Template talk:Did you know

"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
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
September 2
September 27 1
October 9 1
October 11 1
October 14 1
October 22
October 24 1
October 25 1
October 28 1
October 29 1
October 31 1
November 1 1
November 2 2
November 3 2
November 4 2
November 7 1
November 11 1
November 12 4 1
November 13 3
November 14 6 2
November 15 11 6
November 16 11 5
November 17 4 2
November 18 19 10
November 19 12 6
November 20 4 1
November 21 10 2
November 22 8 6
November 23 8 4
November 24 8 4
November 25 14 6
November 26 6 2
November 27
Total 146 57
Last updated 10:58, 27 November 2021 UTC
Current time is 11:01, 27 November 2021 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

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning: You are not logged in. Please create an account or log in to proceed.
Alternatively, you may leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose.

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning: The helper script only works on desktop. Please switch to desktop view to continue.

Screenshot of Wikipedia, showing the "More" dropdown menu along the top of the page, with the DYK option circled
  1. Install the DYK helper script by adding the line {{subst:lusc|User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js}} to your common.js page.
  2. Go back to the article, and choose the "DYK" option from the "More" menu (see image).
  3. Fill in the form and submit it.
  4. Check back periodically to address comments or concerns from the reviewer (it may take several weeks).

Manual instructions[edit]

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.

For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Publish page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
III.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Publish page.

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.

Instructions for project members[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area
Check list for nomination review completeness
1) Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
2) Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
a. Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg needs to be addressed before promoting.
3) Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
4) Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
5) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
6) Hook should make sense grammatically.
7) Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
8) Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
  • In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
  • In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
1) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
a. Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
2) Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
a. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
b. Check that there's a bold link to the article.
3) If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
4) Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
5) Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
a. At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
6) Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. At the bottom
    • Just above the line containing

      }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

      insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
      To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
      To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
      To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
      To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
      To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
      To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
      To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
    • Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
  3. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
  4. Save.

For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

  • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
  • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue[edit]

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
    • View the edit history for that page
    • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
    • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
  • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
  • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name[edit]

  • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 2[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 27[edit]

Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)

  • ... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes following the disaster at Teutoburg, but decided to leave Germany because its land was not considered valuable? Source: Wells (2003), The Battle That Stopped Rome, pp. 206–7

Improved to Good Article status by SpartaN (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - Source is offline but happy to AGF. However, in the article the statement “they considered German lands too poor for annexation” is sourced to p.204 of Wells. pp.206-7 referred to above is used to support that they that “it was too costly in economic and military resources” to go into in Germany. I guess either way the hook is sourced but could you clarify the exact sourcing of the hook.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting thorough article, well-written with good quality sourcing. Earwig shows no issues. Just a minor query around the hook sourcing but otherwise will be good to go. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I found the web link that (for me) shows a preview if you're able to see it: https://books.google.com/books?id=mc30CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206
SpartaN (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@SpartaN: Thanks for providing the link. It’s prompted a couple of thoughts for me. Firstly, Wells doesn’t seem to be saying the reason for the withdrawal is definitively known (“… the reasons for these decisions must have lain…”) i.e he’s making an assumption, however well founded. The hook is more definite than Wells is. Secondly, Wells’ emphasis is on the strength of the resistance being behind the reason - the poor value of the territory makes it “not worth it” because of the strength of the resistance. That’s not quite the same as just saying the land wasn’t valuable. (I notice the text you used in the article on this reflects that effort/value ratio issue.) To fix both points would you be prepared to consider an ALT1 which after “…Teutoburg” continues something along the lines of “…likely decided to leave Germany because the military effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?” although there may need to be some trimming to get it into the 200 character limit. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @SpartaN and DeCausa: It's been over a month since the last comments here, have there been any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    From my point of view I’m waiting for SpartaN’s reply to my last post here. But I notice they haven’t edited Wikipedia since then, over a month ago. So I’m not quite sure what can be done. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. Given that there's really only one issue holding the nomination back, would anyone be willing to adopt this in case SpartaN doesn't return? It would be a shame if the nomination failed at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m not sure what exactly are the DYK rules on this but, subject to that, options could be (a) I propose an ALT1 hook and someone else signs it off; (b) someone else proposes an ALT1 hook and I sign it off; (c) if anyone disagrees with me on the original hook I’m happy to step away and they sign it off. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at the Wells source and concur that it is saying the withdrawal was more down to the ratio of effort required to potential reward, and have boldly tweaked the copy in the article to reflect this. For what it's worth, I think ALT1 works just fine. firefly ( t · c ) 11:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I’m just going to formalize the ALT1 and let someone else add the tick and sign off:
  • ALT1:... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes after the disaster at Teutoburg but likely decided to leave Germany as the effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?
DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since the reviewer has proposed a new hook, another editor will be needed to sign this off. I'm not sure though if the section linking in the bold links is allowed, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    sorry, I missed that. It’s not even necessary to link to a section of the article so I’ve taken it out of ALT1. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg As this doesn’t seem to be moving I’m going to give ALT1 the tick as original reviewer. If the DYK regulars think this is out of process because I came up nwith ALT1 then happy for it to be reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg DeCausa, there is no rush to approve, and your approval of your own hook was indeed out of process. I have reverted SL93's promotion of the nomination to prep, and with any luck a new reviewer will be around soon enough to review your ALT1. (SL93, you're welcome to review it, but that means you cannot also promote it.) I've also struck the original hook due to the issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset Sorry for mixing up who approved it. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice the second sentence of the approval...not sure how that happened. Sorry, again. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • DeCausa Reading through the article again, your ALT1 hook seems to be mostly verifed in the Aftermath section, but I'm not seeing any indication of it being "likely". SL93 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, that’s true. Where that came from was, in the above discussion with SpartaN on the original hook, they cited Wells in support. Wells says, in relation to Tiberius’ decision to ‘give up’, that “The reason for these decisions must have lain in the Germans’ tough resistance”. I’ve taken that to mean Wells’ was inferring Tiberius’ reasoning without direct evidence (or certainty) of Tiberius’ actual reason. However, you’re right that the way the article is written is more certain. I’m ok striking the “likely” or, possibly it would be better to amend the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Aftermath section to be more reflectve of Wells. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I will leave this here for someone else to look at. It would be helpful if the nominator came back. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

Pankratius Pfeiffer

Created by Ergo Sum (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New article that was created on 9 October 2021‎ is 3,212 characters and nominated on the same day. No copyvios detected and duplication detector of [1][2][3][4][5] reveal no close paraphrasing issues (AGF PDF docs which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 103 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 4 and 5 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Too many red flags here. If he really saved hundreds of Jews, you would expect plenty of confirmation of this in scholarly sources and him to be recognized by Yad Vashem. I can't count the number of times that I've seen mainstream newspapers print completely false stories about Jews being rescued during the holocaust, so better sources are definitely needed to confirm these extraordinary claims. Thanks Brigade Piron for letting me know about this. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have to admit I'm just a bit perplexed by the argument. Except in fairly uncommon cases of multiple RS that contradict each other, we don't generally recognize any "hierarchy" of reliable sources. Sources are either RS or they are not. So I'm not sure what kind of sources you have in mind as "better" sources. The ones currently cited in the article are all RS, so that should be the end of it. I might add that if you seek some manner of official imprimatur in the vein of Yad Vashem, the City of Rome named a street after him.
  • Your point about why there isn't more extensive coverage of this historical figure is well taken but can easily be attributed to the fact that all manner of historical figures are lost to history, especially those who are notable really for one major event in their life that did not come to light until years later, as is the case here. Indeed, one of the RS in this article describes Pfeiffer as being "lost to history." I'm adding the new review icon here so that we can get at least one more editor's evaluation of this. Ergo Sum 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There are very few people who actually saved hundreds of Jews during the Holocaust and plenty of hoaxes that were reported as truth by various news organizations—for example Necdet Kent. In other cases, actual rescue did occur but the numbers are greatly exaggerated and repeated uncritically by news organizations, such as Raoul Wallenberg. If the story is true you would expect to see it covered in many more credible sources. There are plenty of cases where a source is reliable for some info but not others. For example, someone's CV is often reliable for "they worked at X organization" but not "they are a world expert in Z". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I should say that I share Buidhe's concerns. I think saying that "all manner of historical figures are lost to history" rather side-steps the sheer volume of historical scholarship on all aspects of the Holocaust. On a more banal note, I think part of the problem is that the sources cited are, essentially, all journalistic sources published by explicitly Catholic or Salvatorian outlets. The specific sources cited for the "saved" claim are Romereports (I am not familiar with this outlet, but the typo in the video does not inspire confidence) and a self-published Salvatorian newsletter. Neither are scholarly sources and both are, again, explicitly confessional in nature. I think WP:BIASED may on point in a highly sensitive issue touching on the wider disputes about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. Do we know what the Samerski book says, for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe It is true that the sources cover Catholic issues, but only the Salvatorian one is actually published by a Catholic institution. I need not go into how varied Catholic newspapers are in their adherence/faithfulness to the Catholic hierarchy and beliefs (see e.g. National Catholic Reporter versus National Catholic Register).
  • But more direclty, there actually are many scholarly RS that discussion Pfeiffer and his works in Nazi-occupied Rome. You will find them on the other language versions of this article. The problem is that I do not read Italian or German well enough to use them in the article. Coverage is not the issue. It is English language coverage. Ergo Sum 13:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • DYK should not cover unconfirmed reports or rumors so I strongly disagree with that suggestion. As well as assuming sources are reliable if they've never been discussed at WP:RSN, which disregards important parts of WP:RS such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no issue with citing sources in Italian or German, but if it's not confirmed that they support the content then it's incorrect to assume that they do. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: I tend to think that statements are either supported by RS and written in wikivoice or they're not accepted at all. For that reason, I shy away from words like "reportedly." I reiterate though that I think it's quite clear there's nothing wrong with the sources currently used. They're all RS, so that should be the end of it. Hence, why I think your initial review was satisfactory. Ergo Sum 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum: agreed. I'm still of the view that the hook satisfies criteria 3b. Criteria 4 states that "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". That is not the case here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You're still ignoring the principle in RS that context matters, and some sources are reliable for some but not other info. The two of us who actually write on Holocaust related topics have expressed that the sources cited are not reliable for the exceptional claims being made. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I am of the opinion that the sources used are reliable for the info in the hook. The fact that you and Brigade Piron write on Holocaust-related topics is irrelevant – it does not confer a veto over hooks pertaining to that subject. By that logic, I should be able to veto baseball or heraldry hooks ... —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: I'm aware that you have experience writing about Holocaust-related articles and I put value in your assessment as a solid editor. However, I'm quite comfortable in my ability to vet RS, as well, and my confidence in these sources means I must disagree with your opinion here. Experienced editors do disagree at times, and it is my opinion that I think you have gotten this one wrong; doubtless, you think the same for me. I haven't seen any evidence that these are not RS. Therefore, I recommend if Bloom6132 is inclined to do so, to renew their approval of the hook. In the meantime, I'm going to request the input of additional experienced editors on the DYK talk page. Ergo Sum 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear as to why the cited sources are unreliable: are we assuming that all information emanating from a Roman Catholic source is unreliable? If so what's the logic? In any case there are dozens of book sources in English, German, French and Italian that mention Pfeiffer, the problem is that few are accessible online. One is an entire biography of Pfeiffer "from baker to Vatican diplomat" which would be useful to track down: Willer, Philomena (2005). P. Pankratius Pfeiffer SDS: (1872-1945); vom Bäckergesellen zum Vatikandiplomat. Pub: Josef Fink. Others that mentions Pfeiffer and the Jews in Rome are:
  • Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
  • Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
  • Sinn (1976), Illegal.
Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
My issue is with the unreliability of journalistic works and popular history, which have in many cases published inaccurate information about rescues of Jews during the Holocaust. If better sources exist, they should be cited instead. An additional question is, do these sources actually support the claim of "hundreds" of Jews rescued by Pfeiffer personally? (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've now found sources that cover most of the article. Here are more:
  • Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
  • Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
  • Sinn (1976), Illegal.
  • Prince Constantine of Bavaria (1952) Der Papst.
  • Layer (1985), Schwäbisches Ehrenbuch - Pfeiffer credited with "saving Rome and other Italian cities including Chieti, Ascoli and Ovieto from destruction and other calamities"
  • _ (1999). Publik-Forum - Pfeiffer the only German to have a street named after him in Rome and who fought to save Roman Jews.
  • _ (1960). Bayerische Frömmigkeit - Pfeiffer described as the "Saviour of Rome and other cities in Italy"
  • Robert Katz has written a number of books - Death in Rome (1967), Black Sabbath (1969), The Battle for Rome (2010) - which all mention Pfeiffer.
  • Bottum and Dalin (2004). The Pius War has this interesting piece: "7. Pancrazio [sic] Pfeiffer. According to Carroll-Abbing, one of the men used by Pius XII to protest the Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews and intervene for persecuted victims was Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer, superior general of the Salvatorian Fathers, who also served as Pius XII' personal liaison to the German military command in Rome. Because Pfeiffer died tragically in an automobile accident toward the end of the war and thus never took part in the postwar analysis of Pius XII's conduct, many historians have overlooked him. But those who knew him or have researched his life have chronicled his collaborative efforts with Pius XII to rescue Jews and others during the war. See the article "Pfeiffer's List" by Robert Graham, 30 Days, June 1994, pp. 42-46. Prince Constantine of Bavaria's book on Pius XII, The Pope (London: Allan Wingate, 1954) [listed above] contains an excellent section on Pfeiffer, whom he describes as an agent for the pope on behalf of the victims of persecution and the fugitives in hiding" (p. 213). At Pfeiffer's death in May 1945, Vatican Radio paid tribute: "He came into contact with the Commander of the German occupying forces [in Rome in 1943-44]. From that day onwards, he placed his religious and spiritual qualities at the service of many who had been arrested or already condemned to death. He helped countless people in this way, and saved their lives, among them many Jews and other Italian personages. He championed..."
In short there seems to be book evidence for virtually everything stated in the article apart from the specific details of the two incidents where 249 or 400 Jews were rescued. Based on my initial searches my expectation is that those incidents are likely to be recorded in the literature - we just need to be able to access more of the sources. Meanwhile there is no harm in pausing to use some of the above sources, plus those I've added to the Further reading section of the article in order to reinforce the existing references and then review where we are. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article currently meets DYK requirements. For example, Salvatorians USA Province is not independent of the article subject and therefore is not reliable for self-serving assertions such as "he saved many Jews in Rome from persecution and ultimately death" or "Every day, Pfeiffer visited the Regina Coeli prison and another prison on Via Tasso, where he would often return with freed prisoners who had been sentenced to death." (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Depends, the Samerski source looks reliable to me but the book published by "Österreichische Provinz der Salvatorianer" has the same issue of close connection to the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • All right. @Ergo Sum: I'm not going to promote the nomination without consensus to move forward, so if you want to try and rework the article's sourcing to approval, that can work. If you're not, this nomination should probably stop here. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 19:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum: If the issue isn't addressed in a week, I think the best option is to reject this nomination. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have had to push this to the back burner. I will take a look at this tomorrow. Ergo Sum 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That is my fault. This slipped my mind completely this weekend. I will deal with this tonight. Ergo Sum 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added several inline citations to the article, which refer to sources that were (very helpfully) added by Bermicourt. These sources support several of the very specific claims in the article, as well as the general thrust of the article which is in dispute here, namely that Pfeiffer was a liaison and in that capacity saved many Jews and others from the Nazis. In light of these reliable sources supporting the general claims, I think any concern about the pre-existing ones describing some of his more specific actions is ameliorated. There is a trove of additional sources in the Further Reading section that additionally describe in much greater detail Pfeiffer's actions but they are either in a foreign language which I do not adequately read to make use of as citations or are offline. All being said, I think there is now ample sourcing to back up the article's claims. Ergo Sum 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ergo Sum—@Buidhe:, if this sourcing is up to your standards, we can move ahead. If not, we're probably going back to WT:DYK and asking for more eyes. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 05:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've flagged the specific content in the article that supports the hook as needing a better source. There are other active cleanup tags on the article as well. However, I think there's sufficient sourcing for a modified version of the hook without the words "hundreds of". (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We could cite "countless" using the ref above instead of "hundreds of". Bermicourt (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • According to the source it's what Vatican Radio said about him after his death. DYK is not for eulogies imo. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, it's because it's Catholic presumably... We could always add "according to Vatican Radio..." But better still, we just need to cite the exact text from one of the many non-Catholic book sources and the problem will be solved. Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And yet another source: O'Reilly (2001) in Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation 1943-45 states that "the Vatican was able to assist many of Rome's Jews and others sought by the Germans through Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer's intervention with the Germans... His work was recounted by Robert Graham who has written extensively on the Vatican's role in World War II." Bermicourt (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And another: Bartley (2016) in Catholics Confronting Hitler states that "Father Pancrace [sic] Pfeiffer, a German priest and the superior general of the Salvatorian Order, was the pope's liaison with the German military. Several hundred hostages, including some under sentence of death, owed their release to the efficacious intervention of Father Pfeiffer." I don't know why I'm doing this - you can look up the references yourselves instead of opining and speculating from the sidelines in the classic Wikipedia way. :) Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bermicourt: Since it seems you have access to several sources that I do not (probably just requires further digging), would you want to add them as inline citations with page numbers, especially to support the proposition regarding hundreds of people saved? Ergo Sum 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Dianxi Xiaoge

  • ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, is one of only three Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence?
    Source:
    1. 诸未静 (2019-12-23). 林涛 (ed.). "网红出海热 谁能成为下一个"李子柒"?" [Internet celebrities are become popular overseas. Who can become the next "Li Ziqi"?]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via Nanfang Daily.

      The article notes: "NoxInfluencer统计结果显示,真正在海外走红并成功变现的中国区网红只有排名前三位的“办公室小野”“李子柒”和“滇西小哥”。三者的视频均是“美食默片”,长度控制在5至10分钟,出镜者言语不多,借助简单英文字幕即可让全世界网友心领神会。"

      From Google Translate: "NoxInfluencer statistics show that the only Chinese Internet celebrities who have become popular overseas and been successfully realized are only the top three of Ms Yeah, Li Ziqi, and Dianxi Xiaoge. The three vloggers' channels all make "food silent films", the length is controlled at 5 to 10 minutes, and the person who appears on the screen doesn't speak much. With the help of simple English subtitles, netizens all over the world can understand."

    2. 严瑜 (2020-09-03). 胡文卉 (ed.). "访侨乡保山美食博主"滇西小哥":感受朴素的幸福" [Interviewing Baoshan food blogger Dianxi Xiaoge in a region well-known for Chinese expatriates: Feel the simple happiness]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The article notes: "“小哥”,说的便是“滇西小哥”。这位全网粉丝量超过1600万的美食博主,制作发布的云南美食视频,单期平均播放量达2000万次左右。这样一位美食博主,竟然生活在如此偏僻的山野之中? ... “滇西小哥”本名董梅华,是个“90后”。算起来,回乡已有4年。“小时候,走出去的愿望特别强烈。... 高考填志愿,一所云南的学校都没选, ... 在“滇西小哥”的记忆里,上小学之前,村里还没通自来水。每天清晨,妈妈都得起个大早,去山脚的那口泉眼挑几大桶水回来。"

      From Google Translate: ""Little Brother" refers to "Dianxi Xiaoge". This food blogger with more than 16 million fans on the entire network has produced and released Yunnan food videos with an average of about 20 million views in a single issue. Such a food blogger lives in such remote mountains? ... "Dianxi Xiaoge", whose real name is Dong Meihua, is a "post-90s". After calculating, it has been 4 years since she returned to her hometown. "When I was young, I had a strong desire to go out.... Filling up my wish for the college entrance examination, I didn't choose a school in Yunnan. ... In the memory of Dianxi Xiaoge, before she went to primary school, the village had no running water. Every morning, her mother had to get up early to pick up a few large buckets of water from the spring at the foot of the mountain."

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 07:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

  • The phrase "真正在海外走红并成功变现的中国区网红只有排名前三位的" means "the only Chinese Internet celebrities who have truly become prominent overseas and successfully cashed in are the top three [in the rankings...] 变现 means to monetize (literally: turn into cash), not "successfully realized". But the article doesn't say what it means to "truly become prominent", nor what it means to "successfully cash in", so the hook seems vague. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The Nanfang Daily is basing their assessment on analysis they conducted using data from NoxInfluencer.

    Here is an alternative hook:

    ALT1: ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, went viral in China and internationally after making hamburgers for her grandparents who had never eaten them before?

    Sources:

    1. Wei, Clarissa (2020-02-05). "Dianxi Xiaoge Exclusive Interview, China's Viral Cooking Sensation (At Home with DXXG – E1)". Goldthread. South China Morning Post Publishers. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via YouTube.

      At 3:33 in the video: "The video that helped her go viral, on both domestic and international platforms, was this one ... in which she makes a hamburger Chinese country-side style. 'Because my grandparents and family members have spent their whole lives in the countryside, I really wanted them to try hamburgers. Because in their eyes, hamburgers are Western food and a novelty. I kept wanting to take them out for hamburgers, but I moved back to Yunnan before I could. So I figured I'd make them myself.'"

    2. Wei, Clarissa (2020-03-12). "Dianxi Xiaoge's recipe for hamburgers with a Chinese twist". Goldthread. South China Morning Post Publishers. Archived from the original on 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes: "The reason she wanted to tackle the hamburger is sentimental. “My grandma and grandpa had never had a burger before,” she tells us, “and I wanted to make them one based on how I remembered eating it in the city.”"

    Cunard (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg This is not a review but a comment; ALT1 is just simply too long (it's 200 characters when including the question mark, 199 without). I'd be in favor instead of the hook being split into two separate proposals: one hook about the fact that she was an internet celebrity who grew up in a place without tap water, and a separate hook about her going viral for making hamburgers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, which can also address the issue of the borderline ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg As far as I can tell the article meets DYK requirements, and a QPQ has been done. Earwigs finds a close match with Coda Media, but that's only because it was the source for quotes in the article, and all of them are properly referenced. I find the first hook hard to believe given China's international standing, and in any case as brought up by Bowlhover may be inaccurate anyway. As for the second hook, as I mentioned before it's ineligible as it's exactly 200 characters long, and per WP:DYK hooks that are at or shorter than 200 characters may be rejected per reviewer's discretion. Both ALT0 and ALT1 have struck: I am repeating my earlier suggestion that ALT1 instead be split into two separate hooks. As this is a China-related article and there appear to be some political discussion in the article, I'd also like to ask for a second opinion from someone more knowledgeable about China-related articles if the article doesn't fall afoul of relevant guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook:

    The hook should be concise: no more than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ..., the space immediately following the ..., or any (pictured)). While 200 is a hard limit, hooks near or at this limit may still be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and administrators. This tool can be used for counting words.

    The guideline says that "200 is a hard limit", so it is not true that the 200-character ALT1 hook is "ineligible" or "simply too long". No reason has been given for rejecting a 200-character hook "at the discretion of reviewers".

    Here are two additional hooks based on the suggestion:

    ALT2: ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, is an Internet celebrity with roughly 16 million subscribers on all her platforms?

    ALT3: ... Dianxi Xiaoge went viral in China and internationally after making hamburgers for her grandparents who had never eaten them before?

    Cunard (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Well for one thing, the original was very difficult to read and seemed to combine too many facts into one hook. Usually DYK prefers simpler hooks whenever possible. In any case, I think ALT3 is the best hook here and the nomination is otherwise good to go, I'd just like to hear a second opinion from another editor on the article tone given that I'm a bit uncomfortable doing a solo review here given the "Commentary" section delves into some political matters. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, I have some concerns regarding the length of the article. Isn't it rather detailed for an internet celebrity's page? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That the article is "rather detailed for an internet celebrity's page" should not be a concern. The sources provided substantial analysis of her and her work, and this article reflects those sources. Other detailed articles for Internet celebrities include PewDiePie and MrBeast. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Gatoclass for his input, as he responded to a discussion I raised about this nomination over at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need Gatoclass to restate themself. Here's what they said at WT:DYK:

The article doesn't use the phrase "one of only three Chinese influencers to gain international influence", so I'm not sure where you got that, but it does say she is one of only three "Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence", and the problem with that claim is that it's sourced to an article that is two years old and therefore not up-to-date. With regard to the overall length, I would agree that it is overly detailed and could use a trim. I'm not sure this is relevant to DYK however, as "overly detailed" is not one of our criteria. What I would say is that the level of detail does raise the chances of close paraphrasing so the article would need to be carefully checked for that. Anybody else with an opinion on this article? Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As the nomination has been stuck for a while this probably needs a new pair of eyes, ideally someone who's an expert on China. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 14[edit]

Milena Smit

  • ... that Pedro Almodóvar said that actress Milena Smit "possesses an emotional intelligence and sincerity that cannot be learned in any school"? Source: "In the text Pedro Almodóvar wrote about Milena Smit for the September issue of Vogue Spain, he said the actor “possesses an emotional intelligence and sincerity that cannot be learned in any school.” " (Vogue)

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg It's new and long enough, so that's all fine, and the references seem fine too--but the article still needs work. I edited it a bit but it needs more copyedits--for phrasing, and for punctuation (comma splices). Also, the filmography needs some expansion; Cross the Line isn't in there, for instance. But the biggest problem I have is with the hook--a hook that's mostly a quote by someone else, that's not the greatest thing for DYK. Surely she's done some exciting things that can be turned into a hook? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Thriley and Drmies: Would this work as an alt? ALT1 ... that when she was called to appear in her first film, Milena Smit was working as a hotel receptionist? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
If an active version is preferred, ALT1 could also be rewritten as ALT1a ... that Milena Smit was working as a hotel receptionist when she was called to appear in her first film? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer it to be something a bit more related to her film work. Currently thinking of another alt. Thriley (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that would be allowed under DYK guidelines, which require hooks about works of fiction (for example films) to have a real-world connection. Since that's technically a plot point I don't think it would meet the guideline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Thriley, Drmies, and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean, I ain't really involved in this, I'm just trying to get y'all talking—but yes, nlh5 is correct that the hook probably wouldn't fly under dyk guidelines. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 06:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, please see this. More copyedits are necessary. The next sentence has an erroneous comma. And the "first film" in the hook--isn't that actually her fifth or so? Do you mean "feature film" or some such thing? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What about this hook? ALT2 “That in the Pedro Almodóvar film Parallel Mothers, Milena Smit and Penélope Cruz play pregnant women who give birth on the same day?” Thriley (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Is this hook acceptable under the guidelines? Thriley (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Thriley: I'll ping BlueMoonset here in case I'm wrong, but I'm going to say no, it isn't. My reasoning here is that if the hook were read as plaintext, without any bolding or linking, it would be read as pretty much only interesting as it concerns the plot. The hook should concern Smit's life; if it concerns her work as an actress, only stating her role and not anything about production doesn't make the hook out-of-universe. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg theleekycauldron, I was taking a look at the ALT1 hook and its sources, and the second Biography sentence is basically copied from Esquire—the Google translate version, at any rate. That's a problem. Another problem is that the source doesn't actually say that she was working as a hotel receptionist when she got the call, just that it was "one of these jobs", referring back to the four in the previous sentence, none of which were hotel receptionist. The article also needs a bit of copyediting. I don't think that either of the plot-based hooks should be used, and as Drmies notes, "first film" is not accurate, since it's Cross the Line that's in the source, which appears to be her fifth film. We could only use "first feature film" if the previous four in her filmography were all short films (which would need to be clearly sourced). Perhaps an angle for the information in ALT1 would be to say she was working in whatever job it was when she was cast in Cross the Line, for which she was nominated as best new actress in the Goya Awards. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Here’s an article that states she was working as a receptionist two years before she was hired to work on Parallel Mothers:[6] Does it appear reliable? Thriley (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see a reason to doubt the source. However, it isn't sufficient to support the "when she was called" hook claim, just that she was a hotel receptionist two years before the article was written (and possibly two years and a number of months, since you can't assume it's exactly two years). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the hook should include all her various jobs before her Almodovar role? Thriley (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That hook is 197 characters which puts it in discretionary territory. Given though that the hookiness here is that she did all of these non-acting jobs, I think in this case the length is justified since it hasn't reached the limit. I say ALT3 is pretty good and can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
If others find the hook too long, one possibility could be to delete the mention of Almodóvar. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: if you approve the nomination, would you mind adding the green ticky thang? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 18:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the original reviewer, so I'd like to hear from either Drmies or BlueMoonset first if they're fine with ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • in that case, I'd wager that it'd be helpful to ping Drmies. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • theleekycauldron, I'm fine with it--thanks. User:Narutolovehinata5, I wouldn't have known without the ping. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Pinging BlueMoonset for their thoughts on ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
          • This isn't yet ready to be approved. ALT3 is too long: you need to include the initial "that ", which takes it to 203 characters, so I've struck it. Further, there is no mention of "teleoperator" in the article, and the sourcing does not properly support the other jobs: the Esquire source was placed after the hotel receptionist sentence, but does not support it (the one linked above here, to Olive Press, does); Esquire does cover the waitress, shop assistant, subway info assistant, and babysitter jobs, so I've moved the source there. (It also covers "model", and is properly cited there.) The hotel receptionist sentence, When she was called for her first movie she was working as a hotel receptionist., remains dubious; the source merely says that she had been working at that job two years earlier, as previously noted, not that she had that job when she was cast in Cross the Line, which may have been her first full-length feature film, but does not appear to have been her first movie. These things need to be cleaned up in the article before the nomination can proceed. Advantages to dropping "teleoperator" from the hook is that you don't need to add it to the article and source it, and the hook drops to 189 prose characters, which would be eligible. (Almodóvar is a name that adds interest, so better to keep it, I think.) Here's the resulting hook, assuming the article fixes are done:

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Albruna

5x expanded by Berig (talk). Self-nominated at 14:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): I started looking at this, but realised I am very much not familiar with this area and don't feel entirely confident undertaking a review. I do like the hooks and it's an intriguing subject for an article! I wanted to flag the following comments, in case they are helpful (please ignore if not!):
  • I don't quite follow this sentence in the lead: "Moreover, it is still pointed out that the emendation Albruna agrees with the names of other Germanic wise women."
  • Should "instriptions" (before the Drusus heading) be "inscriptions"?
  • Should the names of scholars be wikilinked, where there is a page for the author (e.g. Simek)?
  • What does mss mean, and could this be explained when it is first referenced?
  • The second paragraph of the Aurinia section has two sentences starting with "However" in a row, which is a bit awkward to read.
Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Chocmilk03, thank you! Very good feedback! I have changed the text per your suggestions, and I hope that you find the text in the lead improved.–Berig (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm also not conducting a review at this time, but I just wanted to comment on the QPQ requirement. @Berig:, are you aware of the QPQ requirement in WP:DYKCRIT (specifically, #5)? I see that as of two days ago, you just reached five DYK credits, so it appears that you are no longer exempt. Are you intending to conduct a DYK review soon? Feel free to reach out if you need help or advice. Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been vaguely aware of it, and a few days ago, I had a try at my first review: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Reiter.―Berig (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that a QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 25[edit]

Argentine seabass

Argentine seabass near the Ilhas Cagarras, Brazil.
Argentine seabass near the Ilhas Cagarras, Brazil.

Created by Ryan shell (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Perhaps Unclear, Wording
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article needs some inline citations for some statements. Image would be hard to read at 100px, recommend cropping. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 23:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (updated 00:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC))

Comment I've tweaked the wording of some of the prose and added a number of new references. As far as the image goes, I am happy with the dyk entry with or without an image. cheers! Ryan shell (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ryan shell: Appreciate you improving the reference issues. I've cropped the image on the commons and updated here. Do you approve of the cropped image? ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 13:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks great! Thanks for that! Ryan shell (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ryan shell, it seems the hook relies on information from two different sources, but this DYK only cites the one. I am ready to approve if you can add that source here. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Done, Thanks for the reply Ryan shell (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Ryan shell I ran this by a few other veteran editors and was advised that we might need to try making the hook more clear and closer to the sources so the statement isn't more broad than the sources allow. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 01:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 28[edit]

David Whiting

  • Reviewed: Ecem Güzel
  • Comment: long article, welcome to propose other hooks

Moved to mainspace by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 05:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Very interesting article and quite the star-studded life—and the worst case of oneitis I've ever heard. Poor Miles. Meets newness and length requirements easily, QPQ done. Earwig brings up the two most-cited sources as potential copyvios. To be expected, since they're cited almost 20 times each, and since the vast majority of the matches concern long quotes I'm willing to overlook it, but can we add more citations throughout the paragraphs? Particularly with "Conflict with Miles and Reynolds", there's four citations crammed at the end of the section. I think we should cite each after the corresponding sentences, especially where there's a direct quotation. Also for ALT0 we need a citation at the ends of the sentences for "Golden Boy" and "Whiz Kid". Otherwise nice read, and good use of sources. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 29[edit]

Margaret de Neville

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Its long enough and new and lots of good refs - including the hook fact. It documents a notable woman from the 14th century and there were not many of those. There is no image, its well written and I offer an alternative phrasing of the hook, but its up to someone else to decide if its ok. No evidence of close paraphrasing I could see. Nice addition. well done Victuallers (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Reopening this because I think the hook is misleading, as according to the source it was usual for women of the nobility, like Neville, to sign with their own names. Gatoclass (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: I don't think most will know that, so maybe we go with ALT1 or some variation on it? We don't need to say it's unusual if we phrase it that way theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, the problem with both hooks is that they imply that there was something out-of-the-ordinary in a woman signing something in her own name in that era, whereas the source indicates that was normal practice for women of the nobility. So the hooks are misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Was it usual for women in the fourteenth century to sign with their own name ... no. Is is usual for women in the 21st century to sign with just their first name? No. So "did you know that unusually Canada's head of state signs documents with just her first name and an R for Regina?" (Someone shouts) "BUT all British Queens do that!!" (Someone shouts) "That implies that it was unusual for Queens to sign with just their first name." No it doesnt. I think @Gatoclass: is reading the source and then saying that the hook doesnt explain every piece of information in the source... which obviously it doesnt. Its unusual that "a woman" is doing this at all. It WAS unusual for women in the fourteenth century to sign and if they did then they did not usually use just their own name. Its a fact - its unusual. Did You know that women did not sign their own names on documents in the 14th century? No I didnt. That is something that Lajmmoore wrote about and now I know. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello Gatoclass all so the part of the source I was using is this, which is talking about signatures for charitable donation "Although most of the widows declare themselves to be the wife of their late husband, or their father's daughter, others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names, such as 'domina Margareta de Longvl' and 'don-ýina Margareta de Nevill' (the same person). The majority of widows declare that their marital status and their power to act, using a variety of phrases, including 'in pura viduitate', 'in pura viduitate mea et ligia potestate', and 'in viduitate mea propria et potestate legitima' ..." and I read that as it was more usual for (noble) women to use a signature that described them as "wife of, etc..." I read the passage as Legg using Margaret de Neville as an unusual example. Legg is talking about the Coucher Book signatures specifically, but I still think they are marking out unusual practice. In terms of the hook, I wonder whether changing 'woman' to 'literate woman' might work? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't work just to add "literate". And your reading of the text just amounts to an unsupported assumption on your part. Because while the text could admittedly be less ambiguous, the statement that others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names does not in any way suggest that it was rare or unusual for a member of the nobility to give their name, it only states that members of the nobility as a class were inclined to give their names. So there isn't sufficient support in that statement for a hook which implies that Neville's act was in any way unusual for a member of her class. The hook makes Neville sound like some sort of proto-feminist who boldly challenged the system, when the underlying source only indicates that either her entire class did the same thing, or at least that it was an accepted practice for members of the nobility. So I still think that either the hook needs to be substantially reworked to more closely reflect the source, or a new hook be found. Gatoclass (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your interpretation of your text Gatoclass. My interpretation (& so the hook) is based on Legg's use of the word most - in that "most of the widows declare themselves to be the wife of their late husband, or their father's daughter" and you rightly point out "others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names" but I think that needs to be balanced by the "most" earlier in the sentence i.e. for women generally, they don't give their name, but some noble women do but overall, for women signing their name, it is unusual enough to be pointed out in the text. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svgGatoclass main hook only. Debate seems to have ended. Victuallers (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry I forgot to get back to this. The issue with ALT0 is that it says her signing her own name was "unusual for a woman", but there is no indication in the text that it was unusual for a noblewoman, in fact the text if anything suggests the opposite. So I still think the hook either needs to be reworked for accuracy, or a new hook be found. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the vagaries of the text, it might be best to just quote the ambiguous phrase more or less verbatim:

  • ALT2: ... that while most women in 14th-century England signed documents as "wife of" or "daughter of", Margaret de Neville, like other noblewomen, signed with their own names? Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 31[edit]

Broken toe

Can you spot what bone that would be? :)
Can you spot what bone that would be? :)

Created by HLHJ (talk) and minor contributions by several members of Wikiproject Medicine (talk). Nominated by DrVogel (talk) at 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (no review): I understand the intention, but 88.5.3.2 is a legitimate IP address. Mindmatrix 17:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've replaced my "is" with a "may". Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I love this hook. This is far more interesting and "hooky" than I would have believed possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Haha thanks :) It was a moment of inspiration. I wanted to do my best to achieve recognition for HLHJ's excellent article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing...New, long enough, no copy vio issues. QPQ not required as <5 nominations. Will go through and finalise soon.Whispyhistory (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg... Hook in article and followed by citation to a reference containing hook fact. Image free and clear. I like the caption unless anyone knows of any reason it shouldn't be used. Are we allowed to put :) ? A suggestion: bullet point some of the sentences in the infobox, and add a citation after every sentence....but up to you. Its not completely in the order of medical articles: ie signs & symptoms followed by mechanism followed by diagnosis etc, but I see what you were doing and I see a lot of effort went here. Fulfils DYK. Well done. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC) :)
Symbol question.svg Apologies...I had another look. The article doesn't say " that 88.5.3.2 may not be an IP address,".... it needs another look @DrVogel:. It also needs to say that in the source. Oversight on my part. Please let me know what you wish to do. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory: But that would be impossible, the article can't possibly mention IP addresses, it's about broken toes. The hook is just a hook, and serves its purpose. The example in the hook is actually given in the article, and supported by the sources cited. Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@DrVogel:, reaching out for advice...@Philafrenzy: or others can we have advice here please... reminds me of the cobblers one. It's okay with me if allowed (dyk says hook needs to be in article and in the following ref). Whispyhistory (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that exact sequence of numbers in the source, although there are others that look a bit like an IP address. The trouble is, the nominator seems to be the source for it looking a bit like an IP address, which it does, but we can't use that unless the source makes a similar point, which it does not appear to do. Something like this might work (numbers might need to be changed as mentioned):
ALT1 ... that a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the image, it's a fun idea but I don't think we run images as quizzes and the image is simply a skeletal foot, and not closely enough related to the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly... will wait for nominator to respond...no hurry. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your input. I don't see how the hook you're suggesting is hooky. What exactly is wrong with the hook proposed? It's in the article and it's supported by the sources cited.
And the image is directly related to the hook. It engages the reader into a spotting game. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Like everyone else, I rather like the IP-address hook. If we wikilinked IP address, it would be supported in the linked articles, and fulfill the requirement that anyone following the links will be able to verify the hook. I don't think we need sourcing that says that a specific sequence of numbers is an IP address, as we have sources giving the general format of an IP address, and creating an example would be a trivial calculation ("Are all four of these numbers separated by periods in the range 0-255?"):
"IPv4 and IPv6 address formats". www.ibm.com. An IPv4 address has the following format: x . x . x . x where x is called an octet and must be a decimal value between 0 and 255. Octets are separated by periods. An IPv4 address must contain three periods and four octets. The following examples are valid IPv4 addresses:
1 . 2 . 3 . 4
01 . 102 . 103 . 104

This hook is better than any alternative I can think of, and I don't see anything likely to be problematic about it (it's certainly verifiable). I think we might be in agreement on that? So if some rule technically prohibits it, we might have a good case for applying the WP:Ignore all the rules policy. Broken finger is also currently DYK-eligible and I think it uses the same numbering scheme.[1] HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edit: add fulltext url]
I don't necessarily agree with the reading of WP:DYKCRIT 3b (Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source [...]) that says that the IP thing needs to be in the article (compare e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Urine deflector, which similarly took some creative licence in how the proposed hooks were phrased beyond what was stated in either the article or the cited source), and I agree with HLHJ that WP:IAR would be applicable regardless. As for the hooks themselves, writing "a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2" is a much poorer way of writing the hook (less "hooky") than the converse, i.e. "88.5.3.2 may refer to a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone". TompaDompa (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
We can't use IP address because the nominator just thought it up "oh, that looks like an IP address". It's not in the source as the nominator admits and therefore is not verifiable. And so what if it does look like an IP address? What does that tell us about broken toes? I like clever or quirky hooks and have written many (if I may say so), but they have to be based on something in the sources otherwise it's things made up one day. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments. This is not the place to ignore all rules. The proposed hook is not supported by the source given in the article. I am inclined to approve ALT1 but it needs checking, unless another hook is proposed. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear, this has become contentious. I think the contended question is whether it's acceptable to have verified information not found in the nominated article, but only in another article, linked in the hook. Not as hooky, but for illustration:
I don't think we're debating whether the IP-address-hook statement is verifiable. The statement that "88.5.3.2" (and any number in that format) is a valid IPv4 address is supported by the IP address article and the IPv4 article, and this format is the subject of the Dot-decimal notation article. No-one had bothered to cite those statements in those articles, but since they've been challenged here, I've now cited them.Face-smile.svg So "88.5.3.2 is both an IP address[1] and a code for a broken toebone[2]" is certainly verifiable, and is now verified on Wikipedia. Any DYK reader should have no trouble verifying that the hook is accurate. Alternatives that do not mention IP addressees are not as hooky, but don't contain more information about broken toes:
Rules aside, is there any concrete harm to Wikipedia in the IP-address hook? HLHJ (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edited to replace the wrong url, copy-paste mistake]
Please don't strike the proposed hook as you have done. You certainly don't have consensus to do that. As several people have explained above, the hook is supported by the article and the source. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the reviewer needs consensus Dr Vogel. I agree and have re-struck it. Please work on something else. I am sure you can develop something good, or tweak the Alt1. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
How about ALT2 ... that 88.5.3.2 is one way of describing a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Thank you Philafrenzy ( a very experienced DYK contributor) for your efforts in helping new editors understand DYK. Your comment higher up about "88.5.3.2" and "ip address" not being in the source is true and I am grateful for your suggested alts. Essentially, the initial and subsequent hooks sound good, but none are in the article or the source. I don't wish for personal comments and don't mind if someone else wishes to take over here. With due respect @DrVogel: and @HLHJ:...You may wish to take this up at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I won't say I wish I hadn't written the article;Face-confused.svg I hope it's useful enough to make up for the social harm to the project here. I don't think the hostility was intended by anyone; I suspect that it's felt partly due to the ease of mininterpretation in a text-only medium and partly due to human cognitive biases.[2] I certainly did, and do, not intend it.
I spent a day's editing trying to resolve the conflict by finding references specifically saying that the two things were in notation X and adding that text to the article, but unfortunately non-inductive descriptions of the notations seem to have been considered so needless that an Internet RFC attempting to formalize them died of disinterest. I did find a source that explicitly defines the IPv4 format, and one that explicitly says that 88.1.2.2 is a specific fracture, and I've cited the latter in the article, but I don't think this helps. It is probably a bit unreasonable to expect a reviewer to do more than apply rules as best they can, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know might indeed be a better forum for a more detailed discussion. I don't really want to take part in one, though (nothing to do with this discussion, prior reasons). I posted because I felt responsible for the conflict and thought I might be able to help. My impression is that I made it worse; my apologies to everyone I've offended. HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is offended, but if I may say so I think you are still missing the point. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity. That's why the sources don't make the comparison and why the IP-based hooks are no good. Any of the other hooks might be fine (I haven't checked the numbers) just without the bit about IP addresses. The whole thing reminds me of unusually shaped vegetables where you may see a carrot shaped like a foot, people who see faces in clouds, and even apophenia. My personal observation that one thing looks a bit like another is not the basis for a hook unless reliable sources make the point too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Folks, we are wasting a wonderful hook. Really. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity and that is the whole point of making good hooks. They are supposed to be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content. And one of the best recipes to make a hook good is to make it sound counterintuitive With any other option but the original, we are bound to receive another hook frequented by maybe a few hundred visitors. I would propose something to the tune of in some contexts, 88.5.3.2 might not mean an IP address but a broken bone in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? so that no one claims here that we somehow delegitimise the IP address but at the same time so that we preserve the core of the hook. As for the claims that because the hook is not cited in the IP part, it can't be there - please don't be that pedantic. In our today's world of informatics we may assume that people who visit Wikipedia more or less imagine what IP addresses are, and may more or less imagine how they look like (in the worst case they will visit the article for details). The other part is cited. I see no problem with the original. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki I admit that I'm not very familiar with the topic, and the above discussion was confusing, but is the "this isn't an IP address" claim actually in the source? Because if it's not, then no matter how good the hook proposal is, it can't be used in a hook since hook facts need to be based on a reference. Also, I'm pretty sure that assumptions don't count as sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
What I was leading is that we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or that we have five fingers; or that there exist IP addresses for that matter. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that these IP number hooks aren't working out so far, I wonder if some other hooks unrelated to that could be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment only If we accept the first hook we will end up with thousands of hits, some quiet smiles and some who will continue to believe that DYK broke the rules. We're allowed to. This is not a massive occasion where we can save the whole project by breaking the rules. Its a trivial example of what some (not all) think may be a breach in the rules, with a small, but amusing, advantage. So I'm not asking the defenders of the rules to admit that this is not a breech ... I am suggesting that they might just concede that the harm done by allowing this hook might not offend anyone ... and it might please a few thousand. Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't need to break the rules. The observation that the notation looks a bit like an IP address is trivial and completely unrelated to broken toes. There are already perfectly good hooks above that work better. Nobody is saying don't use the numbers, just strike the bit about IP addresses. The originally proposed hook is not the work of comic genius and cleverness that some seem to think it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The main issue here is that it's one of the core rules of DYK that hook facts must be mentioned in the article, ideally explicitly or at least implied by supporting information. The thing is that at the moment, IP addresses are not mentioned anywhere in the article, so the hooks using the IP address angle would be ineligible according to that criterion anyway. Even April Fools hooks, which tend to be misleading, are still generally based on hook facts that are mentioned in the respective articles. So if we can't even grant IAR exemptions for that criterion for AFD hooks, the one day of the year where our hooks tend to follow the rules most loosely, I can't see why such a request should be granted here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meinberg, EG; Agel, J; Roberts, CS; Karam, MD; Kellam, JF (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018" (PDF). Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 32 Suppl 1: S1–S170. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063. PMID 29256945.
  2. ^ Boothby, Erica J.; Cooney, Gus; Sandstrom, Gillian M.; Clark, Margaret S. (5 September 2018). "The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?" (PDF). Psychological Science. 29 (11): 1742–1756. doi:10.1177/0956797618783714. PMID 30183512. S2CID 52165115. Retrieved 8 June 2019.

Articles created/expanded on November 1[edit]

Tina Stege

Tina Stege
Tina Stege

Created by Roundtheworld (talk) and FlyingFoxBoi (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 16:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough. Two correct writers are credited. The article is fully referenced. No copyvio detected. There is a bit of biased POV pushing in Wikipedia voice: "most vulnerable to climate change". This will be something our subject is saying no doubt. And this idea is also reflected in the hook with "endangered". The hook content is referenced and confirmed by the Guardian, apart from the "endangered" bit, which opinion is attributed to Tina Stege. So I suggest that "endangered" is taken out of the hook, or it is reworded so it is clear she is saying that. Hook alt1 is unsuitable as it does not link the article and I cannot tell what it is trying to say in relation to the subject. I can confirm image is CC-BY-3.0 as derived from the video with CC-BY-3.0 license. However I would suggest that a different image is selected from the video, perhaps near the end where the microphone is not obscuring her chin. QPQ is done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for the review Graeme - I have recut a new image. Surprised that "endangered" wasn't referenced. I'm not sure it is just her opinion -"Projected sea level rise would mean 40% of the buildings in the Marshall Islands’ capital of Majuro would be permanently flooded and entire islands would disappear, potentially costing the Pacific country its status as a nation, according to a devastating new report from the World Bank." is a quote from the reference I have added to balance the idea that "endangered" might by pov. Victuallers (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This new picture is better. Thanks for the screen grab. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: If you are busy then we can find another reviewer. Victuallers (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
What I am asking for is a slightly amended hook to be proposed. I would rather not give the cross as the rest of the article and nomination is good for DYK. If I stick in a hook then we do need yet another to check that out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Are you suggesting that we imply that "endangered" is her opinion despite the fact that she represents a nation and the "endangered" aspect is supported by the World Bank and the Guardian newspaper (and the 1bn people estimated to be part of the "High Ambition" group ) saying so? Is there any evidence that is just her opinion and not that of her country and the World Bank? Am I missing something? It you feel you need to give this "a cross" then can I suggest that we ask for a new reviewer?I have suggested an alt that does not use the endangered word. Victuallers (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Women in Red are doing a focus on "Women and Climate" for December - so good to have this for 1 Dec. Could we resolve this? Quite happy to find a new reviewer if you are busy. Victuallers (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on November 2[edit]

Grace Meigs Crowder

  • Comment: This is my third DYK nomination, I have not reviewed another article.

Created by DferDaisy (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @DferDaisy: This article is about 3300 bytes, and was nominated for DYK shortly after creation, satisfying date and length criteria. There is a factual error, as the article states she was interred in Keokuk, Illinois, but the source says she died in Chicago, Illinois and was interred in Keokuk, Iowa. I am assuming good faith for a few references I cannot access (for example, ref 15 - The National Humane Review), which for me gives a landing page for the document, instead of an inside view). Otherwise, everything is properly sourced and there are no copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns (Earwig cites 3 potential problems, but they are not an issue here.) QPQ not required.
  • Regarding the hooks, ALT0 is incorrect as stated, as it reads as if the study was conducted in the early 1900s by Meigs Crowder, whereas she published it in 1917 based on studies from that period. It'll need minor alteration. ALT1 is fine and sourced. I would prefer to promote an amended ALT0.
  • A minor quibble, though not an issue for DYK: please add page numbers for cited sources. If online access is eliminated from the sources, it'll force anyone investigating those sources to wade through too many pages to find the desired detail. You can do so using {{rp}} as follows for a detail on page 25 of "yoursource": <ref name="yoursource" />{{rp|25}}. Mindmatrix 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Downtown Eatery (1993) v. Ontario

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Drive-by comment. Isn't the holding of Downtown Eatery that the plaintiff was employed by a consortium of corporate entities including the named defendant? See Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd v Ontario, 2001 CanLII 8538 (Ont CA) at para 40: "we conclude that Alouche's employer in June 1993 when he was wrongfully dismissed was all of Twin Peaks, The Landing Strip, Downtown Eatery and Best Beaver". And Mohamed F Khimji & Jon Viner, "Oppression — Reducing Canadian Corporate Law to a Muddy Default", 2016 47-1 Ottawa Law Review 123, 2016 CanLIIDocs 87 at page 173: "… in Downtown Eatery, the applicant, Alouche, successfully obtained judgment for wrongful dismissal against his employer corporation, Best Beaver" (emphasis added in both cases). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Yes, but note that this court case is the "leading case with respect to the issue of common employers", establishing a precedent in Canadian law. At the time the lawsuit was filed, this was not the case, and in fact the trial judge ruled against Alouche (see last paragraph of background section); it was only after the case was brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the "common employer doctrine" was established, and it became entrenched when leave to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed. Mindmatrix 15:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, so the idea behind the hook is that, since Downtown Eatery changed the law on common employers, before Downtown Eatery Best Beaver would not have been Alouche's employer? That makes more sense. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to inspect this again... Mindmatrix 15:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Alright, so to ensure everything is correct, the following timeline occurred:
  • Alouche was hired to be manager at For Your Eyes Only (owned by Grad and Grosman), and began work on 29 December 1992
  • Alouche was sent a Notice of Discipline in May 1993, and was fired on 15 June 1993
  • In October 1993, Alouche filed action for wrongful dismissal against Best Beaver Management Inc., as that was the source of his paycheques
  • Best Beaver ceased operations in mid-1996, and all assets distributed to other companies owned by Grad and Grosman
  • The trial resolved in favour of Alouche
  • Best Beaver did not pay out the judgement (all its assets had been redistributed)
  • Sherriffs were dispatched to For Your Eyes Only, where they seized $1,855
  • Downtown Eatery filed claim against Alouche, stating the cash belonged to it
  • Alouche defended, and counterclaimed against Grad, Grosman, and all companies they controlled on the grounds of common employer doctrine, the oppression remedy of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and fraudulent conveyance
  • the judge in the second trial (at Ontario Superior Court of Justice) ruled against Alouche
  • the case was brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, where the previous ruling was overturned in 2001
  • in January 2002, an application for leave to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed
  • So, the common employer doctrine was part of the second trial as a counterclaim to the suit filed by Downtown Eatery. I just wanted to ensure this satisfies your concerns. Mindmatrix 18:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this incredibly thorough response. My concern is maybe philosophical or definitional. If I say that company A employs person B, that has an ordinary meaning and a legal meaning. It is probably right that Best Beaver did not employ Alouche in the ordinary sense of "employ", because Best Beaver was a "paymaster" and not the name on the front of the building where he went to work. My reading of the case itself is that, before Downtown Eatery, it was at best indeterminate as a legal matter whether Best Beaver, alone or in combination with its affiliate companies, employed Alouche. After Downtown Eatery, it was established—as a matter of legal meaning, but not necessarily ordinary meaning—that Best Beaver was his employer, or part of his employer, or something like that. The reason I brought this up is that it's not clear how one could verify the claim that "Best Beaver was not Alouche's employer", because that claim might be true as a matter of ordinary meaning but the only authoritative legal ruling we have on this (namely, Downtown Eatery) holds that the claim is false. In any event, I'll leave this to the eventual reviewer to sort out. I find my brain twisting into knots. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Clarifying that the above is only a side discussion and that a review is still required. Mindmatrix 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 3[edit]

Emily Goss

  • ... that Emily Goss's role as Jennifer in the film The House on Pine Street earned her four Best Actress award nominations, of which she won three, in the American festival circuit? source, source, source.
    • ALT1: ... that the character Louise, played by Emily Goss in the film Snapshots, is based on a real woman named Louise, whom the writer-producer's mother was romantically involved with in the 1930s? Source: "The real Louise was a photographer. Our writer-producer Jan Miller Curran was with her mother when she was 94 and slowly passing and said, 'Louise is here.'... [Curran] said, 'Who is Louise?' And her mother said, 'The love of my life.' So then Jan learned the story of their secret relationship... in the 1930s." source

Created/expanded by Mungo Kitsch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Question?
  • Interesting: Red XN - see below
  • Other problems: Red XN - see below
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Hello, Mungo and welcome to DYK! Review as follows: The article is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a WP:IMDB source and I am unsure about the reliability of several other sources, including Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep. To add to that, the YouTube link does not appear to be uploaded by an official channel, making it unreliable. Additionally, per MOS:FILMCAST uncredited roles need a source. the copyvio checker showed up a 50%+ similarity with a source, which may suggest over quotation. On top of that, the subject has unclear notability. I'm unsure which roles are significant and The House on Pine Street appears to have a questionable notability. None of her awards seem significant and I'm not seeing any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ALT0 isn't very interesting given the festival is not significant enough to have an article. I think ALT1 is interesting but it seems to focus more on the character, not the actress which isn't exactly ideal... QPQ not needed. We'll need some work but we'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Global Methodist Church

  • ... that the Global Methodist Church is part of a planned divorce over marriage? Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([7])
    • ALT1: ... that the Global Methodist Church is expected to separate from the United Methodist Church? Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([8])

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): I like the clever wordplay of the first hook. Thoughts on replacing "planned" with "proposed" – resulting in "proposed divorce over marriage" – to get a little more subtle wordplay on marriage proposal? DanCherek (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg while the article is over 1,500 prose characters, I'm going to be a stickler and say that this is still a stub. Around half the article is in the lead, and much of the lead contains information not reflected in the body. I reassessed and stub-tagged the article—that'll need to be cleared before I move ahead with the review. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, while the things you mentioned are not generally relevant to identifying an article as a stub, I have expanded the article accordingly and information from the lede to the body. Let me know if you find it sufficient or if you want more before considering the article a suitable "start" class. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks for cooperating! Moving on, the article was created from a redir and nominated in time and is neutral, although I'm requesting a second opinion on the sourcing. The article seems to be plagiarism free, and a QPQ has been done. As for the hook, I'm not sure it quite checks out—is the church expected to break away? Because the article just says that a vote is planned and expected. Once we clear those two up, we're good to go. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 02:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Not entirely sure what the concern on the sourcing is; there are multiple reputable sources. Also, the lede is fairly clear that this is a planned schism, as the hook says. While I appreciate the review, I am dissatisfied with your effort. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, even if you're passing off this particular review. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Isn't there a difference between "planned" (alt1) and "expected" (alt0)? planned implies it may or may not happen, expected is like forecasting—at least, that's how i read it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 05:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Merriam-Webster considers them definitionally synonymous terms (see definition 2). Again, I can't help but feel like there was a disappointing lack of effort put into this review. My apologies for my frustration, but I put effort into this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
My mistake, then—i'm sorry to hear the review didn't meet your expectations, i know you did put a lot of work into the article. Someone else will finish the review in a short while, I hope. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 05:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 4[edit]

Kushner family

  • Comment: It's been a little while since my last nomination, I owe a review

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 04:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Muboshgu: Date, size, refs, neutrality, hook, all good. I do wonder if we could add something to the hook about the family's modern prominence, since the WWII history is pretty much a trivia footnote related to their modern-era importance? Anyway, all GTG, just waiting for QPQ review. Ping me when it is done for the final tick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, Template:Did you know nominations/Art Sqool is my QPQ. I thought about avoiding the whole orange elephant in the room on this one. Maybe it's my own bias as a descendant of Holocaust survivors that drew me to a hook on the partisans. But I can propose a hook that includes it... – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, Thanks. Just a final nitpick for ALT1: can we avoid the WP:EASTEREGG problem and spell out Donald Trump in it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, yeah why not. Not sure why I did that. Anyone else can wordsmith the blurb as needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Jared Kushner
Jared Kushner
Sorry, but ALT1 is non-neutral in my view, as it implies by way of comparison that Jared Kusher is an enabler of antisemitism. Gatoclass (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You could possibly go with something like:

  • ALT2 ... that some members of the Kushner family objected after Jared (pictured) invoked their grandparents' resistance in Nazi-occupied Poland to support his denial of Donald Trump's alleged antisemitism? Gatoclass (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Gatoclass, I was afraid I might've tacked too far in that direction with ALT1. ALT2 works for me. I guess my only question is if [[Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)|the Nazis]] is an EGG and if it shouldn't be [[Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)|Nazi-occupation of Poland]]. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a bit EGG-ish Muboshgu, but it's the only way I could get the hook under 200 characters. Gatoclass (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the dreaded character count. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Tweaked to avoid the EGG - it's still under 200 chars. Gatoclass (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT2 needs review. Gatoclass (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Maw Htun Aung

Created by Htanaungg (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

I don't see what's so surprising about this. The article doesn't suggest in any way that there would have been any expectation of him running on the NLD line, or that he had previously been involved in the NLD. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
How about the following one, Daniel Case? Htanaungg (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 7[edit]

Andrea-Mae Zepeda

  • Reviewed: TBA

Created by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ is still needed. I like ALT1 the best, but the problem is that the sentence discussing it currently has a citation needed tag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bahnfrend: It has been over a week since my review, a QPQ is still needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bahnfrend: If issues with the article are not addressed soon, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Please return to the nomination and address the concerns raised here. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 11[edit]

Norman Colville

Queen of the Night
Queen of the Night

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg... New, long enough, no copyvio issues, QPQ provided. Reads well and referenced adequately. Hook is interesting and is in article followed by a citation to a reference containing the hook fact. Looks straight forward. Image is clear and free. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Dumelow and Whispyhistory: the hook seems to be heavily reliant on the inclusion of the image to be interesting—I suggest, as courtesy to whomever may promote your hook (there's a decent chance it'll be someone else at the moment), that you two work out a hook that is less reliant on an image so that the promoter does not feel obligated to promote the hook to the image slot. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 07:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been away for a few days. As an alt how about the following - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Norman Colville renovated and extended the 16th-century Penheale Manor to house his increasing art collection? "in 1920 bought Penheale Manor, Egloskerry, Cornwall. Colville commissioned Sir Edwin Lutyens to restore and extend it" from: Milosch, Jane; Pearce, Nick (28 October 2019). Collecting and Provenance: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-5381-2758-2. and "Colville needed a home for his growing collection of works of art" from: Stamp, Gavin (2009). Edwin Lutyens: Country Houses. Monacelli Press/Random House. p. 157. ISBN 978-1-58093-237-0.

Articles created/expanded on November 12[edit]

Ireland's Eye

5x expanded by SeoR (talk). Self-nominated at 00:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was a 5x expansion at the time of the nomination and no close paraphrasing was found. QPQ has been found. ALT0 is a bit too complicated and isn't as interesting as ALT1; however, the first part of ALT1 (it nothing to do with sight) appears to be synthesis as it's not actually explicitly mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Maximilian Dood

  • Comment: This is the first time I’ve ever made a DYK here, so here goes. I personally find this fact interesting because it highlights how the advent of YouTube, and internet fame in general, has allowed people to use their voice to reach people in positions of high influence, bringing hidden ideas to light and advocating for change. While this specific example falls under a video game/pop-culture category, and may not fit Wikipedia’s desire for academic material, I feel that this is interesting enough to share, as it’s one the gaming community can relate to, like with other social media trends such as #FreeSmash and "Rerelease Mother 3." As for the article itself, all of the citations should be reliable enough; they’re all from third-party/secondary source outlets and there isn’t any BLP violation to be found here. One concern I have is criteria #3 - “Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient.” While the hook is sourced in the article, the refs are at the end of the section rather than per each sentence. I can fix that however. Anyway, I hope this fact does get accepted! If not, I understand, thanks for reviewing this anyway.

Created/expanded by PantheonRadiance (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Hook is currently at 204 characters, so a minor reduction is required (maximum hook length is 200 characters)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: