drainages, although the precise extent of its range is unknown. Its biology is poorly understood" [10]
  • ALT2... that the kisslip himri has not been seen for years: can you find out whether dams built for hydroelectricity in Turkey are responsible and if so can we fix them? Source: "Restricted to the Euphrates and Tigris river drainages, although the precise extent of its range is unknown. Its biology is poorly understood" [11]
Really focused on the fish, huh? — LlywelynII 01:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed an amusing name - the rest of the article (most of which I wrote) looks rather boring - maybe you or someone else can spot something else hooky? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 31[edit]

Dun dun duuun!

The Walter variation.

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I would argue the requirement for a trailing ? should be relaxed in this example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the title of the article is "Dun dun duuun!", perhaps the question mark could be replaced with an interrobang (‽).  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  20:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added free version of the sound. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg This article is a great idea and it will be awesome to have the sound on the frontpage (which appears to be licensed fine) but "Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?" - right now it doesn't, although there are primary sources which are all youtube links. Maybe these sites can help 1, 2, 3. Also the claim "no one knows where it came from" is not mentioned and cited in the article presently. On the !? thing, I think ALT0a works fine. Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry, I did not see this review. A quick look shows every para does indeed have a cite, and I'm not sure I understand the bit about direct quotes (there are none) or primary sources (its a sound). The three links provided in the review are (1) a blog post, (2) talking about the famous Jaws theme (duuuh dun, duuuuuh dun...), and (3) an article about rebuilding a bridge (???). Not sure what to make of this, but seems good as is to me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Zionism as settler colonialism

  • ... that according to one study, settler colonialism has been successful inside Israel, but not in the territories occupied in 1967? Source: "Israeli/Zionist settler colonialism was remarkably successful before 1967, and was largely unsuccessful thereafter... When we think about settler colonialism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to direct our gaze both towards the West Bank, where it has manifestly failed, and towards Israel proper, where it succeeded." Veracini 2013

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Buidhe: Can we get other hook proposals? Reason: colonization (more recently; settler colonization in the past) is a valid frame to look at Zionism as, probably (?) the correct one, but the lead of the nominated article itself says that it is still not the dominant framing as of 2022. Thus, having a hook which states the view as fact is inaccurate to the subject. While the hook does credit itself to "one study", the phrasing at the moment still states the settler colonialism as pure fact and only the perspectives on its success as what the study is claiming. The other question is if the study in question was cherry-picked for the hook fact, as I do note a recent string of anti-Israel hooks. And, like I asked recently with hooks for even Russia, where there is conflict, we should look to neutrality and accuracy (taken in balance to each other). So is there nothing else to say on the topic? Maybe there is a hook to be made about kibbutzim as proto-settlements? I am surprised the article doesn't mention early IDF objectives to destroy and resettle Arab villages, but recognise it is a work in progress. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsif: I disagree that it states as fact, since it's clearly attributed to one study. As far as I can tell from the reading I've done, Zionism is undisputed as a form of settler colonialism by scholars of settler colonialism and was highlighted as such by the main pioneer in establishing the field, Patrick Wolfe. The journal Settler Colonial Studies has published a lot of articles about I/P but as far as I know, none that reject the paradigm. Rejection comes from outside this specific field of study; many scholars of the I/P conflict analyze it as a national or territorial conflict (although this is not mutually exclusive with settler colonialism). If you do a Google Scholar search, it's clear that the virtually all results discussing the topic (settler colonialism in Israel/Palestine) are using this analysis, so focusing on rejection would require cherry-picking. Obviously, the article is not complete and could be expanded a lot from the sources available. No one complained when I came up with a long string of hooks that reflected poorly on Germany, Turkey or Slovakia, so I think the same is true of any other country. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: As I said, the phrasing attributes the views on success to the study, treating the idea of settler colonialism happening there as a given and just something to be assessed. It would be like saying "that, according to one source, Russia's denazification of Ukraine has been successful, but only in the south and east" - this statement is true (Kremlin as the source), and it sounds like the source is just weighing in on the places of success, with "Russia's denazification of Ukraine" basically in wikivoice. I'm not comparing the two situations, but hope this analogy gets across how the "settler colonialism in Israel" statement does not seem to be coming from the study mentioned. I'm also not saying it's bad or wrong or anything, but that the article doesn't, at the moment, seem to support such certainty. Perhaps a little more expansion would make all well. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise; new enough, long enough, QPQ done. The ref section looks a little unusual, and again concerned about overall coverage. Sectioning also doesn't seem standard for history/ideology article? I presume the article will improve with expanding. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, article has now been expanded and reorganized. If you don't like the original hook, how about:

