Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
v t e

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
April 13	2
April 14	1
April 15	1
April 16	1
April 19	1
April 24	1	1
April 25	2
April 26	2
April 28	1
April 29	2
April 30	1
May 1	1
May 2	2
May 4	1
May 5	1
May 6	1
May 7	2
May 8	3	1
May 9	2
May 10	3
May 12	6
May 13	1
May 14	3	1
May 15	2	2
May 16	5	2
May 17	8	3
May 18	7	5
May 19	4	3
May 20	7	3
May 21	10	2
May 22	10	7
May 23	10	6
May 24	11	5
May 25	5	2
May 26	8	5
May 27	11	5
May 28	8	6
May 29	6	3
May 30	9	6
May 31	11	10
June 1	5	2
June 2	9	4
June 3	6	2
June 4	3	2
June 5	8	3
June 6	4	1
June 7	8	2
June 8	7	1
June 9	11
June 10	3
Total	237	95
Last updated 16:27, 10 June 2024 UTC Current time is 16:54, 10 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

Handy copy sources:

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]

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Sitdown strike

• ... that there were 583 sitdown strikes in the United States from 1936 to 1939, affecting over a half-million workers? Source:

• Reviewed:
• Comment: The cited sources are online here: https://www.bls.gov/wsp/publications/annual-summaries/pdf/strikes-in-1939.pdf and here: https://www.bls.gov/wsp/publications/annual-summaries/pdf/analysis-of-strikes-in-1938.pdf

Source 1 states: "The number of sit-down strikes in 1936, 1937, and 1938 by months, with the number' of workers involved, is given in table 16."

Table 16 lists the same numbers of strikes given in source 2 below. It lists workers involved as follows: 1936: 87,817 1937: 398,117 1938: 28,749

Source 2 states: "In 1936 there were 48 so-called sit-down strikes. In 1937 the number increased to 477, but by 1938 they decreased to 52. There were only 6 strikes during 1939 in which all or part of the strikers remained at their workplaces for one or more days after ceasing work. he number of workers idle in connection with these 6 strikes was 3,416, although the number participating in the sit-down or stay-in feature is not known."

This sentence involves a very encyclopedic form of synthesis in that it adds numbers from two consecutive studies by the same source. Similar synthesis, but without inclusion of the latter number appears in Sidney Fine's book Sitdown, cited in the article.

Carwil (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• QPQ not needed, expansion is recent and article is long enough. Hook is properly sourced. However, Earwig detected a 43.2% similarity. Before I pass this nom, I think it would be suitable to trim down some quotes, if possible. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 22:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the Earwig similarity report, which highlights passages that are either in quotes or comprise part of citations (including the journal name and another cited article). The longest passage is the summary of the Matignon Agreement, a quotation I don't think I can improve upon. I've revised the article to reduce the amount of material directly quoted from Torigian and from Adamic, but keep Adamic's longer definition and Torigian's POV that the mid-1930s strikes were a distinct phase of using the tactic. Let me know whether you think these changes sufficiently reduce the reliance of direct quotations.--Carwil (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's the Earwig similarity report with bibliography temporarily removed.

Fair rationale. Passing nomination. LunaEcplise (for the record I'm Davest3r08) (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carwil, LunaEclipse, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith: - given that there was no definite resolution to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sitdown strike, I'm reopening this. A couple of issues were raised regarding the state of the article, and also whether the figures from the Dept. of Labor should be given in Wikivoice.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon additional consideration, I'm fine with the wikivoice thing. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying here as I'm traveling and on mobile only: Hmm... I'm not sure this makes sense as a general principle for DYK hooks (in voice sourcing for official statistics), though I'm not adverse to a "by official counts" phrase being added. There's no reason to suspect that the government counted any non-existent strikes and political reasons to suspect that this government attempted to both be complete in its count and to accurately report both the rise and fall of the phenomenon in its counts. Unintended errors of categorization could fall in both ways. But this seems like the kind of fact routinely sourced in a footnote in a lead section or DYK. - - User:Carwil

• Alt0a ... that by official counts there were 583 sitdown strikes in the United States from 1936 to 1939, affecting over a half-million workers?
• Alt0b ... that according to the U.S. Department of Labor there were 583 sitdown strikes in the United States from 1936 to 1939, affecting over a half-million workers?

--evrik ^(talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there were exactly 583 sitdown strikes between 1936 and 1939 – I think that there should be some lip service to the idea that a figure like that probably can't be exact. Attributing inline makes sense to me, if only briefly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Carwil: there are still some citation needed templates in the article itself, which need fixing. Plus we need a consensus on which hook to use. If this isn't resolved soon, this may have to be rejected and archived. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @LunaEcplise: I think the sourcing problems are fixed. What about the hooks? --evrik ^(talk) 01:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping this review. Someone else should take my place. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carwil: Much to whinge about here I'm afraid. There are a couple of unsourced bits and unattributed quotes in the article, which I've annotated accordingly, and I don't really think it's on to comment out unsourced content while it's here, so I've taken it out. As written, the Form and purpose section would deserve {{disputed}}, because an account of the late 1930s can't really be written in 1936 and I'd question whether it should even be there given WP:NOTDEF. I'd be willing to approve ALT0b, although I would suggest the below as a WP:DYKTRIMmed variant of ALT0b:

ALT0c: ... that the U.S. Department of Labor recognises 583 sitdown strikes in the U.S., affecting half a million workers?

