![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
It's getting very hard to put together balanced prep sets (set thread on sports above) because of all the noms on buildings (esp. churches), birds, plants, and sports. Nothing wrong these topics but when they comprise most of the hooks--esp. reviewed hooks, it's hard to put together sets with a wide variety of topics. PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Was there any particular reason for the unusual construction England's Feldon Church? It is not in any meaningful way part of national infrastructure or in national ownership, nor does it represent the country. Suggest the far more common ... that Feldon Church, in Northumberland, England, ... or (my preference, because the name of a church is its dedication, not its location) ... that the Church of St Michael and All Angels, Felton, Northumberland, England, .... If this makes the hook lengthy, the clause about the date of the chantry is irrelevant to the main hook and could be deleted. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Lußsee, now in prep2, reads:
It's time to suspend the current practice of inserting two sports hooks into each set of six. The noms page is becoming depleted of sports hooks! -- Orlady ( talk) 15:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The fern is not sentient, and lacks self-awareness. Anything it does, it does inadvertently. I assume the author's intention was to say that it may become an unintended fuel ladder. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
For this hook I (ahem) switched in the proposed ALT1 from the nomination, which should have been used as the hook as the original hook ("... that the interlocking at Harris Switch Tower still controls trains in the 1940s?") was so poorly worded as to make no sense. The ALT1 made sense. Did the admin who moved that hook into the queue actually look at it? It would have been horrible if that had made the front page.
Also, a hook that short, about a subject with a specific geographic location, should have that location in it. So I put Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the hook. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
As stated above (hook older than 2 weeks 19 November), Stuffo and Hülfensberg were a double nom. Somewhere between Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg and the appearance on the Main page (now) the bolding and credit for the mountain got lost, can that be changed please. It can't be changed that the mountain never received a review. I would have approved it if I had noticed that it was missing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
<--You all are too nice. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid we can't use this hook:
... that despite being a four-lane divided highway, K-143 (sign pictured) is not part of the U.S. National Highway System?
This is hardly unique ... many four-lane divided highways all over the United States are not part of the U.S. Highway System, by which I would imagine we also include the interstates ( Taconic State Parkway, Ohio State Route 11, Pennsylvania Route 33, New York State Route 17, most of California State Route 99, among others).
As Bencherlite admitted when okaying this hook, he did not have the full expertise to judge whether this was unusual enough to be hook-worthy. Anyone at WP:USRD, if consulted, would have quickly explained this. This isn't DYK, this is DUH.
We will need another hook, if one can be found. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
... that state highway K-143 (shield, pictured) near Salina, Kansas, uses three different types of pavement on its 4.6 miles (7.4 km)? Daniel Case ( talk) 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The October 27 section of the noms page is now blank, except for a stray comment that was formerly associated with Template:Did you know nominations/Sha'ab, Israel. I can't find the comment to edit it -- it must be hiding somewhere in Template Limbo! -- Orlady ( talk) 06:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe "is one of several songs [...] that deals" is not proper English. I think it should be "that deal". Dahn ( talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
As I understand the article, he never did play basketball with O'Connell. "However, Kelly had not played in any games at that point. He was removed from the roster and thus avoided suspension by MLB." Nothing therefore happened to him "after playing basketball with" O'Connell. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The following articles have been waiting for over two weeks for a review:
I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Samoilă Mârza which I found - to my surprise - under Special occasions. To my understanding only reviewed articles should be there, I would never have looked. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
violet/riga [talk] 11:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I was going to ask "What happens to older nominations that nobody reviews?", but I see from the previous post that they do not get forgotten and abandoned. It seems to me that since the introduction of the rule requiring self-nominators to review other articles, other Wikipedians have largely stopped reviewing. This is a pity.
You might like to consider requiring self-nominators to review 2 articles for a time until the backlog is largely cleared. This would help, but you really need to get more people reviewing, though how this is to be done I am not sure. I have done a few today, anyway. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 14:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The hook here is not something that can be supported. Yes, the citations indicate that someone in 1905 decided that this would have been the case were certain assumptions applied to the question, and this thinking was copied by someone in 1951. It is not the consensus of historians, but rather is just something that appeared in a couple of popular magazine articles over a century after the fact based on the whims of the authors. At a minimum it needs qualifiers, but it would be better not to use this at all. Since the US was never a monarchy, it never had rules of inheritance for the title, and this is all alternative history crystal ballism that is of dubious value in the article itself and no value as a DYK hook. Agricolae ( talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I still think this hook needs context. That some seemingly random guy called his cousin, some other seemingly random guy, a psychopath just leaves me saying, 'Huh? so what?' I think it would be better to at least give some idea where, when or in what circumstances it happened, such that someone being called a psychopath by his cousin isn't just one of the typical thing that happens every year around the Thanksgiving table. Agricolae ( talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I should be happy, that finally this went to prep (2) "... that piano students of Karl-Heinz Kämmerling at the Mozarteum and the Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover won more than 100 prizes at piano competitions?" - But I would prefer to have it pictured, it's a university, not a small church for a change, and the photographer went out of his way to take a better picture, smile, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The avocet is not particularly uncommon (whatever that undefinable term means): it is listed by the IUCN as "of least concern". I'm not sure how wp:commonname and wp:engvar apply to bird species, but in the UK, this species is virtually never called the Pied Avocet, but merely the Avocet. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I recently started reviewing DYK's again, not having done so since last spring. A couple of impressions:
The new Nom sub-pages:
Excellent work on getting these going. They make watchlisting a review feasible, and provide a good record. A definite improvement.
The focus on close paraphrase:
Now, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and I don't bring this up just to instigate another heated debate here. I'm looking for a way to improve the current situation. So, first, I agree that copy/paste articles have no place here. They need to be weeded out, and their authors admonished. Close paraphrase is a bit more complicated. Many of our writers do not come from academic backgrounds. Their understanding of what constitutes a "good" paraphrase, and what is close and "bad", isn't always strong. But I am seeing an insistence in the reviews of a complete absence of any closeness at all. This would be appropriate for GA/FA review, where most contributors do have academic experience and understand the vagaries of C.P.
So what to do? I have no wish for us to just let the egregious close paraphrasing slide. If an author has copy/pasted and pulled out the thesaurus in a attempt to hide it, this is not original work and should not be rewarded. These cases should be sent to the copyright team. But most of the cases I've run across are more nuanced than this. We need to discuss what to do with these cases.
The "DYK Removed" page
I recently became aware of this page, then noticed with no small amount of embarrassment that three of my recent reviews are listed here. One of these, Károly Ferenczy was an egregious case, and I'm glad it was caught. But the other two fall into the nuanced category, imo. Anyways, I bring this up to determine the point of the page (is it a "Wall of Shame", intended to guilt people into reviewing better? or does it have another purpose I've not yet divined?) and note that, for this reviewer anyway, it is negative reinforcement. And lacking any positive reinforcement for reviewing DYK's (aside from the odd thank you from a polite nom), I can't see how in practice this is going to improve the quality of reviews. It will simply dis-incentivize what is already a thankless job.
This is probably tl:dr already, so I'll cut it short. Just looking for some feedback on these issues. The Interior (Talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
See my general response below on the alleged "shaming", but on copyvio, not practical to just leave it to the copyvio folks. First, there aren't enough of them, they simply can't deal with it all and those resources should be reserved for the worst cases; and second, why open a CCI (investigation) on someone who has only offended once-- that is really overkill, and would be damaging, and generally education is all that is needed. See MRG's piece at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Opinion essay. There is nothing about detecting close paraphrasing and copyvio that can't be handled by most reviewers with less than 10 minutes, and educating offenders is best done on the first occurrence, without opening a big embarrassing investigation after they've gone on to create hundreds of copyvios, which is the history of several of the hall of fame DYKers. If DYK reviewers really got serious about detecting copyvio et al (rather than leaving all of the work to Nikkimaria), I suspect it could turn its reputation around in under a month, and really be a great first stop for educating new editors in how to become better editors all round. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The comparison of DYK/Removed to a the general archive system used by the other peer review processes is something we should look at. The "archived nominations" page for FA is neutrally worded, to start. It's not an attempt to root out endemic problems, but simply an archive. I've had a GA declined, and found the report a great resource for when I had time to get it up to a pass. However, DYK/Removed is not a general archive of failed nominations. It's a bit different. I'll be the first to admit I fall on the oversensitive side, so maybe I should just ignore it, and try to improve my close-paraphrase-spotting abilities. But I thought we should discuss it. These are the feelings of someone whose reviews are on the list, perhaps we could move toward a more neutral archiving system.
As to turning things around, I think we are making progress. But we have to work together to achieve something. I'm a bit worried that Nikkimaria's efforts are unsustainable, she's putting a lot of work in. When she returns something to the noms page, it often happens that the review is left up to her, so that she has six or seven rewrites to look at on a given day. She's sort of alone on a lot of reviews.
So maybe two things to look at would be: Resources for Writers: A collection of links to a) give them a reasonably-worded definition of what constitutes a close paraphrase, and b) a re-writing guide to let them know a straightforward way of improving their article. Resources for Reviewers: I know Nikkimaria has a good page of advice, and there are several tools. These could be transcluded on the nom sub-page to help out reviewers. It would be great if people like Nm could be a resource for reviewers to got to, rather than a "last line of defence" type role, which seems to be the case now.
So, sorry for bringing "shame" into the conversation, we should quickly move beyond it. The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that DYK/Removed is at all a "Hall of Shame" - I mean, if it was like "OMG user X missed the hugely obvious cut-and-paste section in this article, they're a terrible reviewer" I would understand, but the page is fairly neutral, and doesn't even name the reviewers involved, it's just a link to the nom page. I would compare it not to the FAC archive, but rather to the FAR archive: some noms are fixed and readded to queues (as was pointed out above), while others aren't. The reason I created the page was to address the concern about accountability raised by some commenters, not to shame reviewers. I'm sure we all understand that everyone makes mistakes, the point is that we should learn from our mistakes and move towards fixing the problems. If there's a consensus that something beyond WP:Close paraphrasing or similar is needed to explain the problem, I'd be happy to contribute to writing such a page. I already have a guide to reviewing for close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. You know me - I'm a current arbitrator and have been hanging around Wikipedia since about 2005. I work for one of the local Wikimedia chapters. I only ever write DYKs - the subjects I write about do not have the sources available to turn them into a GA, let alone a FA. A perfect example of this is HMS Glitter or HMS Richard Bacon - the closest I have ever got to GA is Fishery Protection Squadron, which was the result of a week, full time, spent at the British Library, researching everything they had on the subject.