(t · c) buidhe 04:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you for the update, I think there are still some article issues, but, you know, better quality than a lot out there. Ideally, hooks shouldn't just be X says "quote", so alt3 is the best from that standpoint, but all of them are a little unwieldy. I acknowledge you're trying to work around my comments of stating as fact, so thanks for that. It is for these issues, though (lack of article quality and a suitable hook), that I would, personally, fail this nom. I don't want you to think that I'm out to stop your noms, though, because I'm not, so I'll offer this up for someone else to review. Sorry about that. Kingsif (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your opinion and pushing me to improve the article. When dealing with an abstract topic, I've found quotes to be a successful way of building hooks. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From cursory look I have found at least three sources written by academic or printed in academic press that oppose the notion that presnted in the article [12],[13],[14](p46-47) I think important to include them per WP:NPOV . I am willing to send full text version to anyone intersted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't add the first source because it's a news not academic source. Colonialism isn't the same thing as settler colonialism and the second source is about the former rather than the latter, not mentioning settler colonialism at all. The third source is about campus debates on Israel and does not discuss settler colonialism either, only mentioning it in a few quotes from other sources. Of course relevant criticism can be added (in fact it already exists in the article), but in order to avoid cherrypicking, I would only cite sources that are about settler colonialism of which there are many. (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

U.S. support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 05:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg This is an inherently controversial article, as nearly every paragraph talks about really large quantities of human suffering caused by other humans. So we need to be careful to get it right; especially if we link to it from the front page. Right now, it doesn't.

  • First, the hooks. They're not strictly accurate, either of them. Hook 1, yes, The Intercept does say that even though Biden vowed to halt US support, Yemen's humanitarian crisis is worse. However we can't, in Wikipedia's voice, say that these two things are this closely related. The distance between the US (country 1) support for Saudi Arabia (country 2) being involved in the civil war in Yemen (country 3) causing a humanitarian crisis (event 4) is very large, and implying this strongly that the US support is what is directly causing the humanitarian crisis is a stretch of rather large proportions. We'd need quite a bit more than one source for backing that before we should say this. The Intercept doesn't need to be balanced, we do.
  • Hook 2 is slightly better, but still not quite right. What Joe Biden actually stated was " That includes ending Donald Trump’s “blank check” for Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses at home and abroad and ending the war in Yemen." See the "and" in there? That means he is specifically differentiating between the Trump blank check and ending the war. He's saying they're related, but not saying they're equivalent. So we can't say he said the US support is a blank check. We can't put words into people's mouths that way. Especially not in Joe Biden's, there would be no room for his foot.
  • Then there are general problems with the article. First, it rather avoids the important fact of explaining about the war! We can be pretty sure that any person reading the Wikipedia in English knows what the United States is, and it's reasonably likely they know what Saudi Arabia is, but what Yemen is and what the war in Yemen is all about are both much more obscure and rather important to understanding the article. We need to explain about the war, not as the whole article, but as a paragraph rather early in the body at least. That's called Wikipedia:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles." Instead what we have is "During Barack Obama's presidency, the United States began providing Saudi Arabia with critical support to "sustain" its war in Yemen" - what war in Yemen? War in Yemen isn't linked, and even if it were, that goes to a list of over a dozen wars! Yemen is not a historically peaceful place! Put a link to Yemeni Civil War (2014–present), the war in question, prominently in the very first sentence. Put a section explaining the war early in the article - not in the lead, but probably as the first article subsection. In there we need to at least briefly mention about Saudi Arabia's relationship with Yemen, and with the United States, and with Iran, and possibly about the North Yemen/South Yemen split and merger since it seems to be a rather important factor in the origin of the war. We need to explain who the Houthi are, and what their objection to the government is. It is a civil war, after all, even if this article is about the US support here. We can't just leave this out, or again it implies that the United States is a major player here, when again, as in the objection to hook 1, despite all its power, the US is at least 2 steps away from the conflict.
  • In fact, that seems to be an objection to the neutrality of the article, the implication that "this whole war (like everything from the extinction of the dinosaurs to the eventual heat death of the universe) is the fault of the current President of the United States, whoever that may currently be". This is supported by linking to the articles about the 3 US Presidents in the lead - at least change those links to their respective administrations, or even better their international policies if we have those, rather than those about them personally, surely this article about the US support isn't influenced by the fact that Barack Obama was a member of the Democratic Party, when exactly he was born and that he was the first African-American president. This is a civil war first; with the various sides supported by the Saudis and Iran second; and by the US only third.
  • And the sentence in the lead "In 2021, Joe Biden vowed to halt U.S. support for the war, though U.S. arms sales to the coalition have continued." that second part after the "though" is a powerful tactic, and I don't see it either cited or stated anywhere in the body of the article.
  • And the long quote in the body that includes "the United States provides..." - there isn't a date on that quote, it's set in the present tense! The whole point is that Biden promised to stop it, right? Did he or didn't he? The date is rather important for that. There are a number of present tense quotes without dates on them like that.
  • In fact, over half the article is analysis from think tanks and talking heads, rather than heavily cited actual facts. That worries me that opinions are getting wp:undue prominence. This isn't an article about whether a book or movie is good or bad, which pretty much has to be opinions, this is an article about rather cold, rather hard, rather bloody truths, I'd think we're required to focus more on facts and less on opinions.

