Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination. Every approved hook will appear on the main page.
Please use one of the strings below to post your DYK nomination, using the "author" and "nominator" fields to identify the users who should receive credit for their contributions if the hook is featured on the main page.
Nom without image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= }}
Nom with image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= | image= | caption= }}
To include more than one new or expanded article in a single hook:|article2=|article3=|article4= | (etc)
To include more than one author:|author2=|author3= | (etc)
To include alternate hooks:|ALT1=|ALT2= | (etc)
To add a comment:|comment=
To add the article you reviewed:|reviewed=
Do not wikilink the article title, or the author username field; the template will wikilink them automatically. Do wikilink the article title in the hook field, however. Do not add a section heading if you are using the template; the template will add one for you. Do not include a signature (~~~~) after the template. Do not use non-free images in your hook suggestion.
An example of how to use the template is given below. Don't forget to fill out the rollover text, so people know what the image is of! Full details are at {{NewDYKnom}}:
{{subst:NewDYKnom
| article = Example
| status = new<!--(or) expanded (or) BLP expanded-->
| hook = ... that this ] is an ''']''' ''(pictured)''?
| author = User
| nominator =
| image = Example.png
| rollover = An example image
| alttext = Description of the image
| comment =
| reviewed = Article you reviewed
}}
Note that you should only use one of the above templates for the original hook. If you want to suggest a second, alternative hook for the same article submission, just type it in manually. The above templates output useful code for each submission and if you employ them for alternative hooks, you will mess up the page formatting.
When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name}}
How to review a nomination
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, or may suggest new hooks. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the additional rules.
If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or note that there is an issue with the article or hook, please use the following symbols to point the issues out:
Symbol
Code
DYK Ready?
Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}
Yes
No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}
Yes
Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}}
Query
DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}}
Maybe
DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYKno}}
No
Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible
Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page, in case they do not notice that there is an issue.
Backlogged?
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 days 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?
If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.
If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.
Article should be listed as "expansion" rather than "new", comes to ~9x expansion (by my count). Added one more source for the hook, but neither of them mention the second fact, (about 3000 Ashiqs). Everything else is fine. SPat15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Not so fast! Actually, I found the number 3000 in one of the sources cited in the article. A new hook could be written, too. I didn't do that because I am confused by the spelling of "ashiq" and "ashig" (both spellings appear in the article) -- are these different words, or just different renderings of the spelling? (I posted a query on the article talk page.) --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Also, I see that the article creator was not notified (until now) about the problem with the hook. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Orlady, ashiq is correct in this situation, meaning the music performer. Ashig is meaning - lover, in Azerbaijani language but also used sometimes for music performer. But I would keep Ashiq with Q letter.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Both spellings appear in the article, and I think some of them are intended to refer to the "lover" meaning. Can you go through the article and make sure that the distinctions are made properly? --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure the hook is catchy enough, but I can't come up with anything better myself. Perhaps something about the alleged public shaming might work? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article includes a lot of padding to get it to 1500 characters, so maybe try to find some more information about this person. And Rwxrwxrwx is right that the hook isn't very impressive. Just because a subpar hook was accepted in the past doesn't mean it always has to be. - PM800 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Due to North Korea's secretive nature there is limited sources on him and most is about him coaching and nothing about his personal life. Also yes the hook isn't impressive but I can't think of another so I'm open to any other hooks. Spongie555 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not omit the N. Korea reference and do something like: ... that Jo Tong Sop was shamed in a six-hour public inquisition when his football team failed to win the World Cup? —SMALLJIM00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a problem in that the article contradicts itself on that point: He was also part of North Korea's football team, on return home from the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa when they were shamed in a six-hour public inquisition in Kim Il-Sung Square after the team's coach, Kim Jong-Hun, had been accused of "betraying" the nation's leader's heir apparent, Kim Jong Un, following their failure at the World Cup, according to reports. Later it was proven false that they were shamed and the team was busy practicing for the Asian Games. (Emphasis added.) It should be noted that the source for the second sentence doesn't rule out the possibility that Jo Tong Sop and the team were indeed subjected to a six-hour public shaming, but afterwards then allowed to return to their normal football schedule. Either way, this article should avoid having a self-contradiction on this point. --Metropolitan90(talk)05:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Spongie, you need to make a bit more effort here. You keep asking us to do reviews when there are clearly some significant issues outstanding each time. This time, we still don't have a reasonable hook to consider. Can you give us the text of the hook you are proposing, and clear up any other issues so the reviewers don't have to do the work of the nominator. Thanks. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says that, "Later it was proven that the team was not shamed but busy practicing for the Asian Games." - PM800 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The original hook, though bland, is more suitable for the main page than this one. Perhaps that one could be verified? Cunard (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on January 3
Jenny Lind Tower
... that although it is thought that the Jenny Lind Tower was moved to its present location by an admirer of the late singer, the mover was born seventeen years after she toured the United States?
The length and references check out (I'm assuming they stand up to whatever notability criteria we have for places/buildings, which I'm not familiar with - there's also Google Books), but the hook is a bit convoluted. It could, instead, be about the performance...? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't find the word riot or something close to it in the refs ... maybe I missed it. All I read about was her singing to people who failed to get tickets. Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no word "riot" in the references. The best hook would probably read, " that opera singer Jenny Lind is rumored to have climbed a tower later named after her and sung to the crowd below when they were unable to attend her concert?" Besides, the second hook makes it seem as though the tower was located in North Truro when she climbed it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing.
Article: "Edward Snow embellished the myth by saying, "There are those who like to believe", that one of the Aldrich family group was captivated by Jenny Lind's voice, which influenced him to move the tower to his newly bought land in Truro."
Source: "Edward Rowe Snow embellished the myth. “There are those who like to believe,” that one of the Aldrich family group was captivated by Jenny Lind’s voice and that this influenced him to move the tower to his land in Truro."
