Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100 ← Archive 102 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105 Archive 106 → Archive 110

Separation of powers

Is it correct that reviewers may not edit the articles they are reviewing? I can't see anything in the rules, supplementary rules or other advice that mentions it and it seems a counter-productive stipulation if true. Belle (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewers should not review articles to which they have made substantial contributions. This boils down to conflict of interest considerations. Quick edits that correct small grammar or spelling issues, fix a template call, or remove a stub template generally do not present a concern. A major copy-edit or an effort to reference/expand an article require significantly more time and energy and may result in a reviewer feeling "invested" in an article. There is no bright-line rule to determine when a reviewer has done too much and lost objectivity, but when in doubt it is usually better for the reviewer to self-recuse. --Allen3 talk 14:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both. Belle (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I will add that reviewers should fix small problems they encounter (e.g. typos). Forbidding them to edit articles they review would be counterproductive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, imo, the section copyedited was rather close to the source. Given that the source appears to have been published in 1909 it's hopefully PD, but still, rewriting, and copyedits should never be discouraged. I've added attribution to the article in question. And btw, welcome Belle, and thanks for pitching to do a job that lots of us burned out on a long time ago. Always nice to have new editors around. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

All queues are empty

FYI, all Template:Did you know/Queues and prep areas are empty.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nader Kadhim

Can someone take a look at this nomination? It has taken longer than needed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I was willing to WP:AGF based upon Mohamed CJ's certification. He got another editor to certify that it was a proper interpretation. I put on a tick, but got overruled, and it is now above my pay grade. I agree with him that it should move along or be turned down. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if it is a proper interpretation, it is just sourced to his answers in one interview published in a now defunct newspaper. I don't think is enough because his answers are a WP:Primary source. Google[1] doesn't list much besides Wikipedia and Arabic social media accounts. Is there an article about him on an Arabic language wikipedia? Parabolooidal (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no article in the Arabic Wikipedia, but there are dozens of articles and interviews with/about him in Arabic media, mostly about his ideas and books. Is using a primary source the main problem here? Last time it was thought of as a positive point. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Special date request

Improved to GA article Military career of Audie Murphy is under May 9. Could we please hold this for June 20, daytime Texas time zone. It's Audie Murphy's birthday. And while nothing is guaranteed the lead hook, it would be appreciated if this one could be. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed another hook

Per this concern at WP:ERRORS which was left unaddressed for six hours, I removed the hook. It appears that various articles around this subject conflict with one another so until that's resolved, I suggest the hook remains off the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Impending date request

I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary's Baby (miniseries) as a date request hopefully for either the first time slot on May 12 or May 16 to run on the main page when the show airs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed it; the image needs to be in the article, but otherwise, good to go. Whisternefet (t · c) 05:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Image has been added, article is good for either of the requested dates. Whisternefet (t · c) 06:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yalçın Granit

The hook, recently added to the front page states that "Yalçın Granit became the first Turkish basketballer to play in a European team". Turkey is widely considered to be in Europe. And I recall that about 3% of the landmass and a large chunk of Istanbul is on the "European side" of the Bosphorus. So, by any definition of Europe, this claim seems very implausible. Edwardx (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, obvious nonsense as written, but then again, we are contractually obliged to feature at least three completely incorrect hooks a week to draw in new editors. People need to see that Wikipedia is unfinished and that they can do better than the current editors, and what better way to achieve this than by putting things like this on our main page? Fram (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly how I started on WP. Of course it later turned out that I was the one in error, but never mind... :) Sophie means wisdom (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tools

Hi, in the tools in DYK nom subpages, the QPQ check no longer works. Is there an alternative at labs or somesuch? Thanks, Matty.007 11:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

All queues are empty

All Template:Did you know/Queues and prep areas are empty. I can load later but would be good if someone can do some prepping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there some reason that this prep and a couple of others are down to six hooks? I thought we agreed above to go to seven. I'll be adding the seventh slot to those preps that don't have them. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone probably just blanked it to six out of habit. I had put 7 slots in all the preps when the change was made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The next two preps are ready for promotion to queues. Admin needed, especially for the first, which needs promoting within the next hour and a half. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is 2 hours late - Admin needed, please

DYK is 2 hours late. There is a full set in Prep 2, if an admin would promote it. — Maile (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

will do Victuallers (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that DYK has been running 2 sets/per day instead of 3 for close to a week.[2] As a result the next update is not due for several more hours. It still doesn't hurt for the next set to be loaded and ready to go. --Allen3 talk 18:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Allen3, maybe it's the housekeeping bot being migrated over to labs. But the Queue page "Local update times" actually says the update should have happened four hours ago. Right above that it says the update won't be happening for another three hours. Confusing, to say the least. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Maile66, WP:PURGE the copy of Template:Did you know/Queue cached by your browser. There is a link on that page above the table of contents that can assist in this effort. This is an issue with the job queue taking hours to update transcluded links. The purge allows you to bypass the job queue and force the Wikimedia software to perform an immediate update. --Allen3 talk 21:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Convert needs to be converted

The {{convert}} in the fifth hook of Queue 1 is missing an "adj" parameter. It should be {{convert|50|ft|adj=on}}. Or replace it with the template's output: 50-foot (15 m). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Changed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot migration to Tool Labs

Toolserver will be disappearing soon, so I'm migrating DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot over to Tool Labs. I'm planning to move DYKHousekeepingBot over today, and if that goes well, I'll migrate DYKUpdateBot in a few days or a week. Shubinator (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Which tools does this include? The QPQ check? Thanks, Matty.007 20:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I maintain DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot. DYKUpdateBot updates the Main Page from the DYK queues. It's the bot responsible for the "DYK is almost overdue" messages here. DYKHousekeepingBot updates Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. Shubinator (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Will you be specifying other users as maintainers, so they'll, for example, be able to restart the bots when necessary? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

` Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Queue 4 formatting fix needed

In the second hook, the bolding isn't closed off. Can some admin please add the missing three apostrophes before the final question mark? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Strict interpretation of five day rule?

Hello. User:Ojorojo and I have been going back and forth over the last few days about a DYK for "Little Red Rooster", a GA article that he wrote. The article passed on the 8th, but it's now the 14th. Can I still nominate the article for a DYK even though it's now into the sixth day? Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. D9 — Maile (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just nominated it. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Good. That's one of my favorite songs of all time. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Prep areas to load....

If someone could load some preps that'd be great. I'll be going to bed soon and have some chores to do quickly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Cas Liber, the one prep that was loaded to queue, Queue 2, is very badly unbalanced: there are four UK hooks, far more than appropriate, including two bios in a row (Paul and Snowman). There shouldn't be more than one or two UK hooks in a single set, and three bios rather than four (never more than half for bios or US hooks). Can this be brought back to prep to be worked on more? I'll try to get some hooks into Prep 3, so there's something to swap around with... BlueMoonset (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    From his last message it would seem he would now either be washing up, putting the bins out or dreaming of running through the fields hand in hand with a DYK-prep-filling robot. Belle (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    Right, I've rolled it all back now. So shuffle away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just straightened this out: unfortunately, Queue 2 came from Prep 3, which has already been reused, so I copied the contents from that Prep 3 into Prep 2 for the time being. I don't see any edits made to Queue 2 while the set was there. I've moved a couple of UK bios out, and replaced with other sets; Prep 2 should now be ready to be promoted to Queue 2. Cas Liber, can you do so, and please check the two new hooks (the Patriarch and the Indian Internet film) before you do so? We have less than 50 minutes. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the previous list archived, I've compiled a new set of 40 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section has four that have been waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining three dozen are also available. Thank you for your reviews.

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I put Community Based Program Design back on Apr 9. Even though it is AFD, I feel that is in error in light of the fact that the article was created as part of a course assignment with the University of Michigan. Maybe someone could look at this. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it again: while the article is at AfD, it is on hold here at DYK and shouldn't be on this list or given a "review again" icon. Once the AfD has concluded, feel free to add it here assuming it survives. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Emil Tamsen

Any chance of getting his picture on the front page? I think the world ought to see it. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Admin needed; preps are ready, and we're two hours overdue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is way overdue

DYK is not just almost overdue, it is way overdue. Has the recent criticism of the promotion of hoax and faulty hooks driven away those who have voluntarily kept DYK rolling up till now? It is easy for outsiders who are not normally involved in DYK to come in and criticise, but it is more difficult for regulars to ensure that every hook and its related article is perfect every time (I would commend BlueMoonset's sterling work here). The backlog was so great this morning, the present hooks having been on the front page for 24 hours (I also prepared that set), that I felt compelled to fill two prep areas, - not ideal, as you probably know that my reputation for complete accuracy is somewhat tarnished ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not "easy" to criticize if you want to do it properly. Many of the people who have criticized DYK have found multiple errors in hooks (main page or queues), which takes effort. Effort which should have been done by the people creating, reviewing and promoting these hooks and articles. It is better to get a smaller number of god hooks on the front page, thanhaving a high turnover but with a lot more problems.
Looking at the current bunch, the Hammersley Fork one seems to be wrong, the hook is "... that there are no state routes or township roads in the 32.55-square-mile (84.3 km2) watershed of Hammersley Fork?", but the source given is a graphic which shows for Hammersley Fork 97% or thereabouts "other roads", and some 3% "Township roads"[http://www.kettlecreek.org/uploads/2/5/6/0/25607137/5waterquality_compa.pdf page 183 original numbering, page 27 PDF numbering). I haven't checked all the others. Fram (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
We had several people complaining about the "god hooks" too. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Then they should write some DYKs that covers their world view. Did we have any complaints about the Focus: A Journal for Lesbians hook? There is nothing wrong with religious hooks on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Calm down. I was quoting Fram's typo. (And others' world views are okay unless they write about atheism, right?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to include atheism when I said "their world view" as a way of encompassing all non-religious related hooks. Maybe I should have been a bit less subtle but I was trying to say that DYK is for all sorts of hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Not according to your user page of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The current example has been fixed. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"There is nothing wrong with religious hooks on DYK."
Indeed. But do you still not see the difference between a hook, and presenting a religious claim "He is Risen" as a plain statement, without any sort of context or critical comment? There is something very wrong with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This again? I will just repeat what I said when this storm in a teacup first arose, it was on the nominations page for a month before being promoted. If there were any objections they had ample time to be raised. Since none were it was promoted as normal and there were no objections on the day and they only came about a few days later. Objections that were not unanimously supported I might add. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You seem keen to promote DYKs that cover people's "world view" yet your user page objects to the discussion of "atheism". Perhaps you need to be more honest, either here or there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Every hook spends sufficient time on the nomination page before being promoted. Should we remove the DYK section from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and prohibit discussion here of any hook that's already been promoted? After all, if anybody has objections or corrections or comments, they should have been made while it was on the nomination page. Once it's been promoted, it's obviously too late. It's set in stone, and people should just leave it alone. If someone didn't see it before it was promoted, that's their problem. Agolib 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be better to remove DYK from Main Page altogether.
There are two cohorts of people posting here at present: those who have long been active in DYK who are (largely) saying "There is no problem", and those (like myself) who have had little involvement with DYK but have recently been driven to protest by a succession of inaccurate and inappropriate DYK. It is my view that these discredit WP to a level where WP would be better off without DYK (at least temporarily) if it cannot operate better than this. Not being a DYK reviewer does not invalidate an editor's concern over WP's perception, nor does it remove their right to comment on the operation of a particular piece of WP's operation, even if they don't take part in that area of it. It is clear that those who have so far created and reviewed DYK have not managed this to an acceptable level. Harsh words, but access to Main Page like this does also bring with it responsibilities. Saying either that "inaccuracies are acceptable" or that "Those who are outside DYK cannot comment on DYK" are neither of them reasonable arguments. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this whole thing has actually affected Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy? I think everybody involved in this debate knows that Wikipedia has lots of new and old articles that are inaccurate - wikipedia actively advertises that face with "citation needed"s and banners at the top of articles about accuracy and referencing issues. If there are mistakes in DYK that is very regretable, but it shows a part of Wikipedia as it reality is - still in need of improvement (Just as the Featured Articles show all Wikipedia is capable of). Attempts to hide that reality delude nobody but the hider - the wider public knows (or rapidly learns) Wikipedia is an oft unreliable first port of call. OTOH, as somebody who genuinely thought that the point of wikipedia was to incrementally, if imperfectly improve knowledge through collaboration, the critics' tone of self-important outrage really has shattered some of my own illusions. I really thought the dedicated editors of this place were more positive and more constructive than this. Furius (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well said Furius. We do need to minimize DYK problems, but also need to recognize that we'll never eliminate all of them. Many regular DYK contributors are among the most prolific writers of new content on Wikipedia. Harsh criticism on people's occasional, honest mistakes is only going to discourage them from contributing to Wikipedia. Despite the recent issues, as a whole DYK articles are probably only inferior in quality to FAs and GAs. For something that's consistently embarrassing and linked from the main page, click the "random article" link. -Zanhe (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hammersley Fork

Can someone re-review the Hammersley Fork DYK? Both Rsrikanth05 and Fram seem to have abandoned the review. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 23:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't abandoned it. I reviewed it. Made a slight goof up. The PDF said township road, so I accepted it at that. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Rsrikanth05: Would you mind reviewing ALT1 at any rate? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 13:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Doing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting dates for main page DYK.

How far in advance can I request a date? If I were to nominate an article now, could I request a date sometime in the middle of 2015 for example? Thanks Nathan121212 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't request unless the article is ready to be reviewed. I wanted 14 August 2014, "no". 6 weeks in advance. Make it a featured article, they have plans until 2017 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have finished off prep 3. One of the hooks in it (promoted by someone else) was written by me, so someone else needs to do the final check and promote to the queue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Same here.--v/r - TP 20:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hang on then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This article has been my best to day (besides my upcoming Ford Island article) and I'm excited to have it on the main page.--v/r - TP 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lower to six per set?

Overdue messages since 12-hour shift keep coming. Should lower to 12 per day. --George Ho (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

George, what do you envision this change accomplishing? There has not been a shortage of approved hooks with which to build sets recently, only a shortage of volunteers willing to build the sets. --Allen3 talk 11:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
With such volunteer shortage, is the set-up currently 12 hours or 24 hours? --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that the shortage of set-builders is the problem. Many of the approved hooks, notably in the most recent date slots, are fly-by approvals by inexperienced editors trying to post their own nominations – approvals that don't cover important issues like fact checking and close paraphrasing. There really is a shortage of experienced DYK reviewers, whom I suspect are getting burned out by all the flak we're getting. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"...all the flak..." is an impediment to both experienced reviews and set building. I agree with what you have said, Yoniniah, but add that it does also affect set building. I used to think building sets was kind of fun and interesting. Now if I build a set, I feel like I'm looking over my shoulder for an attack on the talk page. I don't recall that I've ever been called on a mistake in set building, but the possibility lurks there always, for we are all human and prone to mistakes. Incorrect hooks should be pulled from preps, queues or the Main page. And then editors should be given a reasonable opportunity to correct things. However, too often it seems like the message is delivered in an "ah-ha-I caught-you-idiots-again" spirit. And it's not good for the project, editor morale, or WP in general. There are some very, very good editors here who lend their expertise and try to do it right. A lot of them aren't doing much now, for whatever reasons they have. I miss those editors and won't call them out by name, but I think they know their own worth. Everytime the talk page flares with tempers, I keep thinking of gang riots that evolve through social media. All in the spirit of exercising their right to an opinion, of course. But if those same people were sincere in wanting it better, they would build sets, and if admins they would promote queues. Let their work be held up to the same scrutiny they seem to think the rest of us have to answer to. Yoninah, you are correct about needing experienced reviewers. However, there are experienced editors who also cut corners. If anyone thinks reviews are poorly done, sets are poorly built and errors are on the Main page.. then they should roll up their sleeves, dig in and do the grunt work the rest of us do. See how their own works holds up to that scrutiny. Otherwise, they should please find something useful to do and stop destroying editor morale.— Maile (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
No. There are people who are interested in DYK and want to work in it. Fine. There are people who want to keep the main page errorfree and work towards that goal. If the people who are interested in DYK can't deliver a higher quality product than they do now, then they have a problem. That doesn't mean that the ones pointing out the problems should take over their work, that's just a very good way to stifle all criticism. If you can't find enough people to maintain DYK, then try to invite people in a positive way, or slow down DYK. But we will not lower the standards of the main page to keep things "fun". The problems that get discussed here are usually really not that hard to spot. Fram (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Maile says. So why don't you have a go at making a set Fram? Its not that difficult, there are currently plenty of approved hooks, four vacant preparation areas and just a single set of hooks in the queue. Come on, give it a go! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree. You've got the tools. Please, open yourself to our criticisms as well. Or does what they say about teachers also apply to critics? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Like I said, no. I have no interest in creating sets, and I believe DYK should have less sets, less hooks per day, not more. I do love the parochial mentality though, where time and again criticism from someone not belonging to the incrowd is dismissed or ignored (like the recent proposal that people weren't allowed to remove a hook unless they corrected or replaced it). Everything I see seems to aimed at reducing the number of people that find problems in what you as a group want to put on the main page, with additional requirements before one gets the right to point out errors and problems. No thanks, I'll continue pulling hooks and pointing out errors when necessary, and will continue to promote changes to DYK if the current level of problems remains. Fram (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like you and others successfully reduced the number of people enjoying the work on this project. I am not part of any "group" here, but simply interested in presenting new articles, those that I wrote and those of others. Thanks for using the term "positive way". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
ps: unfortunately, Productive people leaving the project is not a new heading, the attitude described by Materialscientist (in 2011 already termed the good old past) would still be a goal to strive for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Gerda, if there is a "group" here, I never felt on the inside of it. I think of DYK as having some long-term regulars who plug away at this. There is some WP insight under "What does this all mean?" section of Jan 22 2014 Signpost. It's not just DYK. It's just that here, the regulars are fewer, making easier targets. When I build a set there's often a regular or two who go in behind me and shuffle the hooks, correct this or that, or move a hook to a different set. I'm not the least bit offended by that, because those editors are doing exactly what should happen to make it work. If only some others would do the same... — Maile (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't invent "group", I referred to "you as a group want to put on the main page". I certainly belong to the group which wants to attract readers to new articles. I don't belong to the group filling prep-sets, to avoid conflicts of interest and because I don't feel I have the skills in language and evaluating a good mix. You have both, keep doing what you do. Criticism and corrections are fine, in a collaborative project, but up to a certain point. The miracle word is AGF, as pointed out in other words in the 2011 thread linked above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I knew what you meant Gerda Arendt. My comment was more for the person who said "you as a group". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for understanding, although I wrote miracle word instead of magic word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) DYK writers and reviewers come and go, just like critics come and go. From that 2011 page you linked, I note a section further down, "Daily DYK scandal". The critic there hasn't edited DYK for a while apparently (and doesn't edit all that much anymore), but the one responsible for promoting the problematic hook, Crisco1942, is still here, reviewing things and complaining about critics. Of course, it goes way further back, we have e.g. the dedicated old subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page... Fram (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still here, reviewing things, but my enjoyment was diminished by blowing up my approval of a hook that some found inappropriate (but didn't say so until some time after it appeared) to ANI and Jimbo's page, and threatening the unfortunate admin who moved it to prep with desysop, - all out of proportion if you ask me. Criticism of reviews is much more effective before a hook reaches the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me state this very plainly: If DYK has screwed up to the point that people outside the DYK project are repeatedly angry over it, it is not the fault of the people who noticed this, it is an issue for the project that is producing these bad hooks. Prevaricating to blame others, or to deny that the hooks were bad, is no help.
This is not a witch hunt against those involved in DYK (There is such a witch hunt, but it's not on this website). However DYK needs to either sort itself out, or get off the main page. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Running to Jimbo is always a bad reaction (unless it is something that really concerns him as an editor). The admin was mùinly threatened ith desysop (by a small minority I seem to remember) for his inadequate reaction and his involvement with multiple problematic hooks in a short time, including the hoax one. As for your last line: "criticism of reviews is much more effective before a hook reaches the Main page.": I would support a requirement to have two reviewers for each hook, instead of one. Fram (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
One more requirement? Please no. Some, perhaps even most, hooks don't need it. Better: voluntarily go over the nominations and comment where you think it's needed, - there's a symbol to request a review, which could be used to request an additional reviewer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
So basically, you don't think it would be a good thing to have a required additional reviewer, but if I want to maintain my right to criticize hooks that make it to prep, queue or main page, I need to review all hooks before they get that far? I guess most people can see the problem with that proposal... Fram (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
So you basically misunderstood me (again, can be my problem): I didn't say you need to, nor did I say all, nor mention a right to citicize (which everybody has). I simply recommend that you go over the nominations page and look for problems, rather than ask for a requirement for others to double their review work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If DYK wanted knowledgeable reviewers from outside DYK to review hooks, why aren't the article creators notified that articles are even up at DYK? I wrote an article recently, it had a crap hook added to it for DYK, first I knew about it was when it hit main page. When I raised this lack of notification at DYK, I was accused of "melodrama". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a bot request in the works to make the notification automatic. Ceradon has been working on the bot, and any questions about the progress can be addressed directly to Ceradon on his/her talk page. It was discussed and approved some months ago on this talk page. I'm one of those who agrees that everytime someone nominates an article they didn't create or expand, a notification should automatically appear on the creator's talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And while there is no way to know for sure if a reviewer actually checked what they said they did, both the promoter and the admin are supposed to do their own checks. If anyone sees a review that gives no details, they can always put a message below it, like this example:
"The review needs more details, in accordance with. DYK review instructions please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYKReviewing guide."
As discussed many times on this talk page, a fly-by review with no details serves no purpose and does not qualify as QPQ. Fram, you could at least help out on the Nominations page. No one is saying you have to look at every one. But you'd probably be able to catch some things by just eyeballing as you scroll the page. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Which is what I on and off do at the prep area page, a stage when such checks shouldn't be necessary anymore. When I say that more reviews are necessary, it gets opposed. But at the same time I shouldn't be reviewing the queues and preps, I should be making more reviews. Seems rather contradictory. If you believe more reviews are neecssary to catch the errors, then make it a requirement. If you don't believe they are necessary, then there shouldn't be a problem with people checking the preps. If the problem is that we need better reviewers, then we need other solutions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We have a language problem: more reviews, fine, but to make it a requirement for every nomination, no. My estimate is that 95% of reviews are good, - please go over the nominations and find the others, look for those with too easy a "gtg" symbol. - There are no preps to examine, they are empty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original question, shall we lower to six per set? Although 42 hooks are verified, I worry about an inexperienced reviewer approving a bad hook. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaint transferred from my talk page

Transferring this message that was left on my talk page by Amandajm. For the record, I signed off on the Alt hook and had nothing to do with the rest of the review. Others involved in the review were Yoninah, Sven Manguard and Demiurge1000, and now they may also participate in this discussion. The editor who posted this on my talk page also has posted on the article's talk page several hours after it's main page appearance. I reiterate what has been mentioned here on the DYK talk page by other editors - it took 5 weeks between the nomination and the hook appearing on the main page. The review itself took an entire month. It was promoted to a prep area and later a queue for full viewing by anyone interested. And, yet, the editor below offered no input. While this hook was on the main, there was also the opportunity to post a message on Main Page/Errors, and nothing was posted by the below editor. Plenty of opportunity before it was on the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse in Australia

You signed off on this one, so that it became a front-page DYK. Regardless of the fact that it was an article on a highly sensitive and emotive subject, that had a lead of two very badly written sentences, one of which required a great deal of support before publishing anywhere.