which says everything ALT0b says in fewer words. (If I had my druthers, we'd be running some variant of "that quickies have disrupted the rubber industry", but pigs will fly before that gets past WP:DYKGRAT.)--Launchballer 11:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Launchballer:, while I appreciate the principle that we're not providing dictionary definitions, it's helpful to know what this concept actually means. As it turns out White (2010) and Adamic (1936) offer pretty close parallels, as does Fine (1965): "The term "sit-down strike" has generally been used to embrace a variety of work stoppages ranging from the brief strike or "quickie," in which a group of workers cease their labors for a few minutes or hours or for a single shift until their grievances are settled, to the "stay-in strike," in which a portion or all of the workers remain in the plant overnight and perhaps for an extended period of time. Most commonly when the term is used the reference is to the extended sit-down strike, the so-called stay-in strike." In my view, the goal of the encyclopedic text should be to lay out both how such strikes work and how the types differ as clearly as possible, and I think the Adamic quote helps to do that. I've added a new sentence at the beginning of the section to try to make that clearer.--Carwil (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @LunaEclipse: I'll try to finish this. @Launchballer: I like ALt0c and will approve it. @Carwil: I went through and did a final clean-up. I found the sources, and dealt with the other tags. --evrik ^(talk) 22:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for the clean-up work.--Carwil (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT0c gives the impression that 583 sitdown strikes have occurred in the U.S. from whenever they began to the present day, while the sources for this hook are from 1939 and 1940 covering only 1936 through 1939, and the article goes on to mention quite a few both before and after those years. Trimming a hook like ALT0b is one thing—I don't see any obvious issues with it—but trimming it to the point that it's misleading if not inaccurate is quite another; I have struck it. I think, given the circumstances, we need a new reviewer; it's a stretch for evrik to be approving a tightened version of their own hook, especially given its issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to unstrike Alt0b. --evrik ^(talk) 23:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant ALT0d: ... that the U.S. Department of Labor recognises 583 sitdown strikes in the U.S. between 1936 and 1939, affecting half a million workers?--Launchballer 11:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Review needed of hook "ALT0d". --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure of my role here, but I think Alt0d is accurate, though the tense of this government agency's recognition feels awkward to me. Perhaps, ALT0e: ... that the U.S. Department of Labor recorded 583 sitdown strikes in the U.S. between 1936 and 1939, affecting half a million workers?--Carwil (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me at the zoo

• ... that YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim (pictured) has updated the description of his "Me at the zoo" video on multiple occasions to criticize the website's business decisions? Source: https://venturebeat.com/2013/11/08/youtube-cofounders-first-public-comment-in-8-years-why-the-f-do-i-need-a-google-account-to-comment-on-a-video/
  https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787080/youtube-dislikes-criticism-cofounder-jawed-karim-first-video-description-zoo
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dora and the Fantastical Creatures and Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike

Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 01:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Davest3r08: Everything checks out here. Just waiting on the one QPQ. Nice work! 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 16:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Good to go! 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 01:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind (nom) in prep 5, this should not be scheduled until the next prep 5.--Launchballer 17:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LunaEclipse, concerns have been raised over the copyright status of the video and as it was the lead hook, I've pulled it from queue. It needs to be promoted again, but can't include the video, unless we come to the conclusion that the license is ok after all. Schwede66 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schwede66: there is evidence that this was CC-BY licensed at one point. CC licenses are irrevocable. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• After concerns were raised on WT:DYK about the copyright status, I've posted to the commons about this video: [1] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Videos attract huge views, and I recommend waiting until we have an answer.--Launchballer 10:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I've replaced the video with an image of Karim. It's going to take a while for a consensus on the upload's copyright to form anyways. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't use that image per WP:DYKIMG. Just noting here that, while the hook should technically have an end-of-sentence citation, ALT0 is clearly a summary of the rest of that paragraph and the alternative's potentially a {{clump}}, so I'm minded to IAR - but is there a source available?--Launchballer 18:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Launchballer, Davest3r08, LunaEclipse, and Schwede66: I've removed this from the queue again, as it doesn't look like the issue of the video's copyright has been resolved yet. I think before this runs, we need to either (a) remove the video from the article, or (b) ascertain that there's a consensus somewhere that its copyright status is valid. As far as I could tell from the discussion last time, we were minded to reject the video's certification given that Lapitsky recorded it, not Karim. I'd think without definitive knowledge that Lapitsky's intention was to release it under that licence, and with it not even being under that licence any more anyway, this is pretty dubious...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my 2c to the discussion on Commons. That said, I'm not sure that's quite the right venue for that discussion; it should have been put up for deletion. Schwede66 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 14[edit]

Cora Babbitt Johnson

• ... that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented the carving of Mount Rushmore? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. pp. chapter 2 and chapter 5; Fite, Gilbert Courtland (1952). Mount Rushmore. Internet Archive. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press; Merritt, Riley (2024-04-01). "Borglum's Horse Flies: The Early Opposition to Mount Rushmore". Honors College Theses.
  • Reviewed:

Borg Axoim (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The nominated article has one paragraph without a citation. The uncited paragraph could be supported in part by pages 11 and 121 of Mount Rushmore by Gilbert C. Fite, it talks about the Hot Springs Star's editorial stance. https://archive.org/details/mountrushmore00univ/page/121 I also suggest that an alternate wording like "that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented..." rather than the current wording. Update:Thanks to Mary Mark Ockerbloom for working on the reference problems on the article. Do either of the two nominators, Borg Axoim or Crunchydillpickle, have any final thoughts or last minute suggestions? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No further comments, but I think we're good to go. Letting Borg Axoim and Crunchydillpickle know that its approved. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borg Axoim, @Crunchydillpickle and @MtBotany Where does the wiki article state that the carving of Mount Rushmore was "almost prevented?" Unless there's genuine evidence from the cited source that the project was almost going to be shut down (if so, that should be added in), letters of opposition, protests, and halts do not equal "preventions." This needs to be addressed first before promotion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, PrimalMustelid sloppy reviewing on my part. One of the project's promotors (Robinson) said that her editorials against the project, "might produce a real disaster." The strongest that could be said is something like "environmentalists delayed the carving of Mount Rushmore" and I don't know that such as statement would be surprising/interesting. If Borg Axoim or Crunckydillpickle are interested in a rewrite of the hook there is a lot of support for something like "the artist who carved Mt. Rushmore called Cora Johnson and other environmentalists opponents "horseflies"." 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • PrimalMustelid and MtBotany, you're right that the wording may not be ideal. Two of the sources (Fite and Merritt) mention how Cora Babbitt Johnson swayed the South Dakota governor against the project and that he delayed the project severely. Given that, I think it would be fair to say something like "Cora Babbitt Johnson and other environmentalists lobbied South Dakota governor Carl Gunderson, who halted the Mount Rushmore project until the end of his term". Would that be interesting enough? It could still use some rewriting. User:Borg_Axoim 7:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that Gutzon Borglum, the carver of Mount Rushmore, referred to Cora Babbitt Johnson as an "agent of evil"? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. "So vitriolic were her attacks that Borglum would refer to her only as 'that Hot Springs person,' describing her as 'an agent of evil.'" Hooky, makes you want to click through and find out why. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Borg Axoim: thoughts on ALT1? If okay, review needed for it (hopefully from MtBotany). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @theleekycauldron I think ALT1 is good. I have some small concerns about the Rex Alan Smith source, primarily that it doesn't cite info and has clear bias, but I like the rewrite. user: Borg_Axoim 12:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that the efforts of Cora Babbitt Johnson delayed the construction of Mount Rushmore until 1927?--Launchballer 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• New reviewer needed to check the ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 15[edit]

