Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.


Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
October 22 1
November 2 1
November 3 1
November 5 1
November 15 1
November 18 1
November 19 1
November 20 2
November 22 2
November 24 1
November 28 1
November 30 2 1
December 2 1
December 8 1 1
December 9 2 2
December 10 1
December 11 1 1
December 12 2 1
December 14 1
December 16 4 3
December 17 2 1
December 18 2 1
December 20 1 1
December 22 1 1
December 23 2 1
December 24 1
December 25 1 1
December 26 4 4
December 27 3 2
December 28 1 1
December 30 3 1
December 31 4 2
January 1 3 2
January 2 9 8
January 3 8 8
January 4 10 6
January 5 6 6
January 6 12 10
January 7 14 10
January 8 11 11
January 9 8 5
January 10 5 5
January 11 9 8
January 12 12 8
January 13 12 8
January 14 14 6
January 15 11 8
January 16 10 4
January 17 5 2
January 18 7 4
January 19 8 3
January 20 7 2
January 21 7 1
January 22 4 2
January 23
Total 245 152
Last updated 11:08, 23 January 2018 UTC
Current time is 11:55, 23 January 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[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).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
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.

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 Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.

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 Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[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.

Frequently asked questions[edit]


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 (so that those hooks don't grow stale), 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 above).

Where is my hook?[edit]

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.

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

  • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
  • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
  • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
  • In the prep set...
    • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
    • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
  • Back on DYK nomination page...
    • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • change |passed= to |passed=yes
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

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.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals.

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

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


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Caroline Brady (philologist)

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, and thoroughly footnoted. But although this isn't an explicit DYK criterion, the article is problematic, in that it presents lots of little boring details about the subject's life (like the street addresses where she lived and who owned those pieces of property or the subsequent history of a ship she took a trip on as a child) but nowhere does it clearly state what she is notable for in a way that would clearly indicate a pass of our academic notability standards. It states what her scholarship was on, but not why it is significant (if it is). It lists what look like all her publications, rather than making any attempt to select the significant ones. It says she published "more than a dozen book" but lists no books. Much of the sourcing is non-secondary and of dubious reliability and fails to cover the subject in the depth that would be required to establish general notability (e.g. seven separate sources from FamilySearch; local newspaper listings of community college courses; entries in association membership directories). The subject appears never to have progressed past assistant professor in academic rank, a red flag for a failed academic career. I worry that, if an article in this state is linked on the main page, it would very quickly get sent to AfD. The parts of the article that look like they might be usable to establish notability are the Talbot Fellowship and (if she published any) book publications that might have associated book reviews. I think the article could use significant trimming of the uninteresting parts so that readers could focus more clearly on the interesting parts.
As for the rest of the criteria: QPQ done. Earwig found a copied direct quote but no problematic copying. The main hook needs disambiguation on the Pennsylvania link. I prefer hooks ALT1 or ALT2, but they're inadequately sourced for DYK: ALT1 is given only the subject's own publications as sources, ALT2 has no sources at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • David Eppstein, thanks for your review. I've added some more information on her publications that should help make her notability more clear. Please let me know if you would like more, although I'm not sure what exactly that would be; a Google Scholar citation count would perhaps be on point, but if you think that the torpedoing of a boat is a "boring detail", then saying that "this article has been cited 36 times" is perhaps hopeless.
Your other main criticism seems to be that the article is filled with minutiae. To the extent that it is necessary to defend this (cf. "this isn't an explicit DYK criterion"), it's worth remembering that little is known about Brady's life. She produced relevant and notable scholarship in the 1940s and 1950s, yet no mention of her appears between 1955 and 1979, when she published the first of two widely-cited articles after a decades-long hiatus. In the absence of a more comprehensive source of information on her such as an obituary, the amalgamation of many small details—whether or not one might term some "boring"—is a way to sketch a picture of Brady's life. Knowing that she lived at 132 S. Laurel Avenue in Los Angeles, for example, is relevant when one considers that it was her parents' address: it implies that between her stints at a community college and at Harvard, she moved back in with her parents. Meanwhile, knowing that she once lived in Cambridge reinforces the scant information on her time at Harvard. It's not ideal, and it would be particularly nice to figure out what she was up to from 1955 to 1979, but at the end of the day the sources that we have are the sources that we have.
Re: sources, I've added one (Frank 1987) to back up ALT1. ALT2 is harder to source as it is backed up by 'negative information,' i.e., the complete absence of anything showing that she published between 1955 and 1979. If in your opinion that's not enough to back up ALT2, then let's just go with another. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The torpedoing of the boat is a particularly egregious example, but the same thing is true throughout the article. It's not so much that the torpedoing of a boat is a boring event – it isn't – but that the event has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. She rode on the boat once; as it involved an intercontinental move for Brady's family, that is significant enough to mention. But why would someone who comes to this article to find out about Brady's life be interested to find instead a description of what happened to a boat five years after Brady rode on it? That's not part of her life. A large fraction of the article appears to be filler of this type rather than actual informative content about Brady. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I've moved the torpedoing information to the notes section. Returning again to the DYK criteria, is there anything still holding back this nomination? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It still has all the appearance of an article about someone who is not notable. The lead makes no assertion of significance, and the sources that could be used to make a case for WP:GNG (the nontrivial reviews of her work) are buried under a mountain of redundant trivial sources that do not count towards notability (e.g. 21 different copies of the membership list of an association in which membership is not a significant honor). She may well actually be notable, but the article works very hard to make her appear not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm having significant problems with this article in terms of NOTE as well. According to the article, as it stands, this person did not win any notable awards for her work, was not elected to the chair of any notable organizations, and doesn't seem to be particularly widely quoted. There are some interesting quotes about her work, but I'm not clear if they are notable either. There are lots of academics who led interesting lives, what makes this one notable in Wiki terms? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, thanks for weighing in. I believe that Brady's notability is evidenced both by her Marion Talbot fellowship, and by the impact of her publications, a number of which—particularly her 1943 book, and her last two articles on Beowulf—are widely cited within her field. Minor figure that she was, having an article about her allows anyone wondering who she was to easily find out; that her page has been viewed 13 times per day on average suggests that I was not the only one with that question. At the same time, I don't think that a DYK nomination is the appropriate place to contest the notability of an article's subject. If you or David Eppstein believe that this is an AFD candidate, then being proactive by bringing it there would be more useful than simply weighing in here.
Also, to David Eppstein's earlier point about the membership lists that include Brady: these do not count towards Brady's notability, but they are not intended to, nor have they even been suggested to do that. They serve two purposes. First, they provide a 21 year chronology of Brady's academic appointments. Second, they demonstrate that Caroline Agnes Brady is the same person commonly (and probably incorrectly) referred to as "Caroline Agnes von Egmont Brady" (see, e.g., WorldCat). This was quite confusing when I was researching Brady—I thought at first that they were two separate people—but hopefully by providing hard evidence that the two names refer to one person, it will help others avoid similar confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The current state of the article is disappointing, but in my view the bar of notability is easily met. Her 1943 doctoral dissertation, Legends of Ermanaric, is help in 151 libraries according to Worldcat. The large time gap in her research output is puzzling but we may never know the reasons; this could be briefly summarized. A recent handbook on Beowulf (1998) gives half a page to her work on that topic, and (if anyone had the time) the article might be refocused on what she is still known for. A Google for 'Carolyn Brady Beowulf' brings up some relevant hits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No position on notability, but there's still too much trivia, and the directory listings are OR/SYNTH. EEng 04:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
EEng#s, to be clear, which DYK criteria in particular does the article not yet meet? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. 4, policy, which calls for verifiability. The article cites the MLA membership list maybe 20 times, listing it as a secondary source, which it's not. It also cites census date -- again, primary and WP:OR. May be other issues but I'm on mobile so I won't look further. I'm sure this can be salvaged but as it stands this article tries too hard. EEng 05:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
EEng#s, thanks for taking a look and for the comments. I've cleaned up the article some, with additional thanks to EdJohnston for the comments and the reference to A Beowulf Handbook (now incorporated).
Differentiating between primary and secondary sources can sometimes be tricky, but even if those MLA lists are primary sources, they should be fine. All they do is "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (link). As said above, they provide a 20-year roster of Brady's academic appointments (largely also backed up both other sources), and clarify that "Caroline Agnes Brady" is the same person occasionally referred to as "Caroline Agnes von Egmont Brady" (which even WorldCat refers to her as sometimes). You're right that the article is trying, but without leaving it as a stub that's hard to avoid: its subject published a number of notable works and then pretty much disappeared, leaving behind a handful of newspaper articles and syntheses of her work for someone to cobble together. The article's not going to ever make it anywhere close to GA unless a couple of long obituaries come falling out of the sky, but as it stands now, I think it's fine for DYK. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You see why I gave up on this? It's this approach, of trying to justify why the article is in the state it is, or making only cosmetic changes that address the specific instances commented on here but not the bigger problem they are instances of, rather than doing something more useful with the feedback. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


  • There's no "even if" – the MLA's membership lists are absolutely primary, and cannot be used the way you're using them, for example chaining them together to conclude that the subject worked as a TF from 19xx to 19yy or was an assistant professor from 19aa to 19bb. That's classic WP:SYNTH, and there's a reason we don't allow that. I, personally, have many times been listed by professional societies at old employers or former institutions simply because it didn't really matter or I just forgot. That's why we require that such stuff be filtered through reliable sources who are in a position to do research we can't.
  • And that goes double for everything the article currently lists under Primary sources -- census returns, Social Security death indices, and so on. This stuff is notoriously error-prone and and hard to interpret and there are essentially no circumstances under which a WP article can cite them (except to illustrate a conclusion reached in an appropriate source).
  • As a random additional example, the statement that Brady received her Ph.D in October 1935 is cited to two newspaper sources giving conflicting graduation dates, one in 1935 and one in 1936. Newspapers are typically reliable secondary sources, but mass listings of e.g. names of graduates are exactly the sort of thing they should not be relied upon for.