In short, even besides a new hook, this article needs work. I know this is only DYK, not FA or GA, but as it is, the article is neither comprehensive nor neutral, and needs to be more of each before we can link to it from the front page. If you need chapter and verse, that's WP:DYKCRIT 3a, Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines D7, the bits about " should appear to be complete and not ... fail to deal adequately with the topic ... rejected as insufficiently comprehensive." Not impossible to fix, but not a trivial tweak either, I'm afraid, noticeable work is required here. Good luck. GRuban (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Thanks for the review. Wow it's the longest DYK review I have ever seen, thanks for your interest and time! Anyway, here I have tried to give a due response to your review:
  • The fact is that there's no wikivoicing here. Hook1 explicitly says "the humanitarian situation of Yemen has reportedly worsened". This attribution should be enough to stay on the safe side. If it is not making you happy, we may add something like "according to the intercept". Also, I don't agree with you that the original hook implies US has made humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Why not assuming the Intercept meant US decision has nothing to do with the crisis in Yemen? Furthermore, as opposed to what you tried to imply, "The United States is far from an innocent bystander in the Yemen war. It has supplied tens of billions of dollars-worth of bombs, missiles, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), weapons that have been the backbone of the Saudi/UAE war effort."Forbes See the differences?
  • I agree with you over Alt1 (hook2). Not because of the differentiation you explained, but because on the second look I realized the hook is not explicitly supported by the source. Striking Alt1.
  • I have added a background section to the page as per your third bullet point saying that there are more info to be added. Although this is not actually following the reviewer's guide. I noticed your reference to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines D7. I think more than the minimum level is satisfied in this article.
  • I have changed the links from the names of the US presidents. The body already uses "administration" in the section topics as of the presidents. Plus I don't know much about the ranking you just stated, though I think that is irrelevant to this article and the DYK review.
  • In the fifth bullet point, you're actually referring to this change. You are right, that should be added to the body, but before that, it should be backed by a RS. I have now added the required materials to the body along with the backing sources.
  • I have inserted some of the dates into the article. Please let me know if there's more to be done.
  • In the analysis section, 'just a paragraph' is from Brookings (which is still reliable enough).
You say "noticeable work is required here". Please let me know if there is something specific to be resolved, I'd like to do them. Otherwise I'd like to remind you that DYK is not FA, as you just mentioned. --Mhhossein talk 06:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: --Mhhossein talk 06:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you! A few minor points, but the article is mostly good enough for DYK.
  • "adminstration" needs an additional "i" in three section headings. Also there's a double period in the middle of the Trump section.
  • "Hadi" needs a qualifier before first introduction - President, or Yemeni President, or something like that?
  • "Human rights records" should just be "Human rights record" - it's almost never plural.
  • Not sure what the sentence about the Nitze is doing in that section - move to Obama administration?
I'm basically ready to approve, but I still don't like either hook, I'm afraid. For the first hook, it's writing "Although Fact A happened Fact B still happened", and that, to me, is too much like writing "Although Macron won in France, Orban won in Hungary", without a clear statement of linkage. Yes, that is the exact way The Intercept is putting it, but I would be much more confident if our sources actually said "Due to Fact A happening, Fact B is happening", and they really don't. Can we go for a hook with more straightforward backing from our sources? It doesn't even have to be weaker, it can be a stronger statement, just with explicit source backing; how about something like "... that due to (US support for SA-led ops in Yemen), both have been accused of war crimes?" with backing from the Human Rights Watch article and the Nation article? (By the way, the link to The Nation article backing that is dead, I found it at https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/war-crimes-united-states-saudi-arabia-yemen/ or even https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231028/https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/war-crimes-united-states-saudi-arabia-yemen/ ; the HRW article is still up at https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/21/yemen-embargo-arms-saudi-arabia but an archive wouldn't hurt). That's a clear "due to" statement from our sources. Or something else; the article is good now, but the proposed hooks are weak. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GRuban: Sorry for the delay. I have done some of the changes covering your concerns. As for the hooks, I am OK with your suggestion. I checked the source and found a portion saying "US participation in specific military operations, such as providing advice on targeting decisions and aerial refueling during bombing raids, may make US forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces." How about going with the following hook:
ALT2: ... that due to U.S. support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen both Saudi Arabia and United States may be hold responsible for laws-of-war violations?
--Mhhossein talk 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. So looking at it, there are still balance issues. Also more minor things.
  • the lead says "In 2021, Joe Biden vowed to halt U.S. support for the war, though U.S. arms sales to the coalition have continued." Where is that stated in the body? And cited?
  • it also says "According to the Human Rights Watch 2016 assessment, U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war "may make U.S. forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces." - that's cited, but I don't think it should be in the lead, it's one small detail, and the key word is "may". That statement is OK for the DYK, which is supposed to be about small details, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body.
  • I still think the Analysis and Human Rights sections devote too much coverage to opinions in general. That's a matter of editorial decision, of course, but exacerbates help the next point.
  • I don't see a single opinion that supports the US position here, while there are plenty that criticize it. That seems unbalanced.
  • Another matter of editorial decision is the large number of long direct quotes from sources. Can't we summarize the meaning? We quote when the specific wording is important, on most of these cases rephrasing seems like it would be very possible.
  • Still two periods in Trump section. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban:
  • The continuation of US support was inserted here. I think the sources [15] and [16] would back the mentioned phrase.
  • The detailed portion was removed.
  • Thanks for the insight, but I don't think the opinions are payed too much weight in the Human rights record. Actually it was tried to make proper attributions whenever needed. That is what WP:NPOV demands. Also, you don't see a single opinion that supports the actions because I could not find one. Let me know if there's any.
  • The concern with the quotes are not really necessary for the sake of DYK !!! not a GA or FA.
I hope the article is now ready for the main page. --Mhhossein talk 18:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Did you notice my last comment? best. --Mhhossein talk 04:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, haven't edited much the past few days then got caught up in other things. Basically good, except I do want at least one statement at least explaining, if not supporting, the US position, for at least some balance with the many statements opposing it. I am sure they're out there, maybe even in your own sources, let me look and I will find a few for you to choose from. --GRuban (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