The Introduction read: "There have been a number of instances of child sexual abuse Australia. Sexual offenses often involved notable people of the country."

  • First sentence says nothing. It is a "weasel" statement.
  • The second sentence makes a claim that cannot go unsupported. It is a broadside that implicates "the notable" in a whole nation of people indiscriminately

If this was an article about breeding finches, crutching sheep or skewering baked beans then a stupidly badly written introduction would not matter. But this is about ruined lives. It offends me that it was put up for DYK at all, before it had been carefully thought through. But it was, so the onus is on the reviewers to make sure that it is appropriate before it hits the front page.

Amandajm (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who transferred it to the prep area. I rechecked the article hook fact against its online source. I saw no reason not to promote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Source: "65 per cent of male and female prisoners were victims of child sexual and physical assault"[3]/ Hook: " ... that 65% of male and female prisoners in New South Wales were sexually abused as children". Um, what happened to the "physical assault"? I've tried looking at the original source for this figure, to clear up this incertainty (were 65% of them both sexually and physically assaulted, or were 65% sexually and/or physically assaulted, but this figure is apparently sourced to a speech by a senator, so it is not verifiable where it actually came from, or what was intended. It shouldn't have run as a hook with that uncertainty in it.

Note that e.g. this study indicates (for Queensland) that of the prisoners, 60% of the women and 13% of the men have ever, not just as a child, been sexually assaulted (see p. 20). This is much, much lower than the 65% of overall child sexual abuse only given inb our hook. The same source indicates, in table A28, that the figures are the same for NSW.

How can we have such a discrepancy between one study and the other? Because the "study" used in the hook was a campaign by a charity against child sexual abuse, and the figure they used can not (by me) be traced to any scientific study, but to a speech by a politician. So, we have a secondary source with a vested interest, a primary source which can't be verified and is not in itself a reliable source (the base source beneath his statement may be a reliable source), and a dubious reinterpretation of this source by the hook writers and reviewers (not bothering to check the difference between "sexual and physical" and "sexual" alone). Fram (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with Fram here, and add that the articles by this editor need to be reviewed stringently. They are consistently 1500 character stubs with a huge table of content which could conceivably be copied and reworked from Wikipedia articles, often underreferenced in the table, and discuss nothing but statistics. No legislation, no definitions according to each country or state's legal code, nothing that really shines light on the subject. As this is such a sensitive topic, this needs to be done right. I've already nixed Template:Did you know nominations/Kidnapping in the United States. We need to keep an eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I didn't received ping from you. It would've been a lot better if you had addressed these issues on DYK or my talk page, but so far you haven't. There is no solution of these problems other than adding a reliable source to each assertion that is notable. OccultZone (Talk) 02:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that this is not a one time thing. This is a prominent issue in all of the crime articles you've submitted. Major, sensitive, subjects need more than 30 minutes of grabbing statistics from sources one thinks may be reliable and then saying "done". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Clearly you were not requested to comment on the editor, though you are allowed to comment on the issue, but you are bringing other pages to here which is indeed unwanted, you know what stub is, right? The page you are talking about exceeds 30,000 bytes or more. It wasn't "30 minutes", but "25 minutes", and the article was reviewed by some of the experienced users. Now if someone holds a STICK thinking that "article was badly written per australian lang, it was sensitive subject", I don't see any hope that they would be convinced, its good that we have some fundamental rules in wikipedia or else I would've definitely seen the user crashing the whole page. I would love to know if any of my sources were unreliable or they violated any policy of wikipedia. Interestingly they haven't! OccultZone (Talk) 02:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And this is exactly what I was worried about. 25 minutes for an article on a subject which makes even the most stoic people squeamish? That's not doing proper research, nor is it doing justice to the subject. The wording which Amandajm took issue with is clearly not just poor grammar (in any variant of English), it was fluff. The US article had the same issues: "Kidnapping in the United States remains one of the most common crimes in the country.[1] In some cases, kidnapping involved a notable person." Whoop de doo. That means absolutely jack, and yet you expect this to pass?
Read Fram's comment above about your source for the article if you are wondering why the reliability of your source is being questioned.
As for the "stub" comment, you are writing about child sexual abuse in Australia, not a list of a cases. The list is not the meat of the article; the legal definition of sexual abuse, punishments, prevalence, etc. should be. None of these are in the article except for prevalence. Per WP:DYKSG, "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected;" therefore, these articles should not pass. When I did Prostitution in Indonesia several years back, I needed at least 5k characters to even give a basic overview of the subject. 5k is probably reasonable for the subjects you've been dealing with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I respect Fram and his opinion, but he is not saying that it was incorrect to add such information, just required more research. Furthermore we had multiple hooks to select. I used to think that DYK's hook must be 100% same as it is inserted on the article, but later, after Mandarax helped me with that one, I learned.. Plus when you called it 'stub', you should've mentioned that it is stub per the DYK's requirement. I agree with that. OccultZone (Talk) 03:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a stub per WP:STUB too. "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a couple of paragraphs long. ... Stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
"couple of paragraphs" is what I usually observe. Although I also think that an article having multiple paragraphs but no references can be a stub too. OccultZone (Talk) 03:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(Unindent, reply to Occultzone above): "I respect Fram and his opinion, but he is not saying that it was incorrect to add such information, just required more research." It was certainly incorrect to use it as the hook, and to use it in this form. The information is basically unverifiable hearsay, something that can be included in the article as "according to group X", but shouldn't be the main fact for a hook. The complaints about the lead also are spot on. 06:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to the original post by Maile66: "I reiterate what has been mentioned here on the DYK talk page by other editors - it took 5 weeks between the nomination and the hook appearing on the main page. The review itself took an entire month. It was promoted to a prep area and later a queue for full viewing by anyone interested. And, yet, the editor below offered no input. While this hook was on the main, there was also the opportunity to post a message on Main Page/Errors, and nothing was posted by the below editor. Plenty of opportunity before it was on the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)"

So, why did the review fail so badly? It wasn't rushed, it took more than a month, yet the above problems with hook and article weren't spotted? People here still believe that they can trust the reviewers to do their job and that they don't have to second guess everything and everyone. Sadly, this is too often wrong, and it becomes more and more obvious that the problem is not (soely) with inexperienced or new reviewers, but happens regularly with the most active DYK members. The only defense offered by some is "well, you had plenty of time, you could have checked it". But "you" did, you approved it to appear on the main page, and you are trying to defend DYK. If you want to keep DYK running, you will have to do a much better job, instead of trying to shift the blame to those people who haven't reveiwed the same article you did again. You can either not review articles, or do it correctly; but to do it wrong, and then blame it on others because they haven't reveiwed it, is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fram, Please do not misinterpret my meaning by the above. My comment was on the complaint itself. I was not suggesting that person could have reviewed the nomination. But, rather, that this editor had a month to bring the issue to the attention of DYK, that this editor thought the reviews on this particular nomination were not what they thought they should have been. That's all. This could have been caught earlier and prevented from appearing on the main page, is all I'm saying. Please do not read your own meaning into my words. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius: I have replied on your talk page, as this is totally different subject. OccultZone (Talk) 07:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it is not, as it is indicative of a worrying trend in articles you submit to DYK. It belongs here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I don't see how it is a completely different subject insofar as you are concerned. The difference is that the two "kidnapping" articles haven't made it through the system, even though the China one was twice accepted, by two different reviewers. It should never have been accepted though. 08:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
Crisco 1492, he expressed concern about the content he objected, this is not the place for discussing about it. Of all, I understand that the opinion of people do differ, whether it is a reviewer or the page creator and even the reader. I would simply suggest that I am always willing to contribute with every editor who has any type of concern or suggestion for the pages I have made or I review, I can't say more than that. You are allowed to review and check each of the article, I only tell people to specifically address the issue, 50% of the issue is solved right there. OccultZone (Talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) This is the place. "The article is far, far too superficial to do the subject any justice at all.": We've already been discussing this, so this is right on topic. "Grossly oversimplified"? Check. Also brought up here as an issue which you have. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I rather think it would be simpler to find out where you have weaknesses and try and address those, then having the same points brought up at 10 different reviews. That would both prevent bad articles from reaching the main page and educate you so that your future articles are up to snuff. But what do I know? I've only got 600 DYKs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Surely. OccultZone (Talk) 09:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I just came across this conversation. I was the reviewer who did the follow-up review, and also did some editing on the article. I originally wrote the hook mentioning both sexual and physical abuse, but shortened it to emphasize the sexual abuse part; I see that what I did was misleading and inaccurate. I left the part about "notable people" in the lead because there is a list of convicted perpetrators, among them a Catholic priest, sports figures, teachers, and a parliamentarian. Perhaps someone else could think that "notable" means high-level political figures, but to my mind these people are notable. As to the brevity of the article, I agree with Crisco 1492 that much more needs to be written, but with the statistics and sources provided, I thought the article was a good "start" for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Another dud DYK

... that Meldon Viaduct, on Dartmoor in Devon, is one of only two surviving lattice truss railway bridges in Britain?

However Meldon Viaduct isn't a lattice truss, it's a Warren truss. They're not the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. I know nothing of the intricacies of these things. Hopefully one of the authors will stop by. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


How did even a cursory review fail to catch this? It seems to me that the first thing you'd do, when reviewing the hook, is to look up what a lattice truss is. And the wikipedia page for Truss_bridge has pictures of the Warren truss and the lattice truss, explaining each in very straightforward language. Andy Dingley is quite correct: not only are they not the same thing, they don't look anything like each other. Reference 2 explicitly says this is a Warren truss in its second paragraph. Also: what purpose exactly is served by highlighting a not-very-good nor particularly detailed article about an undistinguished and disused railroad bridge. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Reference 2 also says[4] "Meldon Viaduct is one of only two examples of a wrought iron truss girder viaduct in the UK and its national importance is recognised by protection as a Scheduled Monument." Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The correction seems to have introduced another error, albeit less serious: I find it hard to believe that this is one of "two iron truss railway bridges remaining in the United Kingdom". See, from among our own articles, Gaunless Bridge and Penallt Viaduct, for instance. The original source (the Meldon Case Study) says it's one of two "wrought iron truss girder viaducts" remaining (Bennerley and Meldon). Looking at the a Google Books copy of one of the offline sources (Rennison), it says that "the trestle elements are certainly unique in form, although similar, though not identical, sections are to be bound in two railway viaducts: Bennerley (1878) and Meldon (1874 and 1879)". So it appears that Bennerley and Meldon are both the last two wrought iron railway viaducts remaining and also share the unusual lattice trestles, which appear to have been mixed up in the original hook. I'll change the lead to include "wrought iron". Choess (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've managed to look at all three sources (for the first sentence in "Design") in Google Books. Dougweller quoted the Meldon Case Study above. "History of the use of iron in foundations" refers to Bennerley and Meldon as "two surviving wrought iron viaducts of the Crumlin type". Otter mentions "wrought iron columns" but otherwise doesn't otherwise discuss material, nor what characteristics the two viaducts share. Choess (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As the reviewer who approved this nomination I stated that "The hook fact is sourced to three references only one of which I can access". That one stated "six equal span warren trusses on five lattice trestles which taper from base to apex". Personally, I don't know a lattice truss from a warren truss nor that this hook is not good. A reviewer has quite a few things to assess when they review a DYK nomination and for MarkBernstein to state "It seems to me that the first thing you'd do, when reviewing the hook, is to look up what a lattice truss is" seems to me to be the statement of someone who does not often review DYK nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite correct. In the last few days alone, DYK has graced the main page with (a) "Did you know that…'Jesus Christ is Risen Today'", (b) a mathematical hoax, and (c) claiming that this viaduct is one of the last surviving lattice trusses when it obviously is not a lattice truss. That's three misstatements of fact on our main page in what -- five days? Ouch. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You're exaggerating slightly I think. Jesus Christ is Risen Today ran on Easter which was on the 20th April and it is now 1 May so it's a bit more than 5 days. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If there is the full weight of 20 or 30 editors watching and checking every single DYK for errors, there will be more issues found than normal. Same as if you did that with GAs, ITN, and the like. It makes sense. Matty.007 20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
" I don't know a lattice truss from a warren truss "
Then you simply shouldn't review DYKs where that is a crucial part of the hook. If this causes that article to fall out of DYK, then so be it. If that causes DYK to grind to a halt, then so be it.
DYK should not be a process for placing unchecked articles onto the main page with the aid of completely unchecked hooks. WP needs boosts to its credibility much more than it needs boosts to traffic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This is symptomatic of Cwmhiraeth's editing. Lack of attention when reviewing sources is one of the things that has cropped up repeatedly in Cwmhiraeth's editor review. It really doesnt surprise me that such an easily checked error made it through Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Andy, isn't it reasonable for the reviewer to assume good faith on the part of the nominator and article author? Were you an expert in the subject areas of each of the last ten DYK nominations that you reviewed? I'm sure I've reviewed articles about various music nonsense, but if you asked me to definitively identify the exact difference between particular styles of blues rhythms, I wouldn't have a clue. (I am also a former musician, with a repertoire that included a few Jazz hits, but still...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I see DYK as too broken to want to engage with it at all, so I don't review them. However as a general principle for anything on WP, I don't fiddle with it if I don't understand it. There is no reason why any editor here is expected to know bridge details, however for any DYK of the broad form "<Foo> is a <bar>", then I'd expect a reviewer to know what a <bar> is (and in this case for once, an adequate understanding could have been gained simply by reading the linked WP articles). Reviewers are not compelled to review particular articles. If it's not their field, a reviewer can and should pass on it, with no reflection on them as a reviewer. I have no knowledge of rhythm and I'm not going to start pretending I do.
Reviewers are here to review, not to rubberstamp. We are a collegiate project (or used to be), where we can rely on skill sharing between multiple editors. If a particular reviewer can't verify a DYK, then why not ask the article author to explain? Why not ask the relevant project for assistance? The function of a reviewer is not to stare at an article for the requisite number of minutes, then pass it regardless!
WP becomes increasingly slapdash for content accuracy. Articles can be deleted for a minor infringement of MOS*, let alone subjective assessments of UNDUE. DYK, GA and even FA though let howlers slip past because those acting as gatekeepers don't care about accuracy – this is not 'don't know', that's something different and can be addressed by asking other editors as relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just an innocent passer-by (and I generally avoid DYK but I have an unhealthy interest in the Victorians' use of iron in railway structures and can think of quite a few lattice truss wrought-iron girders within 10 miles of the Mersey: the point of interest is surely the piers, not the girders). However in a previous life I made part of my living producing/reviewing safety-critical documentation, and it was required that every stage of production/checking/approval was carried out by identifiable Suitably Qualified and Experienced (some claimed Expensive) Persons. Obviously that isn't how it always worked in practice, nor is it how Wikipedia works even in theory: reliance instead being placed upon 'the wisdom of crowds' - a dubious or unsupportable assertion in an article will soon be corrected by someone who knows better (or thinks they do); if a hundred schools of philosophy contend only the truth will survive (if only !). In the current case, it would appear that 'the wisdom of crowds' wasn't given much chance to operate, since there was only about a fortnight between the erroneous fact being added to the article and it being featured as a DYK item. Effectively therefore reliance was entirely on the DYK check; can a regular DYK checker explain what they think a DYK check should involve, and if they consider there to be any SQEP or SQEP-lite requirements which a checker should meet in order to perform a worthwhile check? (There is a follow-up question to this : if high-quality checking is not always possible, would it not be sensible to quarantine new facts for a bit (this day six month ?) , rather than fast-tracking them to DYK stardom (or ignominy) ?) Rjccumbria (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Apologies; I went and read around a little more. My understanding is now this:
* DYK items are deliberately selected from Wikientries which have yet to stand the test of time
* the DYK checking guide includes a requirement that the hook is directly followed by an in-line citation of a reliable source, and another that the article as a whole does not include plagiarism or close paraphrase
* the DYK checking guide does not include any explicit requirement that citations are taken up to see if (or to what extent) they support the hook, although ‘no plagiarism or close paraphrase’ would seem to require a check (as part of the article-wide check)that the hook does not make a claim in identical words to its associated citation (In the wrong hands distant paraphrase easily leads to the hook making a significantly different claim)
* the DYK checking guide does not include any explicit requirement that the checker have adequate prior understanding of topics relevant to the article or the hook (although there may be some such requirement implicit in the implicit requirement to be able to recognise what is a reliable source in the topic area)
* Unfortunately, a competition exists which gives kudos to those who have done a lot of significant work on Wikipedia - DYKs and DYK checks both score points in that competition. This gives a perverse incentive for those actively competing to carry out DYK checks outside their comfort zone both to score for the check and (under a quid-pro-quo rule) for a chance to score for a DYK hook before its supporting article goes stale.
That doesn't look to me like a process which will intrinsically deliver a quality product; insofar as it does/has that is down to the people working their idea of what the process should be, not the process as actually specified. I am not sure what the driver is for having DYK in the first place, but if it is meant to be part of WP's shop window display then the process needs to be reviewed. In particular, the aim of an encyclopedia is meant to be accuracy, not topicality and I struggle to see why a fact on a 140-year-old viaduct only can be a DYK within a fortnight of Wikipedia finding something to say about it and why DYKs are churned at a rate faster than quality ones can comfortably be produced. Rjccumbria (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
From an engineering standpoint, it's hard to see how DYK could be designed to be any worse.
  • Only use new and unreviewed content
  • Favour content from a single author
  • Deliberately avoid the subject competent or knowledgeable, particularly article authors
  • Incentivise production of more DYKs, as fast as possible
  • Ignore DYK quality
The process here should either be changed radically, or DYK simply stopped.
There's an apposite quote from Isaac Asimov circulating the memespace today,
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
WP falls (despite homeopathic protestations from Jimbo) increasingly further into this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Andy, How does your criticism differ from that offered to Wikipedia in general by bar and staff room pundits? Are you proposing that we only allow reviewed content, backed by several authors, only use experts, punish people who contribute. Should we stop DYK (Wikipedia) based on your diagnosis? You seem to be saying that Wikipedia is going to fail if we ever have an article that misrepresents a type of engineering strut. Really? Are you sure that you are not seeing a mini-me version of the wikipedia process? If we stopped DYK then would this improve the average quality of new articles? Critics seem to be saying that as long as the main page is perfect then that will be OK. Asimov proposed that the building of a vast encyclopedia would dramatically strengthen the whole of humanity and create a "Second Foundation". I can't remember his fictional encyclopedia "fail"ing because they had mis-classified an engineering strut. If we want a process that creates quality articles then I believe Britannica is still in business. Victuallers (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem with DYK is that, even within the WP framework, it has made the worst decisions it could. Why does practice at DYK exclude article authors from review, to the point that article authors who do comment are then accused of OWN? Why does DYK ignore one of the virtues of the open source movement, the "many eyeballs" approach, in favour of coupling DYK to only new and untried content? (There is just no reason to connect these two things, and DYK suffers as a result.)
If DYK has a virtue, it is the familiar newspaper sidebar and buzzfeed one of placing "interesting" hooklines as snippets on a main page. I'm all in favour of this, DYK is fundamentally a good idea. I'm not in favour of a bland landing page with nothing more than a search box.
"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is an access statement, not a manifesto for anti-intellectualism! There is no virtue at all in WP's increasing view (which seems to be particularly rife at DYK) that subject knowledge is a dangerous thing and that experts are to be mis-trusted.
"If we want a process that creates quality articles then I believe Britannica is still in business." is pretty shocking, to be honest. I didn't realise that WMUK was quite so bad as to have abandoned the essential goal of content quality with such a public statement of giving up even trying. Do you think quality content is simply beyond WP? Is that the point with DYK here, that it's not even trying to be accurate, because the project is no longer 'an open sourced encyclopedia of useful quality' and that people who want a real encyclopedia should just look elsewhere?
The fundamental idea behind DYK is a good one. DYK within WP could use WP's abilities to deliver credible hooks. Choices within the design of the DYK process have made the current DYK unavoidably unlikely to achieve this, by stacking the deck just too far against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A good debating point, although not without errors. Britannia has/had a process that created quality articles. Wikipedia created a process that evolved a better encyclopedia by allowing non-experts to contribute and correct each others errors and who recognised quality as it emerged. Your arguments above are not error free but they may emerge into a persuasive argument with the help of non-experts. Bar room pundits will always find more errors in Wikipedia/DYK that Britannia/Some over protective process. Evolution thrives on error correction........... I was'nt aware of this statement you refer to about "WMUK abandoning the essential goal of content quality". When did this happen? When did they say it? and do you have a citation for this claim? This is certainly the kind of idea that should never be put into Wikipedia without some evidence. Britannia may be interested. Is your source reliable? Victuallers (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Your words. When "The chair of Wikipedia(sic) UK"(sic) as you were still described in Monmouthshire just a couple of months ago makes a statement in a public forum (this one) that, "If we want a process that creates quality articles then I believe Britannica is still in business." then that's a serious undermining of the WP project. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2014 (U)
I'm pleased to be so misdescribed, but you should know that WMUK stands for Wikimedia UK and a reliable source would spell it correctly I would hope. Do check your facts however. This is even more basic than getting an engineering strut correctly classified.

The phrase that you ascribe to me followed from a parody of your view that DYK should be rejected because:(you said)

  • I quote "DYK Favours content from a single author" (really? citation needed) - When has the project shown this bias - no anecdotes, a citation please
  • I quote "Deliberately avoid the subject competent or knowledgeable, particularly article authors" (really? no anecdotes please ... a citation of this policy you refer to
  • I quote "Incentivise production of more DYKs, as fast as possible" - You may have a point here. We do pay authors with a very pretty piece of HTML that they are free to sell on (or auction on Ebay).
  • I quote "Ignore DYK quality" - Really? Can you find a citation where the project recommends ignoring its own quality standards? I'm intrigued that you have a source for this.
If you are going to contribute then you will need to use reliable sources. Finding a source that says I'm the chair of WMUK when it defies common sense and common knowledge does not show off the the content process you are recommending. Are you one of these rejected experts? I will AGF your lack of a source and assume that you did see such an article and that you remember it accurately. I do think you should just apologise for your error in assigning views parodied here as representing the policy of an organisation that is not represented here and admit that respected Wikipedians (like yourself) do make errors even bigger that defining the wrong type of engineering strut. Can you not see how your arguments would cause the larger Wikipedia project to fail. If "we want quality" in the way that you propose (and I parodied) then "Britannia is available". There, you will find the experts that you imply you want involved. But do make sure you have a citation for the claims you attach to WMUK. I'm still waiting to see a citation for their reported abandonment of content quality. I fear that neutral readers may suspect that your comment above was just your hyperbole (when you were trying to argue for a DYK process that rejected any risk of inaccuracy.) Evolution (and Wikipedia) creates quality by correcting errors, not by stifling creation. Victuallers (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You should be familiar with the meaning of "quotation" (as in "still described just a couple on months ago") and also "(sic)".
As to why your name cropped up in Monmouthshire, then I doubt if you want Gibraltarpedia and WMUK's dirty laundry advertised in public yet again more than is absolutely necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If it is relevant to the discussion then do mention it. Are you sure that it is - as I see you already have? I thought we were discussing a dud article. Does this add or distract from your argument? I'll let others decide. Victuallers (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You're the one trying to distract any discussion of DYK into attacking the messenger and then announcing that the solution to WP inaccuracy was to give up and use Britannia instead.
I've put forward five obvious and concrete problems with how the DYK process is structured. What are you going to do about them? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Snowboarders

I've broken the group nom for the snowboarders into three separate articles. I hope they will be speedily reviewed now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • If someone loads up a prep I can move to a queue later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Queue 2

The hook for Urodacus yaschenkoi (inland robust scorpion) in Queue 2 has a "(pictured)" that needs to be removed. Could an admin fix it? 97198 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily prep area removal

@MrBill3, Caponer, 3family6, HotHat, and Crisco 1492: I've removed a hook from Prep 3.

  • ... that Sarah Einstein, director of Mental Health America, called Milan Puskar Health Right "better than any clinic I have seen around the country"?

Sounds impressive, right? Now rewrite it to

  • "that according to a student newspaper, Sarah Einstein, director of the Morgantown division of Mental Health America, called the Morgantown clinic Milan Puskar Health Right "better than any clinic I have seen around the country"?

She is not some nationally recognised expert, but a local person making a positive quote about a local clinic in a local student newspaper. It may be well deserved, I have no opinion on that, but to present it as if the director of Mental Health America has declared it to be the best in the country is just slightly misleading. Fram (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Fram. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I skimmed the source article to confirm the statement in the Wikipedia article, and I did not notice that it was referring to only the local branch, as it did not explicitly say so. Thank you, Fram.--¿3family6 contribs 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed promo hook

@Rsrikanth05, Vibhijain, and Hawkeye7: I removed a hook from prep area 1. We really shouldn't be parroting the claims made by companies about their brand new products. DYK is for neutral information, not to repeat PR claims (no matter if they are true or not). The hook was

Note that even if this was a correct representation of what Motorola claimed, it wouldn't have been acceptable. But the article only claims "Motorola argued in a demonstration that the Moto E was slightly faster than the high-end Samsung Galaxy S4 at performing basic tasks such as launching certain apps (such as the camera and web browser) and going back to the home screen from an app." X is faster than Y is not the same as "X is faster than Y at performing some basic tasks", of course. Fram (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's another hook in the nominations that I keep passing over each time, but you havern't made any comment on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I realised this after Viper rewrote the article. Hence, I posted Alt2A. I think that is more appropriate. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section has one that has been waiting for over a month; the second has another three that have been waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 31 are also available. Thank you for your reviews.

Over one month:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • BlueMoonset, Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland really needs an expert. My go-to medievalist is Ealdgyth, and since medievalists know everything, perhaps she can look it over--and the talk page, since for a GA this has a surprising number of problems (I do not know, for instance, if PBS's questions and comments are dealt with). Other editors who may be of assistance are Eric Corbett and {{U}|Parrot of Doom}}--they may not care much about DYK (I'm not sure), but I'm pinging them anyway since they know article writing, and they know all this obscure English stuff. Besides, they are the MacDaddys of GA writing and may thus be willing to help out. Thanks in advance to all those I pinged. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    My questions and comments have been dealt with. -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks PBS for the update. Perhaps you care to tackle the DYK nom? You seem to know stuff... Drmies (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My DYK? Nomination Needs Reviewing

Hello,

My DYK? nomination here -- Template:Did you know nominations/Saar status referendum, 1935 -- needs someone else to review it. It has already been quite a while since this DYK? nomination was made; thus, I hope that someone here is able to review this DYK? nomination of mine soon. Also, if someone here wants me to review yet another DYK? nomination in exchange for reviewing this DYK? nomination of mine, then I would be willing to do this. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Current Queue 6 is missing an item

The current queue 6 has only six items, instead of seven. Can an admin please add an approved hook in. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Casliber, who moved it from prep. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Out and about. Hard to do on phone. If someone else is able I'd be grateful. ..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay - back now - will find something. fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Will someone with some weight (length of DYK experience, admin status, sweet way with words) please look at this nomination and decide if it needs to be passed on or turned down? It's over 130k, discussion has petered out, no one who was previously against running it has now given it a thumbs up, and it's time to make a call. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion could be closed, but the nomination cannot be promoted while it is still at AfD. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The AfD has just been closed, Hawkeye7. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That was quick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
SNOW exists for a reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Tasteless?

This is now in prep 4, concerning a collision between two ships some 2 weeks ago, with 11 people missing (presumed dead). Not only is the hook rather dull (in a collision, the shorter of the two ships sank? The opposite would have been remarkable, this is rather logical though), but isn't it a bit tasteless to bring this recent tragedy to our main page with this hook, as if this is the most interesting thing we have to say about it? I haven't removed or changed it, I'ld rather hear the opinion of some others first. Fram (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the hook is dull, but I don't see it as being particularly tasteless; ITN has "More than 118 people are killed in two bombings in Jos, Nigeria". We could mention the only one out of the 12-man crew surviving, but that might be more tasteless, and not absolutely certain yet. Edwardx (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't get your comparison. Now, if we had an ITN item that said something like "two buildings are destructed in bombings in Jos, Nigeria", then we would have something comparable. But here we are comparing the reporting of one tragedy, which focuses in ITN on the number of deaths, to the reporting of another tragedy, which focuses on a completely trivial aspect of it. I don't mean that DYK should go with the number of deaths, using something remarkable, exceptional, ... instead may be perfectly defendable: but to choose a completely unremarkable, boring fact instead seems to be rather callous. Fram (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that - my comparison is indeed flawed, and the existing hook does look callous and trivial. As the collision was 18 days ago, perhaps the hook should be that only one of the 12-man crew appears to have survived. That does seem to be the most remarkable aspect. Edwardx (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Already ran on the main page, I should have just pulled it instead of starting a discussion here. Oh well, hope springs eternal. Fram (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No more picture statistics

Hi, at mw:Talk:Multimedia/About Media Viewer#Page view statistics the development team have indicated that it will no longer be possible to track image clicks once it goes live, which is next week. In that section, they are asking for feedback on that issue. Does the DYK project track statistics of the pictures. Do contributors peak at the image statistics; if so, why? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Not particularly, but this might affect POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    Ta, I've left a note on WT:POTD highlighting this possible issue for their feedback. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

and another needless comment

Do you find it unpleasant when an editor mentions another uninvolved editor in a totally needless way and insults the quality of their editing? I find that totally unnecessary and it would reflect badly on this project if this was to go unnoticed. If your name is mentioned needlessly here then do not assume that the editor involved represents the views of this project. Victuallers (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Widener Library

  • Could an uninvolved third party please provide feedback at Template:Did you know nominations/Widener Library? I have already failed the article, but considering past interactions with the nominator I doubt that this failure will be accepted. I have outlined my concerns at the nomination page; if anyone wants to agree or disagree with my concerns, be my guest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • As expected, the nominator has not accepted my failing of the article, nor the feedback from two other reviewers (including one other who failed the article). Could someone who is not involved in this nomination please deal with it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ADMIN NEEDED Error in prep Queue 1

In Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Edmund Grimshaw currently in Prep 1, the hook says he was replaced as choir master by an 11 year old boy, but the supporting citation says that the 11 year old boy replaced him as organist. I would make the change myself but I suppose it needs another set of eyes, just to be sure. Thanks, C679 10:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This actually is no longer in the prep, but was promoted Queue 1 and now needs an admin to correct it, or pull it for corrections. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled it out of the queue and moved it to prep 2 for the time being. Let me know if it needs moving anywhere that requires admin tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick action. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the actual article. I also mad some minor tweaks, one of which should be reviewed - see the talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
And I changed the hook wording from "choir master" to "organist". At least with this being moved back to Prep 2, it gives everyone who wants a chance to have their say about this. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviews in general

I would like to ask anyone who wants, to pay attention to - and flag with a - any reviews that look like they were a slap-dash sign off on a review. Especially if done by editors you don't normally see at DYK. They're easy to see if you scroll that nominations page. A few editors are already trying to catch those things. We need more editors doing that, please.

I ran across something that was on the main page some time ago. My purpose is not to point fingers, so I refuse to say what it was and it's nothing in my editing history. It's over and done. The gist of what I found was that no real review was actually done. Just friendly chatter by a nominator and another editor, with the other editor giving the green tick with no reason other than they seemed to like the subject matter. Nobody caught it, including the one who catches everything, so let's not start biting each other over this. All I'm saying...is please pay attention to the obvious slap-dash reviews. If something doesn't look done, request a full review: DYKReviewing guide.— Maile (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating this. I just scrolled through and found 8 nominations that to the casual reader might look like they were reviewed. Until you read the details. Lots of chatter on those templates, discussing a real point here and there. Some actually had green ticks. But nothing to indicate to me that full reviews were actually done. I've marked them. But that was just a casual stroll through the nominations page. We need to keep an eye on that phenomenon. It would be so easy for an admin pressured by time to promote one thinking it had been really reviewed. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we mandate that creators(s) and nominator(s) be notified that their DYK has been pulled

I recently had a dust up with The Rambling Man over a hook pulled from the main page. My position was that he should have informed me, article's creator and DYK's nominator, that the hook was pulled. Had he done this, I would have been made aware that there was a potential issue with the article. Since he did not, I only found out that the hook was pulled, and that there was a potential issue with the article, because I just happened to have Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed on my watchlist, and just happened to check it Thursday night. The Rambling Man's position was that he was under no obligation to let me know that there was a problem or that the hook was pulled.

Since this doesn't seem to be an issue either of us are willing to budge on, and both of us have been getting... testy towards one another, I figured I would put it to the community.

When a DYK hook is pulled from prep, queue, or the main page, should the person that pulled it be required to leave a message on the user talk page of the people credited for the DYK (people listed as {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}) informing them that the hook has been pulled?

[Addendum 00:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)] Leaving the message doesn't have to be done before the hook is pulled, and shouldn't effect whether or not the hook is pulled in the first place. This is purely an issue of communicating that the act has happened.

To my understanding, when a hook is pulled, it should also be reopened, - then everybody having the nomination on a watchlist would see the change. I don't think further notification is needed. I personally don't need notifications about my nominations during the review process, I watch them. I don't notify people when I nominate or review, unless there's no reaction for several days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, reopening is not explicitly a requirement for pulling from main page - see below. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the procedure for pulling a hook from prep or queue requires reopening the nomination, and we've generally assumed interested parties would have the nom page watchlisted. In the case of a pull from the main page itself, though, procedures are unclear - I've generally followed the same process as for a pull from queue, but not everyone does. Would it be worthwhile to require that? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think when I had a page pulled it was pulled for good, i.e. it couldn't go on the MP again in DYK, but that may be my memory playing tricks... Thanks, Matty.007 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Recently, a hook was pulled simply because of bare urls as references. If that would be a reason not to go to the MP, something was wrong. The one went back a few days later, pictured, and made it to the stats. - To the above comment, yes I would support the requirement to reopen the nomination for further discussion in any case of pulling, just to reach everybody watching. I watch many nominations where I am not the author nor the nominator, just for interest and curiosity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it has to depend on the situation: if it is a BLP issue, it is fairly severe in comparison to something such as bare URLs. Thanks, Matty.007 20:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment when items are added to WP:ERRORS, and when admins have not much time to make decisions other than to assess the errors, then pulling items/modifying items etc is essential to try to perpetuate the integrity of the main page. If the process leading up to the submission and eventual transfer of erroneous information to the main has failed, that's not an administrative issue, it's a DYK issue. Point of information how can this discussion result in an admin being "required" to do anything? And what if an admin doesn't do this? Does the DYK fraternity seek de-sysop by process? Does the admin get "chastised" by Arbcom? What actual substance does this proposal have? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man: Okay, you know what, screw it. I'll just come out and say it. Why the hell wouldn't you tell someone you've just removed their hook? I get that you have to act quickly, that's fine. But after you've removed the hook, what is preventing you from spending the thirty-seven seconds to track down who was involved in the hook and drop them a message? The bot tells you which queue it came from, and it's right there in the edit history, in the DYKmake/DYKnom templates. It takes barely any effort to let people know that it's been done, and there's no downside to doing it. No one here has come up with any real reason not to extend the courtesy. Your resistance to this utterly mystifies me. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • No resistance, just no-one should be obliged to run around trying to solve the shortcomings of the DYK system, which your proposal appears to suggest. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • An admin is not required to do anything. But if they do take an admin action, then they must do it properly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
          • And correcting errors on the front page is one of those things. It's a shame that wholesale hook errors get through DYK reviews. This kind of error (i.e. one that gets pulled) doesn't happen elsewhere on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, it does. When I was an admin I pulled hooks from On This Day and In the News. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
              • I don't see a page of hooks pulled from ITN or OTD, can you point me to those please? I do see a page dedicated to hooks pulled from the lowest quality section, DYK, however... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been following this as a WP:TPS and this is precisely what is wrong with Wikipedia. A hook get's pulled after 5hrs - does the nom get reopened for it to have it's final hr. I really have no idea what you are trying to achieve by this. If a hook has been pulled, it is for a reason. Don't blame the person who reported it at WP:ERRORS or the admin that pulled it. At the end of the day, we want to improve content and you've just had a quick peer review to highlight a way improve the article. Fix it and move along. Too much sub-standard content chasing 30s off fame on the main page as it is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to distinguish pulled from the Main page, pulled from a queue, pulled from prep. I don't see that yet. - But perhaps not: I would like to see discussion in all cases, not to have its final hour, but to get something fixed in an article, because we want to improve content. - I don't "blame" anybody, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Rambo's Revenge Where exactly did you get that I am blaming him for pulling it? This entire time, from the conversation on TRM's talk page, through to this discussion, what I have been looking for has been very clear. It's not about the hook being pulled, that probably was the right thing to do given the circumstances. It is about that no one told me that the hook was pulled. I get that pulling hooks is time sensitive, but why not tell me after it was pulled? What logic is there to people only finding out that their hooks were pulled if they just so happen to have Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed watchlisted? If there is a problem with an article, why wouldn't people make an effort to point it out? This is not a conversation about the quality of the DYK process, and this is not a conversation about whether the hook should have been pulled or not. It is a conversation about communication. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If you're never told that it has been pulled then you'll never receive the peer-review - so I don't think that argument quite stacks up. I see that everything that gets pulled gets added to Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. Wouldn't that be the ideal point in the process for notification to be sent to the original nominator as well? Furius (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this solution - I post this, knowing we have been waiting since Feb 2014 for a Notification Bot to be instituted for nominating of the works of others.
(1) Create a bot to handle hook pulled from the main page - I believe Furius has the best idea. We notify the nominator by bot when the hook appears on the main page. Being added to the "removed" list could trigger a similar bot to notify the nominator. The "removed" list already states why a hook was pulled. Everybody gets what they need, and the Admin doesn't have to do anything differently.
(2) Hook pulled from a Prep or Queue - I believe Gerda Arendt is correct. The process is a revert of the promotion, and it goes back onto the nominations page for further work. Not all nominators have their nomination watch listed, but we also don't separately notify a nominator when their hook is promoted to Prep or Queue The watch list itself would notify the nominator of the promotion and also of the revert. But if reviewers don't have it watch listed in the first place, they aren't going to know it was promoted until notified of its main page appearance. If we don't notify them it has been promoted to Prep or Queue, why notify them it's been pulled from same?
These are two different issues, as Gerda has mentioned. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We're here to build an encyclopaedia, so we want errors in the articles to be fixed. I realise that in some cases the problem is purely with the hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Support the initial proposal or that made by Maile66? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It should be told in detail that why DYK was pulled. OccultZone (Talk) 12:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • When pulled from the main page, it's invariably been discussed at WP:ERRORS, so that's something all DYK regulars should add to their watch lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I certainly don't, with over 200 DYKs. Anyway it changes about 15 times a day, so will combine always appearing on your watchlist with relevant stuff being missed unless you check every waking hour. Not a good solution. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: Not everyone have them on the watchlist, or you can notify them about it. But I still think that first option is better. OccultZone (Talk) 13:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • If you try to mandate admins should run around after delinquent DYKers then we should mandate that DYKers watch WP:ERRORS, after all DYK is all about getting your article onto the main page, why wouldn't you be looking for it, or looking for if anyone had issues with it? I've never had a featured article, featured list or in the news item on the main page with it being on my watchlist, why would DYK be any different? Take some responsibility for the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Dang! Those humans are so pesky with their imperfections! What is this universe coming to, when even artificial intelligence sometimes malfunctions? — Maile (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No-one's arguing that we're all human, but what I'm saying is that attempting to mandate admins to run around finding the progenitor of the various DYK errors we see week in week out should be balanced with attempting to mandate DYK nominators to check their nominations after they've been posted, and to regularly visit WP:ERRORS to correct any errors that have somehow made it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing with you. It was more a comment that mandates don't work on either admins or regular contributors. We can get frustrated with each other, but trying to mandate anybody on Wikipedia is like trying to keep frogs from hopping. That's why I favor bot solutions to repetitive tasks like what is wanted here. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, and your suggestions above are tip-top. Perhaps now you can advise Sven that we have a far superior suggestion and we can move on, once you find a suitable bot to do your bidding? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support At a minimum, a nominator should be informed of the fact that a hook was pulled by notification on his talk page. I unfollow DYK discussions once they are approved and promoted and would not be aware otherwise of a removal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If you gave a damn about ensuring quality on the main page, why on earth would you unfollow discussions once they are approved, particularly as you know that DYK is littered with errors that make it to the main page? DYK editors need to start taking responsibility for their own hooks and not rely on others to do their dirty work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: would it be best to open a discussion on the talk page for the article in question, as would generally be done by an editor who found an issue with an article but didn't have the time or interest to resolve it? I think this would be better than just notifying one editor. isaacl (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First get your reviewing process up to par, so that we don't get problematic hooks and articles time and time again, and perhaps then start thinking about adding extra mandatory work for those people getting rid of the problems you let pass. The protectiveness of some people here, with additional rules and requirements proposed nearly every time an article gets pulled, is astounding. Are you as a group working to make Wikipedia better, or only to protect DYK at all costs? Fram (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything more "mandatory", support notification depending on the individual case, support putting in the explanations of the process to newcomers that pulling happens and that they better watch the preps, queues, "removed" and Main page when it's on. - Repeating: I am no part of a "group" for DYK, and not "protecting". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical expert needed

The reviewer on Template:Did you know nominations/Locked twins has requested the input of someone more familiar with this medical topic. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Admin needed: only about 35 minutes before the bot goes looking for a queue to promote, and there aren't any. There are two preps waiting for an admin to promote. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Loaded queues - happy to load prep areas if someone fills. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix Queue 1

The first and the fifth hooks in Queue 1 are both missing the required space between the ellipsis and "that". Thanks in advance to any admin who fixes these hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 19:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hooks should be cited, does the rest need to be?

Hi all. If the hook of an article is cited, and many other facts in an article is cited, do all facts in an article need citations? The way I read the instructions, the answer is no, correct? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel? It helps if DYK people know the situation you are referring to. I'm not experienced reviewing lists, so maybe reviewers who have done lists can answer your question. I'm sure you've already read Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation, but that doesn't specifically address what are asking. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The specific guideline for DYK articles is WP:DYKSG#D2, which includes the following: A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Should hooks pulled from MP be re-run?

Hooks that are pulled from preps or queues have their nominations re-opened and, if the issues are addressed, they are re-passed and run. However, appropriate treatment of hooks pulled from the Main Page itself is less clear - some people choose to re-open the nomination and allow the hook to have another full run on MP, while others do not re-open the nomination and so leave the hook with a single partial run. Which course of action should be preferred? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria While I'm not a DYK regular, I'm of the view that if the submission got through DYK and then was yanked from the main page, they had their minutes in the sun and should not be given annother swing at Main Page status. The only exception is if we are consistently scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of DYK potential, which I note that we are not currently). Hasteur (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've always thought it depends on how much time the submission had on the main page and the severity of the issues. If the article was yanked after a couple of hours or less, then perhaps it deserves another chance. If it has run more than four hours, then to feature it again would be to give it far more time on the main page than less problematic nominations, which I feel is inappropriate. It's a judgment call. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Admin needed: this is now over two hours overdue, and a prep set was ready many hours ago. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I know Crisco 1492 was around earlier. Could you do it please? Thanks, Matty.007 14:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous set is getting long in the tooth, so I've compiled a new set of 38 older nominations that need reviewing. The first section has three that have been waiting for over a month; the second has another three that have been waiting at least three weeks. Please give one these your attention if possible; if not, the remaining 32 are also available. Thank you for your reviews.

Over one month:

Over three weeks:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And another...

@Nathan121212, Evad37, and Hawkeye7: I removed yet another hook, this time from prep 2:

Looking into this for a while, it seems that the only claim that is being made is that there is no professional women's soccer league. The article reminds me strangely of some of the efforts of LauraHale (although better written), being a loose collection of tidbits missing huge chunks of easily found, relevant facts. A page like this makes it clear that there have been national leagues throughout the 2000s and at least until 2011. This is totally lacking in the article, which reads as if there was no women's soccer league since the early 2000s. If you get such basic facts wrong, then the article can't be trusted (and can't be considered to be up to scratch) and shouldn't be featured on the main page. Fram (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So, the hook claimed that there is no women's soccer league in South Africa? Then what is this?. 9 Provincial leagues, ending in a national final: "The Sasol League reaches the peak with the hosting of the National Championships to be held from 8-14 December 2014 in Port Elizabeth where the nine provincial winners compete to determine the 2014 Sasol League national champions." The competitions for this season, the sixth, have started in May... Where did I get this information: "The official website of the South African Football Association". Seems a logical place to check on info about "Women's soccer in South Africa". Note that beneath this competition with 9 provincial leagues and a national champion, there is a lower level with 52 regional leagues[5]. One would think that describing this structure would be a central aspect of this article. Or at least mentioning it, not denying it completely. Fram (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

On the plus side, it's great to see all four prep areas full - this gives upcoming hooks more prominence and encourages us to pick up on this sort of thing before the hooks hit the front page. Edwardx (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You can't help but love an optimist :-D Fram (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: If I correct the facts, can this go back into a queue/prep? If can read: ... that when the South African Women's Soccer team qualified for the 2012 olympic games, there was no women's soccer league? Nathan121212 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No. As far as I can tell from my short search, the SASOL league started in 2009 and has its 6th season now, in 2014. This strongly suggests that there was a season in 2012 as well. Apart from that; no, the article is completely inadequate and untrustworthy, if you missed such basic things as the ones I listed above (taken from the official SA football site for crying out loud), then the article should be considered to be completely unreliable and not worthy of a place on the main page. I know that the DYK rules are not always enforced this strictly, and leniency is normal, but basically, you have to meet all the rules at the time of nomination, you don't get to add any article inside the 5-day limit and then work on getting it somewhat right. When you nominate an article for DYK, you basically state "this is ready to get its spot on the main page". Tweaking, refining, polishing, aare all acceptable of course, but an article that basically needs a complete rewrite (again) can not be considered to have met the DYK requirements in time. Fram (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
If your hook gets pulled because the hook fcat (and the article) are wrong, it doesn't give a good impression if you then come back and propose another wrong hook. [6] Considering that there was a 2012 national champion, with the final played on 1 July 2012, i.e. in the same month as the Olympics; and considering that there had been competitions in 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well, it seems really strange to claim that there was no women's soccer league at the time of their qualification. Fram (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that the DYK rules are not always enforced this strictly My experience is generally to the contrary;; I find that nothing but the rules are considered in most cases, and even questionable "violations" lead the process off the deep end. Meanwhile, overall article quality is rarely considered. So I congratulate you, Fram, for considering the actual content. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We have three preps full for any Admin available to move them up to the Queues. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've moved some preps to queues today - am going to sleep now but am happy to load more if preps are full tomorrow...so would be great if some folks could load....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