Roman roads in Judaea

• ... that modern highways in Israel still follow some of the ancient Roman roads in Judaea? Source: Roman Roads Connected Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem and Tiberias. What Is Left of Them Today? https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/travel/2024-03-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/roman-roads-connected-gaza-hebron-jerusalem-and-tiberias-what-is-left-of-them-today/0000018e-18fe-d8fb-abff-5dfee1380000
  • Reviewed:

Owenglyndur (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Many of the cited sources fail verification, see comments on the article's talk page.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them. Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)? FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Owenglyndur: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer Grnrchst. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Grnrchst and Owenglyndur: A hook cannot run at DYK with missing inline citations. This will need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for your comments i will work on them. I will let you know once its ready. So we will be able to publish the DYK then? Owenglyndur (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: absolutely :) i don't know the sketch well enough, but if you've got something in your back pocket, that'd be hilarious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Owenglyndur: it looks like there are still some missing inline citations. (Also, this article could use a stiff copyedit.) The nomination can move forward when the issues are addressed (although it does take a while), but could the issues be addressed within a week? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • • • Thanks for you comment, i did what i could to correct the article, If it is still not enough, you can remove it from DYK status Owenglyndur

@Grnrchst: As the original reviewer, have your concerns been resolved, and is this hook approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, my concerns have been resolved, as all of the paragraphs now have inline citations. I'm happy to approve this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: If this is approved, please add the green tick below. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst, Z1720, and Owenglyndur: I've noted some significant issues with verifiability on the article talk page, but they have not been addressed. I have not gone through the article with a fine-tooth comb so there may be other issues. Regrettably, as a Monty Python hook would have been fun, I do not think the article is ready to be approved. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted my pending approval, per Richard's comments. Looking at the talk page, there's definitely some major issues with it that are keeping this from being approved. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 16[edit]

Nama assemblage

• ... that enigmatic early animals underwent two major extinctions in a short time right before most groups of animals alive today appeared? Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/new-ediacaran-biota-from-the-oldest-nama-group-namibia-tsaus-mountains-and-redefinition-of-the-nama-assemblage/6794D8CBE4BA23E81D29D67CE624D9C3
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/New California Republic

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Starting review--Kevmin § 21:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be able to clarify what is being stated in the second sentence of the "Biota" section? the middle portion regarding the 550ma seems to be out of place as currently written.--Kevmin § 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I agree it wasn't the clearest way to word it. The Nama Assemblage is often defined chronologically (as the fauna from ~550 to ~539 million years ago, or from the first appearance of Cloudina to the first appearance of Treptichnus), but sometimes on the basis of fauna, with holdover fauna from the previous epochs not being considered part of it, with the chronological definition then called "Terminal Ediacaran biozone". It was mostly to explain why some of the fauna isn't always considered Nama, but that could be further expanded instead in the "Definition" section. I have plans for further expansion of the article (currently in User:Chaotic Enby/sandbox), and I will be happy to reorganize the article and expand it further if needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Based on the above, can this be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get approval? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the article is still a bit hard to parse for anyone reading it for the first time, but it does conform to the sources used. The article is new enough and long enough, with reliable sourcing and no close paraphrasing identified. I think we are good to go at this point.--Kevmin § 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, Kevmin, Z1720, and AirshipJungleman29: sorry for last minute pull, I checked this set earlier today but only just had access to a computer to edit... I have to say it took me a long time to figure out what was going on with this hook, it doesn't seem to bear that much resemblance to anything that's in the article at first glance. After reading some of the linked articles and based on what Kevmin says on the nom page above, I assume the sentence we're looking at for this one is "The Nama assemblage is bounded from the earlier White Sea assemblage and later Cambrian period by two major episodes of faunal turnover, considered to be pulses of the end-Ediacaran extinction". But I think there are several issues with this that make it not compliant with WP:DYKHOOK at the moment, in that there are aspects of the hook not found in the linked bolded article. Firstly, the hook links to Vendobionta, with no corresponding link to that page in the article; and it pipes that link to "enigmatic early animals", again something not discussed here. Secondly, the last part of the hook says "right before most groups of animals alive today appeared" with a link to Cambrian explosion, once again a mentioned fact and a link not found directly in the article. We know it's the Cambrian period from the article, but would also need to directly say and cite that this means when most groups of animals alive today appeared. I suspect this could be corrected with a few choice cited additions to the article, but would like to see this before we run it on the main page rather than later. A good interesting article anyway, I didn't know anything about this. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I still have a lot of stuff I plan to add to the article (including a whole section about how the Nama relates to the Cambrian explosion, cf studies such as Darroch et al. 2018) so I probably missed that not everything was in the blurb yet. I'll try to add all of this asap! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby, it's been over three weeks since your last post and the article remains unchanged, though you have been very active on Wikipedia in the interim. If you wish to continue this nomination, please address the issues raised above in the next seven days. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sorry, I completely forgot about this! I'll try to do it tomorrow. Thanks a lot for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 19[edit]

Georgi Romanov

• ... that Georgi Romanov had a shootout loss in the 2022–23 KHL season even though he was credited with playing zero minutes that season?