  • https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-support-saudi-military-operations-yemen "U.S. stated goals for this assistance are to restore the UN-recognized government of Yemen and preserve Saudi territorial integrity from incursion by Yemen-based Houthi rebels. Deepening Iranian support for the Houthi rebels has also reinforced U.S. concern for Yemen’s trajectory... The majority of U.S. assistance has consisted of aerial targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling for Saudi and UAE aircraft. Despite significant criticism of its involvement in the conflict, the U.S. government repeatedly has emphasized that assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE is not directly combat related except when in defense of U.S. forces and in the pursuit of al Qaeda and its associates."
  • https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/ending-us-military-support-saudi-arabia-yemen-would-trigger-dangerous "ending U.S. support for the multinational coalition in Yemen is not the proper solution. ... A cutoff of U.S. support would also hurt the elected and internationally recognized government of Yemen, which was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015 in a bloody coup that violated a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Withdrawing U.S. support would also harm the interests of other U.S. allies fighting in Yemen, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The war in Yemen is complex. Those who rush to blame Saudi Arabia entirely for the suffering of the Yemeni people ignore the war crimes and heavy-handed treatment meted out by the Houthis to their opponents and the ruthless role that Iran plays in supporting the Houthi Ansar Allah (“Supporters of Allah”) movement, a Shia Islamist extremist group. ... Those who advocate withdrawing support for Saudi Arabia apparently believe that they can somehow end the current conflict in Yemen through a one-sided strategy that penalizes allies and boosts Ansar Allah, a group that chants “Death to America” and looks more like Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy group, every day."
  • https://www.fcnl.org/issues/middle-east-iran/saudi-led-war-yemen-frequently-asked-questions "In 2015, with the stated goal of restoring Hadi to power, Saudi Arabia joined forces with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and formed a coalition of nine Arab countries. The coalition was backed by the United States, United Kingdom (UK), France, and Canada. Saudi Arabia framed the conflict in sectarian terms, insisting that Iran was supporting the Houthis. ... Saudi leaders backed Hadi for many reasons. They were alarmed by the rise of the Houthis at Saudi Arabia’s southern border, who they said were backed by Saudi Arabia’s main regional competitor, Iran. ... The Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen has received almost unwavering military support and weapons sales from the United States, UK, France, and other Western countries. In 2015, the Obama administration accommodated Saudi Arabia’s request for military backing of the coalition’s war on Yemen. Such backing included targeting assistance and logistical support for coalition airstrikes, midair refueling for Saudi warplanes, spare parts transfers, and billions of dollars in weapons sales. ...Why has the United States historically supported the Saudis? ... In 1945, President Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on a naval destroyer in the Suez Canal and unofficially began the U.S.-Saudi partnership with a handshake. Under the agreement, Saudi Arabia would receive U.S. security assistance in exchange for granting the United States access to Saudi oil, tied to the U.S. dollar. Every U.S. president since has ..."

In fact, I really like that last page, it seems to be comprehensive and neutral. It's from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which is a Quaker organization, so it's by no means a US military shill organization; in case you don't know, the Quakers are an extremely pacifist group, they will go to jail rather than serve in wars. That page should be a model to follow for our article. But that's for later development of the article. For now, include an explanation of the US side in this, from these, or from any other reliable sources which you choose, and it will suffice for DYK. --GRuban (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sayifwanda

  • ... that Sarah Sayifwanda, the first Zambian Minister of Gender and Development, was once arrested for allegedly inciting a tribal fight? Source: "Last year, Zambia Police arrested Ms Sayifwanda in connection with the tribal fight that occurred in Zambezi district between the Lunda’s and Luvales during an ECZ delimitation.

It was alleged that Ms Sayifwanda was the one who forcefully grabbed the microphone from the ECZ official and strongly opposed the creation of a central constituency which the majority voted in favor of. Ms Sayifwanda’s behaviour was said to be what triggered the throwing of chairs at each other by the lundas and luvales as she accused the electoral commission of Zambia officials of siding with the luvales."

https://www.lusakatimes.com/2020/12/31/former-zambezi-east-mp-sara-sayifwanda-has-died/

Created by 19jshi (talk). Self-nominated at 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @19jshi: Article new and long enough and hook is verifiable. At this point though, I'm not entirely comfortable with the article's shape - the "Childhood and family" subsection is blank, and the subsection lengths are just around 2-3 sentences each - they could just be merged into one single undivided section. Also, the references are naked urls - not necessarily a DYK requirement, but it would certainly help a lot to follow the guideline WP:BURL. Again, not necessary, but makes it look nice. Juxlos (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I did not know about the BURL guideline, thank you for pointing it out. That has been resolved. 19jshi (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol confirmed.svg Nice work. Hope you make more Zambia DYKs - always nice to see more of the less covered countries here. Juxlos (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @19jshi and Juxlos: Hi there! I'm gonna strike ALT0 on BLP guidelines; yes, she's no longer alive, but those can apply for a relatively long amount of time after death. She appears to be a national politician, I don't think we should run a hook that alleges she committed a crime she wasn't convicted of, it falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Symbol possible vote.svg without a viable hook, the nomination can't proceed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the nom appears to be a student editor and hasn't responded to a talk page message. Perhaps someone more familiar with African topics can help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without additional context that hook doesn't really say much. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 5[edit]