My latest article is HMS Porcupine (G93). I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's eligible for DYK, which is unusual for articles I write. This is what happened after I decided to nominate it for DYK:
Is there any chance we could just have a big button that says "Nominate this article for DYK"? At present, it's needlessly complex: there are complex rules, complex templates, and complex requirements that seem to be filtering over from the FA process. My suggestion, I suppose, is quite simple: let's make DYK less like FA, and more like the Upload Wizard. Or at least make it less like FA - if I was a new user, or even if I didn't have Panyd around to help, I would have given up on nominating it at all. The Cavalry ( Message me) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Um, no, Pumpkin, the "FA crowd" didn't push to "raise the standards"; many editors simply wanted core policies, and particularly copyright issues on the mainpage, respected. Many editors over the years objected to the extensive cut-and-paste copyvio plagiarism et al that DYK fed along with the problems of non-reliable sources, Moonridden girl long ago pointed out that DYK would be the best place for early education of editors who go on to become serial offenders, and whomever came up with the complicated templates and all that mess, that can't be blamed on any imaginary "FA crowd". All that was expected was that DYK would stop enabling plagiarism, cut-and-paste editing, copyvio (which predominates in the list of those with the most DYKs, because it was easy to cut-and-paste and get a DYK-- fortunately, that is no longer the case). There is no "shaming" in educating-- that's in the eyes of the beholder. Anyone who can't see their errors and improve upon their reviews perhaps shouldn't be reviewing anyway. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So, concensus from this five minute chat seems to be that DYK needs standards relaxing, and needs to be a bit more new-user friendly. What can we do to make it friendlier to new users that's relatively simple to do? The Cavalry ( Message me) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(Reset Indent) Here's the thing, many good articles that are short were by no means created and approved for being GA status in one day which stops them from being put into consideration for DYKs. Secondly as for the copyright thing well many new users just cut and paste content from other sources. The main point I'm trying to get to is that we obviously, after being an encyclopedia, want to draw new editors. To do so we also ned to show that while we have quality standards, we don't expect every single article to fall through them. No to the comprehensive article part. Here's what I think is good about it. If you have an editor who's trying to provide as many encycylopedic articles as possible while not spending too much time on them then seeing an articlle being pput up to Comprehensive status would make them happy. A quick look at WP:GA shows that the criteria in itself would be mostly fine for COmprehensive articles but with some improvements. Here's what I'm thinking.
Having these would, I feel, bring more interest to DYKs because along with having them on the main page they would have a comprehensive topicon which would stay. This is by no means a complete list but rather a basis for a change to the DYK system. -- Kangaroo powah 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So first things to discuss, what are the issues? So far, we can all agree that close paraphrasing is a big issue. But what other issues do people think should be addressed? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just pinged Moonriddengirl to ask for her input on making guidelines for what qualifies as close paraphrasing. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to interject with another issue related to ease of use: the visibility of DYK's. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I was not aware of DYK's until I had created almost twenty articles and greatly expanded several others. A mechanism allowing editors to create a DYK nomination using a "big yellow button" would also inform them that DYK's exist. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Timeout, here. I'm not entirely happy with the "new culture" at DYK, of which more later, maybe, but has anyone actually sat down and thought about what it would mean to have a big button to send new articles to DYK? To have people with 15 to 20 mainspace edits nominating their articles? That means that DYK would be absorbing some significant proportion of the total volume of NPP. Let that sink in.
That kind of volume would smash the current setup like an egg on granite, close scrutiny or no close scrutiny. IMO, if you're going to have some kind of "send to DYK" button, integrate it somehow into NPP. (Of course, that's also experience a conflict between what the WMF wants and what the people actually doing the work want.) If the patrollers use it judiciously when they see an article that's not just decently sourced, but actually strikes them as interesting and worth a little attention, that's more likely to give a workable volume and high quality of nominations than if we just go around encouraging everyone to self-nominate. Besides, I think it would be very encouraging to new editors to become aware of DYK with a message that says, in essence, "I find your article interesting; maybe it should enjoy a little time of the front page." Choess ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Some writers might want to look at examples of DYK articles in addition to studying abstract rules. I recently enjoyed collaborations on DYK articles (all not "mine") and find their results examplary:
Suppose there is an article on a subject (say, Shoe). And say the article is mostly unsourced and very poorly written. So I develop a well-written and sourced article in my userpsace and then replace it one day. But the length of prose in both the previously poorly written article and the newly well written article is roughly the same. Does this qualify for DYK?
VR talk 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No disrespect intended to our Canadian brethren, but I don't think that CBC has sufficient worldwide recognition to bear placing as an unexplained abbreviation. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks. I thought we might have a smaller list this week but it's quite a long one...
I don't mind anything up to two weeks, but I've found the waiting queue to now be ridiculous long. Michał Radziwiłł Rudy took nearly 4 weeks to appear on the main page during which time I have practically forgotten I had created. Sorry but I think 4 weeks is silly, I think a two week period would be much more appropriate. Is there anything we can do about this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that articles should be checked for plagiarism but 4 weeks is way too long. The whole point of DYK was to showcase wikipedias most recent articles..We've since had almost 30,000 new articles in that time... I don't see why it should take 4 weeks. 2 weeks is surely long enough.. Honestly I had virtually forgotten about the nomination and it hitting the front page so late takes away the point in it in nominating from my perspective.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not criticising the volunteers for not working hard enough. Rather i'm saying there is a way in which plagiarism and any serious issues can be checked without demanding a lot of time from reviewers using a script and scan so all nominated articles would automatically undergo a scan for copyvios. Articles then would only need to be briefly checked before hitting the main page as the tools in place should pick up on anything really problematic. 4 weeks is bleedin ridiculous it really is. The process should be made more efficient so no extra time than present is needed to review articles but they go through more more quickly and effectively. As for searching for my last review, really, have you nothing else better to do? What I would suggest actually is a waiting queue of something like 3 days and if the article still has problems after review then they are excluded and only those articles with no issues go through. You could restart the DYK setup to work with only 3 days of most recent articles and then post them on the main page. Say I nominated an article tonight. Then a reviewer tomorrow or the day after would review and after checking with the initial scan for plagiarism then permit it for posting on the main page. It would just make far more sense to shorten the queue and focus on the recent nominations. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Miller's Tower, not Millers Tower, per source. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No evidence offered in the article as to why, or by whom, this game of considered the "Game of the Century" (ridiculous hyperbole that should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and surely cannot be determined for another 89 years). Vast majority of readers will have little idea what version of football this refers to, and even less idea of what LSU is meant to refer to? Kevin McE ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful progress was made concerning older nominations (see above). Several articles were nominated for 1 December, Romanian National Holiday. Some are already in the Special occasions section, but not yet reviewed:
They need attention. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to each and all! Three a day is fine by me, and I'm sure the same goes for the other editor who contributed, but who is inactive at the moment. Dahn ( talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
And these are the nominations that have been listed for two weeks and haven't received a review yet. Note also that it's worth trawling through the old nominations to check those that have been reviewed, but may be stagnating for one reason or another.
The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks.
It would be nice to get this down to no more than a week, but let's not get ahead of ourselves! Harrias talk 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it safe to close this November 15 nomination as failed- Template:Did you know nominations/Dynamic quartz recrystallization? SL93 ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The wrong hook was used for the article You Are the Apple of My Eye in Prep 2. The one that was verified is "... that You Are the Apple of My Eye grossed more than NT$20 million before its official release date in Taiwan?" (See Template:Did you know nominations/You Are the Apple of My Eye). Thanks!
Could I get a second (or third and fourth?!) opinion on this one? I've read through the article, and the arguments on the talk page in depth, and am still struggling with the nomination. On the one hand, I'm inclined to reject it: the sheer amount of the article that has been contested at one stage or another implies to me that there are issues. But on the other hand, reading it; there is little I can argue with. The article may not be the best written, but that isn't the most major issue here, and I would say that the standard is good enough for DYK. There is no evidence of copyvio or close paraphrasing, though the article does use a lot of quotes. Most of the talk page issues revolve around claims of "dubious-ness" – without access to the offline sources, I have no way of verifying this. At the moment the page has gone reasonably quiet, but I'm worried that if it is approved, there may be fireworks on the page again by the time it reaches the main page. I'm inclined to reject it, on the basis of the concerns and the risk of it being a hotbed of activity while on the home page, but I would really appreciate another editor having a look over it and weighing in with their opinion: I'll warn any volunteers though, there is a fair bit to wade through! Harrias talk 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why this article is in DYK right now if all the sources are primary and are basically One Live to Live summaries. I don't see how this article meets our guidelines on fiction? I saw the nomination page and it was an concern. Can this be pulled? Thanks Secret account 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No update to main page. Queues are empty. Two prep sets are full. Admins-stroke! stroke! PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This nomination had multiple issues of close paraphrasing raised on November 24th, following which the nominator said that he had re-written the sections concerned (and the entire article) to remove any possible further close paraphrasing. The nominator then went away and canvassed another editor to approve the nomination, specifically asking them to say (their quotes) "It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF".
The canvassed editor duly approved the nomination, although using an account "RetiredUser12459780" instead of the account at which they had been canvassed. They did not mention the fact that they had been approached, in their review.
Nikkimaria, who discovered the bulk of the copyright issues originally, confirmed that the sources she re-checked "appear to be fixed".
Given the previous copyright concerns, and then the extreme lengths taken by the nominator (quote above) to get the status of the off-line sources accepted as "good faith", I suggest that this should not go on the main page until the off-line sources have been independently checked. I requested copies of the relevant Milton Quarterly articles from my library yesterday, and hope they will arrive this week. It's possible that others can get access to the relevant material even faster, or already have - if the offline sources have already been independently checked, that's fine. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
the article is fine. I looked it over as described. Don't feel any need to add some special disclaimer to my comments. You all can take that or leave it. Oh...and go read the talk page if you don't think I read the sources and the article. ( Personal attack removed), doubting me. Sheesh. this place is so gotcha lame. Just get over it and run the thing. I knew there would be some little attempt at me...and just left the window open anyway, cause I really don't care if someone on this site calls me a liar. I know very, very few of you would do it to my face. TCO ( talk) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, folks, try to remember WP:MEDRS when reviewing articles here-- we shouldn't put medical claims on the mainpage that aren't sourced to reliable medical sources. Template:Did you know nominations/Argentine tea culture-- this one hasn't made it to the mainpage, and I haven't yet looked into what medical sources say on the statement, but it prompted me to again ask reviewers here to be aware. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This hook is factually erroneous. The article never says the ship was recommissioned as HMS Pork and HMS Pine. Rather it says that the two parts were known informally as HMS Pork, and . . . HMS Pine. The ship(s) was recommissioned, but no claim is made in the article that it was under these nicknames. Agricolae ( talk) 01:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I admit being confused by (now in prep 1) "... that in the 16th-century the Church of St. Mary of Constantinople in Istanbul was the center of a quarter mainly inhabited by Italians deported from the city of Caffa (pictured) in Crimea?"
The article looks like one about a church, takes you to a mosque, the name of the church appears only much later, the (pretty) picture shows neither a church nor a mosque and is from a different place altogether, - that is a bit too much for my taste, even if it is correct, - it probably is but I don't have the time to find out. I looked for the nomination on the article's talk, but there is no link. - Well, I recently had a picture of university not taken, also of a major opera house. - But of a major church yesterday, thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
One of the criteria for inclusion of an article in DYK is newness, defined as being within 5 days of creation or the start of expansion. I have marked 2 articles nominated for November 23rd as not "new" enough, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and Garret Hobart. Both were not nominated until December 1st and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek was first edited by the nominator on 17th November with the expansion starting on 21st November. Do these articles qualify for DYK? How strictly do you apply the rules? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I nominated Pilgrim, but I've just now come across this discussion. Truthfully, I haven't nominated a DYK in more than a year, so I'm fairly rusty. Thanks to Cwmhiraeth and Gerda for taking an interest, and helping me through. I'll be sure to pay more attention to the timing for my next nom, promise. Oh, and isn't it interesting that the two articles being discussed are most probably future FAs? We star collectors just love causing trouble. ;) María ( yllo submarine) 21:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I promoted 3 DYKs and rejected 1 DYK by copying and pasting from a passed nomination and a closed nomination. How do I close nominations correctly? SL93 ( talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to handle this - Template:Did you know nominations/The Chimes, Uxbridge. The problem is that the creator brought in content from a different article into it. The article would not be long enough without that content. The creator asked about if the content from the other article was removed. It seems to without the content, it wouldn't be long enough. Can someone take a look? SL93 ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! Although I know there is by no means a general consensus on this, I want to get this DYK wizard idea working at least in my userspace so we can all test it. Here are my two primary goals in creating this:
On the other hand, as far as I can tell this proposal doesn't actually change any of the existing procedure; it's essentially just another set of instructions for the existing procedure. Thus, I don't see why it would hurt anything; at the worst, it's redundant. I have no experience making wizards like this so I would take no responsibility in maintaining it.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
15:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I thought this was about the nomination wizard. As for the proposals about the javascript tools and stuff, I don't think this is necessary. Both DYKcheck and the duplication detector have clear instructions for use, and this proposal seems like a lot of technical work to solve a problem that could just be solved by people reading instructions (as always, I highly recommend reading instructions when you start something new). If the instructions are hard to find, the solution is to link them more prominently. Plus, DYKcheck and the duplication detector are just aids anyway, they're not mandatory parts of the review process; I know I, for one, use neither (I get page sizes with User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, and copyvio checks by hand). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK didn't update several hours ago, when it was supposed to. This was because the image hadn't been protected yet. This is ultimately my fault -- I've started to believe the people at Commons who have gently suggested that we didn't need to protect images because cascading protection of images at Commons has been working efficiently. (The image is cascade-protected now, but it apparently took more than 8 hours for the cascade-protection to kick in.)
Do we need to update manually, or can somebody kick the bot? -- Orlady ( talk) 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Now in prep 2: Red goats of Kingston (pictured), - what's pictured is only one, while the article says "one of many". Prep 1 has a pictured line on a pregnant cow and her calf, - as long as the animal is pregnant, there is no calf, at least in German. Is that different in English? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted this on Allen3's page and he said to ask here. I just moved a DYK hook to a prep area for the first time. In the instructions it says "N13: After adding an entry to a preparation area page, remove it from the suggestions page. Make sure to include the article name, date, nominator, and creator under the "Credits" section to allow others to return it if a dispute arises." at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Preparation_areas. but in T:TDYK#How_to_promote_an_accepted_hook it does not mention removing the article sub page from T:TDYK. Why is this? And can the contradictory instructions be updated? PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Are Techcrunch and Engadget considered reliable sources for software? SL93 ( talk) 23:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Ratio Scripta (for DYK count) and Talk:The Longford Trust (noting that all of those DYKs went through before Nikkimaria began checking). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And for the apparent reason, as I understand it see this, which I previously removed because it was a little strong (I would not restore it had there been a follow up). Volunteer Marek 07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have twice changed the link to the name of the species (Red legged Chough), and it has now been changed yet again to Cornish Chough, with a piped link, yet again. There is no species, or subspecies, of that name. It the recent case of mention of the Pied Avocet, it was insisted here that the international name is to be used in preference to the local name (if indeed Cornish Chough is used as a local name, it is not a name in widespread use even within the UK). Kevin McE ( talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A fact from Joseph Saragossi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 December 2011. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know ... that the Arab governor of Safed offered money to persuade rabbi Joseph Saragossi not to leave the town?" Yet the confirmed version was: "that the Arab governor of Safed offered money to persuade Palestinian rabbi Joseph Saragossi not to leave the town?" Why was the "P word" removed by Orlady when she promoted it? [3]. I was shocked that it had been tampered with in transition. That is just not right. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Wroniec_(book) which I've nomianted on 23 November 2011 is still waiting for a review. I usually don't care about that, but in this case I asked for this to be considered for the December 13th anniversairy, and this is not too far away anymore... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
On a relatively minor point, we do not need to use euphemisms such as that he "lost both his sons": they died, they predeceased him. Many of our readers are not native English speakers, and euphemistic idiom is not encyclopaedic tone.
But more importantly, the factual basis of the hook; Bernhard Subottka died on 20 July 1945, and Fuhlsbüttel had ceased to be a Nazi camp on 3 May, therefore he did not die in a Nazi camp. The final clause seems to fail POV test: are US prisons capitalist prisons? Have UK prisons fluctuated between being centre left prisons and monetarist popularist prisons?
I'm afraid I can only suggest that a total rethink is needed on this one. Maybe that he was condemned to death before going on to work for the government? Kevin McE ( talk) 07:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I loaded 3 of 4 prep areas (felt funny loading the last which has one of my own hooks in it :P), so folks can load away.....any other admin is welcome to load the last prep to queue too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The hook for Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (not my article, I just reviewed the considerable 5* expansion) is now in prep3 - without the picture. Instead another building. We have so few pictures of people, and this is a GA, - I would like to see it pictured, perhaps later, no rush, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Would somebody with a good idea of the paraphrasing and plaguarism rules have a look at this review please? I don't know enough to make a decision, and it would be nice to get the nomination closed one way or the other given how old it is: Template:Did you know nominations/George Tchobanoglous. Thanks in advance. Harrias talk 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The last hook has an extraneous comma after "sewn shut". Should be removed. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Q6 is in need of an image hook, preferably before hitting the Main Page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only person who wonders what's the point of the rubric "Did you know?" The facts presented are so obscure that no one can be expected to know them. One might as well title this section "Almost nobody knows (and fewer consider it very significant) that..." Mark K. Jensen ( talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
You make some good points regarding the DYK set currently on the main page. Several of the hooks in it contain what might appear to be excessively trivial information (particularly numerical information) that detracts from the overall effectiveness of the hooks. This is something that we all need to be attentive to when drafting hooks and assembling hook sets. It's a good idea not to cluster similar hooks together (including hooks that contain numbers), but that's sometimes hard to do. It seems to me that three of these hooks could have been edited to make them seem less trivial and thus more interesting (although the dates I would have trimmed can be a source of interest):
As for that hook about the rat antibody... Having skimmed the article, I would have preferred a hook that said that Trypanosoma lewisi caused the first confirmed extinction of a mammalian species by a pathogen. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying that something is vaguely pyramidal is not the same as saying that it is based on the design of a pyramid. Claim not supported by the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
We have less than 20 reviewed and approved hooks left on T:TDYK. Is it time to slow down the bot and post new hook sets on MainPage at a slower pace? -- PFHLai ( talk) 11:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Special_occasion_holding_area for a comment with explanation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that the nomination pages (Template:Did you know nominations/article) have an edit notice when edited, with a summary of the things to check when doing the review. There is a line at the end that says "You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}". Is it possible to change the edit notice to replace "Article" (which is a static word, the same for all nominations) with the name of the nominated article, so that people using that code can simply copy and paste it? Cambalachero ( talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Since I disqualified [
this article] on the grounds that it was out of time for nomination, I have been informed by the author that "the article was submitted on November 14 but it wasn't approved until November 23. If I had submitted it while still in AFC, I would have been told to wait until it was moved to mainspace."
I think its possible inclusion in DYK should be reconsidered.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The tool normally works fine for me, but for Fürstenzug never returns, remaining on "processing". I had to restart my system. I don't see what might need a change in the article (not mine) and/or the tool, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the fourth item of queue 3, Entre a Mi Mundo. Specifically, the phrase 'that some music critics believed Selena was noting Diana Ross and Leslie Gore in the song "Missing My Baby" ': what does "was noting" mean in this context? Emulating? Copying? Sounding like? Following in the footsteps of?
The phrase is a quote from the article's lede, and is also problematic there as well. The "Other Songs" subsection references reviews that are more specific and mention Gore and Ross with more specificity. Perhaps the hook can be rewritten, but I think it should not be published in its current form. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Should we really have two concert halls, and a classical composer, in one batch? Could at least one of the halls be re-scheduled? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Hawkeye and I have rejigged some of the prose of Bill Bellamy (soldier) to distance from sourcing so anyone else is welcome to take a look, see Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Bellamy (soldier). Some of the other older noms are held up with the same issue (just scroll down from the top). I have to hop off the computer soon, so if folks could take a look that'd be great. I've loaded some preps into queues so we have lots of space to fill. Be back later. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
We would not say that Elvis popularised the rock and roll, or that Miles Davis was a leading exponent of the jazz; remove the in Juan Luis Guerra brought the bachata music mainstream Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What definition of noting is being used here? It might mean something in the world of music criticism, but not in general parlance, and not consistent with any definition in Wiktionary or Chambers. Is it imitating a vocal style? Plagiarising a song? Paying some form of homage? Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Two Latin music album hooks in the same set? Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope there are impeccable sources for putting an accusation that somebody (Count Grog) treats his employees dishonestly on the main page. At the very least, we need to be able to attribute the accusation or add allegedly. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I replied to the message left on the talk page. The link to "double-crossed" points to Swerve (professional wrestling) so it's pretty clear (especially if you read the article further - e.g. "The Brotherhood" section) this is a kayfabe statement. 71.184.47.206 ( talk) 21:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The rivalry itself does not include anything: the hook lacks semantic coherence. The history of the rivalry could, at a push, be said to include such games: we can certainly say that the history of games between the sides (with a piped link) included such meetings.
The hook is long and, at least to those not used to the terminology of the sport, clunky to read. suggest ...that the history of games between basketball rivals Duke and Michigan includes games that have gone to overtime when each team has been defending champion? And champion of what? Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
<--Shoot, I wish I had seen this before--the front page ran with "played one other". That's not grammatically correct. Drmies ( talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is his book a "standard reference" for? In art, nudes drawn from behind? In anatomy, the spread of the epidermis? For a construct like "whose book The Human Figure is a standard reference", I'd expect a bit of extra information (even a complement). Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
dead of night is more suitable for poetry than an encyclopaedia: suggest simply at night or under cover of darkness. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
He was Minister of Justice in 1950: the Dutch invasion was in 1948, so he should not be referred to as a former Minister of Justice in relation to that event. Although not necessarily ungrammatical, losing much of his archives sounds as though it is: I would suggest that having archive in the singular is equivalent in meaning, and avoids the jarring phrase. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
A cornerback you say? And I didn't even know Michigan had a hurling team. (see C2 here: "Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about". Kevin McE ( talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The wording of the last hook in Prep 3 was changed on a concern that I think has now been dispelled at the talkpage - that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother are not/were not referred to as Fisher & Fisher. I think the new wording, referring to "the sibling partnership," is clunky and fails to recognize that the firm continued with a second generation Fisher as a partner, and would like the original hook restored: "... that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother Arthur ( Fisher & Fisher) designed the oil company town of Parco, Wyoming, in a unified Spanish colonial style to foster community?" But it's now in Queue 5 so I can't switch it back myself. In any case, the "that" has gotten left out and needs reinserting. Thanks. (And thanks to Casliber for inserting the credit to the article creator for the company article. I've already had to be a nudge about this nomination once, sorry about that.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As I've been loading I have found "runs" of similar hooks, which I am guilty of myself I know. Anyway, for diversity, anyone is welcome to pillage ideas from User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs where I stored ideas for 5x expansions from previous discussions. If you do, feel free to strike, tick off or remove from my page (I might even trim it myself). Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Gross exaggeration of what the article asserts. Article says that One to three months of heavy exposure causes death; hook claims that livestock usually die from eating it. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
"... that livestock eating white locoweed develop a neurological syndrome known as locoism?"
Howzat? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
As in the case of his teammate, we need to specify the sport per supplementary C2 Kevin McE ( talk) 00:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the orthography of the article title, and hence the nomination, is incorrect: going by MOS:CT, "The" should be lowercase: Beneath the Snow Encumbered Branches.
Fixing it would require moving the article, and, the trickier part, changing the Template:Did you know nominations/Beneath The Snow Encumbered Branches and all the various places within the DYK pages affected by this. This may be easier at this stage than I think; I just remember what a headache it was to change a DYK when an article was moved to adjust its title orthography after it got to the prep area stage, and don't trust myself to figure out all the steps needed. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
After fixing some issues, Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Anne Genter appears to have left the nomination page without having had a final tick, so it shouldn't be 'in transition' on its way to the queue. The nomination date is no longer on the page, so maybe there's a related issue. Schwede 66 17:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the 00:00 17 December 2011 (UTC) DYK update was reverted? There appears to be no discussion at either Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors nor this page. I suspect this is a simple case of fumble fingers but the admin who made the revert appears to have stepped away from the keyboard so it is not possible to confirm this theory. As the update is "on the clock", so to speak, a quick resolution would be useful. -- Allen3 talk 01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I built a couple of preps this morning—hadn't done this in ages and last time was long before all the fundamental changes. I see that both preps have been changed around substantially. This might be normal, but if it's to do with what I've done, then I'd appreciate some feedback. One can only learn from feedback :) Schwede 66 03:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit too much of a good thing? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if two of the sources - Engadget and Techcrunch - are considered reliable for DYK. I have seen articles from TechCrunch help save stuff from deletion in AfD. I would like the article reviewed soon because the hook ends with "this year". SL93 ( talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The first hook in Queue 3 is missing a leading "that". Thanks. — Bruce1ee talk 07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Something went wrong here, which I hope is easily fixed by those who understand these things. My attempting to redo will probably make things worse. Thanks! Johnbod ( talk) 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Q6's final hook needs (pictured) removed from it. It won't let me do it. PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been hacking away at Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera) making it as complete as possibel before it hits the main page. I have now finished on it but wonder whether
would be a better hook.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It might have been apt for an art critic to anthropomorphise an animal in his description of a painting: it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia to attribute emotions such as adoration to a spaniel. Suggest Kevin McE ( talk) 11:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems clumsy phrasing to repeat the name as that of both the book and the opera. Suggest "... that Gavin Bryars's Doctor Ox's Experiment is the third opera to be based on the science fiction novella by Jules Verne?" Kevin McE ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"A teenage Charlotte Bronte" is a rather informal construction, and probably ought to be teenaged anyway: it was written by Charlotte Bronte as a teenager. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
He is not "one of the highest-ranking generals in China", and hasn't been for at least 41½ years, having been dead for that long. He had a name, and I do not believe that we would have omitted an Anglophone name in such circumstances: or we would have at least included a nickname such as is mentioned: "... that Tiger Xu was injured in battle nine times? Kevin McE ( talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
How are articles newly translated from other Wikipedias treated with regard to the "New" criterion? I'm planning to nominate the Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho. Now, that article that is probably OK, since it includes a whole section and citations not in the original, but as a matter of principle the issue of translated articles ought to be made a little clearer somewhere (unless it already is and I just didn't spot it). -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seeing how many DYK nominations undergo an extensive inquisition process before being approved, it occurs to me that the lives of DYK reviewers could be made easier if we had a method for marking a nomination as "ready for re-review." For example, it would take a person a lot of time to read through Template:Did you know nominations/1804 Haiti Massacre to determine that the article has been revised to address the concerns that Nikkimaria raised there. I propose that we add a symbol to the standard DYK arsenal to visibly identify a nomination as "ready for re-evaluation" (or "Please re-review").
Some possible candidates that would not involve cluttering Wikipedia with another new image file are:
Of those suggestions, my preference is for the first of the two recycling symbols. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
subst:DYKtick}}
{{
subst:DYKtickAGF}}
{{
subst:DYK?}}
{{
subst:DYK?no}}
{{
subst:DYKno}}
{{
subst:DYK?again}}
You may notify the nominator of problems with {{
subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
What about switching the colors for the DYKno and DYK?again symbols. Yellow would seem more appropriate for the second check needed, and red more appropriate for the failing notation.-- Kev min § 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I had nominated a composer, mentioning his 2 most famous works, as a 2* BLP, accepted for Christmas Eve. I changed it now to a nomination for one of the 2 works, which needs a review, sorry for that. The article is not polished yet, but ready enough. - One of the reasons why I changed is that an observer found out that the composer was not completely unreferenced. Formally speaking this is true - but it was his own website which was used as an inline citation. Is that to be called a reference? - I learned to use the subject's website as an external link. Only asking for curiosity, I have no intention to return to bold him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"scandal involving the Olympus Corporation", surely? Kevin McE ( talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"was the mezzo-soprano to record Lieder" sounds like an odd construction. She sang it, she was chosen to sing it, she was the soloist on it, she was selected to record it... And BR is surely a Bavarian radio station, or a Bavarian broadcaster: most radios are made in China. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We have been through this several times before, but if specifying a place, we usually do so up to the level of sovereign state, unless we are referring to a globally significant city (which Lancashire is not) Kevin McE ( talk) 13:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 14:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
To say that he "played eight-man football" is a misrepresentation of the source material, which only stated " Attended Grace Brethren High School in Simi Valley, Calif., a school that began at the eight-man football level in 2002 and ascended three divisions during Elmore’s time there". Elmore's arrival could coincide with a change to a higher level above eight-man football. We do not really know what Elmore played based on the available reference. Please do not ignore objections on the nomination template. -- 69.157.46.38 ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a way to more gracefully word the hook to avoid both the say/said use and also the problem of having an American art museum being used with British plural rules? "The Met say" makes no sense in American English: "The Met" is a singular museum, and therefore "The Met says" is what an American reader would expect to see.
Current version: ... that the version of Lady Lilith which the The Met say is by Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?
Proposed revision: ... that the version of Lady Lilith in the The Met and ascribed to Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?
I think it would be helpful if the Dunn article made the point more clearly that the Met considers the work to be by Rosetti, not Dunn. In addition, I strongly recommend that the wording of the following sentence be improved by the judicious replacement of at least one "some": "Some have said that some of Rossetti's paintings were in fact almost entirely created by Dunn." BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
It's getting very hard to put together balanced prep sets (set thread on sports above) because of all the noms on buildings (esp. churches), birds, plants, and sports. Nothing wrong these topics but when they comprise most of the hooks--esp. reviewed hooks, it's hard to put together sets with a wide variety of topics. PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Was there any particular reason for the unusual construction England's Feldon Church? It is not in any meaningful way part of national infrastructure or in national ownership, nor does it represent the country. Suggest the far more common ... that Feldon Church, in Northumberland, England, ... or (my preference, because the name of a church is its dedication, not its location) ... that the Church of St Michael and All Angels, Felton, Northumberland, England, .... If this makes the hook lengthy, the clause about the date of the chantry is irrelevant to the main hook and could be deleted. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Lußsee, now in prep2, reads:
It's time to suspend the current practice of inserting two sports hooks into each set of six. The noms page is becoming depleted of sports hooks! -- Orlady ( talk) 15:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The fern is not sentient, and lacks self-awareness. Anything it does, it does inadvertently. I assume the author's intention was to say that it may become an unintended fuel ladder. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
For this hook I (ahem) switched in the proposed ALT1 from the nomination, which should have been used as the hook as the original hook ("... that the interlocking at Harris Switch Tower still controls trains in the 1940s?") was so poorly worded as to make no sense. The ALT1 made sense. Did the admin who moved that hook into the queue actually look at it? It would have been horrible if that had made the front page.
Also, a hook that short, about a subject with a specific geographic location, should have that location in it. So I put Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the hook. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
As stated above (hook older than 2 weeks 19 November), Stuffo and Hülfensberg were a double nom. Somewhere between Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg and the appearance on the Main page (now) the bolding and credit for the mountain got lost, can that be changed please. It can't be changed that the mountain never received a review. I would have approved it if I had noticed that it was missing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
<--You all are too nice. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid we can't use this hook:
... that despite being a four-lane divided highway, K-143 (sign pictured) is not part of the U.S. National Highway System?
This is hardly unique ... many four-lane divided highways all over the United States are not part of the U.S. Highway System, by which I would imagine we also include the interstates ( Taconic State Parkway, Ohio State Route 11, Pennsylvania Route 33, New York State Route 17, most of California State Route 99, among others).
As Bencherlite admitted when okaying this hook, he did not have the full expertise to judge whether this was unusual enough to be hook-worthy. Anyone at WP:USRD, if consulted, would have quickly explained this. This isn't DYK, this is DUH.
We will need another hook, if one can be found. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
... that state highway K-143 (shield, pictured) near Salina, Kansas, uses three different types of pavement on its 4.6 miles (7.4 km)? Daniel Case ( talk) 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The October 27 section of the noms page is now blank, except for a stray comment that was formerly associated with Template:Did you know nominations/Sha'ab, Israel. I can't find the comment to edit it -- it must be hiding somewhere in Template Limbo! -- Orlady ( talk) 06:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe "is one of several songs [...] that deals" is not proper English. I think it should be "that deal". Dahn ( talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
As I understand the article, he never did play basketball with O'Connell. "However, Kelly had not played in any games at that point. He was removed from the roster and thus avoided suspension by MLB." Nothing therefore happened to him "after playing basketball with" O'Connell. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The following articles have been waiting for over two weeks for a review:
I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Samoilă Mârza which I found - to my surprise - under Special occasions. To my understanding only reviewed articles should be there, I would never have looked. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
violet/riga [talk] 11:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I was going to ask "What happens to older nominations that nobody reviews?", but I see from the previous post that they do not get forgotten and abandoned. It seems to me that since the introduction of the rule requiring self-nominators to review other articles, other Wikipedians have largely stopped reviewing. This is a pity.
You might like to consider requiring self-nominators to review 2 articles for a time until the backlog is largely cleared. This would help, but you really need to get more people reviewing, though how this is to be done I am not sure. I have done a few today, anyway. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 14:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The hook here is not something that can be supported. Yes, the citations indicate that someone in 1905 decided that this would have been the case were certain assumptions applied to the question, and this thinking was copied by someone in 1951. It is not the consensus of historians, but rather is just something that appeared in a couple of popular magazine articles over a century after the fact based on the whims of the authors. At a minimum it needs qualifiers, but it would be better not to use this at all. Since the US was never a monarchy, it never had rules of inheritance for the title, and this is all alternative history crystal ballism that is of dubious value in the article itself and no value as a DYK hook. Agricolae ( talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I still think this hook needs context. That some seemingly random guy called his cousin, some other seemingly random guy, a psychopath just leaves me saying, 'Huh? so what?' I think it would be better to at least give some idea where, when or in what circumstances it happened, such that someone being called a psychopath by his cousin isn't just one of the typical thing that happens every year around the Thanksgiving table. Agricolae ( talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I should be happy, that finally this went to prep (2) "... that piano students of Karl-Heinz Kämmerling at the Mozarteum and the Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover won more than 100 prizes at piano competitions?" - But I would prefer to have it pictured, it's a university, not a small church for a change, and the photographer went out of his way to take a better picture, smile, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The avocet is not particularly uncommon (whatever that undefinable term means): it is listed by the IUCN as "of least concern". I'm not sure how wp:commonname and wp:engvar apply to bird species, but in the UK, this species is virtually never called the Pied Avocet, but merely the Avocet. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I recently started reviewing DYK's again, not having done so since last spring. A couple of impressions:
The new Nom sub-pages:
Excellent work on getting these going. They make watchlisting a review feasible, and provide a good record. A definite improvement.
The focus on close paraphrase:
Now, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and I don't bring this up just to instigate another heated debate here. I'm looking for a way to improve the current situation. So, first, I agree that copy/paste articles have no place here. They need to be weeded out, and their authors admonished. Close paraphrase is a bit more complicated. Many of our writers do not come from academic backgrounds. Their understanding of what constitutes a "good" paraphrase, and what is close and "bad", isn't always strong. But I am seeing an insistence in the reviews of a complete absence of any closeness at all. This would be appropriate for GA/FA review, where most contributors do have academic experience and understand the vagaries of C.P.
So what to do? I have no wish for us to just let the egregious close paraphrasing slide. If an author has copy/pasted and pulled out the thesaurus in a attempt to hide it, this is not original work and should not be rewarded. These cases should be sent to the copyright team. But most of the cases I've run across are more nuanced than this. We need to discuss what to do with these cases.
The "DYK Removed" page
I recently became aware of this page, then noticed with no small amount of embarrassment that three of my recent reviews are listed here. One of these, Károly Ferenczy was an egregious case, and I'm glad it was caught. But the other two fall into the nuanced category, imo. Anyways, I bring this up to determine the point of the page (is it a "Wall of Shame", intended to guilt people into reviewing better? or does it have another purpose I've not yet divined?) and note that, for this reviewer anyway, it is negative reinforcement. And lacking any positive reinforcement for reviewing DYK's (aside from the odd thank you from a polite nom), I can't see how in practice this is going to improve the quality of reviews. It will simply dis-incentivize what is already a thankless job.
This is probably tl:dr already, so I'll cut it short. Just looking for some feedback on these issues. The Interior (Talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
See my general response below on the alleged "shaming", but on copyvio, not practical to just leave it to the copyvio folks. First, there aren't enough of them, they simply can't deal with it all and those resources should be reserved for the worst cases; and second, why open a CCI (investigation) on someone who has only offended once-- that is really overkill, and would be damaging, and generally education is all that is needed. See MRG's piece at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Opinion essay. There is nothing about detecting close paraphrasing and copyvio that can't be handled by most reviewers with less than 10 minutes, and educating offenders is best done on the first occurrence, without opening a big embarrassing investigation after they've gone on to create hundreds of copyvios, which is the history of several of the hall of fame DYKers. If DYK reviewers really got serious about detecting copyvio et al (rather than leaving all of the work to Nikkimaria), I suspect it could turn its reputation around in under a month, and really be a great first stop for educating new editors in how to become better editors all round. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The comparison of DYK/Removed to a the general archive system used by the other peer review processes is something we should look at. The "archived nominations" page for FA is neutrally worded, to start. It's not an attempt to root out endemic problems, but simply an archive. I've had a GA declined, and found the report a great resource for when I had time to get it up to a pass. However, DYK/Removed is not a general archive of failed nominations. It's a bit different. I'll be the first to admit I fall on the oversensitive side, so maybe I should just ignore it, and try to improve my close-paraphrase-spotting abilities. But I thought we should discuss it. These are the feelings of someone whose reviews are on the list, perhaps we could move toward a more neutral archiving system.
As to turning things around, I think we are making progress. But we have to work together to achieve something. I'm a bit worried that Nikkimaria's efforts are unsustainable, she's putting a lot of work in. When she returns something to the noms page, it often happens that the review is left up to her, so that she has six or seven rewrites to look at on a given day. She's sort of alone on a lot of reviews.
So maybe two things to look at would be: Resources for Writers: A collection of links to a) give them a reasonably-worded definition of what constitutes a close paraphrase, and b) a re-writing guide to let them know a straightforward way of improving their article. Resources for Reviewers: I know Nikkimaria has a good page of advice, and there are several tools. These could be transcluded on the nom sub-page to help out reviewers. It would be great if people like Nm could be a resource for reviewers to got to, rather than a "last line of defence" type role, which seems to be the case now.
So, sorry for bringing "shame" into the conversation, we should quickly move beyond it. The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that DYK/Removed is at all a "Hall of Shame" - I mean, if it was like "OMG user X missed the hugely obvious cut-and-paste section in this article, they're a terrible reviewer" I would understand, but the page is fairly neutral, and doesn't even name the reviewers involved, it's just a link to the nom page. I would compare it not to the FAC archive, but rather to the FAR archive: some noms are fixed and readded to queues (as was pointed out above), while others aren't. The reason I created the page was to address the concern about accountability raised by some commenters, not to shame reviewers. I'm sure we all understand that everyone makes mistakes, the point is that we should learn from our mistakes and move towards fixing the problems. If there's a consensus that something beyond WP:Close paraphrasing or similar is needed to explain the problem, I'd be happy to contribute to writing such a page. I already have a guide to reviewing for close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. You know me - I'm a current arbitrator and have been hanging around Wikipedia since about 2005. I work for one of the local Wikimedia chapters. I only ever write DYKs - the subjects I write about do not have the sources available to turn them into a GA, let alone a FA. A perfect example of this is HMS Glitter or HMS Richard Bacon - the closest I have ever got to GA is Fishery Protection Squadron, which was the result of a week, full time, spent at the British Library, researching everything they had on the subject.
My latest article is HMS Porcupine (G93). I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's eligible for DYK, which is unusual for articles I write. This is what happened after I decided to nominate it for DYK:
Is there any chance we could just have a big button that says "Nominate this article for DYK"? At present, it's needlessly complex: there are complex rules, complex templates, and complex requirements that seem to be filtering over from the FA process. My suggestion, I suppose, is quite simple: let's make DYK less like FA, and more like the Upload Wizard. Or at least make it less like FA - if I was a new user, or even if I didn't have Panyd around to help, I would have given up on nominating it at all. The Cavalry ( Message me) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Um, no, Pumpkin, the "FA crowd" didn't push to "raise the standards"; many editors simply wanted core policies, and particularly copyright issues on the mainpage, respected. Many editors over the years objected to the extensive cut-and-paste copyvio plagiarism et al that DYK fed along with the problems of non-reliable sources, Moonridden girl long ago pointed out that DYK would be the best place for early education of editors who go on to become serial offenders, and whomever came up with the complicated templates and all that mess, that can't be blamed on any imaginary "FA crowd". All that was expected was that DYK would stop enabling plagiarism, cut-and-paste editing, copyvio (which predominates in the list of those with the most DYKs, because it was easy to cut-and-paste and get a DYK-- fortunately, that is no longer the case). There is no "shaming" in educating-- that's in the eyes of the beholder. Anyone who can't see their errors and improve upon their reviews perhaps shouldn't be reviewing anyway. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So, concensus from this five minute chat seems to be that DYK needs standards relaxing, and needs to be a bit more new-user friendly. What can we do to make it friendlier to new users that's relatively simple to do? The Cavalry ( Message me) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(Reset Indent) Here's the thing, many good articles that are short were by no means created and approved for being GA status in one day which stops them from being put into consideration for DYKs. Secondly as for the copyright thing well many new users just cut and paste content from other sources. The main point I'm trying to get to is that we obviously, after being an encyclopedia, want to draw new editors. To do so we also ned to show that while we have quality standards, we don't expect every single article to fall through them. No to the comprehensive article part. Here's what I think is good about it. If you have an editor who's trying to provide as many encycylopedic articles as possible while not spending too much time on them then seeing an articlle being pput up to Comprehensive status would make them happy. A quick look at WP:GA shows that the criteria in itself would be mostly fine for COmprehensive articles but with some improvements. Here's what I'm thinking.
Having these would, I feel, bring more interest to DYKs because along with having them on the main page they would have a comprehensive topicon which would stay. This is by no means a complete list but rather a basis for a change to the DYK system. -- Kangaroo powah 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So first things to discuss, what are the issues? So far, we can all agree that close paraphrasing is a big issue. But what other issues do people think should be addressed? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just pinged Moonriddengirl to ask for her input on making guidelines for what qualifies as close paraphrasing. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to interject with another issue related to ease of use: the visibility of DYK's. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I was not aware of DYK's until I had created almost twenty articles and greatly expanded several others. A mechanism allowing editors to create a DYK nomination using a "big yellow button" would also inform them that DYK's exist. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Timeout, here. I'm not entirely happy with the "new culture" at DYK, of which more later, maybe, but has anyone actually sat down and thought about what it would mean to have a big button to send new articles to DYK? To have people with 15 to 20 mainspace edits nominating their articles? That means that DYK would be absorbing some significant proportion of the total volume of NPP. Let that sink in.
That kind of volume would smash the current setup like an egg on granite, close scrutiny or no close scrutiny. IMO, if you're going to have some kind of "send to DYK" button, integrate it somehow into NPP. (Of course, that's also experience a conflict between what the WMF wants and what the people actually doing the work want.) If the patrollers use it judiciously when they see an article that's not just decently sourced, but actually strikes them as interesting and worth a little attention, that's more likely to give a workable volume and high quality of nominations than if we just go around encouraging everyone to self-nominate. Besides, I think it would be very encouraging to new editors to become aware of DYK with a message that says, in essence, "I find your article interesting; maybe it should enjoy a little time of the front page." Choess ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Some writers might want to look at examples of DYK articles in addition to studying abstract rules. I recently enjoyed collaborations on DYK articles (all not "mine") and find their results examplary:
Suppose there is an article on a subject (say, Shoe). And say the article is mostly unsourced and very poorly written. So I develop a well-written and sourced article in my userpsace and then replace it one day. But the length of prose in both the previously poorly written article and the newly well written article is roughly the same. Does this qualify for DYK?
VR talk 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No disrespect intended to our Canadian brethren, but I don't think that CBC has sufficient worldwide recognition to bear placing as an unexplained abbreviation. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks. I thought we might have a smaller list this week but it's quite a long one...
I don't mind anything up to two weeks, but I've found the waiting queue to now be ridiculous long. Michał Radziwiłł Rudy took nearly 4 weeks to appear on the main page during which time I have practically forgotten I had created. Sorry but I think 4 weeks is silly, I think a two week period would be much more appropriate. Is there anything we can do about this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that articles should be checked for plagiarism but 4 weeks is way too long. The whole point of DYK was to showcase wikipedias most recent articles..We've since had almost 30,000 new articles in that time... I don't see why it should take 4 weeks. 2 weeks is surely long enough.. Honestly I had virtually forgotten about the nomination and it hitting the front page so late takes away the point in it in nominating from my perspective.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not criticising the volunteers for not working hard enough. Rather i'm saying there is a way in which plagiarism and any serious issues can be checked without demanding a lot of time from reviewers using a script and scan so all nominated articles would automatically undergo a scan for copyvios. Articles then would only need to be briefly checked before hitting the main page as the tools in place should pick up on anything really problematic. 4 weeks is bleedin ridiculous it really is. The process should be made more efficient so no extra time than present is needed to review articles but they go through more more quickly and effectively. As for searching for my last review, really, have you nothing else better to do? What I would suggest actually is a waiting queue of something like 3 days and if the article still has problems after review then they are excluded and only those articles with no issues go through. You could restart the DYK setup to work with only 3 days of most recent articles and then post them on the main page. Say I nominated an article tonight. Then a reviewer tomorrow or the day after would review and after checking with the initial scan for plagiarism then permit it for posting on the main page. It would just make far more sense to shorten the queue and focus on the recent nominations. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Miller's Tower, not Millers Tower, per source. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No evidence offered in the article as to why, or by whom, this game of considered the "Game of the Century" (ridiculous hyperbole that should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and surely cannot be determined for another 89 years). Vast majority of readers will have little idea what version of football this refers to, and even less idea of what LSU is meant to refer to? Kevin McE ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful progress was made concerning older nominations (see above). Several articles were nominated for 1 December, Romanian National Holiday. Some are already in the Special occasions section, but not yet reviewed:
They need attention. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to each and all! Three a day is fine by me, and I'm sure the same goes for the other editor who contributed, but who is inactive at the moment. Dahn ( talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
And these are the nominations that have been listed for two weeks and haven't received a review yet. Note also that it's worth trawling through the old nominations to check those that have been reviewed, but may be stagnating for one reason or another.
The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks.
It would be nice to get this down to no more than a week, but let's not get ahead of ourselves! Harrias talk 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it safe to close this November 15 nomination as failed- Template:Did you know nominations/Dynamic quartz recrystallization? SL93 ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The wrong hook was used for the article You Are the Apple of My Eye in Prep 2. The one that was verified is "... that You Are the Apple of My Eye grossed more than NT$20 million before its official release date in Taiwan?" (See Template:Did you know nominations/You Are the Apple of My Eye). Thanks!
Could I get a second (or third and fourth?!) opinion on this one? I've read through the article, and the arguments on the talk page in depth, and am still struggling with the nomination. On the one hand, I'm inclined to reject it: the sheer amount of the article that has been contested at one stage or another implies to me that there are issues. But on the other hand, reading it; there is little I can argue with. The article may not be the best written, but that isn't the most major issue here, and I would say that the standard is good enough for DYK. There is no evidence of copyvio or close paraphrasing, though the article does use a lot of quotes. Most of the talk page issues revolve around claims of "dubious-ness" – without access to the offline sources, I have no way of verifying this. At the moment the page has gone reasonably quiet, but I'm worried that if it is approved, there may be fireworks on the page again by the time it reaches the main page. I'm inclined to reject it, on the basis of the concerns and the risk of it being a hotbed of activity while on the home page, but I would really appreciate another editor having a look over it and weighing in with their opinion: I'll warn any volunteers though, there is a fair bit to wade through! Harrias talk 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why this article is in DYK right now if all the sources are primary and are basically One Live to Live summaries. I don't see how this article meets our guidelines on fiction? I saw the nomination page and it was an concern. Can this be pulled? Thanks Secret account 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No update to main page. Queues are empty. Two prep sets are full. Admins-stroke! stroke! PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This nomination had multiple issues of close paraphrasing raised on November 24th, following which the nominator said that he had re-written the sections concerned (and the entire article) to remove any possible further close paraphrasing. The nominator then went away and canvassed another editor to approve the nomination, specifically asking them to say (their quotes) "It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF".
The canvassed editor duly approved the nomination, although using an account "RetiredUser12459780" instead of the account at which they had been canvassed. They did not mention the fact that they had been approached, in their review.
Nikkimaria, who discovered the bulk of the copyright issues originally, confirmed that the sources she re-checked "appear to be fixed".
Given the previous copyright concerns, and then the extreme lengths taken by the nominator (quote above) to get the status of the off-line sources accepted as "good faith", I suggest that this should not go on the main page until the off-line sources have been independently checked. I requested copies of the relevant Milton Quarterly articles from my library yesterday, and hope they will arrive this week. It's possible that others can get access to the relevant material even faster, or already have - if the offline sources have already been independently checked, that's fine. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
the article is fine. I looked it over as described. Don't feel any need to add some special disclaimer to my comments. You all can take that or leave it. Oh...and go read the talk page if you don't think I read the sources and the article. ( Personal attack removed), doubting me. Sheesh. this place is so gotcha lame. Just get over it and run the thing. I knew there would be some little attempt at me...and just left the window open anyway, cause I really don't care if someone on this site calls me a liar. I know very, very few of you would do it to my face. TCO ( talk) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, folks, try to remember WP:MEDRS when reviewing articles here-- we shouldn't put medical claims on the mainpage that aren't sourced to reliable medical sources. Template:Did you know nominations/Argentine tea culture-- this one hasn't made it to the mainpage, and I haven't yet looked into what medical sources say on the statement, but it prompted me to again ask reviewers here to be aware. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This hook is factually erroneous. The article never says the ship was recommissioned as HMS Pork and HMS Pine. Rather it says that the two parts were known informally as HMS Pork, and . . . HMS Pine. The ship(s) was recommissioned, but no claim is made in the article that it was under these nicknames. Agricolae ( talk) 01:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I admit being confused by (now in prep 1) "... that in the 16th-century the Church of St. Mary of Constantinople in Istanbul was the center of a quarter mainly inhabited by Italians deported from the city of Caffa (pictured) in Crimea?"
The article looks like one about a church, takes you to a mosque, the name of the church appears only much later, the (pretty) picture shows neither a church nor a mosque and is from a different place altogether, - that is a bit too much for my taste, even if it is correct, - it probably is but I don't have the time to find out. I looked for the nomination on the article's talk, but there is no link. - Well, I recently had a picture of university not taken, also of a major opera house. - But of a major church yesterday, thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
One of the criteria for inclusion of an article in DYK is newness, defined as being within 5 days of creation or the start of expansion. I have marked 2 articles nominated for November 23rd as not "new" enough, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and Garret Hobart. Both were not nominated until December 1st and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek was first edited by the nominator on 17th November with the expansion starting on 21st November. Do these articles qualify for DYK? How strictly do you apply the rules? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I nominated Pilgrim, but I've just now come across this discussion. Truthfully, I haven't nominated a DYK in more than a year, so I'm fairly rusty. Thanks to Cwmhiraeth and Gerda for taking an interest, and helping me through. I'll be sure to pay more attention to the timing for my next nom, promise. Oh, and isn't it interesting that the two articles being discussed are most probably future FAs? We star collectors just love causing trouble. ;) María ( yllo submarine) 21:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I promoted 3 DYKs and rejected 1 DYK by copying and pasting from a passed nomination and a closed nomination. How do I close nominations correctly? SL93 ( talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to handle this - Template:Did you know nominations/The Chimes, Uxbridge. The problem is that the creator brought in content from a different article into it. The article would not be long enough without that content. The creator asked about if the content from the other article was removed. It seems to without the content, it wouldn't be long enough. Can someone take a look? SL93 ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! Although I know there is by no means a general consensus on this, I want to get this DYK wizard idea working at least in my userspace so we can all test it. Here are my two primary goals in creating this:
On the other hand, as far as I can tell this proposal doesn't actually change any of the existing procedure; it's essentially just another set of instructions for the existing procedure. Thus, I don't see why it would hurt anything; at the worst, it's redundant. I have no experience making wizards like this so I would take no responsibility in maintaining it.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
15:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I thought this was about the nomination wizard. As for the proposals about the javascript tools and stuff, I don't think this is necessary. Both DYKcheck and the duplication detector have clear instructions for use, and this proposal seems like a lot of technical work to solve a problem that could just be solved by people reading instructions (as always, I highly recommend reading instructions when you start something new). If the instructions are hard to find, the solution is to link them more prominently. Plus, DYKcheck and the duplication detector are just aids anyway, they're not mandatory parts of the review process; I know I, for one, use neither (I get page sizes with User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, and copyvio checks by hand). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK didn't update several hours ago, when it was supposed to. This was because the image hadn't been protected yet. This is ultimately my fault -- I've started to believe the people at Commons who have gently suggested that we didn't need to protect images because cascading protection of images at Commons has been working efficiently. (The image is cascade-protected now, but it apparently took more than 8 hours for the cascade-protection to kick in.)
Do we need to update manually, or can somebody kick the bot? -- Orlady ( talk) 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Now in prep 2: Red goats of Kingston (pictured), - what's pictured is only one, while the article says "one of many". Prep 1 has a pictured line on a pregnant cow and her calf, - as long as the animal is pregnant, there is no calf, at least in German. Is that different in English? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted this on Allen3's page and he said to ask here. I just moved a DYK hook to a prep area for the first time. In the instructions it says "N13: After adding an entry to a preparation area page, remove it from the suggestions page. Make sure to include the article name, date, nominator, and creator under the "Credits" section to allow others to return it if a dispute arises." at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Preparation_areas. but in T:TDYK#How_to_promote_an_accepted_hook it does not mention removing the article sub page from T:TDYK. Why is this? And can the contradictory instructions be updated? PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Are Techcrunch and Engadget considered reliable sources for software? SL93 ( talk) 23:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Ratio Scripta (for DYK count) and Talk:The Longford Trust (noting that all of those DYKs went through before Nikkimaria began checking). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And for the apparent reason, as I understand it see this, which I previously removed because it was a little strong (I would not restore it had there been a follow up). Volunteer Marek 07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have twice changed the link to the name of the species (Red legged Chough), and it has now been changed yet again to Cornish Chough, with a piped link, yet again. There is no species, or subspecies, of that name. It the recent case of mention of the Pied Avocet, it was insisted here that the international name is to be used in preference to the local name (if indeed Cornish Chough is used as a local name, it is not a name in widespread use even within the UK). Kevin McE ( talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A fact from Joseph Saragossi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 December 2011. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know ... that the Arab governor of Safed offered money to persuade rabbi Joseph Saragossi not to leave the town?" Yet the confirmed version was: "that the Arab governor of Safed offered money to persuade Palestinian rabbi Joseph Saragossi not to leave the town?" Why was the "P word" removed by Orlady when she promoted it? [3]. I was shocked that it had been tampered with in transition. That is just not right. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Wroniec_(book) which I've nomianted on 23 November 2011 is still waiting for a review. I usually don't care about that, but in this case I asked for this to be considered for the December 13th anniversairy, and this is not too far away anymore... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
On a relatively minor point, we do not need to use euphemisms such as that he "lost both his sons": they died, they predeceased him. Many of our readers are not native English speakers, and euphemistic idiom is not encyclopaedic tone.
But more importantly, the factual basis of the hook; Bernhard Subottka died on 20 July 1945, and Fuhlsbüttel had ceased to be a Nazi camp on 3 May, therefore he did not die in a Nazi camp. The final clause seems to fail POV test: are US prisons capitalist prisons? Have UK prisons fluctuated between being centre left prisons and monetarist popularist prisons?
I'm afraid I can only suggest that a total rethink is needed on this one. Maybe that he was condemned to death before going on to work for the government? Kevin McE ( talk) 07:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I loaded 3 of 4 prep areas (felt funny loading the last which has one of my own hooks in it :P), so folks can load away.....any other admin is welcome to load the last prep to queue too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The hook for Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (not my article, I just reviewed the considerable 5* expansion) is now in prep3 - without the picture. Instead another building. We have so few pictures of people, and this is a GA, - I would like to see it pictured, perhaps later, no rush, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Would somebody with a good idea of the paraphrasing and plaguarism rules have a look at this review please? I don't know enough to make a decision, and it would be nice to get the nomination closed one way or the other given how old it is: Template:Did you know nominations/George Tchobanoglous. Thanks in advance. Harrias talk 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The last hook has an extraneous comma after "sewn shut". Should be removed. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Q6 is in need of an image hook, preferably before hitting the Main Page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only person who wonders what's the point of the rubric "Did you know?" The facts presented are so obscure that no one can be expected to know them. One might as well title this section "Almost nobody knows (and fewer consider it very significant) that..." Mark K. Jensen ( talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
You make some good points regarding the DYK set currently on the main page. Several of the hooks in it contain what might appear to be excessively trivial information (particularly numerical information) that detracts from the overall effectiveness of the hooks. This is something that we all need to be attentive to when drafting hooks and assembling hook sets. It's a good idea not to cluster similar hooks together (including hooks that contain numbers), but that's sometimes hard to do. It seems to me that three of these hooks could have been edited to make them seem less trivial and thus more interesting (although the dates I would have trimmed can be a source of interest):
As for that hook about the rat antibody... Having skimmed the article, I would have preferred a hook that said that Trypanosoma lewisi caused the first confirmed extinction of a mammalian species by a pathogen. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying that something is vaguely pyramidal is not the same as saying that it is based on the design of a pyramid. Claim not supported by the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
We have less than 20 reviewed and approved hooks left on T:TDYK. Is it time to slow down the bot and post new hook sets on MainPage at a slower pace? -- PFHLai ( talk) 11:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Special_occasion_holding_area for a comment with explanation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that the nomination pages (Template:Did you know nominations/article) have an edit notice when edited, with a summary of the things to check when doing the review. There is a line at the end that says "You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}". Is it possible to change the edit notice to replace "Article" (which is a static word, the same for all nominations) with the name of the nominated article, so that people using that code can simply copy and paste it? Cambalachero ( talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Since I disqualified [
this article] on the grounds that it was out of time for nomination, I have been informed by the author that "the article was submitted on November 14 but it wasn't approved until November 23. If I had submitted it while still in AFC, I would have been told to wait until it was moved to mainspace."
I think its possible inclusion in DYK should be reconsidered.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The tool normally works fine for me, but for Fürstenzug never returns, remaining on "processing". I had to restart my system. I don't see what might need a change in the article (not mine) and/or the tool, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the fourth item of queue 3, Entre a Mi Mundo. Specifically, the phrase 'that some music critics believed Selena was noting Diana Ross and Leslie Gore in the song "Missing My Baby" ': what does "was noting" mean in this context? Emulating? Copying? Sounding like? Following in the footsteps of?
The phrase is a quote from the article's lede, and is also problematic there as well. The "Other Songs" subsection references reviews that are more specific and mention Gore and Ross with more specificity. Perhaps the hook can be rewritten, but I think it should not be published in its current form. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Should we really have two concert halls, and a classical composer, in one batch? Could at least one of the halls be re-scheduled? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Hawkeye and I have rejigged some of the prose of Bill Bellamy (soldier) to distance from sourcing so anyone else is welcome to take a look, see Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Bellamy (soldier). Some of the other older noms are held up with the same issue (just scroll down from the top). I have to hop off the computer soon, so if folks could take a look that'd be great. I've loaded some preps into queues so we have lots of space to fill. Be back later. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
We would not say that Elvis popularised the rock and roll, or that Miles Davis was a leading exponent of the jazz; remove the in Juan Luis Guerra brought the bachata music mainstream Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What definition of noting is being used here? It might mean something in the world of music criticism, but not in general parlance, and not consistent with any definition in Wiktionary or Chambers. Is it imitating a vocal style? Plagiarising a song? Paying some form of homage? Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Two Latin music album hooks in the same set? Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope there are impeccable sources for putting an accusation that somebody (Count Grog) treats his employees dishonestly on the main page. At the very least, we need to be able to attribute the accusation or add allegedly. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I replied to the message left on the talk page. The link to "double-crossed" points to Swerve (professional wrestling) so it's pretty clear (especially if you read the article further - e.g. "The Brotherhood" section) this is a kayfabe statement. 71.184.47.206 ( talk) 21:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The rivalry itself does not include anything: the hook lacks semantic coherence. The history of the rivalry could, at a push, be said to include such games: we can certainly say that the history of games between the sides (with a piped link) included such meetings.
The hook is long and, at least to those not used to the terminology of the sport, clunky to read. suggest ...that the history of games between basketball rivals Duke and Michigan includes games that have gone to overtime when each team has been defending champion? And champion of what? Kevin McE ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
<--Shoot, I wish I had seen this before--the front page ran with "played one other". That's not grammatically correct. Drmies ( talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is his book a "standard reference" for? In art, nudes drawn from behind? In anatomy, the spread of the epidermis? For a construct like "whose book The Human Figure is a standard reference", I'd expect a bit of extra information (even a complement). Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
dead of night is more suitable for poetry than an encyclopaedia: suggest simply at night or under cover of darkness. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
He was Minister of Justice in 1950: the Dutch invasion was in 1948, so he should not be referred to as a former Minister of Justice in relation to that event. Although not necessarily ungrammatical, losing much of his archives sounds as though it is: I would suggest that having archive in the singular is equivalent in meaning, and avoids the jarring phrase. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
A cornerback you say? And I didn't even know Michigan had a hurling team. (see C2 here: "Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about". Kevin McE ( talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The wording of the last hook in Prep 3 was changed on a concern that I think has now been dispelled at the talkpage - that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother are not/were not referred to as Fisher & Fisher. I think the new wording, referring to "the sibling partnership," is clunky and fails to recognize that the firm continued with a second generation Fisher as a partner, and would like the original hook restored: "... that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother Arthur ( Fisher & Fisher) designed the oil company town of Parco, Wyoming, in a unified Spanish colonial style to foster community?" But it's now in Queue 5 so I can't switch it back myself. In any case, the "that" has gotten left out and needs reinserting. Thanks. (And thanks to Casliber for inserting the credit to the article creator for the company article. I've already had to be a nudge about this nomination once, sorry about that.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As I've been loading I have found "runs" of similar hooks, which I am guilty of myself I know. Anyway, for diversity, anyone is welcome to pillage ideas from User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs where I stored ideas for 5x expansions from previous discussions. If you do, feel free to strike, tick off or remove from my page (I might even trim it myself). Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Gross exaggeration of what the article asserts. Article says that One to three months of heavy exposure causes death; hook claims that livestock usually die from eating it. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
"... that livestock eating white locoweed develop a neurological syndrome known as locoism?"
Howzat? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
As in the case of his teammate, we need to specify the sport per supplementary C2 Kevin McE ( talk) 00:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the orthography of the article title, and hence the nomination, is incorrect: going by MOS:CT, "The" should be lowercase: Beneath the Snow Encumbered Branches.
Fixing it would require moving the article, and, the trickier part, changing the Template:Did you know nominations/Beneath The Snow Encumbered Branches and all the various places within the DYK pages affected by this. This may be easier at this stage than I think; I just remember what a headache it was to change a DYK when an article was moved to adjust its title orthography after it got to the prep area stage, and don't trust myself to figure out all the steps needed. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
After fixing some issues, Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Anne Genter appears to have left the nomination page without having had a final tick, so it shouldn't be 'in transition' on its way to the queue. The nomination date is no longer on the page, so maybe there's a related issue. Schwede 66 17:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the 00:00 17 December 2011 (UTC) DYK update was reverted? There appears to be no discussion at either Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors nor this page. I suspect this is a simple case of fumble fingers but the admin who made the revert appears to have stepped away from the keyboard so it is not possible to confirm this theory. As the update is "on the clock", so to speak, a quick resolution would be useful. -- Allen3 talk 01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I built a couple of preps this morning—hadn't done this in ages and last time was long before all the fundamental changes. I see that both preps have been changed around substantially. This might be normal, but if it's to do with what I've done, then I'd appreciate some feedback. One can only learn from feedback :) Schwede 66 03:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit too much of a good thing? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if two of the sources - Engadget and Techcrunch - are considered reliable for DYK. I have seen articles from TechCrunch help save stuff from deletion in AfD. I would like the article reviewed soon because the hook ends with "this year". SL93 ( talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The first hook in Queue 3 is missing a leading "that". Thanks. — Bruce1ee talk 07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Something went wrong here, which I hope is easily fixed by those who understand these things. My attempting to redo will probably make things worse. Thanks! Johnbod ( talk) 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Q6's final hook needs (pictured) removed from it. It won't let me do it. PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been hacking away at Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera) making it as complete as possibel before it hits the main page. I have now finished on it but wonder whether
would be a better hook.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It might have been apt for an art critic to anthropomorphise an animal in his description of a painting: it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia to attribute emotions such as adoration to a spaniel. Suggest Kevin McE ( talk) 11:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems clumsy phrasing to repeat the name as that of both the book and the opera. Suggest "... that Gavin Bryars's Doctor Ox's Experiment is the third opera to be based on the science fiction novella by Jules Verne?" Kevin McE ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"A teenage Charlotte Bronte" is a rather informal construction, and probably ought to be teenaged anyway: it was written by Charlotte Bronte as a teenager. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
He is not "one of the highest-ranking generals in China", and hasn't been for at least 41½ years, having been dead for that long. He had a name, and I do not believe that we would have omitted an Anglophone name in such circumstances: or we would have at least included a nickname such as is mentioned: "... that Tiger Xu was injured in battle nine times? Kevin McE ( talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
How are articles newly translated from other Wikipedias treated with regard to the "New" criterion? I'm planning to nominate the Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho. Now, that article that is probably OK, since it includes a whole section and citations not in the original, but as a matter of principle the issue of translated articles ought to be made a little clearer somewhere (unless it already is and I just didn't spot it). -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seeing how many DYK nominations undergo an extensive inquisition process before being approved, it occurs to me that the lives of DYK reviewers could be made easier if we had a method for marking a nomination as "ready for re-review." For example, it would take a person a lot of time to read through Template:Did you know nominations/1804 Haiti Massacre to determine that the article has been revised to address the concerns that Nikkimaria raised there. I propose that we add a symbol to the standard DYK arsenal to visibly identify a nomination as "ready for re-evaluation" (or "Please re-review").
Some possible candidates that would not involve cluttering Wikipedia with another new image file are:
Of those suggestions, my preference is for the first of the two recycling symbols. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
subst:DYKtick}}
{{
subst:DYKtickAGF}}
{{
subst:DYK?}}
{{
subst:DYK?no}}
{{
subst:DYKno}}
{{
subst:DYK?again}}
You may notify the nominator of problems with {{
subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
What about switching the colors for the DYKno and DYK?again symbols. Yellow would seem more appropriate for the second check needed, and red more appropriate for the failing notation.-- Kev min § 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I had nominated a composer, mentioning his 2 most famous works, as a 2* BLP, accepted for Christmas Eve. I changed it now to a nomination for one of the 2 works, which needs a review, sorry for that. The article is not polished yet, but ready enough. - One of the reasons why I changed is that an observer found out that the composer was not completely unreferenced. Formally speaking this is true - but it was his own website which was used as an inline citation. Is that to be called a reference? - I learned to use the subject's website as an external link. Only asking for curiosity, I have no intention to return to bold him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"scandal involving the Olympus Corporation", surely? Kevin McE ( talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"was the mezzo-soprano to record Lieder" sounds like an odd construction. She sang it, she was chosen to sing it, she was the soloist on it, she was selected to record it... And BR is surely a Bavarian radio station, or a Bavarian broadcaster: most radios are made in China. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We have been through this several times before, but if specifying a place, we usually do so up to the level of sovereign state, unless we are referring to a globally significant city (which Lancashire is not) Kevin McE ( talk) 13:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 14:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
To say that he "played eight-man football" is a misrepresentation of the source material, which only stated " Attended Grace Brethren High School in Simi Valley, Calif., a school that began at the eight-man football level in 2002 and ascended three divisions during Elmore’s time there". Elmore's arrival could coincide with a change to a higher level above eight-man football. We do not really know what Elmore played based on the available reference. Please do not ignore objections on the nomination template. -- 69.157.46.38 ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a way to more gracefully word the hook to avoid both the say/said use and also the problem of having an American art museum being used with British plural rules? "The Met say" makes no sense in American English: "The Met" is a singular museum, and therefore "The Met says" is what an American reader would expect to see.
Current version: ... that the version of Lady Lilith which the The Met say is by Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?
Proposed revision: ... that the version of Lady Lilith in the The Met and ascribed to Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?
I think it would be helpful if the Dunn article made the point more clearly that the Met considers the work to be by Rosetti, not Dunn. In addition, I strongly recommend that the wording of the following sentence be improved by the judicious replacement of at least one "some": "Some have said that some of Rossetti's paintings were in fact almost entirely created by Dunn." BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)