• Reviewed:

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Blaylockjam10: I studied the source and cannot find the hook. Can you lead me to it? Bruxton (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: It’s under “Regular Season (Complete Stats)”. It looks like it may only be visible on a computer. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I need a premium membership to view. I will leave this to another reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "S TEAM LEAGUE GP GD GAA SV% GA SV SO W-L-T TOI" and "2022-23 Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg KHL 1 4 - - - - 0 0-0-1 0:00" means what I think it means, then a) you don't need a premium membership to view and b) I think the hook checks out with the source, depending on what "W-L-T" means, although I haven't yet looked at the article. I'm a bit worried about the phrases "submit stats/facts" and "edit profile" I found on the source - what makes it reliable?--Launchballer 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer I saw the same, which made me feel like it was a contributor site. Honestly I was just lost on that page. I think W is win L is loss and T is tie. It is a clever hook which drew me to the nomination, but then I found myself lost for a half hour clicking on pull down menus until I got to a paywall. @BeanieFan11: may be able to help. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the TOI part of the Elite Prospects link but based on how he played in the game that would make sense. NHL says that he was the goaltender for only the shootout portion in his only game, which would mean that he "officially" had zero minutes since the shootout isn't timed. (Also, I've come across Elite Prospects a number of times – they seem pretty reliable (don't think I've seen an incorrect stat, although I've only used them in writing ~10 hockey articles) and seem to have a staff – also cited ~20,000 times). I'd say it's good for approving as long as the article itself is fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blaylockjam10 I located the minutes played after being guided. Earwig determined that there is some minor WP:CLOP which needs to be addressed. Also probably not a DYK issue, but consider that we probably do not need a section for three words - it should be combined somewhere. Also the lead should introduce/summarize more of the article; right now it is a single sentence. The hook is interesting and the article is neutral with the correct inline citations. Created on April 19 nominated April 26 so the article is new enough and with 2344 the article is long enough. Bruxton (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blaylockjam10: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bruxton and Z1720: What do you think of the article’s quality now? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay. Earwig is at 16.7% - clop was addressed. Personal life was expanded a bit more and the lead is now two sentences. Two sentences are close to a source, but I think we have addressed enough for a pass. Might make a good This might make a good quirky hook.^(?) Bruxton (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaylockjam10 and Bruxton: As written this article would deserve {{prose}} and {{subsections}}, and single-sentence WP:PARAGRAPHs should be avoided - could this be remedied?--Launchballer 14:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not written in list format? I also don't see the need of having a bunch of subsections in this brief article and how one would appropriately do it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like one, see WP:PROSELINE.--Launchballer 15:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and BeanieFan11: I agree that the article could be improved by combining sentences and I usually push for MOS changes, but many are not required by WP:DYKCRIT. Regarding sections, we sometimes feature single paragraph articles at DYK. I will go through it and also ping AirshipJungleman29 to see if they have an opinion. Bruxton (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be free from dispute tags. If an article deserves one, it can't run per WP:DYKTAG.--Launchballer 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of {{prose}}, {{subsections}} or {{too many sections}} are listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes; I think Bruxton's alterations are sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 20:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Blaylockjam10, Bruxton, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm not quite happy with the sourcing on the hook and article here. A fair amount of this article is sourced to this non-independent source and this stat block, both of which feel very less-than-DUE. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think his statistics and how he performed with his different teams is absolutely worth being mentioned in the article – whether or not its sourced to NHL.com. If we remove everything sourced to those we'd end up with only random portions of text without an accurate summary of his career – which I don't think would make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're right that the secondary independent sources don't come near giving a cohesive picture of the subject, I would honestly question how they could confer notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a source analysis, sources 1 and 7 are non-independent, while sources 2–6 and 8 (5 is borderline) don't provide significant coverage. I've notability-tagged the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a question of notability – he's an NHL goaltender and there's a decent amount of coverage, e.g. this – what I am saying is that by using solely news sources we wouldn't get nearly as good a picture of his career as we would by also using sources such as NHL.com, which help paint the fuller picture. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but I think that we can't reasonably call this article a pass unless we use as many of the SIRS as are helpful and then use the non-independent sources to fill in the gaps where we have to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What exactly do you mean by SIRS? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • secondary, independent, reliable sources :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 24[edit]

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

DarkZero Esports

• ... that DarkZero won the 2022 Apex Legends Global Series championship?

• ALT1: ... that when their Apex Legends roster won the 2022 ALGS champipnship, DarkZero had not yet updated their website to include player bios? Source: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2022/07/all-australian-apex-legends-team-wins-apex-legends-global-series-championships/
• Reviewed: Bill McNulty
• Comment: QPQ to come soon. QPQ is now done.

Soulbust (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Soulbust: Please provide a QPQ or this nomination may be rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: QPQ's done now. Soulbust (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I don't think either hooks are that interesting. Can you come up with something else? Perhaps you could mention that they won $500,000, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Soulbust: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BorgQueen: didn't see this notif for some reason. I personally don't find the financials/monetary aspect of these sorts of things interesting at all. I thought ALT1 was kinda conceptually funny, the fact that the team was still so freshly signed when they won the tournament that DZ hadn't even given them player bios on their website yet. Idk. I'll see what I can do, but will be adding the $500,000 win into the actual article as that info is currently not included. Soulbust (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @BorgQueen: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, are there any other aspects that you think Soulbust can create a hook from? Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: I'd like another reviewer to take a look. BorgQueen (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch (song)

• Alt0 ... that after being outed by a reporter, Billie Eilish became more open about her bisexuality, even including a song about lesbian sex on her upcoming album? Source: Gay Times, The Cut
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/September 2023 New York floods
  • Comment: Open to alternatives.

‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Generally well-written, sources are okay, hook is interesting. Just a small recommendation, links to Rolling Stone and Coachella 2024 can be added. Good to go! Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks must not be likely to change, and that album's probably going to come out. (Probably.)--Launchballer 23:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's released now @Launchballer so...

• Alt1 ... that after being outed by a reporter, Billie Eilish became more open about her bisexuality, even including a song about lesbian sex on her third album?

PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 03:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.--Launchballer 06:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA, Prince of Erebor, Launchballer, Geni, Kusma, and Z1720: reopening this nom page per discussion at WT:DYK. I personally agree with the sentiment expressed there that including mention of Eilish's sexuality is not suitable for the main page, when she's explicitly said she doesn't accept the concept of outing. Suggest we go with Kusma's alt or something else. Full discussion to be copied below.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in prep 7. Hook doesn't appear to be neutral. If I'm reading the sources correctly Eilish is rejecting the term outing which the hook uses.©Geni (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the sources is that Eilish is objecting to actually being outed; if she had a problem with the term, she wouldn't have used it in the Instagram post mentioned in the Background section.--Launchballer 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read in the source [2], she said "i like boys and girls leave me alone about it please literally who cares." so I am not sure focussing on her sexuality (instead of on the song) is appropriate for the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Alt2 ... that Billie Eilish included a song about lesbian sex on her third album?"--Launchballer 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not very hooky but its really up to @User:PSA in terms of what they want to do.©Geni (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer @Kusma @Geni:

Alt3 ... that Billie Eilish included a song about lesbian sex on her third album after gradually becoming more public about her sapphism? PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Launchballer's version because it does not talk about Eilish's sexuality in the hook. —Kusma (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the gay times article "Eilish also criticised the notion that a person has to ‘come out’ as queer" I read that has Eilish rejecting the term.©Geni (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like "no one has to feel pressured to tell people theyre LGBT" to me. not necessarily a rejection of the concept PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps. In practice Z1720 aproved the hook some time ago so its all moot at this point.©Geni (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else needs to be done to this?--Launchballer 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed on the hook issue. I've just struck all the hooks that talk about outing or sapphism; there's enough disagreement about including these in the hook (which I agree with) that it isn't going to fly, much though others still want to include it. Whatever Z1720 may have approved in the past, we're clearly past that point now. The only hook left seems to be Launchballer's above, which Geni described as "not very hooky"; maybe a new hook with a different approach is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Approving Alt2. --evrik ^(talk) 22:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @PSA, Evrik, Launchballer, and Prince of Erebor: I agree with @Geni and BlueMoonset: I don't think ALT2 meets WP:DYKINT. New hook needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

• "Alt3 ... that Billie Eilish debuted Lunch during a secret DJ set?"

©Geni (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal:

• ALT4: ... that one critic compared the "provocative" nature of one Billie Eilish song to the 1969 Stonewall riots?

none of it directly mentions Eilish's sexual orientation so I hope this should be okay . PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 01:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Approving Alt 3 and Alt 4. --evrik ^(talk) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something for the promoter:

• "Alt3a ... that Billie Eilish first served Lunch during a secret DJ set?" --evrik ^(talk) 02:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how Alt3a is backed up by the Vulture source; while it talks about a "DJ set" (and do we really expect people to know what that even means? it's certainly not a commonly understood term, so it makes for a confusing hook rather than an interesting one), Vulture never uses the term "secret"—©Geni, I think this needs to be revised in the article, and evrik, I've struck both variants of this second Alt3 hook because of this problem. PSA, thanks for trying with Alt4, but I'm unconvinced by the comparison of the song to the Stonewall riots: Allison Hope makes a comparison to one prominent person at Stonewall, and it feels like the article has cherry-picked this particular bit from the CNN story for the purpose of creating a hook (and not bothered to quote "provocative" there while doing so in the hook, a no-no). I do hope something can be found; there might be something in this CNN opinion piece that can be used—perhaps the "confrontational" nature to a figure from Stonewall—but given how the piece centers on "queer-centered sexuality", that may well be too difficult to maneuver around. Maybe there's something else out there? evrik, I suggest that you bow out of reviewing any further hooks for this article, since you've approved several that have issues that should have been picked up on, not given ticks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Alt3b ... that Billie Eilish first served Lunch during a private party at Coachella?"Gonzalez, Alex. "Billie Eilish Previewed A New Song, 'Lunch,' During Coachella And Its Lyrics Are So Explicit Fans Are Having Fits Online". Uproxx. --evrik ^(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • @BlueMoonset: i'm not sure I can parse what's happening. The intention was to highlight "the 'confrontational' nature to a figure from Stonewall" as you put it, but the hook kind of already does that? I think we should just edit the hook to match that wording more:

Alt4a "that the 'confrontational' nature of one Billie Eilish song was compared to a prominent figure of the Stonewall riots?

Also, no offense, but I, as a queer person myself, do not get why we're so hung-up on absolutely not mentioning Eilish's sexual orientation when she's been open about it so many times. I must be missing something here. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 03:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Hong Kong v Inter Miami

• ... that Lionel Messi has provoked geopolitical tensions across China, the United States, Argentina, Japan and Hong Kong due to his absence from a match?

• Reviewed:
• Comment: This is my first DYK nomination so please remind me if there is anything missing or should be improved. Thanks.

~~ J. Dann 15:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• What a ride that article was. QPQ not needed. Earwig has a high score for copyvio detection, but that's entirely due to Messi's paragraph-long statement in the "Departure and Japan trip" section, which has an inline citation to the flagged source. Referencing is adequate and length/newness criteria fulfilled. Hook is definitely interesting and cited in source, not cited inline as exact phrasing but separately so. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cypp0847 and Juxlos: I have tagged the article for copyediting, as there are grammar-related issues throughout the article (tenses, for instance, are very often incorrect). This needs to be resolved before a DYK run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cypp0847: any progress on addressing the prose issues? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, I'm working on a copyedit and will try to have it posted later today or tomorrow. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, finished my copyedit. I removed the flag icons per MOS:FLAG and shortened one of the really long quotations. The infobox image, while taken from a video released under CC, contains elements which are definitely under copyright. I suggest taking a low-resolution version (100k pixels) and moving it to en.wiki with a fair use rationale, and using that. Please ping me (here or elsewhere) if you have any questions regarding my edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Juxlos and AirshipJungleman29: Reidgreg has indicated above that the copyright concerns have been resolved. Can you confirm this, and give this a green tick? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clear, I addressed the copyediting concerns, not copyright. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is still uncited material, indicated by {{cn}} tags. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptical Environmentalist

• ... that Mark Lynas once pied author Bjørn Lomborg because he disagreed with the views he had set out in The Skeptical Environmentalist?

• ALT1: ... that sales of The Skeptical Environmentalist quadrupled after a series of negative reviews in Scientific American were published? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/423216a
• ALT2: ... that E. O. Wilson said he regretted "the time wasted by scientists correcting the misinformation created" by The Skeptical Environmentalist? Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19438150903533730
• ALT3: ... that The Skeptical Environmentalist was found to be scientifically dishonest by a Danish government agency? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/world/environment-and-science-danes-rebuke-a-skeptic.html
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ivančena

Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A newly promoted GA which received an appropriate review during the GAN. Overall, everything looks good for ALT0, which I think is definitely the strongest option. I'd make a few tweaks to the wording, though, to make it more concise, define "pie" (since it's not that common as a verb), and remove the identity of the thrower (which doesn't add much as not too many readers will know who he is). That leaves us with ALT0a: ...that an environmentalist threw a pie in the face of the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist? If that works for you, this should be good to go. Sdkb ^talk 01:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Sdkb:! Your proposed alt is fine with me :) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting WP:false balance vibes from ALT0. Views sounds like an opinion, rather than misinformation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0a presumably resolves that, though, Femke. I'll cross out ALT0 to make it clearer. Sdkb ^talk 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, you're right, should have noticed that, sorry. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After no response to my notice on WT:DYK, I have pulled the hook due to unsourced content. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this nom has not edited since May 10. Unless someone adopts this nomination, I think this should be rejected as abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 28[edit]

Lineage (anthropology)

• ... that lineage societies, traced through maternal, paternal, or ambilineal lines, can be used to determine inheritance rights, social status, and even rituals in some cultures?

• ALT1: ... that some cultures around the world practice matrilineal lineage, where ancestry is traced exclusively through the mother in the maternal line?
• Source: www.palomar.edu/anthro/kinship/kinship_2.htm
• Reviewed:

Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Striking ALT1, as it does not contain the nominated article nor any reasonable place to link to it. You need a further 104 characters for this to become eligible.--Launchballer 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Launchballer:, 104 characters where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Da Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

In the article, and sign your posts.--Launchballer 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needed to anyway for some minor stuff, how is it now? @Launchballer: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs another 42 characters. You should consider installing WP:DYKcheck so you can check yourself.--Launchballer 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now added some stuff about the 2 types of ambilineal, which I may expand into there own sectrions at some point. Hows this now @Launchballer: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Da Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

How are you remembering to put my username in your comments and not- anyway, length requirement met. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do said review, and if not who and when will do it @Launchballer:Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be me any time soon, I have a policy of doing my QPQs oldest first. Any other editor is free to review this in the interim.--Launchballer 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nominated in time. 5x expansion. No QPQ need. Current hook as written is not reflected in the text of the article. Another hook please. --evrik ^(talk) 01:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom is blocked and based on behavior likely a sock (but I haven't figured out who yet). Not to mention multiple issues with submission noted above. We have enough work to do, we don't need to be wasting time on this. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can however respond, here, and I will. It was in the article when it was submitted. Anyways, here is a new one:Did you know that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and there role in that religion

https://collegeofarms.euclid.int/tracing-roots-the-significance-of-family-trees-in-traditional-societies/

. Also, I do not appreciate unfounded allegations by @RoySmith: that I am wasting their time and a sock. Thank you. @Evrik @Me Da Wikipedian: (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am posting the above from this this post. The user has suggested:

• Alt2 ... that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and their role in that religion?

Source: "Links between childhood religious upbringing and current religious identity". Pew Research Center. -

I am AGF that this user will be welcomed back to the fold. --evrik ^(talk) 21:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Evrik, to ask for feedback on this nomination at WT:DYK, archive that thread upon receiving negative feedback from Rjjiii, and then approve the nomination without fixing the issues raised is pretty terrible conduct, all things considered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @AirshipJungleman29: my apologies if I have caused some confusion or consternation. Once the author posted an alternate hook I found reasonable, I considered the discussion there moot. Also, in fairness, I archived a bunch of discussions at the same time. As for the comments made by @Rjjiii:, well I didn't consider them negative as much as a suggestion. Honestly, I think the piece was overcited. I did read the passage and thought it matched the citations listed. I have changed one word and I think it all matches up. Hope this addresses your concerns. --evrik ^(talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, where does the cited source discuss religion? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

their reply Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it actually this source: "Links between childhood religious upbringing and current religious identity". Pew Research Center. --evrik ^(talk) 04:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to put this out there for a new review. --evrik ^(talk) 04:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article and made the following notes with quotes from the 17 May 2024 version of Lineage (anthropology):

• The topic is "in anthropology", the study of humanity, but "apical ancestor" is piped to common descent which would imply that there are multiple species of humans.
• Sentences are so complicated that they will be difficult to parse for many readers, including the sentences in the lead paragraph.
• "apical ancestor" is never glossed or mentioned in the linked article.
• Some statements seem to be contradicted by their cited sources. The Hmong source seems to be saying something different than the Wikipedia article.
• Are those 4 people members of a matrilineal society? The description on commons doesn't go into that kind of depth.
• "matrilineage" is (incorrectly?) capitalized once, used (incorrectly?) as an adjective once, and used as a countable or uncountable noun.
• "her children's children" this should be "her daughters' children" right? It's also a somewhat confusing way to phrase it.
• The gerund phrase "being a Jew in the Jewish religion" is another phrasing that is hard to parse.
• "such as much of South East Asia" is cited to a topic index page on Britannica. The "matrilineal society" article on Britannica says, "Matrilineal societies are found in various places around the world, such as in parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and India."[3] Are unilineal kinship groups in general more common there?
• Is bilateral descent a type of lineage? The Wikipedia article says a lineage is unilineal in the lead. The sentence indicating that an ambilineal lineage can be bilateral descent is cited to 3 glossary entries.
• The Wikipedia article says "Ambilineal lineages are relatively rare in more under-developed societies, such as South East Asia" and the cited source says "In ambilineal societies, which are most common in Southeast Asian countries,".[4]
• The Wikipedia article says "very common in modernized societies, such as the United States and Western Europe." but the cited source says "most people in the United States look to both their father’s and mother’s sides"[5] That's bilateral descent.
• "Bilineal" has at least two meanings and it's not clear how it's being used here.
• It's not clear what "The structure of lineages" refers to.
• Parts of the article are cited to reliable sources, but large portions are also cited to dictionaries, glossaries, and topic indexes.

I think there too many issues to resolve, and it would require rewriting large portions of the article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 29[edit]

Daniela Kerck

• ... that when Daniela Kerck directed Puccini's Turandot in her scenic design for the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, she played the opera unfinished as it was when the composer died in 1924? Source: [6]
  • Reviewed: to come

Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• The article is new enough and long enough. It is properly sourced. Earwig detects some close paraphrasing with this site, so that will need to be resolved before the nomination can be approved. QPQ pending. The hook itself is interesting, but it's a little on the long side and I wonder if it could be simplified to simply:

ALT0a ... that when Daniela Kerck directed Giacomo Puccini's Turandot in 2024, she played the opera unfinished as it was when Puccini died in 1924?

I included Puccini's full name in the hook as he may not be a composer that is known by name among most readers unlike say Mozart or Beethoven. Apart from the close paraphrasing, my main concern with the article right now is the wording of the hook supporting sentences.

She directed Puccini's Turandot in her sets for the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, conducted by Yoel Gamzou. She decided to use none of the three completions of Puccini's opera that was unfinished when he died in 1924. She identified the Prince with the composer. When he died in the end, the beginning of his Requiem was performed.

It's a bit confusing to get how the hook is connected to this excerpt, though I think the issue here is more about wording, so a copyedit to make the article or at least the passage flow better might solve the issue. Pinging 4meter4 for help in copyediting the article so that the passage would more clearly support the hook. As an aside, the reference supporting the hook needs to be after "when he died in 1924" rather than after the mention of the Requiem.

I would also like to ask 4meter4 how significant Kerck's directing of this particular performance is or how significant the Internationale Maifestspiele is in the world of opera, but this would not affect the nomination but rather is just a request for additional context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say you review my nominations only when they have lingered for weeks? Kindly read the article about the festival, - it was founded after the model of the Bayreuth Festival in the 19th century. Anna Netrebko came to sing Turandot during the festival. [7][8] - Puccini is probably better known than Mozart due to La bohéme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Narutolovehinata5 The Internationale Maifestspiele is a respected and long standing opera festival that draws a sizable international crowd (typically around 20,000 people+). It is one of the more important opera festivals in Germany, although it isn't as famous as the Bayreuth Festival which is on another level and is probably the most famous opera festival in the world. The Internationale Maifestspiele would be known by anyone who follows opera seriously in Europe, and would probably be immediately recognizable to most people living in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and parts of France (the German speaking parts along the French/German border). I don't think the average person outside of those countries would find it immediately recognizable, but that shouldn't preclude using it in the hook. Turandot is a very famous opera, and even people only nominally familiar with opera would probably either know the name or recognize some of its music. Most people would know Nessun dorma for example which has played in the soundtracks of many films and tv shows, and has been performed on numerous singing competition programs internationally.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The hook fact is not accurate in either version of the hook. The opera was not played "unfinished" but ends with the death of Liu by design. There's a long discussion with the director at https://www.staatstheater-wiesbaden.de/download/42624/hsw_ph_turandot_rz_digital_240404.pdf about the crafting of a new ending by Kerck. If one reads through the program they make an argument about why the opera should end with Liu's death, and how Kerck utilized notes and sketches by Puccini to rework a new ending that ends in that place. In other words, we shouldn't suggest that the opera just leaves off where Puccini stopped, because that isn't what this production did. Nor should we call it "unfinished" because it was given a re-worked ending designed by Kerck based on notes left by Puccini and incorporating portions of Puccini's 1905 Requiem. I also note that it is called a "new ending" in the Frankfurter Rundschau review that is cited.

I also have an issue with the original hook because it seems to say she was 'directing through scenic design' as opposed to staging the production. She staged it and she designed the sets and that isn't at all clear in the first hook. Lastly, the article currently fails the WP:BLPSOURCES guideline because the biographical content is sourced to an opera company website that employs Kerck. @Gerda Arendt this is a repeating problem. Stop using opera company and orchestra website artist bios to write articles. These are not independent sources, and our policies on BLPs require "high quality" (ie independent) sources. That's not negotiable.

Finally, the last two sentences of the article are very confusing to anybody not familiar with Turandot, and is obviously in error to those who are. The character of the prince (ie Calaf) needs to be explained. Further the text asserts the prince dies and is being conflated with Puccini's death, but Calaf doesn't die in the opera, Liu does. That whole bit seems confusing and to be in error. It doesn't really grasp what the sources are saying accurately. There needs to be plot context, and discussion of the autobiographical nature of Puccini's interaction with the characters from events in his life in order to make it understood what Kerck was actually doing with her original ending which places Liu and her death (not the prince who remains very much alive) at the climax of the opera. @ Narutolovehinata5 If it is alright with you I am going to take over this review because of the factual errors in an area I have some knowledge in. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, thank you for clarifying festival and opera. - The hook: it took you several sentences to describe what she did (direct, design the stage, create a new ending with different music than usually ...), - could you kindly offer a wording in 200 chars, or help with it? I think we will have to mention that Puccini left the opera unfinished when he died in 1924 (the year needed because of the centenary), which leaves little room to say more, - I doubt that it's commonly known. How about saying that the performance leaves out the happy ending that he wasn't able to compose? Trying:

ALT2: ... that Daniela Kerck, scenic designer and stage director of Puccini's Turandot for the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, omitted the happy ending that the composer had not set to music when he died in 1924?

ALT2a: ... that Daniela Kerck, scenic designer and stage director of Turandot at the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, omitted the happy ending that Puccini had not composed when he died in 1924?

Other ideas welcome. - Which "biographical information" do you think is sourced to an opera company? - This is not yet a reply to the last paragraph, - we had an edit conflict, twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict: what I saw on stage was that after Liu's death, the Prince/Puccini moves to the grand piano, Turandot follows, kisses him, and he dies (called "Todeskuss" - kiss of death - in one of the reviews), - the new ending. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt I think the tags I placed are self explanatory as to which sources are promotional non-independent sources. I'll take a look at the plot change leading to Calaf's death by looking through more sources. In reading the one interview with Kerck, she specifically emphasized Liu's death as her focus and pointedly named the Prince as complicit in her death through his silence. Regardless, it would seem killing off the prince at the end rather than having him end happily with Turandot would be a hooky fact. I think the emphasis of the hook should de-emphasize Puccini and focus more on Kerck and her original work. The hook language should not cram too many facts in, but should be a focused sentence on a single fact.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, adding sources, and dropping the details at the end that you found confusing. I added a newspaper ref for the nomination for the Opera Award. Only, it's subscription only, so I left the University ref for the same fact - that people can actually read - also. (I also don't see that what a university reports about an alumna is "promotional.") I need sleep, and tomorrow is a feast day. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gerda, I was able to find more detail in this review which confirms the kiss of death https://magazin.klassik.com/konzerte/reviews.cfm?TASK=review&PID=8178. I would suggest incorporating more detail into Kerck's article highlighting specific changes to the story between her ending and the other traditional endings. A good hook could read something like this: Alt3 ... that Daniela Kerck's new ending to Puccini's Turandot reenvisioned Turandot giving the prince the kiss of death rather than proclaiming her love?4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I'm okay with you taking over the review, but given that Puccini isn't a household name and not everyone may know who he is, I'd suggest that any hook mentioning him give his full name. I'll leave it to another reviewer as to whether or not ALT3 is okay but personally I'm not a fan of it since it assumes knowledge of the opera, which not all readers may have. My preference would be more towards some variation of ALT2's hook fact as it seems less specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 I would consider Puccini a household name and a commonly known figure. He is a seminal composer in the western canon and one of the most performed and recorded composers of all time, on the same level as Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Bach, etc. Indeed, he gets performed more frequently than Wagner, placing third on the list of most performed composers, surpassing both Beethoven and Bach. I disagree that a full name is needed, or that Puccini could be considered in any way an obscure figure. His operas are ubiquitously performed globally and have been for over a century. According to opera base, in the year 2024 alone there are 681 different professional productions of his operas being staged around the world, and that includes companies in Asia, North and South America, Australia, Africa, and Europe. That doesn't include the many orchestras and concerts that are programing his music as well in 2024. There are very few composers so widely performed across the world, and over such a long period of time. I would think most of our readers would know who Puccini is, and if they don't, they would be the exception. His arias even get sung and recorded by pop and rock singers on occasion which is rare for an opera composer. For example "Nessun dorma" from Turandot has been performed by Adam Lambert, Queen, Jennifer Hudson, Jeff Beck, Josh Groban, Manowar, and Michael Bolton among many other non-opera singers.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, thank you for taking the time! I'm off for the day but reading this when just checking the watch list made the day even better. Recommended listening [9], enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerda Arendt unless I am missing something in the above lengthy discussion, you have not provided a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You of all people might have known that after returning from a good weekend trip, I first had to deal with the RD article of the day, and then with sourcing M. H.. I am not done (or am I, please check?), and before supplying a qpq, I'll have to source Kerck to your and 4meter4's liking, or not. What an opera company writes about its member is thought to be "promotional". Interesting. What I see is a list of roles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gerda Arendt. All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid talent agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, it's not a completely publicly funded institution. They sell tickets and market their organization. End of story. The fact that they are writing their own content makes it WP:SELFPUBLISHED in addition to having a financial COI. We shouldn't be using materials like this other than in an external link for ethical reasons.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Richmond Theatre (Richmond, Virginia). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4 and Gerda Arendt: What is the current status of this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The type of sources not accepted by 4meter4 is discussed in the deletion discussion of Magdalena Hinterdobler. I believe we should not run the two parallel but wait for that to close. I also have Pentecost coming up, going to sing, and with little time to provide additional sources. One thing is sure: I'll mostly turn to Bach's cantatas for the rest of the year. No more biographies of living people for a while. Kerck's story, however, is worth telling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let us know when you are ready.4meter4 (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Today is still Pentecost, singing in church, lunch with friends. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Today, I had to work on Requiem (Verdi) (premiere 22 May 1874), but interrupted for Kerck:

  I wrote a bit more about Turandot as an exotic story envisioned by a composer at his grand piano who dies over it. Please check. I still think that the kiss of life is just a small instance within this one piece. A hook should introduce to Kerck in general, I would prefer one that mentions a) that she is both director and scenic designer which is unusual, and b) that the storytelling of Turandot is not just some whimsical idea but is related to Puccini's death in 1924 over this opera. I tried that in ALT2, and miss it in your suggestion. Trying to please:

  ALT3: ... that Daniela Kerck, scenic designer and stage director of Puccini's Turandot at the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, identified the composer with the Prince, who receives a kiss of death from Turandot when the music he was able to write in 1924 ends?

  Wording help welcome, - too long, too complex ...

  Sources: I found a ref for the shortlist. However, I found no ref for some items - masterclasses, thesis - from the Staatstheater website. Are such things "promotional"? How, 4meter4? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  4meter4, I added another interview and several references about performances. There is now no instance where Hessisches Staatstheater is the only reference. Admittedly, the details mentioned above (teachers, masterclasses, thesis) rely on her website, but I see nothing contentious in these bits. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ALT3 cannot be used as it is 252 characters long. I would suggest cutting down all the fat because it is simply too detailed. 4meter4 Do you have a way to shorten it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What in my "too complex, too long, wording help welcome" did you not understand? Could you help perhaps? Brutally short:

  ALT4: ... that Daniela Kerck, scenic designer and stage director of Puccini's Turandot at the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, identified the composer with the Prince?

  But 4meter4 liked the kiss of death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ALT5: ... that when Daniela Kerck directed and designed the scene for Turandot, Puccini's 1924 unfinished opera, for the 2024 International May Festival, she identified the Unknown Prince with the composer?

  ALTs 3 to 5 are material to play with. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Gerda, I don't think the whole identifying the composer with the prince fact is working. It's too esoteric, and requires knowledge of the opera and composer to make it interesting. It's probably best to simplify this for a general audience. Perhaps say ....Alt6 ... that for the 2024 Internationale Maifestspiele, stage director and scenic designer Daniela Kerck crafted a new ending to Puccini's unfinished opera Turandot? This is factually accurate, and doesn't require a working knowledge of the opera to understand it. I struck rejected hooks above. If you like this one Gerda, I'll have to ask someone else to approve it.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like it but I can live with it. I'd prefer mentioning that it was in 1924 that the opera was left unfinished. I thought that the mysterious "Unknown Prince" would raise curiosity, even from someone not particularly interest in opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1924 date requires too much context to fit in with all the other facts, and given the opera premiered in 1926 it would be controversial to simply slap a parenthetical 1924 after Turandot. Since I wrote Alt6, I will have to request a new reviewer.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I'm okay with ALT6, but the article still has the "better source needed" and "promotional source" tags. Those will need to be resolved before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt, that is WP:CANVASSING to ping someone to try and influence a DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]