Imam Reza shrine stabbings

Created by Kelhuri (talk) and Mhhossein (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 06:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions, but I still stand with the original hook. Your Alts are too simple I believe. The incident was apparently a move against the Sunni-Shia unity (it happened after the killing of a sunni scholar in a mosque in northern Iran). That's why Sunni scholars unanimously condemned the attack. --Mhhossein talk 05:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the page has not been featured on the main page. --Mhhossein talk 05:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhossein, I'm looking at this, and at the article--but I'm stuck already in the second sentence of the description. "A second cleric who had died" needs a lot of ... well it needs some editing. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Hey, I was not notified due to the misspell. I have nominated the page at GOCE. --Mhhossein talk 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mhhossein, I apologize, my friend--I should have checked better. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Drmies. Will the DYK nomination be reviewed by you after the GOCE job is finished?--Mhhossein talk 17:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, Mhhossein--please just ping me when you're done. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 7[edit]

2022 Birmingham Stallions season

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 05:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Symbol possible vote.svg I notice that this nomination is now more than three weeks old, but the nominator has not provided a QPQ. As per RfC on excessively late supply of QPQ credits, the QPQ should be done within one week. Please provide a QPQ promptly. Flibirigit (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg I think we might have to go with some variant of ALT3, but I would suggest proposing an alternate version which mentions that the Stallions are the only USFL team playing in their home city in 2022. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim E. Nielsen

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk), Penny Richards (talk), and Dodger67 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 15:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Callaway Gardens

5x expanded by Mgreason (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Needs further work. There's uncited text in the article which should be taken care of, and having the word "beloved" in the DYK hook looks like a WP:NPOV violation. QPQ is done, and 5x expansion confirmed. The fact that Herschend co-owns Dollywood isn't in the article, so that parts of those alts is problematical. There are also some tone issues - instructions to the reader such as "Pay attention to the instructor and wear gloves", "but once on the course, you're responsible for yourself", and "If the Discovery Course was too difficult, the Lake Course should not be attempted" should not be present. There's also a tendency to go into not-needed details, such as the list of items with the pioneer log cabin. This needs sizable further work, and probably a bit of a trimming in places - at time this diverges from an article on to the Callaway Gardens to a Wikivoyage description of what you can do there. There's really way too much detail for most of these attractions - an encyclopedia shouldn't be recording height requirements for the TreeTop Adventure, the length/time table for all the trails, or a list of everything available for rent at the beach. Hog Farm Talk 14:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* I've revised the hooks as suggested and trimmed details from the article. Please advise. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mgreason: - There's still a lot of uncited text in the article. You're going to need to have pretty much everything in there cited to a reliable source. Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Rice, Mark (April 6, 2022). "Ownership changing at Callaway Resort & Gardens, largest employer in Harris County". Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  2. ^ a b Caldwell, Carla (Nov 10, 2015). "Online petition seeks to stop Thursday closing of Callaway Gardens attraction". Atlanta Business Chronicle. Retrieved 6 April 2022.

Nicholas Jakubovics

Created by Nangaf (talk). Self-nominated at 19:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. QPQ exempt (2nd nomination). @Nangaf: Neither hook is mentioned in the article with a source. (I would prefer ALT1, but both should be added in as appropriate.) Please ping me when the L-arginine and rose petals items are mentioned in the article text. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not sure if the mention of the school is necessary for ALT1. To me the main hook fact is the investigation of the antimicrobial properties of rose petals and the mention of the school just distracts from that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Speaks to Me

Created by Eurohunter (talk). Self-nominated at 10:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Your hook need wikilinks and the target article needs to use bold font. Schwede66 18:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "his" and "him" in the last half of the sentence read as ambiguous; it is not immediately clear to a reader whether they refer to Basshunter, Avicii, or a mix of the two. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance: