Template talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and Rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
General discussion
General discussionWT:DYK
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
On the Main Page
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
List of users...
By nominationsWP:DYKNC
By promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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
March 19 1
April 2 1
April 13 1
April 20 1
April 25 1
April 26 1
April 30 1
May 3 1
May 5 3 1
May 6 2
May 7 2 1
May 9 2
May 10 1
May 11 2
May 12 4
May 14 1
May 15 1
May 17 2
May 19 1
May 21 1
May 22 1
May 24 1
May 25 1
May 27 2 1
May 31 1 1
June 1 2
June 3 6 1
June 4 2 1
June 5 3 1
June 6 5 1
June 8 6 3
June 9 4 3
June 10 4 2
June 11 1
June 12 3 2
June 13 4 4
June 14 4 3
June 15 8 4
June 16 6 1
June 17 7 3
June 18 10 6
June 19 5 2
June 20 8 2
June 21 14 4
June 22 7 4
June 23 3 3
June 24 7 5
June 25 8 4
June 26 10 5
June 27 5 3
June 28 6 1
June 29 9 4
June 30 5 3
July 1 6
July 2 6 1
July 3
Total 210 80
Last updated 03:55, 3 July 2022 UTC
Current time is 06:11, 3 July 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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]

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.

Advanced procedures[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.


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]


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]
  • Apologies, this dropped off my watchlist. I'm busy at the moment, not much time for Wiki, so would be good if someone could finish the review. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can try to shepherd this through. The prose is okay- not great, it'll need a bit more work, but the more immediate concern is sourcing. Some sources are good, some are iffy due to their status as primary sourcing, and some just shouldn't be used:
  1. Dane Hillard's "Effective Python Testing With Pytest"
  2. tim's "Assertion rewriting in Pytest part 1: Why it’s needed"
  3. Microsoft's "Unit test basics"
  4. Klein's "Testing with pytest"
  5. Perfecto's "Pytest marks"
These all appear to be secondary, yet non-professional sources ranging from personal blogs to coding lessons to company blogs. I don't think any of those meet DYK's reliable sourcing standards, and material relying on it needs a more well-developed source like a book, magazine, newspaper article, scholarly journal, or otherwise. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you theleekycauldron for taking the time to review. I'll start editing this article in the next few days and probably finish improving the sources by the end of this weekend. Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron:, thank you for your patience. I have now fixed the five problems you pointed out by

  1. Removing all four references to Real Python — since three of which had already been corroborated by Okken's book, I only had to delete one short paragraph of actual content.
  2. Removing Tim's blog and replacing content and sourcing with Oliveira's book.
  3. Removing this crowd-contributed source and replacing it with a new book — Unit Testing Principles, Practices, and Patterns.
  4. Removing source and replacing with Okken's book with specific page references.
  5. Same as No.4

Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks theleekycauldron. I've actually tried to fix the jargon-y issue for several rounds now, and I ended up with the current version. It seems that most programming-related articles do rely on jargons (e.g. Node.js and Python (programming language), which is GA), but with wiki-links to them. So that's what I've been trying to do — adding wiki-links and improving explanations for programming concepts where there aren't wiki-links. Maybe could you be more specific on where exactly you'd like the prose improved? I'll be in a better position to fix it then.
The current hook is paraphrased from Okken's book, which I thought was quite indicative of pytest's popularity. Could you please elaborate on why it's not viable so that I know how I should fix it? Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it sounds like an ad. Promotional and without any real connection to the topic itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: it reads like an ad. I've struck it; a new hook will need to be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that pytest, an open-source software testing project in Python, supports various types of software testing, including unit tests, integration tests, end-to-end tests, and functional tests? While pytest is useful for unit testing, integration testing, system or end-to-end testing, and functional testing, the strategy for testing the Tasks project focuses primarily on subcutaneous functional testingOkken, Brian (September 2017). Python Testing with Pytest (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 9781680502404. Retrieved 19 March 2022. ALT3: ... that pytest is an all-volunteer contributed, open-source software testing tool in Python and has been classified as a key ecosystem project on the PyPI with over 9 million weekly downloads? [1][2] Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna say the same about the original hook- and unfortunately, I think it applies to both of these, as well. It does feel a little promotional. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] You're still writing a hook that reads like you are trying to persuade Python programmers to use pytest. That's what it means to be an ad. Try taking the point of view of an encyclopedia reader who is not a programmer. What about pytest could you write that would intrigue a reader and get them to read an encyclopedia article about pytest, even if they have no intention of becoming a programmer? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, theleekycauldron It's a bit difficult to write a hook that can hook non-programmer's interest into a programming tool — not going into any of pytest's features (e.g. parametrized testing or assert re-writing) due to understandability, while also not including any easy-to-understand facts like download trend or popular usage. I see that prof David Eppstein has had experience writing DYK hooks for technical articles. Perhaps you could help compose this hook?. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, my usual strategy is to only make DYK nominations when I think there is something in an article or hook that would stand out to a general audience. When I have a chance to nominate an article, but it is more purely of technical interest, I skip it. Not everything needs to go to DYK. I tried reading through the article a couple of times but nothing stood out to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 or ALT4 are hooked and quoted. Long enough, (posted) new enough, DYKCheck all green, no copyvio. All of the issues raised above have been addressed long ago. Neither the hook nor the article strike me as promotional in their current form. This was posted two months ago and now the hangup is "not everything needs to go to DYK"?! Enough already, this is good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than that. The hooks are not interesting to a broad audience. Maybe theleekycauldron or a different prep builder will promote one of those hooks, but I'm against it. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I think ALT4 is perfectly interesting to the average reader. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change "bug-free" to "limit bugs" or some synonym of that? It would suggest that bugs are still possible, just that efforts are being made to eliminate them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, our article itself is almost bug-free: its only use of the word "bug" in the whole article involves pypy but not pytest. In fact, it says little or nothing about why you might want to test your software. That is going to make it difficult to write any hook involving bugs. I don't see how the previous hook could have been approved without anything about "bug-free" software appearing in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein This is the third instance of this reviewer approving a hook that isn't in the article. SL93 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on pytest § Assert rewriting, something that differentiates pytest from other testing frameworks such as unittest. I tried to write this at a level readable to a general audience; not sure if I succeeded. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, that hook is way too technical for a general audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "pytest". pytest.org. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  2. ^ "Python Package Health Analysis". snyk.io. Retrieved 15 June 2022.

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 [1],[2],[3](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]

Symbol delete vote.svg Buidhe, Kingsif, I am suspending this nomination because of active NPOV challenges (whose merits I do not assess but there is a banner and several largely unresolved talk page discussions) and a merge request which may substantially impact the quality and depth of coverage of this article. When these are resolved in either way, you may resume. (You may request third-party input for the talk discussions so that the NPOV concerns are settled for good). I also ask to start working on it because it's been hanging in the air for quite some time, and we have a backlog here. PS. I will close the talk page RfC and will look into closing other discussions if I think I will be accurate in doing so. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The "X" icon means that the nomination is to be closed as unsuccessful; suspending requires something else entirely, such as what I've used here. In any event, with the extant tags on the Historiography and Criticism sections, the article cannot be approved in its current state. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset The tags were added back still without any consensus that they belong there. How can some editors who don't like it just block a DYK and keep cleanup tags on an article when they cannot get consensus for any of their changes? (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's worth anything, I think the article is accurate and, while I would like it to be broader, I would not have personally added orange tags. I don't have much time at the moment for Wikipedia, unfortunately, so I can't offer much more input or try to help work on the article. But if someone wanted to review it, as it is, and they approved it, I would not personally have objections to the approval. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Frequency modulation encoding

  • ... that early floppy disks used FM encoding that used only half the available storage? Source: Wakeman pg 1
    • Comment: I added this with the DYK tool when I uploaded, but it seems it never got posted to the DYK nom page. Trying again...

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@David Eppstein: FM is a specific implementation of DME in the same fashion that MFM is a different specific implementation of DME. FM referrs to both the encoding of the individual data bits as well as the disk format and the header timing signals. I believe this is well explained in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence of the article says that it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10, and mentions its usage in multiple applications. If it is intended to be only about the way floppy disks were formatted using this code, and not about the code itself, I think it needs significant rewriting to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: The lead sentence of the article is "Frequency Modulation encoding, or simply FM, is a simple type of run length limited code that saw widespread use in early floppy disk drives and hard disk drives." I see nothing like "it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10" and I think it clearly indicates the field is disk storage. I have added a link to DME in the appropriate location and I assume from the wording of your reply that the merge tag can now be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"is a simple type of run length limited code". That describes it as a code. It is the same code as the one described in differential Manchester encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"That describes it as a code" ... in a specific setting. I have added words to this effect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the same code, used for the same basic purpose (maintaining synch). How is it notable for two articles rather than just one? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I am now stating for the third time, this article is not about the code, it is about the entire system of which DFE is used for one part. I have made several changes to the text to make this distinction clear and you haven't commented on any of them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're repeating stuff we've already said, maybe I should repeat that the first sentence of Frequency modulation encoding states that FM encoding "is a type of run length limited code". If you don't want to think the article is about a type of code, maybe you shouldn't say in the first sentence that it is about a type of code? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, suggest alternative phrasing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a preliminary NPP review and have similar concerns plus others. I'm posting separately at that page. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The wording has been changed multiple times to address David's concern and I have changed it yet again in an effort to avoid the issue, hopefully successfully. North8000's concerns have been addressed on the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 20[edit]

Josh Hudson

Converted from a redirect by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg for alt0, Symbol confirmed.svg for alt1. Article was nominated within seven days, significantly exceeds the 1500-character minimum, and is policy compliant. Hook checks out (alt0 is based on an offline source). QPQ was done. No image submitted (only images in article are fair use). No other issues detected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • shame about Claudia Blaise :( Symbol possible vote.svg also, Metro is a deprecated source per WP:RSP—I'm quite uncomfortable with how much of the article is sourced to Metro, and don't think this should be promoted just yet. @Soaper1234: can the Metro sources be replaced? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the consensus was that Metro was to be avoided, and I've taken every available opportunity to replace it where possible. However, the Metro has great soaps coverage and this area of the publication is very well-regarded. I do hope this won't be an issue regarding this DYK promotion. Soaper1234 - talk 23:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron and Soaper1234: For what it's worth, WP:RSP has this to say about Metro: Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. If the coverage was also mentioned in print, maybe they could be used? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I don't believe it is covered in print, no. Soaper1234 - talk 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said at the RSN discussion that it probably shouldn't be used for facts – can the factual citations be switched out, then? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: If the sources can't be replaced and if you aren't able to respond to the concerns soon, the nomination may end up being failed for staleness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately Soaper hasn't been very active lately and hasn't edited the article since April despite concerns about sourcing. As such it doesn't seem like the article will be ready for DYK anytime soon. I do hope that someone could adopt the nomination in his place as the sourcing issues do seem surmountable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

John D'Orazio

5x expanded by Steelkamp (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Steelkamp: Is this ready for a new review? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Steelkamp (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Yi Jeonggyu

Created by Jirangmoon (talk). Self-nominated at 10:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not particularly interesting or notable.
  • Other problems: Red XN - The hook is also not grammatically correct and should replace the comma with "was".
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg The article needs some work and a new hook. SounderBruce 22:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I fixed the grammatical error in the hook and in the article (using Grammarly). As for neutrality and the hook, I don't see any problems - aren't those subjective assessments? If you tell me what is non-neutral, I'll take another look. As for interesting or not, I think this hook is interesting. Do we need a third opinion? --Jirangmoon (talk)
Third opinion: Yeah, I don't think it's a particularly interesting hook either. It's also not particularly notable by itself, given that the crossover between Korean anarchism and nationalism are very well documented. On this issue, Yi Jeonggyu was far from unique. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alts based on items sourced in the lede but they need page numbers for verification. czar 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Thank you very much! For Alt1, the page number is 12 : "Undoubtedly, the goal of Korean independence movement was to regain independence from Japanese colonialism, to which Yi had devoted himself with anarchism."
For Alt2, the page number is 25 : "Yi Jeonggyu (1897–1984), one of the most active Korean anarchists in 1920s China, just like other Korean exiles, began his career as an independence activist and converted later to anarchism." --Jirangmoon (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Jirangmoon! Those sources do not quite confirm the language used in the alts and the article, if you can rephrase both to match their sources? I.e., they do not say he was a "pioneer" or "key", unless there is another section that says so. czar 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Thank you. Can you review the following quote which contains the word pioneer? It's from page 11.

Echoes to Sim’s description of his complex life as both an anarchist and a nationalist can be found in Yi Jeonggyu’s recall. Yi, a prominent anarchist active in various educational and rural movements before and after 1945, too poses his life as one with such a tension but, in his case, shifting further toward anarchism that offered him a vision of social revolution, rather than simply a nationalism-driven political revolution that aimed merely at national independence. Yi explains the shift that occurred in his life as follows: The first half of my life had gone through a life for struggle for independence movement, and [then in the second half] turned for a movement for social revolution of an ideological idea [sic] that has been viewed in this world, without any good reason, as too extreme. [The second half has been] a life as one of the pioneers, who has been indulged in anarchism, that is, no-government movement.

Will this be ok for ALT2? --Jirangmoon (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jirangmoon, it looks like that quotes Yi as saying that he himself is a pioneer. Since that is an exceptional claim, it requires an exceptional, secondary source. We could say "Yi thought of himself as a pioneer" for ALT2. I've updated both ALTs to match the source but the article text will need to be corrected for both as well. czar 13:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar Sorry for a late reply.
Regarding the ALT2 matter, I am a bit confused in editing things on Wikipedia as a Wiki beginner. I do not remember why I wrote the sentence with the word, “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu because I started the article more than 6 months ago. Anyhow, I have tried not to move or copy source sentences to the Wikipedia articles as they are except for quotations. In that process, even though the source articles does not have the word “pioneer” for Yi Jeonggyu, I thought that Yi Jeonggyu could be one of the pioneers of Korean anarchist movement because Yi Jeonggyu influenced Yi Hoeyeong who was called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” in the source. So if someone was doing something before the “pioneer”, isn’t he even more of a pioneer?
See the quotations below:
Page 23: In addition, Shin’s friendship with Yi Hoeyeong (1867–1932), often called “the pioneer of Korean anarchism,” must have been a factor as well for his acceptance of anarchism.
Page 27-28: It seems that Yi Hoeyeong surely was impressed with Yi Jeonggyu’s project and anarchist ideas with regard to the proposed ideal farming villages in Hunan. Indeed, it is said that Yi Jeonggyu’s role was decisive in converting Yi Hoeyeong, who was persuaded by the former about the goal of anarchism and thus accepted it in later 1923.38 Discussing with many kinds of independence activists and radicals, including Chinese and Taiwanese, Yi Hoeyeong finally chose anarchism for his own answer. The national goal, of course, was the key that drew him to anarchism.
Page 28: In this sense, to call Yi Hoeyeong “the pioneer of Korean anarchism” is an interesting indication of the coming trajectory and transnational character of Korean anarchism in China in the 1930s and ’40s.
Also, from a Korean article at http://m.kyeongin.com/view.php?key=20190501010000158: “우당 이회영을 아나키즘 사상가로 인도한 이가 바로 이정규다 “ It was Yi Jeonggyu who led Yi Hoeyeong to become an anarchist.
--Jirangmoon (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I've updated ALT2. @SounderBruce, want to take another peek? czar 01:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed czar 21:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg I made some additional minor copyedits, with no change to content. As with the original review, the article is new enough, long enough, no copyvio and no QPQ needed. I did not see anything I would consider strongly NPOV. ALT2 seems very strong and is well supported per the discussion above. GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg I reopened this and I'm marking the nomination for closure. There are substantial copyright violations in the article and this nomination has been around since April. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing is under discussion on the article's talk page. Let's give the editor a chance to correct their edits, as they're new and might be hearing about this copyright issue for the first time. Giving this another week sounds like a reasonable window, considering the work they've put into this. czar 18:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg Ok. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg It's been almost a week and the nominator hasn't edited since June 10. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 30[edit]

William George Carlile Kent

Commander Kent
Commander Kent

Created by Knightmare 3112 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - explained below
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The article is lacking inline citations with the entirety of the "Later life" section uncited. I am not sure the hook reflects what is said in the source. The source says Bligh later said at trial that Kent 'should have blown down the town of Sydney about the ears of the Inhabitants' and that Kent was tried for "various actions contrary to or without Bligh's orders". To say that he was arrested for failing to blow up Sydney seems like a big jump from this. QPQ not done but I am not sure if this editor is under the 5 DYK credits to get away with this. The article is also in need of a good copy edit including tidying commas and tenses although this is not part of the DYK criteria. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir.copic added inline citations to the uncited sections. What you recommend would be a better hook? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be big uncited sections in the text including an entire paragraph at the beginning of the "New South Wales" section. In terms of the hook, I just think that Kent was arrested, for failing to follow Bligh's order to "blow down the town of Sydney about the ears of the inhabitants" is not a true statement or at least is not reflected in the source. I suppose a more accurate hook would be something like:
ALT1 ... that New South Wales Governor William Bligh condemned William George Carlile Kent (pictured) for failing to destroy Sydney?
I might let another reviewer take a run at this as at the moment I don't think my concerns with the article have been alleviated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic all paragraphs have citations, as long as you've no more concerns can this be approved with ALT1

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested for ALT1. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, driving by. I think ALT1 has some issues that make it a poor hook. It centers on the names of two men that most people unfamiliar with Australian history are unlikely to know the names of. I think the interesting part about the hook is that the subject cared so much about doing the right thing that instead of destroying Sydney as ordered, he worked to restore order, even to the point of getting arrested. So I would suggest something like this:

ALT1.5 ... that William George Carlile Kent was arrested for restoring government relationships in postcoup Sydney, Australia, because he didn't follow his boss's orders to destroy the town?

I'm not allowed to approve my own hook, so if something like that looks good to you, you can propose it and request another reviewer. Ruthgrace (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - explained above
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Looks like the issue with the citations pointed out by the previous reviewer have been fixed. Please mention a specific article for the QPQ requirement if you've fulfilled that. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of reviewing the article and nomination and while Ruthgrace beat me to replying, I generally agree with their assessment (however I would note that Knightmare 3112 only appears to have two prior DYKs and would thus be exempt from QPQ). In an effort to address the concerns about the hook I have also drafted the below ALT2 (please feel free to wordsmith/rework to improve if helpful). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 ... that at William George Carlile Kent's (pictured) court-martial for disobeying deposed New South Wales Governor William Bligh's orders, Bligh stated Kent should have destroyed Sydney to restore his government?

Articles created/expanded on May 3[edit]

Serenidus of Saulges, Oratory of Saint Cénéré, Saint Serenicus

Serenidus and his spring in the Oratory of Saint Cénéré
Serenidus and his spring in the Oratory of Saint Cénéré

Created by Evrik (talk) and Rei Momo (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • On it.

    Wow, that was the easiest review ever. @Evrik: you forgot to source the one thing you find most interesting about the article. Since it's also the most scurrilous part, it would need the cite even if you come up with other ALTs. — LlywelynII 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of all three nominated articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 5[edit]

Mark Lettieri

Created by Bammesk (talk). Nominated by Bammesk (talk) at 01:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - This hook is not interesting at all.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I'm accepting of the explanation regarding the newness of the article. I think the sourcing could probably be improved as things like the podcasts are not especially reliable. The article also needs a good copy edit. The biggest issue however is that the hook is not remotely interesting. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vladimir.copic: About the hook, I agree. I struggled with the hook. I am open to your suggestions or alternative hook proposals. How about something that says he graduated with a degree in marketing but then decided to become a pro musician (an unrelated field)? About the use of podcasts and better sources: He doesn't have many print sources, and in the ones he does have the coverage isn't diverse. He is primarily notable for his solo Grammy nomination and the Billboard charting of his solo albums, and not so much for coverage in multiple sources. I took what I could from print sources, and then used the podcasts to fill in the gaps and some of the details. The two podcasts are direct interviews with him, and the info taken from (i.e. sourced to) the two podcasts are non-controversial facts about his life, not promotional tidbits. I can include the exact timestamp(s) of each podcast citation (minute:seconds) in the citation templates. That will help any reader (and you) to verify the sourced content. Would that work? (On a sidenote: ref. 8 is Part 2, a continuation of ref. 4) About the article needing a good copy edit: please elaborate?, and/or feel free to copy edit as you see fit. Thanks for the feedback. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an alternate hook, feel free to modify it and/or propose other hooks, I am open to any hook. Bammesk (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ... that Mark Lettieri graduated with a degree in marketing and then decided to pursue music professionally? Sources: "He (...) attend Texas Christian University, where he studied advertising and public relations. After graduating, he began taking part in the gospel and R&B scene of the Dallas-Fort Worth area." Source Link 1 "At Texas Christian University, he chose not to be a music major, but rather to head into the family business of public relations and advertising. 'The music thing (…) was a hobby that I was really passionate about, but the idea of doing it as a career wasn't my focus.' After college, PR and advertising jobs were scarce, so Lettieri joined up with a locally based touring country band." Source Link 2
ALT3 ... that jazz fusion and funk musician Mark Lettieri graduated with a degree in marketing?
Would this work as a possible ALT? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the podcast timestamps. I am Ok with any ALT. Also, I introduced the ALT4 below. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 ... that guitarist Mark Lettieri is a member of three different bands? Sources: "Mark Lettieri is a (…) member of projects including Snarky Puppy and (…) the Fearless Flyers" Source Link 1, "and fronting his own trio" Source Link 2
What about this one:
ALT5 ... that Mark Lettieri has collaborated with both David Crosby and Dave Chapelle? Source: Roberts, Samuel (22 May 2019). "Snarky Puppy's Mark Lettieri is making instrumental guitar cool again". Guitar.com. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
It's a bit more fun and doesn't give you what you expect. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic, I think ALT5 is great. I am fine with it. I had a hard time coming up with anything interesting. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT5, and whether the article still needs a copyedit. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I'm kinda mixed on ALT5. I think it's a good hook if you're familiar with the names or are well-versed in music, but it's less meaningful to those unfamiliar with either Crosby and Chapelle. I would have gone with either ALT2 or ALT3 instead, but as I proposed ALT3 and added new hook content I'm not allowed to approve ALT3 anyway. As for the article itself, it's mostly fine, but the "Equipment" section reads weirdly. It has words such as "Guitars:" (in italics), and I don't think such wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I rewrote the "Equipment" section [4]. I think ALT3, ALT4 and ALT5 are all viable options (maybe even ALT2, although I prefer ALT3 over ALT2). In general I am open to the wording of hooks, because it's hard to weigh the interest of main-page readers, they are a diverse group. Bammesk (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: how about an ALT6 similar to ALT5 but with the word "musician" added in front of "David Crosby" and the word "comedian" added in front of "Dave Chapelle", would that work? How about deleting the word "both" as well? Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who isn't that in the know regarding comedians and only heard of Chapelle recently (mainly because the internet was talking about him), I think your proposed ALT6 is better, albeit it still doesn't really solve the "who are these people?" issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: how about ALT4? Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a decent hook, but I'm hesitant to approve it because I already proposed a hook above and ideally I'd want a third party to choose between my hook or ALT4. I do suggest dropping ALT5/ALT6 however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT3 and ALT4. (For sourcing of ALT3 see the small print right above ALT3, or see the article itself.) Per comments above, all other hooks are withdrawn at this time. Many thanks to all participants. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT7 ... that PRS Guitars worked with Mark Lettieri to create a signature Fiore guitar that offers a versatile tonal canvas? Source: "guitarist Mark Lettieri has partnered with PRS to create a tonally sophisticated signature electric guitar ... The Fiore – Italian for "flower" ... An important part of the design brief was the desire to build a dynamic, versatile guitar that gave guitarists a tonal canvas to explore." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fan of ALT7, it sounds too technical and might only really appeal to guitar enthusiasts as opposed to general audiences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like ALT7. It's about a product. It sounds promotional and IMO it is promotional. When the source says: "an important part of the design brief was the desire to build a dynamic, versatile guitar that gave guitarists a tonal canvas to explore", the source is echoing the guitar manufacturer's design objectives, because that's what a "design brief" is. The source isn't echoing the words of an independent reviewer or expert. Also, the words "versatility" and "tonal canvas" appear in the guitar manufacturer's promotional webpage Here. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC) . . . . I removed the (recently added) wording associated with ALT7 in the article, Diff. I struck ALT7. Bammesk (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Muir (doctor)

  • ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Indian cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Source: Macpherson, Hamish (11 January 2021), "Dr Isabel Kerr", The National, High Wycombe: Newsquest Media Group. "A fellow Scot, Dr Ernest Muir, was researching the use of the oil of the chaulmoogra tree to treat leprosy... [Kerr's] writings on the treatment impressed Muir and Rogers and soon chaulmoogra oil was a standard treatment for leprosy across India and beyond."
    • ALT1: ... that the Scottish missionary leprologist Ernest Muir worked in the Ottoman Empire, British India, and Trinidad and served as secretary of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association, now LEPRA? Source: Browne, Stanley George (1974), "Ernest Muir, C.M.G., C.I.E., M.D. (Edin.), F.R.C.S., LL.D. 1880–1974" (PDF), International Journal of Leprosy, Bauru: International Leprosy Association, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 457–458. "Dr Ernest Muir", History of Leprosy: Database, Tokyo: Sasakawa Memorial Health Foundation, 2022.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Omnia sunt communia
    • Comment: Kindly don't add extraneous links to the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg As I usually do, I have made a minor copyedit to the article. I have also removed the links in the article to various years - see WP:YEARLINK. This is a dry article about a dry subject. I prefer the first of the hooks, because it is less dry than the second one. However, it's not clear to me whether chaulmoogra oil really is a "traditional Indian cure" as claimed in the first hook. Neither the article nor the quoted passage in the hook reference actually says so. Additionally, and notwithstanding the apparent views of the nominator, I think the first hook should also be linked to chaulmoogra oil and leprosy. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahnfrend: Thank you for your work! but it's unclear if you're holding up the nomination over the desire to include links in the hooks (no don't & that has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval) or you didn't click the link in the article to chaulmoogra oil (do and cf. WP:BLUE regarding considering herbal cures traditional) or for something else from the comment you left. All copy edits undone, since the grammar 'correction' was mistaken and WP:YEARLINK allows that readers might need to know more about the context of events.

Edit: Judging the real problem from the template to be a citation issue, added "...the traditional Ayurvedic treatment[4]..." to the running text and a link to Parascandola's article, the relevant part of which runs "Whatever we think of this mythical explanation of the origin of the drug, it appears clear that Chaulmoogra oil has a long history in Asia. The oil was long used in traditional Ayurvedic medicine in India for the treatment of leprosy and various skin conditions. It seems to also have been used for the treatment of leprosy in other Asian countries such as China and Burma.6". Ayurvedic is the article and name for traditional Indian medicine so hopefully that can be left as is. In the alternative if it isn't,
ALT2: ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Ayurvedic cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? Cite in the paragraph above.
although that's obviously less clear. Again, no needless links to nonpromoted articles. The point is to increase exposure to the articles worked on, not completely unrelated ones. Interested readers can click through. Thanks again for your time on such a dry article on such a dry topic, all the same! — LlywelynII 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] As my edits have been inappropriately reverted, I am not willing to approve this nomination. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Bahnfrend: (a) That's certainly your prerogative but (b) while your attention is appreciated the edits were indeed wrong (or unnecessary) as noted and (c) this is the icon to use to request a new reviewer, when there actually isn't a reason to declare an article ineligible. In the future, if you don't like an article's topic, you can always look at any of the hundred or so other ones and try to be clearer in your comments and own reasoning as to what's actually necessary under the rules versus things you'd personally like to see. Thanks again for your time, all the same! — LlywelynII 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other reviewers: I know long notes are offputting, but Bahnfrend has already shown the article is within policy aside from wanting more direct sourcing for the specific wording, which has been provided. The argument above is only over unhappiness on unrelated topics. — LlywelynII 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Saying that a disagreement over the hook - whether to link articles that people aren't likely to understand on their own - is expressing "unhappiness on unrelated topics" or "has nothing to do with DYK nomination approval" is strange. I would review this, but since I think that the article has basic readability problems and that the hook should link to these terms, I expect I'd be treated with this weird aggressive behavior (compare). Urve (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Urve: You're entitled to your opinion but, no, links in hooks have nothing whatsoever to do with their eligibility. That said, if there really are readability issues or even some particular passages you could point to that should be rewritten for better clarity, I'm all ears. The whole point of this is to drive attention to new articles and improve them. — LlywelynII 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: There's been no movement here for three weeks. Question: do you want to continue this DYK or close it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LlywelynII hasn't edited since June 13th. I've left them a message on their talk page but if they don't return within a week or so it may be time to close this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have done considerable work on the article, including adding a second source that clearly discusses the traditional use of ch. oil, and citing some text that wasn't fully cited before. I've also added an image of someone with Hansen's disease, if there's any interest in accompanying this with an image. Please re-review. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 6[edit]

Yosef Shenberger

Created by Havradim (talk). Self-nominated at 22:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Apologies for unlearned contribution (I've very little DYK experience) the first option doesn't work, as synagogues don't belong to architects ("his") and more fundamentally the proposed hook suggests that until he came along synagogues didn't have stained glass windows, when the idea has been around for centuries. The alt hook doesn't seem very interesting to me - a bridge instead of a ramp? Meh. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this comment Dweller. All I found regarding the Hurva so far is this quote: Today, a 16-meter-high stone arch erected by two architects in 1978 spans the space where the Hurva once stood, serving, together with the in situ remains and explanatory plaques, as a stark reminder of what was destroyed. [5] The "two architects" likely being a reference to the partners Shenberger and Katz (the former died in 1982 and the latter in 2016). While it is clear this reference cannot be used as a source, my research tools are currently limited, although I might be able to improve them soon. In regards to ALT0, the language I chose was due to brevity. Also, the article makes clear that while stained glass might not be a new idea, Shenberger encountered some opposition to the idea of including decorative elements in synagogues, due to some conservative leaders (rabbis?) believing they were a distraction to prayer. Please review the revised hook below; and because you said you are relatively unfamiliar with DYK, I am providing a link to the DYK reviewing guide for your convenience.
  • ALT0a ... that architect Yosef Shenberger overcame opposition to adding stained glass and other decorative elements to synagogues through his study of ancient ruins? Havradim leaf a message 00:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Thomas de Vogel

New Candi in 1917
New Candi in 1917
W. Th. de Vogel in 1921
W. Th. de Vogel in 1921
  • ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel put his money where his mouth was and bought land for Dutch Semarang to improve living conditions for its poor, only to see the city use the area for luxury villas instead?
  • Snijders, Emilius Paulus (10 March 1953), "Hoofdartikelen: Dr. W. Th. de Vogel 90 Jaar Terugblik op een Rijk Leven", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 715. "heuvelland te zoeken, waar de gezondheidstoestand veel beter bleek te zijn. Hoe logisch en vanzelfsprekend het nu lijkt, DE VOGEL heeft jarenlang met taaie volharding moeten strijden om deze eenvoudige inzichten tot gemeengoed te maken. Gesteund un voorgelicht door zijn vriend SOENARIO, later door TILLEMA en WESTERVELD, zette hij door, en risqueerde zelfs geheel belangeloos eigen kapitaal, door ten behoeve der gemeent, die nog weifelde, de vookeursrechten op de onbebouwde grond in deze heuvels van de bevolking te kopen, ten einde grondspeculatie te voorkomen. Hij legde de toegang tot Nieuw Tjandi open; de "de Vogelweg" symboliseert dit op zinvolle wijze."
  • Van Roosmalen, Pauline Katherina Maria (2017), "Modern Indisch Town Planning", The Life and Work of Thomas Karsten, Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, pp. 270–274. "Together with his Semarang council colleague, the medical practitioner Willem Thomas de Vogel (1863-1955), Tillema had appealed to the municipality to develop the hills south of the city for the indigenous inhabitants of Semarang... The plan never passed its preliminary stage. Although the Semarang municipality had already purchased the land, it did not perceive the hills as a suitable residential location. De Bazel's plan and, consequently, Tillema and De Vogel's ambition to develop the area, thus remained in limbo... Karsten revised the plan in 1919, in collaboration with Semarang's new Director of Municipal Housing Service, Johannes Jacobus Gerardus Everwijn Riickert. The outcome was a plan reminiscent of contemporary European town plans... Karsten's final plan incorporated the hill site south of Semarang. While earlier allocated for a new kampong, it was now allotted to an upscale and exclusive residential area."
    • ALT1: ... that the founder of Indonesia's public health service, Willem Thomas de Vogel, was only able to finish med school thanks to his brother-in-law and cousin Dr. Einthoven, the father of electrocardiography? Source: Snellen, Hermann Adrianus (1995), Willem Einthoven (1860–1927) Father of Electrocardiography, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 22 & 70.
    • ALT2: ... that, when Willem Thomas de Vogel began sailing, his family forced him to take up the more respectable career of managing a cinchona plantation instead? Source: Snijders, Emilius Paulus (10 March 1953), "Hoofdartikelen: Dr. W. Th. de Vogel 90 Jaar Terugblik op een Rijk Leven", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 97, no. 12, p. 714.
    • ALT3: ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel blocked any official use of traditional Indonesian medicine after he saw how poorly it handled the 1908 cholera outbreak? Source: Murakami, Saki (2015), "Call for Doctors! Uneven Medical Provision and the Modernization of State Health Care during the Decolonization of Indonesia, 1930s–1950s", Cars, Conduits, and Kampongs: The Modernization of the Indonesian City, 1920–1960, Leiden: Brill, p. 34.
    • ALT4: ... that the founder of Indonesia's public health service, Willem Thomas de Vogel, fought against providing actual health care, preferring to work on improving sanitation and hygiene instead? Source: Winckel, Charles Willem Frederik (19 March 1955), "Personalia: In Memoriam Dr. W. Th. de Vogel", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 99, no. 12, p. 899.
    • ALT5: ... that Willem Thomas de Vogel spent his life fighting malaria, cholera, and bubonic plague in the Dutch East Indies but lived to the age of 92? Source: Eh... See the article xD
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Kindly avoid adding extraneous links to the hooks. — LlywelynII 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg @LlywelynII: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. AGF on the Dutch hooks and offline, with ALT3 checking out. ALT1 is too long (201 characters). No textual issues.
  • Can Find a Grave be replaced in re: source for burial location?
  • I really think Semarang, Willem Einthoven, and cinchona should be linked — I know I needed that context.
  • I'd change "the" to "a" before "1908" in ALT3, in part because we don't have an article about this outbreak.
  • Preference for hooks in order: ALT0, 4, 3, 2, 5
Once the Find a Grave source is replaced, I will approve. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: ? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 7[edit]

Empirical limits in science

  • ... that scientists don't all agree on the gene concept and this is one of the empirical limits in science? Source: Arabatzis, Theodore (2019-06-11), "What Are Scientific Concepts?", What Is Scientific Knowledge?, Routledge, pp. 85–99, doi:10.4324/9780203703809-6, ISBN 978-0-203-70380-9, S2CID 197990250, retrieved 2022-04-30

5x expanded by Airstarfish (talk). Self-nominated at 11:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @Airstarfish: The 5x expansion occurred in mainspace over the course of around 2–3 weeks. According the the letter of the rules, this would be permissible had the expansion occurred in a draft or sandbox. Since this is a student I'm going to count this as a technicality and say it follows the spirit of being new and long enough. It is within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, and a QPQ review is not needed for a new user.
The hook uses vague language and needs to be reworked or replaced: "scientists don't all agree on the gene concept" doesn't capture the article's discussion of the genotype/phenotype distinction. I'd also double-check that paragraph against the source (which I don't have access to at the moment); my instinct is that evolutionary biologists would emphasize phenotype while molecular biologists would emphasize genotype, which is the reverse of what the article says. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) would it be better if it read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene and this is one of the empirical limits in science?" as this is more consistent with the main point and wording in that section of the article. Also the article has the same order as written in the source in the genotype/phenotype discussion. I've found and cited an additional source [1], which is more explicit (and should preferably be used instead for the DYK nomination), in which the Author of the source also suspected it would be the other way around but upon investigation found it to be the way that it is written in the article. Airstarfish (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): alternatively to be even more specific it could read "... that scientists differ in their conceptualisation of the gene whereby some scientists think of the gene at a cellular level while others think in terms of its apparent effect and this is one of the empirical limits in science?", but this hook might be giving too much away Airstarfish (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): The nominator hasn't edited since late May. Have your issues been addressed yet or do they still remain? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: The nominator responded on the article talk page instead of here; I just moved their response above. @Airstarfish: Does the source explicitly say that this difference in conceptualization is an empirical limit of science? Conceptualization would seem to me to be a theoretical rather than empirical limit. It would be easier if I could see the source myself, but I don't have access to it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator hasn't edited since May and the issues raised above remain unaddressed. Unless another editor adopts this I don't see a path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just needs a different hook. I can take a look and suggest one over the weekend. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be willing to adopt the nomination and propose a new hook? We'll probably need a new reviewer at that point, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg What about this? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Stotz, Karola; Griffiths, Paul E.; Knight, Rob (2004). "How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 35 (4): 647–673. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.09.005

Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

Tenta, Cyprus

View of Tenta
View of Tenta
  • ... that Tenta (pictured) is an archaeological settlement in Cyprus? Source: Todd, Ian (1978). "Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta, Cyprus". Archaeology. 31(4): 58–59 – via JSTOR

Created by Cstylus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Cstylus: The hook isn’t interesting I think. What about...
    • ALT1: ... that Tenta's architectural remains, artefacts, human burials, flora and fauna have been “virtually unchanged for two millennia"?
    • ALT2: ... that Tenta's excavations suggests that there was considerable continuity in social organisation as well as technological and economic practices for two millennia?

Check these two hook and let me know if one of two works. Mehedi Abedin 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg I took a quick look at the article and there are a few issues. Firstly, the article was created way back in 2008, so it is not eligible as a new article. On the other hand, the article did receive a 5x expansion starting on May 9th. The article was nominated on May 17th, which is just a day late; however, as the nominator is a new student editor, that one-day lateness may be forgiven. Finally, the article has a "citation needed" tag that needs fixing. I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and most of the sources (including those for the hooks) are cited to sources I can't access so AGF. I think ALT1 is the best option here. This article is somewhat outside my expertise so I'd like a second opinion from a subject expert as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1982 World's Fair

Fairgoers walking at the base of the Sunsphere, June 3, 1982
Fairgoers walking at the base of the Sunsphere, June 3, 1982

5x expanded by AppalachianCentrist (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg I suppose this is your first DYK entry, AppalachianCentrist. Welcome to DYK. I hope you enjoy it here. Unfortunately, the article that you put forward does not meet the DYK criteria. Please have a close look at the WP:DYKRULES. Under the eligibility criteria, you fall short of 1b and 2b. The former because your expansion started on 13 April, i.e. way outside the 7-day requirement. The latter because the expansion is just under a factor of two and not anywhere near the required factor of five. Under rule 2, you can also find links that work out article prose size for you. I hope this isn't too off-putting and we hope to see you nominate your next article soon. Maybe write a new one? Pro-tip: write articles (or expansions) in user space and once it's done, then publish it and nominate at DYK at the same time. That way you never get in trouble with the "new" requirement. Schwede66 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Schwede66: it does seem a little funky that we incentivize users to develop positive changes out of articlespace so that it can be done in less than a week... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 18:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Symbol question.svg: And I would say we should put this nomination on hold. The article was nominated for GAN minutes before making the DYK nomination. If GAN passes, it would be eligible. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine by me but I note that it was nominated as 5-times expanded, not GAN. Schwede66 10:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Given that it's been a month without any progress on the GAN front (the article hasn't even been reviewed yet), the article can't be passed because it didn't meet expansion requirements. There is no prejudice against renominating for DYK if/when the GAN passes and I highly suggest to AppalachianCentrist to try again when that time comes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol question.svg The GA review was opened on June 16. Let's hold off to see what kind of progress is made. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The GA review passed so this is ready for a new review. For DYK purposes this is now treated as a recently promoted GA rather than a 5x expansion, so if there are no remaining issues this should probably be ready. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that a complete DYK review needs to be done, since a full review was not done previously. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg I just love these World's Fair's. I have written articles about people who had their careers started because of participation in expositions like this. This fair is particularly interesting because of the technologies which were unveiled. All in all, a very informative history of the event. I prefer ALT1 as it is interesting to me, and I have added a reference for that hook in the nomination. The citations are inline and spot checking reveals that they are correct with the exceptions noted below. No QPQ is needed. From some cursory research it appears that the Sunsphere was copyrighted in 1982 but not renewed. There are many photos of it on commons, and I was curious to know if it is art or a building? Apparently it is a building because a restaurant is in there. We have FOP for buildings in the United States.
Some items to fix
  1. One line in the intro are not supported in the body with references: It was the second World's Fair to be held in the state of Tennessee, with the first being the Tennessee Centennial Exposition of 1897, held in the state's capital, Nashville..
  2. The term the edutainment-applied specialized exposition is used in the intro but not referenced in the body.
  3. I think we have to use a different term than this colloquial term "chipping in" in this line Most of the KIEE's financial support came from the United States federal government, chipping in an estimated $44 million..
  4. I think this conversion needs to be referenced A six-month pass to the fair sold for $100 (equivalent to $281 in 2021)..
  5. The reference that follows this line does not support the sentence Panama never occupied its pavilion space, which was eventually occupied by a group of Caribbean island nations as Panama built another exhibit space than the one provided
Great article and hook, I think our readers will love it! Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed and expanded the Panama section with more info on their no-show and also added an inflation citation. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Mike Chen

  • ... that food YouTuber Mike Chen also runs a YouTube channel documenting strange phenomena? Source: CNBC (article): "Chen, who started making YouTube food videos six years ago, actually runs six different YouTube channels, with more than 5 million followers overall, including “Beyond Science,” where he explores “food, news, Chinese culture and mysterious phenomenons.”"

Created by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg My first impression is that this article seems kind of "peacocky" or promotionally toned. The cites contain long quotations from the subject's YT videos; possible copyvio there. Finally, Reddit is not a reliable source. Please see WP:USERG. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can shorten the quotations to the point of the message, but I only listed them because there is no other coverage on them. Even if the Reddit thread is an AMA, that doesn't count? lullabying (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Just Another Cringy Username: Quotations on videos have been shortened, and the Reddit thread being a Reddit AMA is noted on this article. The AMA was also created in cooperation with Insider, so it's not completely user-generated. lullabying (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:NOYT and WP:USERG. Neither YouTube nor Reddit are reliable sources, as they contain user-generated content. This speaks to the IMO greater problem of this article being essentially a promotional piece for Chen and his content channels. Depending on who created/contributed to this article, there may be WP:COI issues as well. As it stands, this article is at risk of being nominated for deletion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Just Another Cringy Username: I am the original creator of this article and also the only person who has contributed (see the edit history). I can assure you I have no affiliation with him nor any organization he represents. I can remove YouTube and Reddit AMA citations if necessary but I need you to give me examples of how it's promotional so I can rewrite it. I have seen Reddit AMAs be used as sources before, and the YouTube videos are primary sources that were made by him -- they were also used to cite lines that currently do not have secondary sources. If you read WP:NOYT, there's a caveat that says However, official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed. He owns the channels, so they can count as primary sources. lullabying (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess part of the problem is the very lack of secondary sources. If you take out the parts of this article that are sourced from Chen's own channel or from the Reddit AMA, there won't be much left, which is what makes it seem like a promotional piece. To be notable per WP:GNG, a subject needs to have received significant attention in secondary sources independent of the subject. This just makes it seem like there isn't a whole lot on this guy, so you have to fill that gap w/ primary sourced, user-generated content, which in turn weakens your case for his notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC
          • @Just Another Cringy Username: The only coverage that wasn't provided and I had to cover with primary sources were his original channels from when he worked with NTD Television. There is, however, plenty of coverage on his main channel, Strictly Dumpling, as shown in the article, and Strictly Dumpling was even nominated for a Shorty Award. lullabying (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • His main channel is a self-published primary source, which we've already discussed. Another editor is free to disagree w/ me, but I would argue this article has notability issues and is not suitable for DYK in its present state. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Just Another Cringy Username: As previously stated, coverage on his Strictly Dumpling channel is noted in secondary and independent sources, so he passes WP:GNG. Primary sources are used to supplement other info if a secondary source isn't available. The Reddit thread is an AMA that was created and moderated by Insider Inc. Anyways, DYK is not the place to be discussing notability. lullabying (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually DYK can be a place to raise concerns about notability. If reviewers or other editors are unconvinced that the subject of the nomination is notable, they can request an AFD to test consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The channel passes WP:GNG due to its coverage and it was nominated for a Streamy award. I feel that shows notability. lullabying (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been AFD'd --evrik (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination is on hold while AfD discussion is ongoing. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The AfD has closed as Snow Keep; the nomination needs a full review now that notability has been established. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 11[edit]

Shireen Abu Akleh

Nakba Day protestor holding photos of Abu Akleh
Nakba Day protestor holding photos of Abu Akleh
  • ... that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank? Source: "Samodi, working for the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper, told Haaretz that he and Abu Akleh were clearly identified as reporters, wearing their press vests, when they were shot at. In video footage of the incident, Abu Akleh can be seen wearing a blue flak jacket clearly marked with the word 'PRESS.' [...] Israeli forces were operating in the Jenin refugee camp and several other areas of the West Bank to apprehend 'terror suspects,' the military said." Haaretz

Created by Ezlev (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As far as this nomination goes, it is a really good effort and close to closure. New article nominated on time and long enough. The article was linked in Wikipedia:In the news as a recent death between 11 May-14 May; as per DYK eligibility criteria (1.d.) it is still eligible as it has not "appeared on the main page as bold link".
  • With regard to the hooks
    • ALT1- I have some reservations over ALT1. I do not think that ALT1 is "interesting to a broad audience" (3.a.). The article does not go into length about the Nakba rallies; it can be considered as a passing mention. With regard to usage of the word "internationally", the article does not clarify this; going into the reference in question about 20-25 countries are mentioned. Further, the reference does not make it clear if all of these countries had the protests on Nakba Day. On the basis of this, I do not consider the image and coinciding caption suitable. Further a crop of the image to focus on the poster in the ladies left hand may result in a case of derived work.
    • ALT0 - While the article intro mentions "the Jenin refugee camp", the article body does not. I am pointing this out since the ALT0 is giving some emphasis to where she was killed. If you wish to keep the detail, please try and mention this point in the body as well. [Preceeding information has been added. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)] Otherwise ALT0 can be shortened without losing the "interest" (3.a.) value that I think the nominator is intending. Also, along with the mention of IDF, "Palestinian militants" could find there way into ALT0. Since the article covers the multiple narratives with regard to the death, the hook should not convey, or seem to convey a certainty. Point 3 of the eligibility criteria uses the word "fact".[reply]
  • With regard to citations, plagiarism and close paraphrasing etc; earwigs seems to catch some similarities however most of this seems to be quotes and names. A quick spot check throws up some points. The intro mentions "she inspired many other Palestinians and Arabs, particularly women, to pursue careers in journalism" however it does not have a citation, the body does not carry this particular point as well, only mentioning "Abu Akleh's career inspired many other Palestinians and Arabs to become journalists" with no mention of women thus rendering it unreferenced.[Now cited.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)] Another reviewer may want to look at the "Within policy" point more closely, however in good faith I think it meets DYK standards.[reply]
  • FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish that I continue this review following changes/comments, I wouldn't mind, DYK rules permitting. If you wish for a new review/reviewer please just mention that below. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 ... that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces at a refugee camp in the West Bank? Maybe this is better than the ALT0? The Nakba day hook seems fine to me. Thriley (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's too long. The hook should not be longer than 200 characters. --Mhhossein talk 17:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezlev: Any ideas? I think the Nakba Day hook is fine. Thriley (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the ALT4:
Thriley: Do you have any responses for the objections raised against the Nakba day hook? I think if you can omit the Nakba day and just mention the international protests (which is well supported by the sources), then you may have the chance of having the picture along with the hook on the main page. --Mhhossein talk 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not crucial to include Nakba, the picture has it anyway, its enough.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to run the ALT4 hook with the picture of the protest? Thriley (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with a more relevant hook if the protest picture is to be featured, too. Though we may consider sth like:
@Thriley and Selfstudier: Your thoughts? --Mhhossein talk 13:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just get this done, it's been a while now. Personally, if it was me looking for a hook today it would be that subsequent to her death, multiple reliable sources (NYT, CNN, WAPO, AP, BELLINGCAT) have concluded she died as a result of Israeli fire.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier: Could I ask you suggest a hook based on the recent developments? --Mhhossein talk 18:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the same para of the lead as ALT 4, the most recent development (ALT 5?) "Separate investigations by Associated Press, CNN, Washington Post, The New York Times and Bellingcat independently concluded that fire from Israeli forces was the likely cause of Akleh’s death."? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Selfstudier's comment, I suggest the following:
  • ALT5:... that journalist Shireen Abu Akleh (her death protest pictured), killed despite wearing a blue "PRESS" vest, was shot by Israel Defense Forces bullet according to several independent investigations?
@Thriley and Selfstudier: what do you think? --Mhhossein talk 07:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: Are you willing to keep up with the nomination? --Mhhossein talk 04:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This hook is what I would like to see, but I think others should comment on it besides me. Thriley (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley: So you should use a {{subst:DYK?again}} template to request for a new reviewer. --Mhhossein talk 04:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed for hook. Thriley (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


A map of the territory of Ashuanipi in 1900
A map of the territory of Ashuanipi in 1900

Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 10:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Note from the author of the Newfoundland and Labrador-Quebec border - I don't think this one can go as presented (that is to say, change the hook). For starters, Ashuanipi was not a self-governing part, only an internal administrative unit without any hint at sovereignty whatsoever, so we can't write that "Ashuanipi claims" (or claimed). The correct phrasing would be "Quebec claimed that Ashuanipi was..." (or is, with the caveat that the province has relinquished its claim over the area). Another problem is that we should clarify the quote in the place where it refers to the "all other" part (relative to what? the federally/NL-recognised border in the area? The QC claimed border, today or in 1909?). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great points @Szmenderowiecki:! It really means a lot that you have reached out, your thoughts are definitely helpful. I was already aware of the first point, I was not under any impression that Ashuanipi was governing itself, and that is expressed in the article, it was simply an error of my wording. According to the source, it sets out the boundaries (Quebec and the county of Saguenay), and then claims all other waters that flow into the Atlantic. I'll try and reword the hook with that in mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 ... Quebec claimed that Ashuanipi (map pictured) included "all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic" in the poorly-defined borders set out for the region?
I don't think this fixes the problems. Basically the divide here is "rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence vs. rivers flowing directly towards the Atlantic". It still isn't clear for a person not interested in Canadian geography what the "all other part" means. Yeah, in Quebec, all rivers flow into the Atlantic, either via the St. Lawrence or to the Hudson Bay, but among the 150M+ visitors every month of the main page, how many people would know that? Which leads me to the second, I don't feel this would be an interesting hook to begin with. I'd suggest going along the lines of the Quebec law still featuring Ashuanipi despite having relinquished its claim over the area, choosing from the text you already have. If you are able to find more info to expand the article with the content not already in the French article, we can consider the info from there, though I don't think much will be found because mining, on which almost all of the population relies, wasn't a thing there in 1900s and the terrain is (still) mostly unpopulated as the climate is harsh. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly the article kind of does find more info from reliable sources given that the original French article has some portions that remain unsourced. I do get what you mean, and if you have more information that you had come across while writing the Newfoundland and Labrador-Quebec border article you are welcome to send it my way. I'll propose an alternative hook as per your suggestion.
  • ALT2 ... that, according to the Territorial Division Act, Ashuanipi (pictured) is still recognized as one of four territories of Quebec?
  • Comment: The map or the text of the article is wrong or misleading. The article tries to say that Quebec still recognizes the territory while the map is labelled as showing it is not in any way claimed by Quebec. Choose one or the other, rephrasing or adding qualifiers as necessary. — LlywelynII 16:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LlywelynII: To the best of my knowledge Ashuanipi technically exists in that weird grey zone of Quebec not making an active claim over the area after the ruling, but simultaneously recognizing it in legislation as a territory. There are territories that Quebec actively makes claims over (portions above the 52nd parallel), but Ashuanipi isn't included in that. We have instances of official maps that are required to illustrate Quebec's interpretation of the territory it controls, but this does not include Ashuanipi. However, that is complicated by the fact Quebec does still recognize it in some legislation (namely the Territorial Division Act), so I'm not sure myself how to word it. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stronk Kebbek c. 1912
Current disputely disputed territory, none of which falls under Ashuanipi apparently
  • I guess the important bits are here:

    "The territory of Ashuanipi was defined under the terms of the An Act respecting the territories of Abittibi, Mistassini and Ashuanipi[1] (French: Loi concernant les territoires d'Abittibi, de Mistassini et d'Ashuanipi) of 1899. Article 2.3 of the act read: "The territory of Ashuanipi is bounded to the north, to the east and to the west by the limits of the province; and to the south and southwest by the county of Saguenay".[2] The Revised statutes of the province of Quebec, 1909 would recognize the same description of the territory.[3] The Territorial Division Act's description remains largely the same, but alters the south and southwest portion's boundaries by the "electoral districts of Duplessis and Saguenay".[4]
    "The territory, as defined by the provisions of the former act, directly included the river basins of the Ashuanipi River, Hamilton River, and Esquimaux River. It additionally included "all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic".[3]"

    1. If you're using title case, the letters marked in bold should be capitalized in English if not French, and you should delete the "the" before "An".
    2. If you're using sentence case, the underlined letters should be in lower case, although Act should probably stay capitalized and you should replace the "the An" that precedes it with a simple "the".
    3. 1909 either needs to be be followed by a comma, not be preceded by a comma, or surrounded with parentheses without any commas. "Would" is the wrong verb tense for something that happened 111 years ago, given that you're not setting a story in the year 1908 or sth here.
    4. There have been numerous "Territorial Division Acts". Google brings up several by Ontario and several by Quebec. You presumably mean the Quebecker act inclusive of all its modifications through the years (as linked), but you should clarify that—as opposed to 2 specifically dated acts that you've just mentioned—this act is the present form of the law inclusive of all of the amendments since its initial enactment in YYYY.
    5. It's completely opaque what "the former act" means here, given you've referred to 3. Grammatically, ignoring that it's meant to distinguish 2 options, it should mean that you're giving the territory's boundaries as provided by the ARTAMA (1899), which can't possibly be true since you just gave that definition. Presumably, you mean something else. It can't possibly mean the second of the two, since you say that's the same as the first. Possibly you wrote "former" and meant "last", which still can't be true since you just gave that definition. Presumably, then, you wrote "territory" (=Ashuanipi) and meant "province" (=Quebec). It's still unclear whether you meant the first or last of the 3 acts by saying "former", but presumably you mean to define "the limits of the province" that the first act included in its definition of Ashuanipi, which was supposedly repeated in the next 2 acts as well. Of course, the limits of the province aren't defined by any of this legislation. They're defined by some other more important federal act that you've omitted here.
    6. Similarly, the description you've provided here would mean that Ashuanipi's western border was on Hudson Bay and made a wide band across the entire province. That's obviously not the case, although the reason that's not the case is relevant parts of the legislation that you omitted here, explaining that the territories consist only of areas of the province of Quebec not otherwise organized as judicial districts (i.e. organized counties) or registration divisions (cf. §§1, 2, & 13 of the TDA).

    That probably ends up answering your confusion, although it requires a complete rewrite of the current article. Ashuanipi Territory includes all the land in the province of Quebec in watersheds flowing south to the Atlantic or its inlets which is not otherwise organized into counties. Correspondingly, it includes no land, since there are no lands within the province of Quebec which meet that definition. It may have always been a dead letter or it may at some point in the past have included land that was notionally Quebec's but, once whatever legislation occurred that established the present provincial border between Quebec and the Newfies, its size went to exactly nothing. Revise the map to show the dates of the valid claim or remove it there were never any valid claims to any of Newfoundland's part of the relevant watersheds.

    Of course, if this is a papal situation where you have the Quebec government still naming and paying titular administrators of its entirely notional "territory", that would be interesting and maybe even involve some newspaper stories and corruption trials. — LlywelynII 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

    Edit: Ok, now I'm even more confused.

    Apparently, Labrador has a good section on the Quebec boundary dispute, some of which should be included into your article; you should also link your article from there and the 52nd parallel north article. There's also the Newfoundland and Labrador–Quebec border article that you're already linked from. As near as I can understand: i. René-Lévesque is apparently the present name of Saguenay. You can leave Saguenay in historical legislation but you should clarify what its present name is at least once. The borders of the district seem to have changed over time to the point that it's completely irrelevant to Ashuanipi. That Ashuanipi's entire southern border would be with Duplessis, it looks like. That should be mentioned and ideally shown on a map of Quebec's local divisions if possible. ii. Your map appears to be based on the idea that René-Lévesque and Duplessis have northern borders defined by watersheds, which seems to be right although that isn't explained or sourced. It should be. iii. Your map appears to be based on the idea that the western and northern boundaries of Ashuanipi are determined by the course of the Ashuanipi and Hamilton Rivers, which doesn't appear to be correct at all, isn't explained, and isn't sourced. It should be, if it has any basis other than the map you found. iv. Historically, Quebec's claims against Labrador would have made Ashuanipi take up the entire continental part of Newfoundland outside a strip one mile deep from the ocean and its inlets, right? That should be explained and shown. v. The legal issue isn't resolved because Quebec never fully accepted the 1927 ruling after all. Parizeau had been willing to concede it in 1995 but that doesn't seem to have been made official and other Quebec pols since have continued to complain about the line. Quebec nationalism makes this all actually kind of important. vi. On the other hand, Quebec does seem to have fully conceded Ashuanipi. Its extraterritorial claims (see EQ's Cote-Nord map) only include the bits of Duplessis's watershed claims that inch north of 52°N. I don't know when Quebec stopped claiming everything except the Newfies' coastal strip but they seem to have, meaning that even if they got independence and threatened war to reclaim "their" land, it wouldn't include anything from "Ashuanipi" even though they continue to use the name. It might be a dead letter or might not, depending on how maximal their rejection of Labrador's expansion has been. — LlywelynII 23:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i. Yep.
ii. If we assume the Quebec's claimed border since 1927, that's correct.
iii. Well, the only map we have is the one already provided in the article. There's also a description contained within this opus of a document, which says on p. 4790 that Ashuanipi is defined as being "the territory so bounded [that] comprises the basin of the River Ashuanipi, Hamilton or Esquimaux, as well as all other parts of territory watered by water-courses flowing directly towards the Atlantic." So not the course itself, but the basins. The northern and eastern boundaries definition are on page 5142-3. Ashuanipi, Hamilton and Esquimaux appear to be alternative names for the same river (not to be confused with Hamilton/Churchill Falls, which is a constant generator of electricity and Newfie butthurt).
iv. Yes, though a. it was Canada's claim, b. I don't know to which extent the part of Quebec's Labrador would belong to Ungava/Nouveau-Québec. The map is certainly valid for 1898-1912, but I see no newer map for 1912-1927, and I can't really access it. BAnQ doesn't seem to have a map of Ashuanipi (what would they plot there anyway?), and most maps of Quebec of the time ignore the region we know now as Côte-Nord for about the same reason.
v-vi. I removed the Parizeau statement as nothing seems to support it (maybe it's in the 2010 book by Dorion? but I have no access to it). The legal issue is in general considered to be resolved, but just like Newfies have butthurt about the Churchill Falls, Quebeckers have butthurt about the strip of land no one lives in. To be short, Canada stopped claiming the majority of Labrador following the 1927 ruling. Quebec insists, as is written in the article on the border, that it was wronged and the strip of land between the watershed and the federally/NL-recognised border should belong to Quebec, but no one seems to buy it (except for these guys, but even that video was botched because the map appearing in 0:37 has a straight border :)). Quebec tried to claim the whole of Labrador in the 1960s (as I've just got to know) when the Churchill Falls deal was being negotiated, but their maps no longer indicate the claim, so it most likely suggests they've learned to live with it. So yes, Ashuanipi is a relic of the books, just like the portions in the US Constitution about counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.
As an interesting side note, Ashuanipi has a lot of literature in the geological topics. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I assume that I have now scared away anyone else with that text wall, I guess I'm on the hook for doing the full review now.
i. seems settled.
ii. No, given that it forms part of Ashuanipi's putative southern border, you should find out where they claimed that watershed line or (at least) figure out and mention by name which specific watersheds are clearly being used by the Quebeckinese. If it already is there and I didn't notice, apologies, but go ahead and work it into the territorial description instead of leaving things off at the "northern border" mentioned in the legislation.
iii. & iv. The p. 4790 definition ("as well as all other...") would seem to repeat the maximalist claim that Quebec wanted everything in continental Terre-Neuve except the one mile beachhead, unless there's something specifically around that setting a northern boundary. Certainly the Hamilton isn't only watered from the south. I'm getting unsafe address and other errors when I try to access the pdf, though. What does pp. 5142–5143 say? Anything about the midpoint of the Hamilton? or the map is wrong? or based on something else?
v. & vi. It really doesn't seem like it. We had a series of terrorist campaigns, massive war, and a series of nationally-involved amendments to fix that slavery business. It seems just the opposite here. Quebec drops the subject when there's no hay to be made and then immediately "remembers" this enduring "injustice" when it suits its purposes. It sounds like if anything valuable (nickel, lithium, oil, &c.) were discovered or they finally did go independent that this would be a major thing again, pending any formal renunciation of the claims.
 — LlywelynII 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough at time of submission; long enough (3.9k elig. chars.); neutral and well cited; no likely copyvio per Earwig; I'm always leery of AGF avoidance of source checking given how easy autotranslation is becoming, but if the promoter didn't have an issue with it then it's fine for QPQ; the image can't be used without additional assurance that it's in the US public domain (I assume it is but it still needs the confirmation and template); more importantly, it seems to be off. We're still working through issues with the article regarding the core of the subject above. Maybe once we have, there will be more interesting hooks, but there's nothing wrong with the current ALT2. — LlywelynII 04:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly with how a deep of a dive you have taken on the subject, I do appreciate the time you have taken to look into the topic. All of this is quite frankly overwhelming, so I have taken some time off the review. I don't have any way of verifying whether the images are appropriate, and they were not uploaded by me in the first place. If I was better acquainted with US copyright law I would give a more concrete assertion, but you are welcome to remove the image if it is in violation. If there is more that needs to be addressed, other than the minor grammar issues you have brought up earlier that need to be addressed, please do let me know. I do wish you avoid what seems to appear to be slighting my previous reviews, as we do need to remember that this community tends most often to do work in good faith. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ornithoptera: Apologies for any personal offense caused. It's more of a general thing and not at all a slight on your decency. You're right that it's more appropriately addressed in the category talk as far as amending the rules given that foreign autotranslation is so generally possible that we as reviewers should at least show a good faith effort to have tried. That is admittedly hard in the case of nonhighlightable images of (eg) Chinese, Thai, Indian language, or even German Franktur books. If you're at all interested, see my review of the German Tarok article for how to go about addressing that. (The reviewer should obviously have a command of the language involved, so they should be able to transcribe the relevant quote for confirmation of existence and autotranslation.) No, that's not in the current rules so, no, there's nothing untoward in your not having done it. — LlywelynII 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 12[edit]

Erik Johansson (artist)

  • ... that Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? Source: Kerr, Euan (25 January 2019). "Johansson's surreal images delight, provoke thoughts". MPR News.

5x expanded by Jane6592 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Symbol confirmed.svg A quick look shows this artist is well known internationally, to the point of being mentioned by the V&A which I think is a bar few can cross. I didn't think the article was too promotional outside the glamor shot. The primary author appears entirely unconnected. @Jane6592: My only concern: the statement about hundreds of images being combined is exactly what the ref states, but the article itself has images that appear to be made of perhaps as few as three elements. A more accurate hook might add "... that some of" but that is not what the cite states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[