Article: "Snow went on to undercut his speculations though by stating that Aldrich's son, Samuel N. Aldrich, later told him that Lind's performance in no way motivated the elder Aldrich to move the tower to his land."
Source: "Snow undercut his speculations, however, by stating that Aldrich’s son, Samuel Nelson Aldrich, told him that Jenny Lind’s performance in no way motivated his father to move the tower."
Length is fine (parts of text copied from Sathyamangalam, but still enough new text), hook checks out. Should have been posted under January 3 (date of creation), but that's not a problem. However, there are some passages in the article without references. In DYK all passages needs at least one reference. I also deleted some e-mails and phone numbers.
Also, perhaps the article ought to be moved to a less crystalballish name. After all, relatively little in the article is dedicated to the process of establishing a tiger reserve. So 'Sathyamangalam Wildlife Sanctuary' might be a better name. --Soman (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Made changes to the lead section to reflect reviewers observations. Also did minor editing. It should be fine now.--Nvvchar. 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Both hooks are fine. Merge discussion is closed, hooks appear in article and are supported by an appropriate inline citation. Ready to go. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend ALT1 to err on contextual accuracy as there is a chance the subject's case may be moved to San Diego in the future. KimChee (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Article is not stable enough to go on the Main Page at the minute. It's just come off full protection and there are still content disputes raging. I'm not saying it shouldn't go up full stop, but that we should wait a few days (maybe a few weeks) for it to stabilise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
According to DYKcheck, the 5x expansion started on 3 January, although much of the work occurred in the last few days. I am of two minds regarding the hook. First I think that it should clarify that this is "in Greek mythology" or "according to Greek myth" so it will not be interpreted as true, then I tell myself that it's so obviously not real that the disclaimer would be overkill... I'm not sure which is the right answer. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am a new editor and this is my first article (I rewrote it completely). I just hoped for some mercy on my being late, since I didn't know about this before yesterday. Mottenen (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering you have 10x expanded it and it is your first article, I'd be happy for us to use it. One thing that does need attention is that every paragraph should have a citation, at the moment this section has three without. There are a few other paragraphs where the end is not cited too. Personally, I think the hook is ok, since as Orlady pointed out it is obviously not real and is intriguing. SmartSE (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
once very minor sourcing concerns are resolved. Expansion and date accepted per the rough consensus here. Source accepted in good faith. I believe the three unsourced paragraphs are cited by reference #8 (Ovid, X 298–513 (in the used edition: p.233-238), which is placed in the last paragraph of the section. Once Mottenen confirms that those paragraphs are covered by ref #8, and once s/he affixes ref #8 to the end of each paragraph, this article is ready for the main page. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on January 9
Personal finances of professional American athletes
... that the personal finances of professional American athletes are so frequently bungled, 78% of NFL and an estimated 60% of NBA players are in serious financial trouble after a few years of retirement?
length and hook checks out. Should have been listed under January 7 (date of creation), but not a problem. There are however several other issues. First of all, the article solely relates to U.S. athletes. Either the article is globalized or moved to say "Personal finances of U.S. professional athletes". Secondly, there are some problems with the tone. The passage on spouses is not really encyclopediatic, with commentary like "A prenuptial agreement is a wise precaution that not all players take". In this sense the article has more of a journalistic language than that of an encyclopedia. --Soman (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The hook is unclear – separate from what? Moreover, the article is unclear. Prior to 1902, had women tried to join any of the existing unions that were part of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation? If so, what happened and why? Or did they, from the beginning, want to organise on their own, separately? The article also has too many short, choppy sections. Both "Publication" and "Banner" can be merged into "LO affiliate" until such time as the length of the material warrants dedicated sectioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is new enough and long enough, but I have two concerns. First, the rules state that the hook fact "must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim", but this article has no citations in the paragraph with the hook fact. Second, I am a bit uneasy about the Main Page linking to an article which is entirely sourced to the university's own website. Are there any reliable sources available that are more independent of the subject? Brian the Editor (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I sourced the hook, but I don't think that there are any non-university sites that would cover it. I can tell you though that when I have talked to the archivists, I have been once told that I could literally copy and paste information from their wiki over to this one, although I haven't done so because it was never relicensed. There is really no reason though for a third party source to actually be covering this information though so I don't know what else to say there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are several problems with the article and the hook. There's no citation support for the hook, the article includes inline external links (an inappropriate practice) that point to pages that probably should be treated as references, the article has bare references, and there's a "Trivia" section that appears to be original research. It's likely that the article will need to be sourced primarily to UMass sources, but some independent sourcing would be nice. Regarding UMass sources, I found one not cited in the article that is demonstrably wrong -- it names the wrong "Fernald" as the building's namesake and gives incorrect dates for the man's life. Based on the content of the cited sources, there appear to be some nice opportunities for expansion of the article, in addition to doing cleanup and adding more sources. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm that the article was an unreferenced BLP with essentially bugger all text as of 7 January 2011; that Dr Blofeld has expanded it on 11 January 2011 to (by my reckoning) 1815 characters, excluding the headings, lists, references, etc; that the hook is properly sourced (the second time it is mentioned in the article, no need for a reference in the lead), and that the source checks out. Moreover the prose is good and the subject is interesting. Some phrases do closely reflect the reference , for which an unrelated earlier version of the article was blanked due to copyright concerns; but (with the possible exception of the phrase "progressively lighter and more transparent" which should probably be either attributed as a direct quote or else appropriately paraphrased), the similar material appears to be essentially functional and factual, rather than expressive; and therefore permissible.
My worst concern is that the link seems a little bit 'ho-hum'. What really wowed me about this article was the art itself, in particular the image of Fönsun XVI - 2004 (right). I believe the hook would be much stronger if it read "... twenty five of Hallsteinn Sigurðsson's sculptures (pictured) ..." with an image of this work -- even though, as far as I know, this particular work is not one of the twenty five in the sculpture park, nevertheless in my view it would be appropriate simply as a representative sculpture by Sigurðsson.
One final thing that in my view would need to be clarifed is the copyright status of the pictures under Icelandic law potentially as derivative works of the sculpture, and therefore potentially touched by Sigurðsson's copyright in the sculpture, even though the photographer has granted a free licence to their copyright in the taking of the photograph. Regardless of whether or not the picture was included on the main page, this would need to be clarified, as we could not have the main page linking to a page with a potential rights problem. I hope this can be resolved, as I think the image is great, and I would very much like to see both it and the article featured in DYK. Jheald (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In regards to this appearing as a DYK a]I've reworded any phrases which appeared too close for comfort to the source you identified. b] The image is highly unlikely going to appear on the main page anyway. given that this is hardly lead DYK material. It should be good to go.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll give way to more experienced hands at DYK on this; but, as I said above, if there's a potential rights issue, it's not just a question of what appears on the main page - we shouldn't link to such an article from the main page. That's why I'm hoping you can sort this out, because there is no question but that those images add immeasurably to the page, so it would be good to keep them if we possibly can. Jheald (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Length, sourcing and history for article and hook have been reviewed. The source says the only "public school", and doesn't preclude the existence of underground schools constructed earlier outside the United States. Some mention of the decision to build underground to provide protection from nuclear fallout during the Cold War may make the hook a bit more interesting. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The hook (and to some extent the article) are a bit confusing. The Royal Mail dates back to 1516, under Henry VIII. The significance of 1635 is that Charles I opens it up for the general public, and at some point the General Post Office is created (what year? you have a piped link to it, but the exact association is unclear). Most histories will say that Charles I was "responsible for establishing" the new service in 1635, for example this British Postal Museum page. So exactly what happened in 1635 needs to be more clear, and the precise role that Witherings played better expressed. As a separate issue, the article itself has substandard presentation values and isn't quite suitable for appearance from the main page. The last paragraph on marriage and finance is oddly out of chronological sequence with the rest of the article. Many wikilinks are missing, such as to various lords and earls and to the London streets named. Some of the footnotes are before punctuation, when they should be after; in at least one case, there are periods both before and after the footnote. There should be no space in "2½ d" (I didn't recognize this as being pence at first). Why is one quotation in italics, the rest in regular font? The sources, especially the wonderfully old book ones, lack full bibliographic citations, with name and location of publishers missing for example. And especially for the Hyde book, short form citing should be done. Have a separate "Bibliography" section with the full citation, and then the individual footnotes have short citations of the form: Hyde, The Post in Grant and Farm, p. 44. That will make the references easier to look at. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the article creator did link the case to the freely available information online (US Supreme Court cases are always in the PD and easily accessible online), but it was in the infobox (easy for someone to miss). I've gone ahead and linked the first footnote and made this a confirmed. --Bobak (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Length, date and hook checked and OK, with a question: the New York Times source states that Parker was "made a member of the Indian Commission," but the article states that he was the first indigenous "Commissioner of Indian Affairs," implied to be singular and stated in the article to be the the head of the BIA. Was there only one Commissioner? Was there a commission with several members? A slight reword would take care of the issue; if plural, "member of the Commission of Indian Affairs," for instance. Acroterion(talk)00:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought; the Times may not have been very careful in their wording. Is there an additional source for Parker's appointment? Acroterion(talk)01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Alt Hook ... that during Vedic times Makara(pictured), known as the “water monster vehicle” was the Vahana or vehicle of Varuna, the vedic deity?
Looks good. I prefer ALT1 (I edited it to put the comma after "(pictured)". Neat article, by the way. I like those strange creatures in Indian mythology.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: expanded starting January 14 over a couple days; the picture of the old hearing aid might be more interesing, but his picture in the article is higher quality
... that the disappearance of attorneyMaud Crawford from her colonial-style home in Camden, Arkansas, on the night of March 2, 1957, remains officially unsolved?
I've removed 'thumb' from the image, so that it doesn't display the rollover text as a caption; the picture's alt text needs to be added. Schwede6602:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've since significantly expanded the article further (still a bit more to do) and it's up there with my best pieces of work. You might thus want to consider using this as the lead hook. Maybe one of the DYK old timer might want to look into this. Schwede6621:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Auditorio Monte do Gozo
... that Auditorio Monte do Gozo(pictured), a Spanish outdoor concert venue in Santiago de Compostela, has resulted in pop music stars coming where Christian pilgrims usually walk?
Comment: there was formerly article at "Irish honours system", which I moved to Comhairle na Míre Gaile and repurposed. The current "Irish honours system" is 5x the bits I refactored out from the older article. jnestorius09:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The two articles need to be integrated. I don't mean merged, but I do mean something more than giving each other a measly "See also". A black college football national championship is not by definition mythical, even if the Pelican Bowl's attempt to provide a non-mythical version ended in failure. jnestorius14:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I just got permission to use an image, which I have now added; to whoever puts this in the queue, I would really appreciate it if the image is used because there are essentially only two places that have a model of this species. /ƒETCHCOMMS/02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Length just over 1600 chars, (exlcuding list of names etc). Date is fine. My only issue is that the list of burials of Wikinotable people needs better referencing. Will raise this with Piotrus on his talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there no year of birth and death? Place of birth? Sometimes that kind of information is no where to be found. It seems alright to me, and subject is notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Found and added birth and death dates, and death location, as well as a little more information on his background, though I've still not found anything about where he was born or raised. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Guppy Troup
... that bowlerGuppy Troup chose his nickname based on a youth team he captained?