This doesn't mean the article can't be saved. But it's gotta be cut back to what can be established by reliable sources. On a less important note, the use of short footnotes when only a single page or page range is cited in each source is completely unnecessary, makes getting to sources headache-inducing, and creates a gigantically puffed up "bibliography" – I mean... c'mon... 26 entries reading "List of Members of the Modern Language Association of America". Publications of the Modern Language Association. Modern Language Association. XXXXX (Supplement)"? – it's silly. EEng 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 5[edit]

Nicholas Exton

  • ... that in 1388 Nicholas Brembre was tried for treason and hanged, and his fate was sealed by his successor as London Mayor, Nicholas Exton, one of those who "knew him best"? Oliver, C., Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-century England (Woodbridge, 2010), 104.

Improved to Good Article status by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article is easily long enough and was newly promoted to GA when nominated. It's in excellent shape generally and well-sourced (not a surprise, since it's just come through the GA process). A few requests for clarification: in the section "Merchant and alderman," one sentence asserts that "... he was also a Surveyor of Murage Mayor of the Westminster staple." I'm unable to parse that line, and it sounds like there's an "and" missing between Murage and Mayor, but I'm not clear enough on what any of those terms means to be sure; perhaps the nominator can clear up that sentence? Another sentence in the same section tells that Exton was "... imprisoned for a year ... and forced to leave the city, albeit temporarily. Only a month later, though, in September 1382, he was arguing the same points in parliament." If he was imprisoned for a year, then how was he in parliament a month later? AGF on the offline hook source, if these two spots can be cleared up, the article will be good to go. The review is now on hold until the article reaches a stable version. The article now appears to be stable and well-sourced, and unclear points have been improved. There are currently three "Citation needed" templates in the article (one of which I added for an unattributed quotation); all three claims need to be given citations or else removed, and then the article will be ready to go. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: I wish you had pinged me. This might have got resolved sooner than it has. Those points have now been clarified, with wikilinks and further info. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
My mistake! It didn't occur to me that you might have nominated the article but not bothered to watchlist the review. Since the article is now tagged with a "major edit" template, I'll review it afresh whenever the rewrite is completed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
After the FAC, you mean? Surely, by then, it will no longer be eligible, surely? @Bryanrutherford0: btw — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean; I don't know anything about any Featured Article nomination. The article we're presently discussing for Did You Know, Nicholas Exton, currently has the "In use" template at the top, and the language is broken and incomplete (e.g., the "London" section ends with "This made the"), presumably because you are in the midst of rewriting and expanding it. You have now substantially changed the article since I reviewed it the first time, making my previous review pointless. I cannot review the article until it reaches a stable version; please indicate here (or by pinging me, if you prefer) when you are done making large changes to the article, and I will be happy to review it again at that point.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Bryanrutherford0 & Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, looks like this article is now stable enough to be fully reviewed? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you for the heads-up, I'll review it again in the next couple of hours.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:: I have re-reviewed the article; if you can cite the three points carrying "Citation needed" templates, then it will be ready for approval.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Despite a notice to their talk page (quickly archived without the requested response to this nomination page), the "Citation needed" templates remain. I'll place one more notice on the nominator's talk page (under their new username), and hope that they respond here, as it would be a shame for this article not to appear as a DYK hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: the latest notice has produced results: the nominator wrote that I am going through each individual reference in turn, which as you can imagine may take some time, so we'll wait for the results from that process, since work is being done to address the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 22[edit]

Kirsty McGuinness

  • ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both the historically mostly Catholic Antrim GAA and the historically mostly Protestant Northern Ireland women's national football team? Source: BBC

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 13:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The C of E New, in time, long enough, sourced, neutral, QPQ done. Issues:
Where in the article does it say that Antrim GAA is mostly Catholic, or that the national team is mostly Protestant?
Hook seems to conflict with this line in the article: "[McGuinness playing on these teams] differed from men's sport where there are sectarian divides between majority Protestant association football and majority Roman Catholic GAA." --Usernameunique (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's in the last sentence. The hook doesn't conflict with the article as its saying she plays for both women's teams while stating that this doesn't happen in the mens teams due to the divides in NI. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, how does "McGuinness would attend Linfield training wearing an Antrim shirt and vice versa" support the hook? Also, what I mean by the apparent contradiction is that the hook implies that the two teams are majority Catholic and majority Protestant, and that McGuinness is an exception to that trend. The sentence about men's soccer appears to say the same; that the teams are majority (but not exclusively) Catholic or Protestant, which also implies that there are some exceptions to the general trend. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. s such, I have amended the hook to state the historical divides between football and GAA that she has crossed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks The C of E. Just need something in the article also saying that women's soccer has historically had Catholic/Protestant divisions. I think you're trying to say that in this sentence: "This differed from men's sport where there are traditionally sectarian divides between the historically majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA." However, the way that sentence is structured it seems to say that only men's soccer has historically has such a divide, when I think you are trying to say that soccer generally has had the divide, and men's soccer currently still adheres to it. Rephrasing that sentence (e.g., "Traditionally there are sectarian divides between the majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA, which are still generally adhered to in men's sport.") should do the trick. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I have added a clarification. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks The C of E, all set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talkcontribs) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:DYK that led to hook being pulled
  • Hook - " ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both the historically mostly Catholic Antrim GAA and the historically mostly Protestant Northern Ireland women's national football team?"
  • Article - "This differed [sic] from men's sport where there are traditionally sectarian divides between the historically majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA, which is no longer commonplace in women's sport in Northern Ireland"
  • Source for the hook here even flatly contradicts the hook with the quote ""Sectarianism has never been a problem in women's football. All the clubs I have ever known have always had a great blend of Protestants and Catholics."
  • In other words, the article doesn't claim that the NI women's national team has been "historically Protestant" and the source doesn't back it up either. Also, the article says "Some of our girls come to our training with their Antrim gear on and go to Antrim training with their Linfield shirts on." which suggests that playing women's GAA and football isn't even unusual, which renders the hook immediately non-hooky. Pinging @The C of E, Yoninah, and Usernameunique:. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I realise that my opinion is pretty meaningless but... if there is doubt just pull it before it gets onto the mainpage and replace with another? Can always be fixed, clarified etc and added again, no? Better to be on the safe side in the end. Or are there some arcane rules i am missing that would not allow that to happen? (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you're right, I can (and will) do that, even if it's just swapping it with one from a later queue just to allow for more opinions and/or fixes. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've swapped it back to Prep 5 so it won't go live until tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the hook to Prep 3 so there's no risk of it being promoted to queue before this issue is dealt with. There's no reason to rush things. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I had mentioned that the sports are usually divided on religious lines, it is only recently through the women's game that that barrier has been broken down. This hook was designed to show that by featuring a person who has played both GAA and football at representative level, which in itself is an interesting fact. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, it might be interesting if it were clear to the average reader that these are actually two different sports with different rules. I didn't realize it myself until just now, by following a number of wikilinks, that Gaelic football is not merely some sort of Irish league that plays standard football/soccer, but a different game. There needs to be clarity regarding this, both in the article and in the hook. I'll let Black Kite comment on whether your response above answers their concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved out again while waiting for Black Kite to respond; now in Prep 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem remains though - the "fact" that the Northern Ireland women's football (as opposed to the men's game) formerly had a sectarian background is not sourced - indeed the source contains a quote that actually contradicts it. It does need to be sourced, the hook can't exist without it. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above, I've pulled the hook from prep, and will be reopening it on the nominations page shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook is contradicted by the source (see hatted discussion above, which is copied from the DYK talk page), so this nomination is being pulled from prep so a new hook can be proposed and vetted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    ALT1: ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both Antrim GAA and the Northern Ireland women's national football team, whereas in the men's equivalent the two sports are historically divided between Catholics and Protestants? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1, regrettably, is 212 prose characters, well above the maximum 200 at DYK. Please try again, The C of E. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT2:... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both Antrim GAA and the Northern Ireland women's national football team, sports which in the men's equivalent are historically separate for Catholics and Protestants? A minor rewording but it comes to 199 characters. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging Black Kite to see whether this new hook answers their concerns about the facts and sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well there's nothing actually wrong about it, although it's not massively hooky ... I wouldn't object to it though. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 24[edit]


  • ... that laughter, a signal of amusement, helps us cope with stress because it relaxes the muscles in our bodies?

5x expanded by Galenmcneil (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Not new but expanded on November 21-24.
  • Long enough.
  • Is neutral.
  • Some in-line citations are needed.
  • No close paraphrasing found.
  • The hook is short enough.
  • I don't see a citation for the hook.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This is a challenging topic and I reckon the current draft falls too far short. The OED defines its current meaning as "The pleasurable occupation of the attention, or diversion of the mind (from serious duties, etc.)" and explains that this has evolved from being an "Idle time-wasting diversion" to "Anything which lightly and pleasantly diverts the attention, or beguiles the time; a pastime, play, game, means of recreation". It is therefore a very broad category covering not just humour but many kinds of pastime and play. The article entertainment does this much better and we should be considering merger with that page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really see that - this covers the emotion, not activities which promote it. Entertainment is already 129k raw bytes. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur, plus this is not FAC, it's DYK so if the article meets the requirements of the DYK criteria, which actually allows for an article to be "far short" of what is possible, then there's not one single scrap of grounds for complaint in that regard either. Plus the stomping into another reviewer's review is bad form too. So a hat-trick of failure. So please, Zigzig20s, continue with your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll third. Mr Davidson's objection is completely ill taken, given that the relevant policy isn't WP:¡¡¡EVERYONE!!! but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are additional senses of the word and they should be available in a hatnote or at Amusement (disambiguation) but that's no reason to try to blow up the article's WP:SCOPE to fit every recorded or potential form of time-passing. "Amusement" as the state or agent of "being amused" is perfectly straightforward.

    That said, we still need some more citations, including for the hook, apparently. — LlywelynII 13:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
How about A 15-Year Follow-Up Study of Sense of Humor and Causes of Mortality: The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study? It's a 15 year study on 50,000+ subjects and it documents an evidentiary link between laughter and longer lifespans.
Laughter is Good for Your Heart, According to a New UMMC Study. This documents an apparently causative relationship between laughter and reduced instances/severity of heart disease.
Laughter prescription This is an article not a study, but it apparently cites a number of studies showing that laughter can be beneficial in cancer treatment regimes. It's also been cited itself a few times.
And the most on-the-nose one yet is an official page of the Mayo Clinic, written by "Mayo Clinic Staff" (and thus an official position of the clinic), stating without reservation Stress relief from laughter? It's no joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Most of the Mayo Clinic articles are signed by one of their named editors. My guess is having this one as "Mayo Clinic Staff" is not so much official as their editors being too embarrassed to put a name on it. Which is amusing, but not supportive of the hook. Which claims as a mechanism that laughter relaxes muscles. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's an issue of embarrassment. There's really nothing embarrassing about the page; it's pushing a line that's really well accepted by science, and really well received by the public. I tend to think it's more of a "everyone's on board, so we'll just say it came from everyone" than "nobody wants to put their name on something this silly." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, by marking it as being by "Mayo Clinic Staff" they're straight up saying that this is the position of their staff, which is tantamount to saying that it is the clinic's official position (because if the clinic had an official view on the subject, then they could not possibly be anything except what the staff as a whole thinks). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 08:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 30[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 2[edit]

Long face syndrome

  • ... that Long face syndrome is a relatively common condition experienced by orthodontic patients with a facial deformity and often associated with open mouth breathing?

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk). Self-nominated at 14:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expanded, in time, long enough, sourced, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. user:7&6=thirteen, "often associated with open mouth breathing" doesn't appear to be in the article, and the entire hook is somewhat bland. How about a hook that deals with the Napoleon Dynamite reference? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good. Added "that" to the front, and took out the italics since the hook is referring to the character in the movie, not the movie itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep 3 because the hook statement was previously removed from the article by another user for sourcing issues. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what the source says. Put it back into the article. User:Eeng is wrong. Gatoclass is excused for pulling it, as the erroneous elimination of the source was a fact.7&6=thirteen () 16:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique and User:Eeng. The reliability of the source and the propriety of the removed information (which was the hook) is being discussed at Talk:Long face syndrome. I think this pulled hook is correct. Plainly, it is a reported syndrome. 7&6=thirteen () 20:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Pinging EEng with a valid link so he sees this and can respond. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Like 7&6 said this is being discussed on the article's talk page. The source for ALT1 is a paid advertisement. EEng 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 10[edit]

Valentine (Maurice Chevalier song)

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Legendary song, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The hook is fine and sourced. I have some wishes for the article which is a bit like a collection of interesting facts in no particular order. Example: under the header "Background", I'd expect a brief introduction who the singer was (no, don't take for granted that all our readers know him), and then in chronological order what made him write this song when etc. in chronology, not first what someone thought about it later (which would better go to the lead). Generally, one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Do you agree to make some changes? - Take your time, then perhaps we reserve this for Valentine's day, - reservations no longer than six weeks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I will try to expand it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have expanded the article by translating from the French Wikipedia. Is the article okay now? Yes, I would like it to be reserved for Valentine's day.
By the way, I wonder if we can find a hookier hook. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
COMMENT: I find the article still too choppy. Would there be a copyright problem with adding the lyrics of the chorus to the article? In French and in English? The rhyming makes great sense in French (petons/tetons, menton/mouton). Apparently, the 'cleaned-up' version in French but for the American audiences, rhymed petons/piton. David notMD (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I will look later. I doubt that the translation is out of copyright. Better link to it if available somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The article already has an External link to the lyrics in French. I recommend adding a link to an English translation. I guess the question is how much of a copyrighted song can be in the article as fair use, and also if a translation can be copyrighted. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Translations can certainly be copyrighted. If the above is from a published translation, then it shouldn't even be reproduced on this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Chorus removed from this page. Would fair use allow for quoting a bit more of the chorus (both French and English) than is currently in the article? David notMD (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Assuming the song is still under copyright and given the short length of the lyrics, most likely not - per WP:COPYQUOTE we can't quote a "substantial portion" of the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is much improved! Can you be consistent about songs in quotation marks (vs. italics)? And about the tense, - past tense preferred to present tense for encyclopedic "narration". I am not sure about "Maurice Chevalier", - usually it would be just "Chevalier", but his name is almost a trademark. - Can you write a bit more lead? No reference os needed in the lead for facts sourced in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

Mandisa Thomas

Mandisa Thomas speaking at California Freethought Day
Mandisa Thomas speaking at California Freethought Day
  • ... that the 2013 Blackout Secular Rally, organized by Mandisa Thomas to celebrate racial diversity in the secular demographic, was the United States' first outdoor event headlined by nontheists of color? Source: "In yet another sign of how the American secular demographic is emerging – in terms of both raw numbers and organizational commitment – the first-ever rally featuring nonbelievers of color is scheduled for later this month in New York." (Blackout Secular Rally: Atheism Makes Minority Inroads)
    • ALT1:... that California bill SCR-79 recognizes speakers including Mandisa Thomas, and officially proclaims October 15, 2017 as the 16th annual celebration of California Freethought Day? Source: "be it Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature proclaims October 15, 2017, as the 16th annual celebration of California Freethought Day in Sacramento, California..." (Bill Text - SCR-79 California Freethought Day)

5x expanded by JGehlbach (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough (5x expansion). Article gives subject's full DOB; this needs a citation. Even though the claim "the first outdoor event featuring nontheists of color" is in the source, I am rather sceptical. Have there never been such events outside the US? And I don't see how the source supports it being "the first secular rally celebrating diversity", which also seems an improbable claim. ALT1 is not fully supported by the article, which does not mention it being in Sacramento. Perhaps "in Sacramento" could be dropped, as it is ambiguous anyway. Earwig and spot checking found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Edwardx (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: Thanks for the thorough review. I removed the DOB from article infobox and lede until RS can be located. Also reworked primary hook to tighten claims and ALT1 to remove mention of Sacramento.
  • Symbol question.svg Thank you, JGehlbach. Looking more closely at the at the hook claim, the article reviewing the rally was written by Thomas, and as the organizer, we can reasonably assume the poster was created under her direction. The cited source (review article written by Thomas) begins with, "Mandisa Thomas, organizer of the first-ever outdoor event featuring nontheists of color, reports on the success of the event...". The poster describes the event as, "The first outdoor rally/celebration that will predominantly feature secularists of color". All of these claims are rather vague, and their independence is debatable. Is there no other coverage of the rally available? Edwardx (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: You're right about the primary hook and the likely bias of its supporting source. I found a different source which I also added to the article, and rewrote the DYK hook somewhat to eliminate the secondary hook claim which I'm indeed finding troublesome to support. Please have another look, and thank you again for your diligence. If you find the primary hook still too problematic, I'm happy to go with ALT1. JGehlbach (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 30[edit]


Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 07:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

  • DYK checklist template

Hook eligiblity:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg See below.

The cited source technically says subclass. If a subclass is a class, it's good to go. Cake (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

Umkhosi Wokweshwama

Created by Pharos (talk). Self-nominated at 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg - Length, Date, QPQ Exempt, and Cite for the main hook check. For ALT1 I cannot find any mention of suppression by the British in the sources, though doing general research I did find a mention of the festive falling out of practice due to general European regulations in footnote 4 here. If you could point me to where the sources mention the British prohibiting the festive in the 19th century the nom will be good to go. Mifter (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yasonna Laoly

Yasonna Laoly, the incumbent Indonesian Minister of Laws
Yasonna Laoly, the incumbent Indonesian Minister of Laws

5x expanded by MezzoMezzo (talk) and Awewe (talk). Nominated by Awewe (talk) at 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is a 5x expansion, but requires more sourcing as there are unsourced paragraphs. Also QPQ is needed, as User:Awewe already has six. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 1[edit]

Psalm 149

13th-century parchment in Hebrew
13th-century parchment in Hebrew
  • ... that Psalm 149 (pictured) begins with a call to sing a new song to the Lord, as also Psalm 98, known as Cantate Domino? Source: several, and the sourcetext of both

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Just in time for the date but I'm sorry @Gerda Arendt: but this isn't a 5x expansion. It was 844 characters on 1st January which means it would need 4,220 characters and at the moment, it is 3,678 as I have to exclude the block quote of the text of the Psalm under rule A3. Also the opening paragraph and Anglican section are both unsourced. Furthermore, Psalm and Psalms needs to be capitalised in all instances. Please ping me when you have done them and I'll look over it again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you use DYK check? It tells me it's ok. If you calculate manually, you have to start with the last version before the expansion (735 chars). - If I say "a psalm" it is not capitalised, as "a concerto", so not "in all instances". - There's no blockquote. If you can't count the quote, I will have to rephrase, but I like - for topics I don't know much about - to stick with the wording of the expert. - Can you offer a bit of patience? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. Two articles were changed, and I don't support the changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

Donna Kennedy

Created by Drchriswilliams (talk). Self-nominated at 15:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I've made a few amendments to the articles (none of the club years are cited, only examples of match reports during the years in question), but there are still a few issues – the bit about her 69th cap is cited to an article that says she will play, not that she did; the same is true of the citation for her 82nd cap. Also, the bit about her returning to number 8 doesn't state that she returned to that position, only to the forwards. The hook is fine though. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Drchriswilliams, Number 57 - I've addressed these issues and updated the article to clean it up and include some additional notable points. The Rambling Man - would you mind taking a look and provide some additional feedback?
* ALT 1: ... that Donna Kennedy was the world’s most-capped women's rugby player from 2004-2016 and as of November 2017 remains the most-capped player of any gender in Scotland with 115 caps?
* ALT 2: ... that Donna Kennedy is the most-capped international rugby player—woman or man—in Scotland with 115 caps and was the world’s most-capped women's player from 2004-2016? Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look. Right now, my instinct is that every one of these hooks is a little too contrived. I'll get back to you shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, my opener: firstly "Kennedy played in 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup and scored a try against Sweden." implies she should have some points in her infobox. (oh, and "largest number" -> "most"!!) Secondly, let's stick to her being the all-time top Scottish appearance holder, the "between these years" kind of hooks are meh, and overly wordy. Something like "... that the rugby union player Donna Kennedy holds the record for international appearances for Scotland women's national rugby union team?" Just a suggestion (a simple one, granted). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Just want to make sure you noticed the distinction between top Scottish appearance holder and WORLD between the years of 2004-16 per ALT 2. She held the world record between those years - this is not a minor point to just ignore. If anyone has specific re-wording suggestions, please add them. Hmlarson (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, got that, but the point I made was that the wording around it is so clunky it's not DYK. You could alternatively say that she appeared in more rugby union matches than any other international player in 2004. Just don't try to conflate too many factoids in one hook. Hookiness is important, as is accuracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, how's this:
  • ALT 3: ... that Donna Kennedy became the first Scottish international rugby player—woman or man—to reach 100 caps? Hmlarson (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man - I'm unable to find her point totals, unfortunately. I have made some additional revisions to the article for readability and suggested an ALT 3 above. Thanks for taking the time to take a look + provide input. Hmlarson (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think Hmlarson's ALT3 is concise but doesn't provide the perspective of her international achievements. Unfortunately I can't see a published source that documents women cap-holders during the full period 2004-2016. And I appreciate The Rambling Man's input about not having a hook that is too contrived. Saying that, how about:
  • ALT 4: ... that Donna Kennedy became the world's most-capped women's rugby player in 2004 and last held this honour in 2016 by which point she was also the most-capped player of any gender in Scotland with 115 caps? Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Drchriswilliams TRM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he clarified that by contrived, he meant trying to force "too many factoids in one hook" and the wording was too clunky. Can you try to edit this a little? Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition, ALT4 is over the absolute maximum of 200 characters allowed for DYK hooks, so I've had to strike it. Here's a variant that shortens ALT4 but adds her retirement (I hope it's less clunky and not over factoided at 181 characters, though there may still be too much to it):
I would, however, like to point out that "caps" means nothing to most people as it seems to be UK-specific; there isn't even a wikilink for it (Cap (sport) seems a likely match) explaining the concept in Donna's article, and there certainly should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added a link to cap in the lead and to ALT 3, BlueMoonset. I prefer ALT3 or ALT 5. Hmlarson (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I think ALT5 is great because it captures several elements of her career without appearing contrived, ALT3 is also good by virtue of being succinct. I have struck a few hooks that weren't as good. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 4[edit]


  • ... that, when Aplerbeck was industrialised, it needed a larger church?

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

  • On it.

    Symbol possible vote.svg Apparently barely new enough [created 4 Jan, nominated 11 Jan]; long enough [2.2k elig. chars.]; no English copyvio; I'm not usually a stickler for the one-cite-per-paragraph rule so (e.g.) I have no real problem with the mining and railway paragraph [You could make sticklers happy, e.g., by merging the paragraphs but that's silly since there are links to German or English pages to corroborate the points being made] but you do need a source for the Jewish sterilization and execution statistics; there's also no source for industrialization being the motivation for a larger church [i.e., the hook]; QPQ done; image seems to have issues: as far as I can tell, it must have the sample attribution below it and is ineligible for DYK. Removed from nom and hook. If that makes the hook too bland, maybe use the Ewalds story, psych clinic, or Holocaust statistics. In any case, have a good vacation =) but try to find some sources before the admins nix the nomination and let me know when to come back and look at them. — LlywelynII 13:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the image license? - On vacation, will need more time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I can wait if they can. I know you'll be good for it. As far as the image, it's explicitly not in the public domain and I've never seen one get passed that requires immediate attribution (taken by Bob with an XYZ license) in the front-page caption, which seems to be what the church pic's uploader wants. [No, there's nothing like that on the Aplerbeck page and I frankly don't mind until the uploader comes by to complain about that, but it still doesn't seem to work here for DYK.] — LlywelynII 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton and North-Western Railway

Source: "Vuckson

5x expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 21:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article has been recently nuked and paved to more like a 10x expansion and is free of copyvios. The language is a little bit POV with things like "To everyone's surprise" (really?) and "Flush with cash from the merger", but these should be reasonably straightforward to copyedit out. I'm not sure which source verifies the hook; the lead suggests the line was operational some months after the merger in 1879. It looks like your nomination chopped off the pertinent part of the source. Also, QPQ needs to be done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • QPQ aside, the 3,427 bytes, expanded to 17,893 bytes appears to be just over the 5 x requirement. No apparent copyright vio but there does seem to be some unsourced content and technical content dangling. It needs a good copy edit. I am looking at the hook.Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This version, before Maury did the rewrite is 1255 characters of prose, requiring 6275 characters to count for a 5x expansion. I agree with your other points. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Point well taken. A character count is not the same as a byte count.Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, there's a problem with the hook. The issue is that the bonus was not paid out to, or received by the company for something like finishing early or jjuts building the line. Each city paid a bonus out. From the article; "Towns along the proposed routes gave up large bonuses to be selected as stops along the line.". That needs to indicate that the bonus was from cities to actually have stops not for building the line. The article does not verify the hook. I suggest changing "..for building a completed route to the..." to "..from cities along the route to the..." and possibly add: "for stops".Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg So, checking against all 5 criteria, the article was expanded within 7 days, was expanded at last 5x and does not seem to have appeared on the main page that I am aware of. The issue appears to be neutrality as the hook implies bonus was paid to the company or article subject simply for building the line itself, however the monies paid were done so by cities in order to get the line to stop there. As a hook, that seems far more interesting. "Did you know the Hamilton and North-Western Railway was paid a bonus from each city along the new line in order for trains to stop?" That just seems more accurate, neutral and interesting but, it's only a suggestion. I have , however, struck out the first hook as it should not be used as written.Mark Miller (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

From Vuckson, page 1 & 2:

The concept of another railway linking Toronto’s great rival, Hamilton, with Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay in the 1870’s persuaded Simcoe County and the townships the line would pass through to give financial bonuses for the construction of the H&NW in the hope of having another option to the rates and service dictated by the Northern.

As history has recorded, within a few months after the railway from Hamilton arrived in Collingwood in 1879 it merged, mainly for financial reasons, with its rival to whom it was intended to offer stiff competition. Politicians in Collingwood must have been frothing at the mouth over the nearly $38,000.00 in bonuses the Town had voted to give the H&NW which had promised from the outset that it was to be a “competing” line and would never amalgamate with another railway.

As you can see, the source directly states the line received bonuses specifically to provide competition to the Northern. The various other references all say the same thing. Every railway of that era was paid bonuses by the towns along the route, it's not really a useful hook (if one wants the hook to demonstrate something unique or interesting). That they received bonuses to build in order to provide competition and with the stipulation they would not merge, and then did so with their erstwhile competitor, is pretty much the "whole story" of this railway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

QPQ Bill Dubuque. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Pacific Architects and Engineers

Created/expanded by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 01:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC).

  • DYK checklist template

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Red XN - n

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg See below.

The phrase "RM Asia funneled subcontracts paid for by the government" garners nine non-WP hits in Google search. I am left with the feeling that there may be more such if I checked further. Also, the hook is sourced, but comprehension is dependent upon a footnote at bottom of article. I do not know of a WP consensus that covers this eventuality; however, I regard it as unsatisfactory. While it may be fair to baffle the reader to draw attention, it's not fair to let them still be baffled after reading the article, or require them to search for a footnote.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I've provided an alt hook and have completed the QPQ. To the copyvio question, I don't believe attributed quotes, with an inline citation and indicated by quotation marks, transgress copyvio per WP:NFCCEG? Chetsford (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine. Agree on the hook though, and ALT1 is more fun anyway! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 6[edit]

Fragments of Horror

  • Reviewed: Pending
  • Comment: I'd like to turn this into a double hook with Junji Ito’s Cat Diary: Yon & Mu (draft here), but this one is almost past the nomination deadline, so I'm posting it and may add the other one if I get it done sometime soon.

Moved to mainspace by G S Palmer (talk). Self-nominated at 00:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC).

Disability History Month

  • Reviewed: forthcoming
  • Comment: request hook be held to October 1, 2018

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg size and age ok, written neutrally, sourced, earwigs copyvio clear apart from (appropriately) attributed quotes, I think holding this for that length of time is worthwhile. await QPQ. worth asking on discussion page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: since six weeks is the normal (and advertised) maximum to hold a hook for a special occasion, and we've steadfastly refused anything significantly longer, I can't imagine a scenario in which a nine-month delay will be allowed. You're welcome to ask, but this will almost certainly have to go out under a different hook this winter. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Catlin Brook

  • ... that the waterfalls on Catlin Brook are the "holy grail" of Pennsylvania waterfalls?
    • ALT1:... that the waterfalls on Catlin Brook, with blue ice columns that can persist until May, are the "holy grail" of Pennsylvania waterfalls?

Moved to mainspace by Jakob Coles (talk). Self-nominated at 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC).


Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - The hooks seems a bit too opinionated and promotional. And it's not quite clear what "holy grail" means in this case.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg It's a shame that there isn't a picture if the falls are so attractive. I'll have a look when I get a moment. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I've already made it clear that these statements aren't in Wikipedia's voice by using quotation marks and attributing the author. By the way, if you're curious about the visuals, you may like this and [1] (copyrighted, sadly). Jakob (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How is Catlin Brook notable in the first place? It is only 1.5 miles long, accessible only be arduous hike, there is no mention of vertical drop or average (or peak) volume of water that makes the falls worth seeing, and in fact there is a note that in drought the brook can dry up entirely. If this site was truly a 'bucket list' destination for waterfall aficionados it would get mentions by many people. Instead, the only person writing about it appears to be Jeff Mitchell. He himself wrote "holy grail" - in quotes - in his book, but does not define what he means, except perhaps hard to get to. David notMD (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This morning I searched on Pennsylvania waterfalls. Various websites described 5 to 30 (!) waterfalls. None included Catlin Brook. A better hook might be that it freezes solid in winter and is often still partially frozen as late as May. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Operation Gotham Shield

ALT1 ... that, last year, a nuclear bomb was "detonated" at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel?

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. I love the hook, but can't find it in the article. Jakob (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Jakob Coles thanks for the review! I've proposed an Alt1. Chetsford (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: As written, both ALT0 and ALT1 confusing (no bomb, no denotation). Consider something more explicit: ...that in a war games simulation, a nuclear device was exploded at the New Jersey entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel? David notMD (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Beringian

  • that the Ancient Beringian are the first population of Paleo-Indians, which migrated from Siberia across Beringia and into Alaska during the lithic stage approximately twenty thousand years ago?

Created by IQ125 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, neutral, cited (but see note after this line), no obvious copyvios (paraphrasing to be checked after cites are improved, again see note). Hook is on the border of being too long and should probably be cut down. There's about three distinct facts in there, if not more. A good interesting hook usually has at most two facts within it, usually one. The biggest problem here is the inline citations. Throwing seven inline cites on every sentence isn't particularly informative about where the information is coming from. Please improve the inline citations so that each sentence is cited only to the reference (or references) being used to support it. After that, I'll check for close paraphrasing and double-check that all of this is verified. ~ Rob13Talk 09:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

Youth in Africa

Moved to mainspace by Bevtolley (talk). Nominated by Anne drew Andrew and Drew (talk) at 22:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

Styling Garage

500 SGS Gullwing
500 SGS Gullwing

Created by Mr.choppers (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Mr.choppers: New enough and long enough. The hook, though very interesting, gives me a little pause. The source is some sort of fan site, so I'm not sure about the reliability of it, while in terms of tone, the way it's written seems not quite encyclopedic. Let me try this... Raymie (tc) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Styling Garage charged luxury car customers almost the cost of the vehicle to convert it to gullwing doors?
@Raymie: Yes, sure, but the reason I wrote "another direction" is that it sounds strange and thus operates to hook the reader to make them click through. "Gullwing doors" kind of explains the whole thing, thus making it less likely to be clicked. As for the cost of the conversion, it is also listed in various old magazines, I reckoned a clickable source would be optimal (as fan-like as it may be). Should I add another source?  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Command and Destroy

  • ... that GameSpot's Austin Light called the controls for Command and Destroy a "vicious cycle of annoyance"? Source: "Repeating your commands only makes the stylus juggling worse; it's a vicious cycle of annoyance." ([2])
    • ALT1:... that GameSpot's Austin Light suggested that prospective players of Command and Destroy instead "do something more exciting, like shred documents or watch a screensaver"? "If you have a friend with the game and a few hours to kill, you could play a slow deathmatch or two. Or you could do something more exciting, like shred documents or watch a screensaver." ([3])

Created by Nomader (talk). Self-nominated at 07:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

Kenny Biddle

Kenny Biddle in DC
Kenny Biddle in DC
  • Comment: Article is undergoing AfD, but in the event it is kept, I want to get this nomination in on time.

Created by Rp2006 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg This article was created on 5 January 2018, not on 11 January 2018. I believe this is too old, and thus it can't be considered for a DYK. {{u|Rey_grschel}} {Talk} 08:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg According to my calculations, it was nominated within the allowed seven days, with over two hours to spare. If the article survives its AfD, the reviewing process can proceed. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 11:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Result of AfD: article was deleted. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 12[edit]

Swan with Two Necks, London

The Swan with Two Necks, 1831.
The Swan with Two Necks, 1831.
  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting hook, Copyvio Detector is at 49.5% but that seems to be because of the quote from the 1862 British Almanac. Looks OK once QPQ is done. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Dai County, Dai Commandery, Dai (Spring and Autumn period), Dai Prefecture

The Bianjian Drum Tower in Dai County, China
The Bianjian Drum Tower in Dai County, China

5x expanded by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: Probably neater and tidier to process these all at once. I'll still be working and cleaning up the other articles over the next few days, but I'll park this here and get this started since everything is already 5× and the county article is bumping up against its deadline. (It was 5× on the 12th; the rest are more recent.)

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.

  • ... that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the first "kill-Quill" case to reach it...? (From First Digital Sales Tax Dispute Reaches U.S. Supreme Court: "South Dakota is the first of several expected cases to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Quill. Similar “kill-Quill” lawsuits are pending in state courts in Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, and Wyoming."; from [4]: "The U.S. Supreme Court will consider freeing state and local governments to collect billions of dollars in sales taxes from online retailers, agreeing to revisit a 26-year-old ruling that has made much of the internet a tax-free zone.")
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/HPgV-2
  • Comment: I think the hook is rather hooky as "kill-Quill" sounds intriguing to readers. The phrase "has decided to hear" is used rather than "will hear" because it prevents adjacent wikilinks that would happen if "will hear" was wikilinked to the DYK article. "kill-Quill is an adjectival phrase to "case", so it is hyphenated.

Created by Masem (talk). Nominated by AHeneen (talk) at 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Not reviewing but commenting since I created the article and pinged on it: I would suggest we may need to tell the reader what Quill involves, so maybe "the first 'kill Quill' case, regarding taxation of Internet commerce, to reach it..." or something along those lines. --Masem (t) 00:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg New and long enough, QPQ satisfactory, within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios. I agree with Masem that, though "kill-Quill" is a catchy term, the hook as written is inscrutable to anyone who doesn't already know the context. It would work better if you added something like "referring to a previous case that did X" to explain the term. I also don't see the need to pipe the article title in this case. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 04:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe something like this? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to "kill Quill"?
Might I suggest ALT2: ... that in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to "kill Quill", allowing states to collect sales taxes on e-Commerce? --Masem (t) 19:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Source: The masked men of Burkina Faso "Entering its 20th year, Festima has also become a bit of a tourist attraction (ASAMA estimates 100,000 viewed the spectacle), with the proceedings entering into the early morning hours."

  • Comment: This year's festival starts on February 24, so that might be a good date to run it on.

Created by Egsan Bacon (talk). Self-nominated at 06:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough. Photo OK. There are no outright copyvio problem, but because of relative little source material, the article borders a few times on close paraphasing, by being very similar in structure to the source, as an exampel the sentence that ends "as Islam, a religion practiced by over 60 percent of people in Burkina Faso, does not use them in their ceremonies". According to Wikipedia about 23% of the population is Christian and ideally we should have had a source that said something about Christianity and masks as well, but I understand this may not exist. It might be worth pointing out in the article that historically masks are relatedto animism The history section in general verges a bit into journalistic tone, including a quote. Because of the lack of broad sources, which may often happen on African issues, it may be difficult to get around this problem and I am inclined to accept the article as within policy. As for the hook it is short enough and interesting as Burkina Faso as a very poor/rural country probably does not have a lot of major events. I do however think that the number of participants needs to be attributed to the organization that have stated this, as crowd numbers (where people don't pay tickets) are notoriously hard to say for sure and frankly often excagerated, so this number should not be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. You might want to start an alternative hook with "that the 2016 Festima event was attended by...". Maybe also make another alternative hook based on number of masks/countries. I agree it would be nice to post this on Febr. 24. There are no QPQ, but I belive this may be because nominator doesn't have 5 DYK credits yet. Iselilja (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the input! I added the connection with animism, and modified the sentence you indicated came off as too similar to close paraphrasing. I agree that a source with something to say about Christianity's relationship with the masks would be good to have, although I have not yet been able to find any. (The closest I've come to anything is this article on the website of a Catholic missionary organization, which addresses the masks but doesn't have anything to say about the compatibility of the masks and Christianity.) As to the issue of the hook, I like your suggestion about a hook about the number of masks and countries, so have provided hook ALT1 based on that. I also provided ALT2, a modification of the original hook which indicates that the 100,000 attendance number is an estimate from the organizers. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that the 2016 FESTIMA featured over 500 traditional African masks from six countries? Source: The masked men of Burkina Faso For over 500 masks: "The 13th International Festival of Masks and the Arts (Festima) was celebrated in February and March this year, bringing together over 500 masks worn by villages and ethnic groups in Sub-Saharan Africa." For six countries: "They come from all across West Africa: Benin, Togo, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso."
  • ALT2 ... that the organizers of FESTIMA, a festival in Burkina Faso celebrating traditional African masks, estimate that 100,000 people attended in 2016? Source: same as original proposed hook
  • Fine, thank you. What I think, though, is that you should put the numbers and countries for 2016 in the body of the article instead/in addition to the lead, and change the lead to either specify that the numbers/countries are from 2016 or making the lead more general without specifying numbers/countries. I also came to take another look at the French source and it seems to say there were more than 2500 masks in 2016. If the sources are inconsistent, we may have to leave that out of the hook, but I am ready to approve the ALT2 hook. (I wonder though if gramatically we need to write "attended the festival in 2016"?) Iselilja (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional changes made. Good catch on the French source. I've been thinking about your question about the grammar. I think that we could make the change, but that both ways would be fine grammatically. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 13[edit]

Innocent Victims

Innocent Victims
Innocent Victims
  • ... that Innocent Victims (pictured) alludes to the claim that Diana, Princess of Wales and her lover Dodi Fayed were murdered? Source: "I have named the sculpture Innocent Victims, because for eight years I have fought to prove that my son and Princess Diana were murdered." (and [5] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Dil Dhadakne Do

Improved to Good Article status by Krish! (talk). Self-nominated at 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

J.W. Harris (bull rider)

  • ... that ...four time Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association World Champion Bull Rider J.W. Harris suffered five concussions in 2008? Source: "During the 2008 season of the PRCA, Harris received five concussions."[6]
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Comment: I have used 5 of 5 of my QPQ credits before I need to do a review.

Created by Dawnleelynn (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

William Thomas Braithwaite

Winter, Peter Breughel the Younger, 1633.
Winter, Peter Breughel the Younger, 1633.
  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 23:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: ????
Overall: Symbol question.svg appears straightforward. Await QPQ. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Whispyhistory (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 14[edit]

St. Lubentius, Dietkirchen

St. Lubentius in 2016
St. Lubentius in 2016

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, referenced, hook ref'd, length OK, German language refs accepted IGF, foto no copyrightvio. While the article in generally good, some of the English is awkward, for example: moved probably then from, according to legend, with errant (unintended) German word: bezeugt. On a rock? could this mean "outcropping" (chalk, from one ref) (as appears in photo); collegiate link? Collegiate church. Needs clean-up.Djflem (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking, patience please. A few other noms wait for me, was on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Djflem, I reviewed qpq, dropped the word left behind from translation, but will need help for the "probably then" phrase. I read "according to legend" often, linked "outcrop" (thank you for a new word, never heard that), and linked collegiate church three times instead of once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg looks ready to do, but the qpq is not yet not finished. Shall we wait for reaction there to wind this up?Djflem (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
no, - a review is needed, not finishing. I could approve it, but always try to go for improvements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Minneapolis Miracle

Created by Lamblings (talk). Nominated by Bobamnertiopsis (talk) at 01:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Article was created on 15 January so is in date, is more than long enough and there are no copyvio concerns. A couple of sourcing issues, the end of The Play section is unsourced as is the first quote in Broadcast calls. I would also suggest the hook could be reworded slightly to focus more on the actual game, perhaps:

that the last-second game-winning touchdown by the Minnesota Vikings in the 2018 NFC divisional playoff was dubbed the Minneapolis Miracle?

What are your thoughts? Once the sourcing is fixed and a QPQ review added, this is good to go. Kosack (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I added an ALT1 that uses Joe Buck's call of that final play. Consider and reword as appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Boss Mustapha

  • ... that the newly-appointed secretary to the Nigerian government Boss Mustapha was once ordered by President Olusegun Obasanjo to probe the now incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari on allegation of funds mismanagement? Source:The Cable newspaper
    • ALT1:... that the sacked secretary of the Nigerian government Babachir David Lawal was replaced by his friend Boss Mustapha, whom are from the same ethnic group, born in the same town, attended same university and graduated in the same year?Source: "The Cable paper as above
  • Reviewed: This is my second DYK. I welcome suggestions.
  • Comment: The Cable run the original reportage, but many Nigeria papers run similar with few details changed, for instance The Punch, Daily Trust and Premium Times. And see NIWA profile.

Created by Ammarpad (talk). Self-nominated at 07:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

Pyramid of Nyuserre

  • ... that before constructing his own funerary monument, Nyuserre had to complete the three monuments of his closest family members: mother, father, and older brother? Source: "We should not forget that on his ascent to the throne Niuserre took on the obligation of completing the three half-built pyramid complexes of his predecessors and the near-est members of his family, i.e. his father, mother and elder brother." from Verner and Zemina 1998 p. 80 and "when Niuserre came to the throne he had to complete the pyramids of Neferirkare, his father, Khentkawes, his mother, and Raneferef, his brother ... Niuserre reigned for more than 30 years but his pyramid is smaller than Neferirkare's and closer in size to Sahure's." from Lehner 2008 p. 148
    • ALT1:... that before the construction of his own pyramid could begin, Nyuserre had to complete the three monuments of his closest family members: mother, father, and older brother? Source: Same as above, just a rewording of the material.
  • Comment: Pyramid is the catchier feature, but, it's also a little misleading. The funerary monument encompasses the pyramid, temples, and other features. Nyuserre had to build all of these, not just the pyramids.

Created by Mr rnddude (talk). Self-nominated at 00:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

I suggest to reword the hook, because the are Easter eggs ;)
ALT2: ... that before constructing the Pyramid of Nyuserre, his own funerary monument, Nyuserre had to complete the three monuments of his closest family members: mother, father, and older brother?
I will probably review. How about An image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Rahway River Parkway

Created by Djflem (talk). Self-nominated at 08:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Djflem: The article is new enough, long enough and properly sourced, with no issues of neutrality. Earwig rates this source as a potential close paraphrasing. The hook is within length and potentially interesting. While the Olmstead Brothers portion of the hook is sourced in the article, the statement in the hook "first project of the newly formed Union County parks commission" does not have a source in the article. I might have found this source from the NPS in a superficial search, but please confirm. A source in the article for the second clause of the hook and a QPQ are what stands before approval of this well-done article. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)

Salvador Dalí
Salvador Dalí
  • ... that The Colossus of Rhodes, a painting by Salvador Dalí (pictured), is heavily influenced by an article by the sculptor Herbert Maryon? Source: de Callataÿ 2006, p. 54: in 1954 "Salvador Dalí painted his version of the Colossus ..., a version which, all things considered, does not look extremely original. Not only the pose, but also the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find here a clear and very powerful expression."

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 20:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

  • COMMENT: Why an image of Dali when the article is not about him? Works fine without the image. (Guessing that there is no image of the painting in Commons.) David notMD (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • David notMD, the painting is still under copyright (and not licensed), so cannot be used on the main page. Since it's by Dalí, however, I figured a photograph of him would be the next best thing. Ultimately the promoter can choose whether to use it or not. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Created by Gfosankar (talk). Self-nominated at 08:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: This doesn't seem to be a question... — LlywelynII 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Becomes a question with replacement of "who" with a comma. However, given what the hook is about, perhaps better to identify him as a Tamil activist rather than a Gandhian. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope. That's still not a question. I suppose you could add another comma after Gandhian and lose the "who", though... [Fixt.] — LlywelynII 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gurbachan Singh Salaria

Improved to Good Article status by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk). Self-nominated at 05:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: "...was the only UN Peacekeeper to be awarded a Macguffin..." in what context? or did you mean "...is the only UN Peacekeeper to have been awarded a Macguffin"? — LlywelynII 13:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: rather than forcing the readers of the hook to follow the link to Param Vir Chakra, consider amending the hook to "...to be awarded a Param Vir Chakra, which is India's highest medical decoration?" Also, I think you are supposed to bold your topic of the hook, but not also Wikilink it. 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That second comment doesn't make sense, but it isn't mine. They just forgot to sign their name, apparently.

    The history of the page says that it was made by a User:David notMD. — LlywelynII 01:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is that a joke? This page's. Where else would I find the name of someone who posted a comment here? — LlywelynII 13:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII: Owww! I got it, actually there is some miscommunication. My first reply for your first comment, which was signed. The comment saying "the only UN Peacekeeper to be awarded a Macguffin", I've asked for clarification on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 15[edit]

Radio Drama Company

Source: as above

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 11:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. It's neutral and adequately referenced. No image to review. Lead is too short. The list of Carleton Hobbs Bursary winners is a huge unreferenced section in the article. I suggest it is moved to a separate list article with at least one reference! No copy-vios found except where they would be expected in the list of award winners. Hooks are correctly formatted and have inline cites. Both tweaked to add BBC and a few other things. I will tick both when the list and the lead are fixed. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Jérémie Azou

5x expanded by Redfiona99 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

  • .

Bambang Soesatyo

Bambang Soesatyo in 2012
Bambang Soesatyo in 2012
  • Comment: Article was created on 15 Jan (through copy-pasting from sandbox). Additional alt hooks would be appreciated!
  • Reviewed: First DYK Nomination

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 16[edit]

Noyes Museum

  • Reviewed: Manal Cali
  • Comment: There isn't really a whole lot of content on the decoys, alas, (the best picture's license is unclear) hence sticking it as just an alt.

Created by SnowFire (talk). Self-nominated at 07:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Denise Stephens

Created by Skyes(BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 17:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, copyvio ok, character count of hook ok. It was her students who discovered the planet. Also, notably it was discovered by a relatively small telescope. Hook should give credibility to her team/students. I noticed that article is written by a student of the university(+paid). However, it appears neutral and therefore ok. I query notability. Can another reviewer advise please?

Shanique Speight

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self-nominated at 02:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is long enough and new enough. The first sentence of the lead is not supported by source #2, second sentence of the lead is supported by the article text. The next paragraph is sourced to #2 and #1, with #2 not supporting anything and #1 some parts of the text - I wonder if there was an URL error with #2. Source #8 does not support the retirement of the incumbent. Hook is supported by the article but not by the source given here (I also wonder if it gives undue importance to Cory Booker when the article the hook is about is not about him). Didn't notice any plagiarism or copyvio. QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'll go through the sourcing and verify. The mention of Booker is deliberate, but it was put at the front of the hook to draw attention to Speight herself; I'm not sure that merely indicating that a judge forced her to step down from a seat would be sufficeintly hook-worthy. Alansohn (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Kamban Kazhagam

Created/expanded by Gfosankar (talk). Self-nominated at 13:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article needs extensive copy-editing - I can not understand some sentences. Ruslik_Zero 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Aubervilliers Congress

  • Reviewed: Council architect
  • Comment: The article's text is based on French sources; all but (6), (8), (9), (11), and (14) are newspaper sources, some of which use AFP content. (11) is the source file for an opinion poll conducted by a major French pollster for Paris Match and Sud Radio, while (6), (8), (9), and (14) are published by radio networks.

Created by Mélencron (talk). Self-nominated at 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC).


 Zherichinius horribilis worker
Zherichinius horribilis worker
  • ... that the extinct ant Zherichinius (pictured) has both "terrible" and "predatory" workers?

5x expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook does not state any true fact. "terrible" and "predatory" refer to translations of Latin names of two distinct species (Zherichinius horribilis and Zherichinius rapax, respectively), not to two types of workers. Ruslik_Zero 17:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik0: Each species was described from a single worker caste species, thus the wording of the hook.--Kevmin § 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the current form it is highly misleading and confusing. Please, propose another hook. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How exactly is it misleading, or confusing?--Kevmin § 06:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As was said below your tag may be good for Fools day, but not for any other day. I suggest something like " ... that ants from the extinct Zherichinius (pictured) genus were found in amber from Sakhalin?" Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that alt hook is a yawn, there are countless ant species that were found in amber. I don't see anything wrong with the original hook, but Kevmin, please state whether or not you would have any objection to this nomination being held over for April Fools. Gatoclass (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I veto the alt by Ruslik0 as a number of my nominations have already been changed to "xx fossil is from yy location" already. I'm fine with the alt by Gatoclass.--Kevmin § 23:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This looks like a potential April Fools' hook to me, with a hook something like:
  • ... that worker ants of the genus Zherichinius (pictured) were simply terrible? Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Juliana Walanika

  • ...that Hawaiian vocalist Juliana Walanika, a favorite of Queen Liliuokalani, modernized Hawaiian music during the latter part of the 19th-century?

Created by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough, well cited, neutrally written, no copyvio found, hook is okay and is cited to respectable online sources. QPQ done. Good to go. Moonraker (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 17[edit]

Ronin (film)

Improved to Good Article status by Slightlymad (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Abdullah II of Jordan

Improved to Good Article status by Makeandtoss (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Holy Trinity Church, Cork

  • ... that Father Mathew built his own memorial church? Source: church is also called 'Father Mathew Memorial Church'; "Fr. Mathew suggested building a new church when the South Friary became too small for the congregation" (Blackamoor Lane Friary, Cork Past and Present.ie)

5x expanded by Maltrópa (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 18[edit]

Natalie Grams

  • ... that German author Natalie Grams set out to write a scientific defense of homeopathy, but instead became a prominent expert critic of the profession after penning Homeopathy Reconsidered? Source: "What the authors [of The Homeopathy Lie] claimed shook me so badly that I wanted to write a rebuttal... I found myself compelled to question all the criticism and to read the studies... I wrote to [my patients] and explained that my book project had taken a different direction, and that I could not offer anything which I could not stand behind." (It was my Life's Dream) (German-language interview)
    • ALT1:... that German author and anti-homeopathy campaigner Natalie Grams advocates "better medicine", in which mainstream health systems adopt elements of alternative medicine's focused attention to patients? Source: "The practical part of homeopathy, that of attentiveness to the patient, is unbelievably valuable. We must carry this over into everyday medical and clinical life — but without the magic part involving succussion and potentization." (Science is a Method, not a Worldview) (German-language interview))
    • ALT2:... that German author and physician Natalie Grams wants health systems to adopt a key aspect of homeopathy — elevated attentiveness to patients — but not its scientifically implausible theory of action? Source: "The practical part of homeopathy, that of attentiveness to the patient, is unbelievably valuable. We must carry this over into everyday medical and clinical life — but without the magic part involving succussion and potentization." (Science is a Method, not a Worldview) (German-language interview))

Created by Poorlyglot (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Song Jian

  • Reviewed: TBD

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 19:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Mildred Dilling

  • ... that when popular harpist Mildred Dilling received her first harp for her twelfth birthday, she was so excited that she had to lie down? Source:bio in the American Harp Journal, 8.2. It's not online but it is cited in this sourcebook
    • ALT1:... that the famous harpist Mildred Dilling was paid in carnations and a jar of pickles for her first harp performance? Source: this biographical sourcebook mentions it
    • ALT2:... that harpist Mildred Dilling performed for five U.S. presidents and gave Harpo Marx harp lessons for over 30 years? Source:both facts are from her bio in the American Harp Journal, 8.2. It's not online but it is cited in this sourcebook

Created by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

  • New enough, long enough (4x minimum size), very well cited with refs for most individual sentences. Meets other policy requirements. I think the proposed hook falls flat - what 12 year old doesn't get highly excited when they receive something significant? ALT1 is much more interesting. It is within length, properly cited in the article and verified in the source. I think the wording is a little awkward, and am proposing a slight change:
  • ALT1a:... that the famous harpist Mildred Dilling was paid with a dozen carnations and a jar of pickles for her first harp performance?
  • QPQ review done.
  • Symbol question.svg If you're OK with ALT1a it will be good to go. Should probably change to article to specify "a dozen carnations" if we go with that. MB 03:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment of ALT0 - I thought it both funny and charming - so I've unstruck it. The set builder can decide which hook they prefer. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with whichever hook, which is why I provided ALTs. I added "dozen carnations" to the article (it's also in the cited source). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 19[edit]

Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton
  • ... that Mark Dayton (pictured), during a then-ongoing lawsuit, said that legislative leaders had "lied to" him and the people of Minnesota? Full quotation: "I told them in my 40 years dealing with Minnesota government I have never ever been lied to, and the people of Minnesota have been lied to and the Supreme Court has been lied to about the predicament that my vetoes supposedly put the Legislature in." Source: [12]

Created by Ebbillings (talk). Self-nominated at 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Fly Fishing: Memories of Angling Days

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral. First hook is fine but I doubt it will make much sense to anyone outside the UK or younger than a certain age. That may not matter for April Fools. Second hook doesn't work for me even as an April Fools. Did some copy editing on the article. It's pseudonymous not ghost written. Removed the Daily Mail reference. I was puzzled by ref 1 Organization Theory, Challenges and Perspectives. It seems unlikely and a text search on Amazon did not show the word Hartley. Can we improve on ref 5 "The Man In the Know" in the Daily Record which has a bye-line of "showbiz Sam". Is there a better source for it being a best-seller? I doubt that this should really be a separate article. It should probably be part of J. R. Hartley who as a fictional character is hardly likely to be notable for anything else. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: The CTI source is here, I have added another source to suppliment the Record one. The book is separate from the ad beyond being inspired by it, no point in merging. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Stuart Mustow

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

Mayotte's 1st constituency by-election, 2018

  • Reviewed: forthcoming but currently exempt as fewer than 5 DYK nominations have been made

Created by Mélencron (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

Tripwire force

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 09:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

  • On it.

    G2G. New enough; long enough [~4.7 elig. chars.]; well-cited, including the clever hook; no pic or copyvio per Earwig; QPQ done. It could probably use mention on "tripwire (disambiguation)" and redirects from "trip-wire force", "glass plate force", &c. but that's not really a DYK concern. — LlywelynII 18:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 20[edit]

Shaitan Singh

Improved to Good Article status by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, long enough, mostly well referenced, but not neutrally written. In the "Sino India War" section, the sentence "Even after continuous protests by India over China's intrusion, the Chinese troops continued to occupy several hundred square kilometers of the Indian territory" is written completely from the Indian narrative unsupported by any neutral academic source. If you read neutral sources such as this US Navy report, you'll get a vastly different picture of the war's background. And why does this article about an individual soldier even need to discuss the cause of the war and Nehru's decision process? It should focus on the soldier's personal exploits, not how the war started.
As for the hooks, I find the main hook uninteresting; ALT1 is slightly better. But I think the article contains more interesting facts such as that he ordered his men to leave him to die, or that he was decorated by the Indian government, while his father was honoured by the British. -Zanhe (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: Thanks for the review. I've neutralized the paragraph, and even trimmed it a bit. Please have a look. Alternate hooks are as follows:
  • ALT2: ... that Major Shaitan Singh while being evacuated by his soldiers, ordered them to leave, sensing the danger from a machine gun fire, who was later awarded the Param Vir Chakra?
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Warwick Castle, Maida Vale

The Warwick Castle sign
The Warwick Castle sign
  • ... that Howard Marks concluded a drug deal at the Warwick Castle, with half of a consignment of Thai grass hidden in a car parked outside? Source: link Mr Nice, By Howard Marks. Canongate Books, 7 Jul 2011.
  • Reviewed: not yet done

5x expanded by Edwardx (talk), Widefox (talk), and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Misleading as Warwick Castle is well known. Suggest disambiguate using "pub" and/or "London". Source is a primary, if that's relevant for DYK. Widefox; talk 14:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • DYK has a long tradition of hooks that can be somewhat misleading. In any event, the image clearly shows it is not a "real" castle. Edwardx (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Summer Lake Hot Springs

Summer Lake bathhouse
Summer Lake bathhouse
  • ... that the Summer Lake Hot Springs bathhouse (pictured), built in 1928, is a timber and tin structure with a 15 feet (4.6 m) by 30 feet (9.1 m) bathing pool inside?

Source: An article in The Oregonian dated 22 February 2014 says: "Summer Lake Hot Springs … the timber and tin bathhouse was built in 1928…" A second source says: "The bathhouse, which surrounds a delightfully warm hot mineral swimming pool, was built in 1928, and is correspondingly droopy." Size of the pool comes from a report by the Oregon Institute of Technology (see p.9).

Created by Orygun (talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Henry Liebman

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 11:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

  • COMMENT: The article has wording "However, Liebman himself has said he hates the soup." but in the reference for that statement "hates" is in quotes, and Liebman gives as his reason that the soup “...has too many noodles, it’s not spicy enough and it needs more pickled cabbage.” So, he does not hate the soup, he 'hates' the soup. The article should be revised, and the proposed hook, too. David notMD (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hardware-based encryption

The IBM 4758 cryptography module
The IBM 4758 cryptography module

Created by Bellezzasolo (talk). Self-nominated at 17:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 21[edit]

Susan Goldberg

Created by Jesswade88 (talk). Nominated by Fitindia (talk) at 20:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough, and is of min length. It is neutral and sourced. Hook is interesting, cited, and used in article. Pending issues are:
  • Copyvio check 40.8% violation. This needs to be fixed, please rephrase the sentences.
  • Article lead needs to be expanded.
  • Create the article's talk page.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I've edited the text to avoid copyvio (down to 32 %)- is it enough? Jesswade88 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: Looks good now. I have added a {{clarification}} tag, please address that. Also add a couple of sentences to the lead. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reclaiming Health and Safety For All

Ragnar Löfstedt, author of the report
Ragnar Löfstedt, author of the report

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Bandy X. Lee

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 12:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (created by Philafrenzy on January 21, 2018), long enough (2,408 characters), "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." I don't know if this is rectifiable. QPQ not done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I don't know if this is undue and it is a focus not on the article subject but on a public figure about which this is a constant subject of debate. I will come up with some Alts, there are plenty. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll agree that her assessment isn't undue (it's very well supported, doubtless), but Hawkeye is right that it's an undue focus for this hook unless she's really accomplished nothing notable in her life apart from being one of the majority-of-Americans that disapprove of Trump's behavior before and while in office. If she has, mention it. If she hasn't, then it becomes an AfD issue. — LlywelynII 07:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of Alts to choose from below:
"Yale University" could possibly be substituted for "American" in any of these. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Susanna Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe

  • ... that Susanna Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe was one of Queen Victoria's longest serving ladies-in-waiting? Vanity Fair p. 160
    • ALT1:... that Susanna Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe was present during an attempted assassination attempt on Queen Victoria, when the would-be assassin was seized by Eton College students? King p. 412: "Princess Beatrice, who was sitting beside her mother in the carriage, had actually seen the man take aim and fire with a revolver, but she had remained calm, so as not to scare the Queen. The Duchess of Roxburghe, also in the carriage, assumed at first that it was all a joke. But the man, a lunatic called Roderick Maclean, was set upon by Eton boys with umbrellas and taken to the police station."
  • Reviewed: Pending
  • Comment: Am open to tweaks to the hooks

Created by Ruby2010 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg I like the first hook; it's simple but interesting. It checks out to Vanity Fair. Though this is an unusual source for Victorian nobility, I guess it's RS. The article has just been moved to main space from sandbox so is new enough. It's also NPOV and long enough. No image or obvious copyvio. Waiting on a QPQ but, that aside, all seems good. Chetsford (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I can work on finding an additional source to back up the longest serving claim. Will also post here once I’ve completed the QPQ. Ruby2010 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Ruby2010 - I didn't mean to imply a new source was necessary. I think the one you have is fine. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge

The Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, visits Tempelhof Airport to view the Berlin Airlift with Robertson
The Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, visits Tempelhof Airport to view the Berlin Airlift with Robertson
  • ... that General Sir Brian Robertson (pictured) said: "General Montgomery does not cheat — whether that is due to his innate honesty or the fact that I watch him like a cat does not matter"? Source: JSTOR 20029827

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 22[edit]

Voortrekker (yacht)

  • ... ... that despite being considered obsolete, the yacht Voortrekker placed 2nd in the 1982/83 BOC Challenge, beaten only by a yacht purpose built for the race
    • ALT1:... that the yacht Voortrekker has the unique sail number SA 1
    • ALT2:... tthat the success of the yacht Voortrekker in the 1968 Single-Handed Trans-Atlantic Race led to a surge of interest in sailing in South Africa

Created by Gbawden (talk). Self-nominated at 08:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Bianjing Drum Tower

The Bianjing Drum Tower in Shanxi
The Bianjing Drum Tower in Shanxi
  • ... that the Bianjing Drum Tower (pictured) in Shangguan, Shanxi, boasts a nearly 2-meter-tall stone lantern carved into the shape of Mount Wutai?
    • ALT1:... that the Bianjing Drum Tower (pictured) in Shangguan, Shanxi, boasts a 1300-year-old stone lantern carved into the shape of Mount Wutai?
    • ALT2:... that the Bianjing Drum Tower (pictured) in Shangguan, Shanxi, burnt down in 1471 but now has trouble with water damage?

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 04:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 23[edit]

Special occasion holding area[edit]

The holding area has moved to its new location at the bottom of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.