(ALT 1)(ALT 2) Length, date are good. Maybe even a bit over-referenced, but otherwise good article. AGF for ALT 1 refs, ALT 2 refs are online and check out. I would support ALT 1 for name recognition factor, unless "Die Toten Hosen" have slipped under my radar and were big in Europe? The Interior(Talk)08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
... that in 1899 bicycle racer Major Taylor signed a contract with Stearns Bicycle who agreed to build Taylor a revolutionary steam powered pacing tandem on which he broke the world record 1 mile (1.6 km) in 01:19 at a speed of 45.56 miles per hour (73.32 km/h)?
Comment: ALT1... that in 1899 signed a contract with Stearns Bicycle who agreed to build Taylor a revolutionary steam powered pacing tandem on which he broke the world record at a speed of 45.56 miles per hour (73.32 km/h)? Nconwaymicelli (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It's still 32 characters too long. Why not something like -
... that the E. C. Stearns Bicycle Agency built bicycle racer Major Taylor a revolutionary steam powered pacing tandem on which he broke the world record at a speed of 45.56 miles per hour (73.32 km/h)?
Article is new enough and long enough; hook appears in the article and is supported by in-line citations. Good to go, I think. Ackatsis (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Textbook of Biochemistry, Alexander Thomas Cameron
Comment: I created the stub on 10/1 in preparation for WP:GLAM/BL the article has been significantly expanded after general collaboration and discussions with the British Library Philatelic Collections head curator on 14/1. Fæ (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have bolded the target article in the hook. I'm curious to see that you've submitted this as a 5x expansion on 16 January. For the record, it's not been expanded that much (it was 1203 bytes readable prose on 10 Jan, and as of now, it's 5385 bytes of readable prose). However, I would say that it's a new article (created 10 Jan) that's been submitted slightly after the 5 days. It says something in the rules about some flexibility with the 5 days, hence I for one reconfirm the tick. Schwede6602:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new at DYK's so you can expect me to blunder the process. Had I realised the effect on DYK rules, I probably would have delayed creating a stub until the BL editathon was underway. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No trouble, Fæ. Rather than delay creating stubs, it's often more effective to create articles in userspace instead, and move them into mainspace when they are ready. That process integrates really well with DYK, which is a side benefit. If this doesn't make sense to you, but you would like to find out more, feel free to contact me through my talk page. Schwede6621:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
... that the steam engines and boilers of the Russian ironcladPetr Veliky(pictured) were so defective when she was built that they had to be replaced four years after she was completed?
Date, length, article seem fine, but two problems with the hook: (i) ship launched 27 August 1872, replacement in May 1877 - is this 4 years? i.e. when was it built actually? (ii) The main text says piping was replaced, lead and hook say boilers and engines - they are not exactly same things. Please make this more consistent or/and add a brief explanation to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Read on, MacDuff, the piping was replaced in 1877, but the ship didn't get new engines and boilers until 1880–1881 when she went to Scotland.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The source is a long webpage, so I'll save you some time: the hook is verifiable from the VanVorst ref in the paragraph beginning, "There began to be two different bands about this time..."
... that the archaeological excavation in Nienover has uncovered artifacts from the Bronze Age through the 11th century?
ALT1:... that the archaeological research in Nienover, one of the largest abandoned villages in northern Europe, has discovered the remnants of 150 medieval buildings?
date, fact, expansion, referencing verified (after linking to the article, links inserted). "150 buildings" seems too general, "evidence of use" too small a thing, "most important" questionable, so I suggest to mention medieval somewhere, like
Actually, these are just how the articles state things and what should be said here. The buildings are long gone, it's remnants of walls, cellars and foundations that can be seen now -- when they're excavated. Much of this stuff is still buried, partially or fully. It's the most important medieval site because it is like Pompeii, in that once it was no longer lived in, it was never built on and therefore, all those artifacts are still there, waiting to be discovered. This is untouched and huge, making it the most significant medieval archaeological site in all of Europe, according to Prof. Dr. Hans-Georg Stephan, lead archaeologist. The issue of "evidence of use" is the kind of careful speech these researchers use because they're finding bits of pottery, coins, metal tools and utensils and burial mounds, etc. and these things are dating from the Bronze Age up to the time the town was deserted in 1270. They have no idea what they're going to find, they have working assumptions, but then find things on the site that render those assumptions invalid, so the way they couch things they're not certain about is with terms like "evidence of use".
I've just adjusted the main hook to say "uncovered artifacts" instead of "evidence of use" and ALT1 to say "remants of medieval buildings" to improve clarity and accuracy. I should have had that word "medieval" in there before anyway. Thanks for the catch and hope this answers the concerns! Marrante (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If the village was abandoned in 1270, isn't that 13th century? ALT3 changed to reflect "remnants".
Well, yes, the abandonment of the village was 13th century, but all the articles I found referred to archaeological finds through the 11th century. They do seem to be very careful about how they state things, but this is a huge site and also articles were dated at different times, so later information from later excavation work sometimes changed things that were stated earlier. My usual practice is to quote from articles and what I can't verify, I don't include. I do know that some of the information they used to piece together events at the site did come from documents from the period, though they were said to be few. There is extensive material hidden in the County of Dassel and I may translate some of that for more background, though as is often the case with Misplaced Pages Germany, the references are not inline. Marrante (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, helpful. I just wondered if for the last 2 centuries nothing was found/created. ALT1 isn't touched by a date, and my choice as most specific for this site. Artefacts from Bronze age to 11th century may be found also elsewhere, and the sale is an attractive hook but says less about the archeological research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
*Actually, the sale is extremely significant because it failed to secure rights to continue the excavation work, something the lead archaeologist had been working on for 12 years. His language was pretty strong in reference to it. It's the most important site in Germany, one of the most important in all of Europe and this finance minister cut off access to it by his stupidity, blocking all sorts of scientific research. I mean they don't compare it to Pompeii, but it is an untouched site, not built on, which is why Pompeii is the treasure trove it is, it was buried intact. This was severely damaged in battle before it was abandoned, but it was afterward left alone, not built on, so there's just a ton of stuff there to be uncovered, clues to the era to be found and the scientists are livid. Nienover was a stub when I started working on it, but the present owner was mentioned, a detail I immediately suspected had a story behind it, since a stub with so little information yet had that tidbit included. The reason I didn't include the significance of the sale (being the stoppage of excavation) was that it seems to have continued for another 3 years, but then it was apparently halted. It's a very complicated story and hard to explain in 200 characters. Marrante (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Right. Thank you! I don't think though, that the characters for horse breeder and fire sale lead the average reader of the Main page to the clue that research is in danger. I didn't cross out ALT2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Just tweaked ALT2 to include all the main details. Coming in at 196 characters, including question mark. What do you think? Marrante (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we have a winnah! Good to go! ALT4 has my vote — as amended, with "medieval" and "in" before "Nienover", since the main value is the medieval period and Nienover is also the location of the castle uh, horse farm, which has a website and does mention the medieval site, but only as a selling point for business. Yuck. Marrante (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Wow, just found and have adjusted these last few posts with the "outdent" template. 21:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
... that the New Harmony Toll Bridge, which opened on December 21, 1930, is owned by the only remaining joint state toll bridge commission chartered by the U.S. Congress?
Length and date check out, hook checks out. It would be nice, in future, though, if you could leave, either in your reference description or in the nomination comment, the page number of a 36-page PDF file that a reviewer will have to scour to find a small fact. Yours was on page 21 of the PDF file. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC) And next time I think I'll remember to use the search function. Marrante (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Length and dates are fine but the hook fact as stated with both very weakly sourced (the tvguide.com text merely states "In the summer of 1958, `Club Oasis,' which ran as a biweekly series, became home to the zany antics of bandleader Spike Jones.") and not wholly accurate. There's a much firmer source in cited-elsewhere Brooks & Marsh ("During the summer of 1958 Spike Jones became the permanent star of the show and the title was changed to Club Oasis Starring Spike Jones.") that not only properly notes Jones' role in the show but also documents a title change for the series that it not currently reflected in the article. A few tweaks to the article and it will be ready. - Dravecky (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm not thrilled with some of the sourcing for this article, including the "Guitars 101" message forum. Worse, you apparently didn't read past the first message or you would have seen that the episode described is not from Club Oasis but rather from a much later episode of Startime. There is an accurate description of the Club Oasis episode later in the thread. This too, needs to be fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for missing the citation for the hook, but thanks for the additional ref in the lead. Everything is set for promotion now. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I find it very telling that you say, "This happened in 1936..." The article is supposed to be a complete biography about Nugent, and yet the whole thing just focuses on his death. Your rewrite is decent but probably not enough. In regards to other sources: the libertychapelcemetery.org site does list some more sources. At the bottom of the page, it says, "There is a book that has the history of Sheriff Nugent and his family. It can be purchased from the author, John A Chelette." That's something you might want to look into. - PM800 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Khmer Writers' Association
... that some of the works of the Khmer Writers' Association were characterized as being written by "modernist intellectuals", not necessarily representing the view of all Khmer Buddhists?
, could we find a better hook? If the association would represent the views of all Khmer Buddhist that would be quite extraordinary. --Soman (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I've debolded Italian monitor as the monitor article hasn't been expanded. I also removed "GA53" from the hook as it is meaningless. SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
CommentVery interesting article, but I've checked p. 200 of the cited "The green book"] , and it does not, as far as I can see, support the various statements in the lead, or the hook above. I don't doubt it is true, though. Perhaps there is another citation for this? --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't get what I presume are the relevant pages. In any case, the book was published in 1983, and so probably isn't the best source for a claim that it is the only publication to date in Navaho. Is there something more recent? Or maybe the hook could be altered. Sorry to be a pain! For other aspects (length of article and date of creation etc) everything looks fine. --Slp1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, so make it "the first" — I can guarantee you that you won't find any other refs covering "only" til 2011 because, you know, if there is none, nobody will write about it. Usually people write about what is, not what isn't... (I know it doesn't count here, but let me assure you, if there was one, I'd be a subscriber) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az8655619:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to convince me, because I've no doubt it's true. As you know, it is a question of verifiability etc. But the Potowski source is a good one and the hooks is fine so ..
Length ok, references offline and accepted on good faith (any possibility to include a web-based ref?), - need to resolve when the ultralight was first flown as information in text and box seem to differ. Do we know when production started and ceased? Ekem (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that error on the dates. I have re-read all the refs (which I have here) and the date is 1987. Cliche is the only ref that mentions a date, so I can only think that the 1996 was a simple typo on my part. I found one worthwhile on-line ref which I have added. Hope that all helps make the article better. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Very borderline at 1508 characters, I'm surprised you can't find any more to write about him. However, yes, length, age and hook all check out. Worm15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was longer than that - I must have miscalculated. There isn't a lot of material on him yet as his first novel was only published this month. I will try to expand the article though. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Date, length are good, fact is referenced. I prefer your original hook over ALT1. I really like the show by the way.-RHM22 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Article length is easily sufficient and the hook is verified by a reliable source (although the reference could do with a page number). The hook needs rewording, though, as it suggests that Bitola only has one hotel. Also, why does the hook use the spelling "Bitolj" when the article title is Bitola? I actually wonder whether there isn't a more interesting hook that could be used from this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is better to nominate more interesting hook than to reword the existing one. Please review alternative hook below.
Now reduce the Republic of Korçë parts since most aren't related to him, add ref name parameters and remove the activist of the Albanian National Awakening from the article, because the largest part of his activities took place after 1912.--— ZjarriRrethues —14:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The quote from the referenced source says: hotel soon became the centre for patriotic Albanians. Here they planned the Congress of Monastir, and here they planned the four annual upprisings 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912. All those events are the crucial parts of the Albanian National Awakening. Any further comment about the quality of the article should be written on the article talk page and marked with the appropiate tags that would prevent positive reviewing of the article until it is resolved. Otherwise someone may think that purpose of the comments is not reviewing of the hook nominated for DYK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I wikilinkedTiffany Chapel. The paragraph under "Description" needs at least one reference (although I'd add more than just one). Once fixed, it will be good to go. Ruby2010talk04:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If I may be so bold as to offer several suggestions to help improve the overall physical layout of the article: the table in the first section of the body would best go on the right side since, for the moment, the text seems to be hemmed in between it and the infobox on the right. Further, two quotations in the section have been separated from the rest of the body the article and place in box quotations. The typical rule is that we use a box quotation if a sentence goes over four lines, which in these two cases it doesn't. I see no harm in simply in integrating both into the text. Otherwise, the article itself looks pretty good and the content itself is quite amusing. Also, all the names of the warships must be italicized. Nice job. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still in the process of writing the article, and I got my hands on a few newspaper articles from the 1800s regarding the 'treaty shore'. I'll add them later today, as I need to find out what the treaty shore was. That should expand the 1800s section, which will then mean I can move the table over to the right without it conflicting with the infobox. I've now integrated the text to the rest of the article. However, it'll take me a bit longer to get all the ship names italicised. I think I've got them all, but need to double-check. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You need a "(pictured)" for the picture. Since it was not Carol Channing's birthday, add a comma after Loos, and/or change "and" to "with". Also, Billy Hathorn: did you read the offline source? If not it's rather than . jnestorius15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Length, ref and expansion check out good. Perhaps the wording and punctuations could be tweaked a little, though, as the comma seems a bit out of place in such a short fragment. Arsenikk00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it mess up the process to introduce another expanded article, Diallo Telli, same fact?
Tewksbury Mills never existed, so the hook is just complete speculation, and kind of bland as well. The fact's source is the official website. - PM800 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Coffin birth
... in 1551, hours after a pregnant woman was hanged during the Spanish Inquisition, two dead infants were seen to fall free of the body in an unusual case of coffin birth?
I'm proposing the above hook since it is a bit more mysterious. Additionally, would anyone mind if we moved it to the April Fools section as I think that it would be perfect for that role. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
But the fetus doesn't really "burst". And the hook doesn't mention the article title, which I thought was sort of encouraged. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we can say "burst". I suggested April Fools because it is odd, but I guess people would be overly offended. In response to Boneyard, I think that they don't care about mentioning the name as long as you don't mislead people. I feel as though the first one though would just be boring whereas the second one sounds funky and interesting. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
In my view the hook is unclear as it gives no clue as to the subject matter of the case. When I read it I wasn't so much hooked as puzzled! DavidWard13:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am even afraid to think how much time I'd have to spend on checking each sentence to see what I have changed or not. I appreciate your concerns, but I am afraid I will use the time to write another DYK instead. For what it is worth, in my past experience of submitting several DYKs based on split content (which I always clearly identified as a source), I was never asked to preform such a calculation, and I assumed that split-off content is treated as new (providing it has been subject to some significant expansion and c/e). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Lenght, hook, date are fine. The problem is that almost nothing but the hook has inline cites, and I believe that our modern standards require a better density of inline citations. Notified nominator and the uploader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Date, length and hook checks out. However, two of the passages in the section "Light and lens assembly" needs reference. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Date and length checks out. However all claims for the hook needs references directly after their sentences. --Soman (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Second review by Piotrus because the first review left no comment or assessment. Date, size and hook citations check out. A bit on the short side, could use an expansion, but seems beyond a stub, so appears DYKable... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a few sites that say Robertsdale and one that says Foley. Either way, it's not a dealbreaker here. - PM800 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Date, length and hook ref checks out. However, oral argument should be added into the article so that the hook sentence works out. Also, all of the sources are original documents, could other third-party sources be added? (such as coverage in news media?) --Soman (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Oral argument added and cite included for it. I am afraid there are no media reports that I can find, considering the decision was a few pages and was just dismissing a case. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on January 17
Peucedanum galbanum
... that the surface of the South African plant Peucedanum galbanum(pictured) is covered with blister-causing toxins, and that exposure to sunlight could make the blisters worse?
Article creation date: Yup. Article length: OK. DYK hook length: Check. Citation supports hook: yup, as (now) edited. I like that this article is not about the U.S., Europe, or Australia.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Article creation date: OK. Article length: just barely OK. DYK hook: length OK. AGF that inline citation supports hook. I have taken the liberty of adding (pictured) and disambiguated Kamchiya. DiverDave (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Date checks out; expansion checks out (654 chars. → 3798 chars. ); couldn't get to the linked passage via Google Books, but since a quote is provided, citation is definitely accepted in good faith. Great job, very interesting. — AlekJDS23:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hook fact checks out and spot check of sources appears mostly ok - I am not certain ref 3 qualifies as a RS, but other sources support its claims. Image is fine, and I made a small change to the hook, noting that the breed was saved from extinction. Resolute01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to go. I might recommend dividing the article into sections for easier reading, but that's not required for DYK. Nice work, Ruby2010talk05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
reviewed: Nienover. - This is about the Bach cantata, which I improved but couldn't expand 5*, suggested for January 23, the Sunday of the first performance in 1724.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
St Mary's Church, Pentraeth
... that St Mary's Church, Pentraeth, Wales(pictured), was decorated in the 18th century with paper garlands, perhaps to celebrate parishioners' weddings?
Sourcing, length and article look good. Hook about paper garlands is based on quite an interesting scanned book from 1786. Very nice! poroubalous (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Auriscalpium vulgare
… that the mushroom Auriscalpium vulgare(pictured) is named for an instrument used for personal hygiene?
Two queries: (1)"Tropolis" needs to be briefly described, otherwise the hook makes very little sense and isn't all that good, and (2)the reference cited for the hook needs to be properly formatted. Otherwise, length/date/reliable source confirmed etc. is all ok. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the original hook, as it is "hookier" and less like advertising. Hooks are supposed to be interesting and don't have to give the full details of what the article is about, but entice readers to click on the link and read the whole article. SmartSE (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
... that Bermuda hedge fund Juniperus Capital was named after the Juniperus bermudiana(example pictured), Bermudian cedar trees that are extremely hardy in the face of adverse conditions?
... that a Memorial All-Star Game was held in 1937 to raise money for the family of Howie Morenz, who was said to have died of a broken heart on the belief a broken leg had ended his hockey career??
Five paragraphs are currently uncited, and the general rule is one cite per paragraph. Article length, date, and hook are OK. - PM800 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Misleading language. The intro in particular makes it sounds as if the vilayet did actually exist as a formal administrative division of the Ottoman Empire. Did it really? The last two paragraphs (those in Albanian Declaration of Independence and Treaties of London and Bucharest) are uncited. Needs a good copyedit as well, particular with regard to the use of definite and indefinite articles. And lastly, this must be an error in your source, but I'm pretty sure pre-Balkan War Bulgarian claims included the southern Kosovo Vilayet as well (the vilayet's Macedonian parts with Skopje and the like). — ToдorBoжinov — 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. You are right. I will resolve first three issues of your comment asap (the misleading language concerning the existance of the vilayet in the intro, referencing the last two paragraphs and copyedit (particular with regard to the use of definite and indefinite articles, feel free to help with copy editing)). You are right about the last issue about pre-Balkan War Bulgarian claims and obvious mistake in the source, so I already corrected it. As soon as I resolve first three issues I will write a comment here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Size, date and hook are ok. I propose to consider removing the word "successful" because it was claimed by the involved party ( said Tom Robinson, Sartre co-ordinator at engineering firm Ricardo).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the issue. The actual source, from the BBC, states - "The successful test was a "major milestone" said Tom Robinson, Sartre co-ordinator at engineering firm Ricardo.". That's clearly the BBC saying (or at least accepting and repeating) that it was a success, and it's only the 'major milestone' part that they are attributing directly. POV is about representing all reliably sourced opinions - we have a source asserting it was successful, if there are none that say it wasn't (and I've seen none), then saying it was successful is the NPOV position. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not very experienced user and I am sorry because I did not see this issue properly. I think that you are right because I could not find any other source that claim test was unsuccessful. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
... that the Wainwright Tomb(pictured) has been described as "the most sensitive and the most graceful" of the tombs designed by noted architect Louis Sullivan?
... that basketball player Bob McCurdy, whose former teammate said had no quickness, dribbling skills, jumping ability or foot speed, led NCAA Division I in scoring in 1974–75?
Timespan, length, reference is good.. though I read it to infer that the abovementioned reluctance is specifically concerning the suitability of the monoplane for aircraft carrier operations. Isn't this an important context to include? deMURGH22:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Little qualm. None of the sources provided say Beaver Hills was the first protected forest reserve. They just say that "The Cooking Lake Forest Reserve" was, but, despite the article, they don't seem to be interchangeable. It seems that the Cooking Lake is within the Beaver Hills area. Could you explain? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That is correct, which is why the hook is worded as such. The Hills are a geographic region, the majority of which was within the Cooking Lake Forest Reserve in 1899. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the ice cream, all I can say is "eew", but it probably tastes better than red-beans-and-rice ice cream... On the article and hook, I don't see it referenced that it's a signature gift of Bluemthal's, just that the weird ice creams in general are? - The BushrangerOne ping only20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's about a dozen articles that say something along the lines of "Heston Blumenthal, the man who brought us Snail porridge and Bacon-and-egg ice cream", but I'll see if I can get a decent cite for it tomorrow.Worm22:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Found an article in the metro that specifically states "Ladenis... scoffed at Blumenthal's signature dish - egg and bacon ice-cream." Worm10:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
... that the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis completed a clinical trial to test whether hypothermia (cooling) within the first few hours of a traumatic spinal cord or brain injury makes a difference in the severity of injury?
Has not been expanded 5x. The hook is fine and its source checks out, however. Right now the article is at 4,094 characters, and prior to editing it was at 1,076. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Question for other DYK reviewers – I'm still new at reviewing DYK noms, and I came to the determination that this was not 5x expanded by pasting "javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();" into the URL while on the article in question. It told me that it was not 5x expanded. However, User:Racepacketasked me whether one can judge article expansion based on the bytes length in the article's edit history. As I am still new at this, can someone hop in and tell me whether this nomination was or wasn't 5x expanded, and why? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The article has not been 5x expanded because expansion is based on characters of prose, not bytes. References and infoboxes are not included in prose (see the DYK rules here and here). By my count, the article has now been expanded from 1083 to 4314 characters in the past five days. - PM800 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
... that the Mayo Clinic argued in Mayo v. United States that residents who work up to 80 hours a week and are paid approximately $50,000 a year should not be considered employees but students instead?
Could also say "are paid over $40,000 a year" to be less POV, but everything is fine with length, sourcing, and hook. MBisanz02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Could someone please ping me on my talk page when this is moved to the Prep Area/the Queue? NW(Talk)03:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked at this article after I saw a question about POV problems on a talk page... I have read / reviewed the article and think it is balanced and main-page worthy. I also think the hook is fine, though a suggested tweak would be to change "residents" to "medical residents". The length could also be reduced by redrafting to something like "... that the Mayo Clinic argued in Mayo v. United States that medical residents (paid approximately $50,000 a year and working up to 80 hours a week) should be considered students instead of employees?" EdChem (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Katie Morag
... that illustrations from three of the Katie Morag series of children's picture books by Mairi Hedderwick have been used in a health promotion campaign to encourage breastfeeding?
Both articles are newly created and otherwise should make the criteria for DYK, but it's the Katie Morag article that specifically discusses the posters that were made for NHS Highland.
I don't know enough about the DYK rules to know whether that counts as a "double hook" or not, but it would be nice to have both the new articles highlighted on the main page, if that would fit in with how things are done here. Jheald (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
... that New York AssemblywomanAravella Simotas, who was the first Greek-American women elected to office in New York, was unopposed in her first general election, in November 2010?
... that when the troops in front of his soldiers broke and fled at the Battle of Guilford Court House, General Edward Stevens told his brigade that the retreat was part of the battle plan?
Date, length, hook ref, and image verified. For future submissions with images, I recommend including links to the webpage using the image (or other version URLs) instead of just the bare image URL for easier verification of the source; please check the updates in Commons to see what I mean. KimChee (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Cleared. As an attorney I wasn't sure if the number of amici curiae was surprising, but I also readily admit that my view is biased and I think most would find that hook interesting (and I still do myself). --Bobak (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Article is new & suitable length. I am unable to ascertain whether the Norwegian reference given at the end of the paragraph supports the "longest" claim. (also I'm not sure "bypassing" is the right word - perhaps "surpassing").— Rod15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The hook is rather catchy, and does not violate the DYK guidelines, nor does the article violate WP:CRYSTAL. The hook clearly states "if built", so I have a hard time seeing why it is not appropriate. Arsenikk22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It violates this guideline: "The hook should refer to established facts that are not likely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." This hook is not an established fact because the tunnel might be built, or it might not be. - PM800 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Projects that are not yet built have been run on DYK before. The guidelines are just that - guidelines - not hard-and-fast rules. The hook and article meet all DYK standards. The "established fact that is not likely to change" that, if built, the tunnel would allow ships to bypass the peninsula - whether the tunnel is built or not does not affect that fact either way. If the tunnel is not built, there won't be a magical change in reality that would prevent ships from using a tunnel to use the bypass if one was; that fact remains constant regardless of the result of the particular project. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If the tunnel is built, then the current wording would no longer make sense, but whatever. I was just asking a question. And the hook does violate the DYK guidelines, even though Arsenikk claimed that it doesn't. - PM800 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
... that Philippine town of Daet, Camarines Norte was the first place to celebrate Rizal Day with its construction of the first Rizal monument (pictured)?
Size and date are fine. However, the hook is unreferenced. There is a reference at the end of a paragraph containing the hook, several sentences in - this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, each sentence should be referenced; at the very least - the hook one should be. The problem is fixable, and once this is solved the article should be a "go" for DYKing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why. On the other hand, in the case only a para has a ref, it is impossible to trust anything but the last sentence. Consider what will happen when somebody adds more content to the middle, or moves the current one around. I don't think an article with any unreferenced sentence can become a FA, and GA and DYKs require them for most sentences those days, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You see, that only works if each sentence has a different reference than the previous one (such as FAs and some GAs). If I'd be reusing those two references on every sentence, it's repetitive and unsightly. Where's the DYK rule that every sentence has to be cited? The only relevant rule is rule D2 and it doesn't mention citing every sentence, especially if the entire paragraph is referenced on that/those reference/s.–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just for the heck of it, I did just that, citing every sentence in the first section, and it now looks unsightly with those repetitive after every sentence. I know we should be citing and stuff, but this is not the way to do it if there are only a few references. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
... that in January 1917, New Zealander Clive Franklyn Collett was the first British or Commonwealth military pilot to parachute from an airplane?
This is a self-nomination.
I had problems finding an unreviewed hook. However, I wrote an alternative hook for Petatlán, and previously reviewed Triple H and a couple of other article hooks in December.
Comment: While the first hook seems pretty bold, it's a direct quote from the NRHP Registration Form, but just the same, I included the protest hook in case there are issues with the first.
Two issues: hook not referenced in article, and hook itself is kinda boring...can we think of a different one maybe? Length and date check out though. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not nominate new articles for a special time in this section. Instead, please nominate them in the candidate entries section above under the date the article was created or the expansion began, and indicate your request for a specially-timed appearance on the Main Page.
Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated within five days of creation or expansion as usual (with the exception of April Fools' Day 2011 - see Misplaced Pages:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know). Also, articles should be nominated at least five days before the occasion to give reviewers time to check the nomination.
Comment If the article meets DYK criteria, suggest moving it to Special Occasions section and keeping for Halloween. The authors of the paper on which this article is substantially based have stated that they intend to publish a separate paper on the tadpoles of this species so the move would also allow time for any material from this paper (assuming it is published in time) to be incorporated. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
That's confirmed. I agree that this should be kept for Halloween, especially as "A detailed description of the new tadpole will be published separately." which might be available by October. It's certainly an early start for the Halloween collection, does anyone think it is a problem to save it until then? SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this as there were no objections. If someone wants to make a subpage for it, like we have for April Fools' nominations then feel free. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Article should be listed as "expansion" rather than "new", comes to ~9x expansion (by my count). Added one more source for the hook, but neither of them mention the second fact, (about 3000 Ashiqs). Everything else is fine. SPat 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed opinion of Spat - sources do not support hook. No action on this DYK in 17 days, proceeding to fail it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There's less than 1500 characters of prose there. My count gives 1384 characters. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Both hooks are fine. Merge discussion is closed, hooks appear in article and are supported by an appropriate inline citation. Ready to go. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
once very minor sourcing concerns are resolved. Expansion and date accepted per the rough consensus here. Source accepted in good faith. I believe the three unsourced paragraphs are cited by reference #8 (Ovid, X 298–513 (in the used edition: p.233-238), which is placed in the last paragraph of the section. Once Mottenen confirms that those paragraphs are covered by ref #8, and once s/he affixes ref #8 to the end of each paragraph, this article is ready for the main page. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
_on_F-4B_Phantom_II.jpg){kind=small}
.JPG)
.JPG)
,_Ashland,_LA_IMG_1628.jpg)
_RWD1.jpg)
.jpg)