First DYK

Resolved

Hi this is the first time I am trying to nominate a DYK, is doing this correct?[[7]] Wikorefo (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wikorefo: Who created this article? OccultZone (Talk) 11:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Me. Wikorefo (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikorefo: you can nominate new, new good articles, mainspaced articles, 5* expanded articles: but within 5 days of the action. This nomination was expanded at the end of February, so too late to run I'm afraid. Thanks, Matty.007 12:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok then, thanks for telling I didn't know of this rule.Wikorefo (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You missed, anyway, the most important step: to include the nomination on the nomination page under the date when the article was created or expansion began, but not later than five days after that date. In this case, as it is unfortunately not eligible, the step is not needed. More luck next time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have another then mention it here as soon as it is ready (preferably in your sandbox) then someone should come and "hold your hand" as you step through the process. Victuallers (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone for the advices, regards. Wikorefo (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My DYK? Nomination Needs to be Promoted

Hello,

My DYK? nomination here -- Template:Did you know nominations/Saar status referendum, 1935 -- needs to be promoted. It has already been several days by now, and since everything in this DYK? already appears to be good to go, can an admin or someone else here please promote this DYK? nomination of mine? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

QPQ check

This link in the toolbox that appears on nominations seems not to be working (for me at least). Could somebody clever fix it or remove it. Belle (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We're not that clever. The tool was maintained by Snottywong, and he retired. Matty.007 notified us of the breakdown on May 10. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry. Somebody make a tool to notify me when I'm about to make a duplicate report. Or build me a crystal carriage pulled by swans if you are more of the handicraft type. Belle (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/José María Pinedo

Hi, am I alone in thinking that the unreferenced paragraphs mean this shouldn't have been promoted yet? Thanks, Matty.007 16:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (Pinging Wee Curry Monster, Maury Markowitz, Hasteur. Matty.007 16:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Yes, I think you are alone in that, and the tag bombing of the article was rather disruptive. Before nomintaing the article for DYK I asked a number of editors to review it and suggest improvements, I've had two experienced editors review it at DYK, neither of whom suggested the referencing was a problem. The accusation of WP:OR is frankly bullshit, the article is well sourced. What the hell is your problem? WCMemail 16:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Answered User_talk:Matty.007#Any_particular_reason_you_chose_to_pick_on_my_article.3F. Thanks, Matty.007 17:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm personally far more interested in the actual content than making sure that we're following rules, especially ones that don't actually exist. This particular nom became contentious (here too), which strikes me as endemic, looking over the recent noms. Someday, perhaps, we'll collectively agree to judge the content of the articles and the heat level will reduce again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I should point this out: Matty, a lack of refs is not evidence of OR. OR refers specifically to instances where conclusions are being drawn that seem counterfactual and there is no support being given or the cites in question are questionable. In this case, do you really think the passages are wrong, or more to the point made up? They don't seem to be. So the proper tag is the cite-needed, and then only if you fail in a GF search within existing refs. People always, always, forget that last point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Matty.007. There are blatant problems with referencing - huge blocks of text are not cited to anything. This should be tagged with {{refimprove}} and sent back to the nomination phase. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 17:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Content is good, but we need to follow the rules. There are paragraphs without references, which directly contravenes the rules which must be followed for main page posting. Thanks, Matty.007 17:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, the refs are just about all offline or foreign language, so I cannot search within them. I tagged cn, and was reverted with this edit. Thanks, Matty.007 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You posted 16 CN's, 13 of those paras have cites. What was the problem with these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
If the cite supports the entire paragraph, it goes at the end of the paragraph. When it doesn't the only logical explanation is an error or that the reference isn't supporting the information after it. Thanks, Matty.007 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen a rule that states this, can you point me in the right direction? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas". "The inline citation could be placed at any sensible location, but the end of the paragraph is the most common choice. If a subsequent editor adds information from another source to this paragraph, then it is the subsequent editor's job to organize the citations to make their relationship between the text and the sources clear, so that we maintain text-source integrity". Text-source integrity doesn't seem to be gotten by having citations in front of info. Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the subject a BLP? Are the uncited paragraphs contentious? No to both counts So yes, you're in the minority Matty.007. A mid level military officer that died in 1885 isn't going to have as much coverage as more recent subjects. Hasteur (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh and Matty.007 thanks for WP:BITE-ing a new hand at DYK work. Since my first attempt to help was so throughly bitten I'll steer from doing these activites in the future than any ARBCOM sanctions area. I'm sure you'll be prefectly fine with the perenial "DYK is overdue" messages here. /sarcasam Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is this going on the main page? Have we had an article on a bridge pulled recently? Is there a rule at DYK which states one reference per paragraph minimum? This isn't a BLP issue, the information came from somewhere and must be cited as such. Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Point towards I haven't AGF? This page recently had multiple articles pulled from the main page, we do not want an article to go on there when it isn't ready. Being pulled from the prep isn't a big deal, the issue just needs to be dealt with then it can go on. Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure no-one wants an article pulled from the main page. Matty.007 18:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
However, if I have offended you I am truly sorry. Matty.007 18:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You showed a complete lack of good faith, when you tag bombed the article and slapped an utterly bogus OR notice on it. Your actions were outrageous and I'm glad other people seem to agree with me. WCMemail 22:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Where? I good faith tagged the article (as I had recently been told at Talk:Wojciech_Jaruzelski#Tag it was better to add CN), and was rapidly reverted with extreme edit summaries. I apologies for my error. I didn't ping the co-author as it slipped my mind, and no-one corrected me. Thanks, Matty.007 09:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKSG#D2, A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. The second paragraph of Early life, the third paragraph of Argentine civil wars, and the final paragraph of Later years don't meet that standard, and the reviewer should have asked for it. It would be good to have more than the first sentence of both paragraphs in Cisplatine War cited, especially given the extraordinary final statement in the first that Pinedo disobeyed orders, and the two years of uncited events in the second. The first paragraph of Later years has similarly extraordinary contents after a cited first sentence. If this were a GA review, they would have to be cited. I don't see any evidence of OR. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Note to Wee Curry Monster: if you can add those citations before the prep set is completed, then I can avoid having to pull back the nomination. Otherwise, it will have to be pulled back until they have been, at which point it can proceed again. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2nd paragraph of early life, my co-author helped me with translating material from the Spanish language version where I originally found out about the guy. I've simply deleted it but my co-author DagosNavy may be able to provide one. I've added additional new cites to paragraphs requested. Is that enough for now, I can continue to work on it but TBH didn't intend to take this as a far as a GA.
BTW can I ask why my co-author was not notified of this discussion, that seems rather rude to me. WCMemail 23:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the added sourcing for those two paragraphs and the removal of the remaining unsourced paragraph is sufficient for DYK purposes. Thank you. It would be nice to have more inline citations eventually, especially for those long paragraphs I noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Will do, I started the article as a translation of the Spanish equivalent but in checking sources I found material to substantially expand it. But its hard work when you're constantly translating all the time. WCMemail 07:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Incidents of Necrophilia

I see that the DYK has been approved, but I am personally having a difficult time agreeing to promote to a prep area. I'm concerned about the backlash we're going to get when promoting such a contentious topic (keeping in mind the recent ones like "Jesus is risen..."). Anybody have thoughts about how we should handle this? Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The recent Jesus "backlash" had absolutely nothing to do with it being a "contentious topic". It was completely about the hook, which was not a sentence and did not present a fact, or, if you ignored the quotation marks, presented an incident from the Bible as fact. The necrophilia hook is an actual sentence presenting a fact which appears in the article and is backed up with a source available via Google Books. DYK does not censor valid hooks simply because people may be squeamish about the topic. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As Mandarax says, a difficult subject is not necessarily an indication that an article should not run in DYK. I was a fairly vocal proponent of running the Wikipediocracy article, despite a lot of hate against the group, because we should not self-censor ourselves. Now, this doesn't mean that I think the article as it currently is written is ready to pass: it needs a bit more polish, because as a contentious topic it needs to look to be in good shape — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed for this - Red Skelton in Queue 6

Special request Re Template:Did you know nominations/Red Skelton now in Queue 6, the next queue to move to the main page. I have no personal stake in the entire process of this. However, this man is a legend in American show business. Is it possible to pull this out of its lowly 5th place in the current queue and make it a lead hook somewhere else? The image is really good, and this man was one of the tops in his entertainment field during his lifetime. Pretty please, give this man his real due as the lead hook. 14:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I second the request by Maile66 above, but cannot do it as I was the nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If anything's going to be done, it needs to be done fast: this queue is set to be promoted in 25 minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Too late. Too bad. This one went through the process so rapidly that I never even saw it until it was in Queue 6. — Maile (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Emergency! Error in Bobby Byrne (musician) in Prep Area 1.

The hook is indeed directly from a source, but the source is in error. I have found a subsequent source, backed up by doing the math, that Bobby was 17 when he replaced Tommy Dorsey, not 16. Please fix the hook. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Never mind, this second source is in error, and my math, despite my degree, stinks sometimes! He was 16, hook is correct. slinking away with tail between legs 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination promoted without picture

My nomination Template:Did you know nominations/The Wrath of the Gods (1914 film) was promoted to Prep 1 without the accompanying picture.Skr15081997 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We naturally get more pictures with nominations than available picture spaces, so the promotor makes a decision on which picture to use. BlueMoonset made the decision (which I agree with) that the colour picture of the horse was more catchy than the black and white film still. His decision may have been influenced by other pictures promoted recently, for example we may (I have no idea) have had another black and white film still recently. Thanks, Matty.007 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition, I don't find the picture quality that good at the (100px?) size we show images, and we have a picture a couple of preps before in black and white of a film star. Thanks, Matty.007 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007:Thanks for the explanation.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK tool URL checker not working?

I've seen a few notes in the noms area about dead links, but they work fine when you click on them. The common element is the "broken" report is coming from the DYK tool. Is it's URL checker not working properly? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You are perhaps talking about the External links tool on the template? That tool is maintained by Dispenser. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK request

Is there somewhere I can submit an article for DYK? I'd like to nominate The Lost Boys (professional wrestling) and have two suggestions for hooks.

Thanks. 72.74.209.206 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It was created way too long ago to be nominated for DYK under the normal rules. You can, however, nominate it for Good Article and if it passes, you can nominate it for DYK within five days. See the instructions at T:TDYK to make requests for DYKS. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

But it was just approved by WP:AFC yesterday. It was at Draft:The Lost Boys (professional wrestling) up until then. 72.74.209.206 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Template:Did you know nominations/The Lost Boys (professional wrestling). I listed the credit as the IP above; feel free to change and/or add other(s) as appropriate.

Note: I had requested that moves from Draft space be recognized by DYKcheck, but Shubinator has been busy with higher priority projects and hasn't gotten around to it yet. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mandarax: I have no idea what it should link to, but please can you DAB NWA United States Tag Team Champions? I ask here as if I ask on the nom you won't get any comments for a few months... Thanks, Matty.007 10:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It should link to NWA United States Tag Team Championship (New Jersey version). 72.74.206.174 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I fixed it. Best, Matty.007 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Slightly altered one hook

@Czar: I have slightly altered one hook in Queue 5.

From

To

The source for the quote[8]. I don't understand why one single word was omitted from the quote, and certainly not when that one word makes it so much clearer. Ellipsis is fine when a whole section of a sentence is omitted, but here? Anyway, feel free to reverse if there is a good reason why the original hook was better. I'll change the article as well in the meantime. Fram (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natural History (Pliny)

The approved hook for this nomination sent me to sleep before I reached the end of the sentence, but apparently we can't use the more interesting stuff on Pliny's descriptions of outlandish peoples because there are no inline citations to support them. Seeing as how this comes directly form the Natural History could we not bend the rules a little here for the sake of something that might actually grab a general reader's attention (apologies to all the fans of influences of Renaissance translations who might have found the original hook riveting)? There's even a rockingly good woodcut to accompany it. Belle (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the hook fact yet, but I don't think we are doing the readers any service with it. I do find the claim interesting, but the article simply repeats it, without providing any examples of how or where it influenced it. Why did this translation specifically influence literature? What literature? English language only, or all languages? The hook may be taken from the source, which I can't verify, but is so vague that it should either be expanded significantly in the article, or omitted (and not used as hook). Fram (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Belle here and support their Alt2 hook. This is probably against DYK policy, and will be shouted down by the obvious DYK defenders, but just what was the point in taking this fascinating and highly important book, then producing hooks that were so utterly trivial and uninteresting for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Much of the article is unsourced, and on that alone it should never have passed DYK. I'm a bit surprised it passed GA with such lack of sourcing. There is some online sourcing, but the template does not say if anyone checked for copyvio, close paraphrasing. There are also minor issues that show with the disambig (dab) tool and a dead link when the External Links tool is run. I agree with Fram on his comments above, and I believe he is referring to ALT1 that Philemon Holland's English translation of 1605 of Pliny's encyclopedia Natural History (12th century manuscript pictured) has influenced literature ever since?. — Maile (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Did we miss the deadline? I can never tell anymore by looking at the Queue page. However, there are two full prep areas that can be promoted. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As of right now, all four prep areas are full and can be moved to queues. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, so I can't promote from prep to queues, but I fail to understand why all full preps aren't moved to fill as many queues as possible instead of only one at the last minute; right now, all the queues are empty yet there are three finished prep sets. Can someone explain why this constant state of near-crisis? Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Promoting admins are often expected to double-check all hooks/articles being promoted to queue; if this is done, it can be very time-consuming. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • True, but the same can be said for all promotions to prep also. Maybe it's just my working style, but when I'm on a roll, it's just as easy to do a bunch as a few. But I suppose the real problem is not enough people doing the work. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Natalia_Poklonskaya

Pings:@Hawkeye7:@Montanabw: RE: Prep 3

... that no matter how many uninvolved third parties object to putting political propaganda on the main page, it will still show up if pushed for hard enough? This DYK was rejected multiple times. Can someone explain how someone felt it was appropriate to approve? Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, this is currently in Prep 3. that the Prosecutor General of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, is barred from entering European Union countries? And the supporting text in the article is: On 12 May, the European Union added Poklonskaya to its sanctions list.[35][36] This barred her from entering EU countries and any of her assets there, if existent, were to be frozen.[3][37] I have nothing to do with this either direction, but it's a lot of stuff to read through for anyone who just happens to see your post here on this page. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66: Promoted? That's great. Except that main line, rest is too long, and I didn't read. OccultZone (Talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that's over. It was taking up a quarter of T:TDYK on its own. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Queue 6

Against my better judgement, and having been drawn to comment here by a concerned editor, please address the following:

  • Do we really use WWII for World War II on the main page?
  • "died in prison as the result of political persecution" I think he died of another reason, not "political persecution".
  • "doesn't make an" avoid contractions.
  • "that Lowangcha Wanglat, BJP candidate" does anyone outside India really know what BJP stands for?
  • "hails from the Namsang-Borduria royal family" "hails from"? Does this mean "is a member of the royal family"? What does it mean?
  • " to that particular date (after Babi Yar)" really unnecessary, all of this.
  • ". that Christopher Gibbs, the "King of Chelsea", (together with Robert Fraser) is" why the parentheses? And why not a comma after Fraser? And surely "are..." not "is..." since there are two of them?

Just the odd issue in a single queue, somehow passing all the checks and awaiting main page population... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

    • All fixed except BJP, as that hook is already quite long and including the full name in-text will likely unbalance the MP (and push the hook over 200 characters); it's already linked, so that's not a major issue. I've completely removed the bit about Swing London as simply removing Fraser may misrepresent the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • One last thing, the "first to wear flared trousers" is an outlandish claim, the article makes it much less definitive by saying "he was said to be". The reference given for that hook doesn't substantiate the claim, either... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • One last, last thing, the "the Namsang-Borduria royal family" links to Nocte people which makes no mention of a "Namsang-Borduria royal family". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Delinked. Swinging London reinserted, flared trousers removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
          • When you give people only 200 characters to work with, you have to expect that they will use abbreviations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to shorten interval from 12 to 8 hours?

Nominations seem to be picking up - do folks feel like shortening interval from 12 to 8 hours? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which the-sky-is-falling queue-empty warnings appear on this page, what would be wrong with letting the appearance queue (as opposed to the approval queue) grow to a few days' worth? ... or even a weeks' worth? EEng (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, though this depends on folks collating approved hooks, so can be sorted fairly quickly if said hooks already exist. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

There has been excellent work reviewing the previous set, with Storye book singlehandedly taking on over half of the listed articles, so I've compiled a new set of 33 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks to everyone who reviews.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

GA is not DYK

I've been scrolling through the nominations page a lot lately, and see that (mostly novice) reviewers are quick to give a green tick to articles that have passed GA. The rationale, as one reviewer put it, is: Improved to GA status on the same day it was nominated for DYK, which means it fulfills the basic criteria. I recently reviewed several GA articles that actually had extensive close paraphrasing, and I've been encouraging reviewers to check neutrality and close paraphrasing in GA articles even though they passed GA. I think it would be appropriate to add something to this effect in the instructions to reviewers. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm seeing the same thing. My personal experience with GA is that it can be very helpful and get the article in shape. However, that doesn't mean the GA process checks the same thing DYK does. This is the basic GAChecklist. If anything, the GA articles should take more time to review for DYK because they are usually more detailed and lengthy than the normal DYK. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarification request: I'm confused; close paraphrasing and such are against GA rules too, right? So is the problem here that the articles passed GA and shouldn't have? Or are there additional rules here that should have been applied that are not part of the GA process and that's the problem? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem as I see it is that reviewers assume that because it passed GA, it should pass DYK too. Meanwhile, DYK has a whole list of rules that don't necessarily match up with GA. Yoninah (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
But that is not your original complaint. Your original complaint is about an issue that should have been caught in the GA process. If GA is failing, GA is failing. Putting the burden of re-reviewing GA articles on the DYK process strikes me as all bad. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • How does "[DYK] reviewers are quick to give a green tick to articles that have passed GA" appear to be a complaint about "an issue that should have been caught in the GA process"? The complaint is about the reviewers at DYK.
To clarify, articles here are not being re-reviewed as a GA (which I agree would be improper). They are being reviewed as DYKs that are eligible because they passed a GA review in the past five days. As such, they should be reviewed in accordance with all of the DYK criteria, just like a new or expanded article, and not just greenlit on the criteria which are the same as GA. Yoninah is taking issue with the fact that people are assuming GAs meet all the criteria without actually looking into it, and thus allowing things which slipped through a GA review slip through the DYK review as well (in this case, close paraphrasing, which is against both DYK and GA rules). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware of his concerns, do you understand mine? We have too much work to do already, and anything that simplifies DYK procedure is a good idea. Assuming GA worked, and giving a bye to those items on the list, seems like one such idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK topic banned editors

Reading the above information that this particular editor is DYK topic banned. I can think of one other editor who is DYK topic banned indefinitely, and happens to be among the top ten nominators by number of nominations. How many here even know who that is, since the banning happened some time ago? Editor who originally did the pork nom is also in the upper tier of number of nominations. Is there a list somewhere, or does this just depend on a select few knowing about it and catching same? With everything else being mentioned as being missed by reviewers and promoters, how does anyone know not to review nominations by any given editor? Taking into account the issue of editor retention on WP and drifting away to other project interests, relying on preventative intervention/action by a select few with knowledge seems to be iffy. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Billy was banned because of an inexcusable refusal to stop close paraphrasing. He was indef blocked around the time he was banned from DYK. I wouldn't compare him and Bonkers, whose issues leading to a DYK ban were not quite as bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: Wikipedia is a very friendly place! People will help you remember, and there is bound to be at least one editor who will keep watch of an editor who is banned or something. Look at me, I forgot I was topic banned, and poof, delightful Blue Moonset had the courtesy to give me a heads up. So don't worry, if a banned editordoes something he is banned from doing, like nominate a page for DYK, someone will ring the alarms! It's a great system. How I love Wikipedia :-) Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible misleading wording issue of hook in queue

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ise-class_battleship - hook is currently in Queue 1, thing is, then I first read it I interpreted hook like those ships actually carried all those planes. But actually in article its like that: "The ships had an air group of 11 each of Yokosuka D4Y dive bombers (Allied reporting name "Judy") and Aichi E16A reconnaissance aircraft (Allied reporting name "Paul") Both aircraft had development problems and neither air group ever had all of its intended aircraft. Coupled with a shortage of trained pilots, neither ship ever used its aircraft during combat.[48]" (emphasis mine). Anyone else see this as a possible problem?--Staberinde (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Renominating a DYK?

What's the process for that? Re {{Did you know nominations/Eat Frozen Pork}}, this has been closed early owing to a breach of a topic ban. It's a good DYK though, so I'd like to re-nominate it under my own imprimatur. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no procedural objections to a re-nomination as there wasn't any substantive discussion to the merits of the DYK. I think it would be best construct your own hook and reference the fact that the article was previously DYK nominated but overturned on a technical reason. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the author must have forgotten about the topic ban. Good to see that worthy content is being recognised still. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Would I still create this under {{Did you know nominations/Eat Frozen Pork}} though, or {{Did you know nominations/Eat Frozen Pork (2nd nomination)}}? If I re-use the name, does it break any sort of history? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't break any code or anything. You could call the nomination "I'm Henry the Eighth I Am I Am", and it would not matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Bonkers The Clown cough While I din't know the terms of your ban/unblock I really think if you're banned from making DYK nominations, commenting on a DYK nomination is on that ragged edge of is/is-not that a unforgiving admin could take as a violation of the terms... Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not making the nomination technically, and merely opining on a hypothetical one, but I get your point. Ahem, goodbye. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, if you want to take this nomination over, then feel free to undo my closure and add an explanatory note. BencherliteTalk 16:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, done now. I hope any transclusion needed is automatic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, Bonkers has managed to get himself blocked again. I had been wondering whether we should include a "DYKmake" template, which would give him credit for the nomination; now I'm wondering whether the nomination should be closed again. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I encountered that when I went through and worked the Prime Prep Academy DYK. The person who created the article (that I helped along to DYK status) was uncovered as a *puppet during the DYK process. I think leaving them off the DYK credit is a sensible proposition for the time being, but if they do manage to claw their way back, they could claim credit. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm hardly surprised, but I don't see that this affects this article or its DYK too much. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Excruciatingly tiny correction

[9] "Over collection" should read "overcollection" or maybe "over-collection". Note that in the article's lead it's "overharvesting" (not "over harvesting"). EEng (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I corrected that while editing another hook in that queue. Sorry, I didn't see this request until now or I would have said. Belle (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Finding older stubs

Some years ago, in September 2008 (see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_32#Competition) and May 2011 (see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_66#Competition_redux), I tried drumming up interest in buffing up old stubs for DYK as it occurred to me then (and does now) that the majority are still new articles (rather than 5x expanded). I was wondering...surely there ar still broad/notable articles out there that could be expanded - can folks maybe start listing a few here and see if others are interested in expanding? I'll go off and have a look (sounds of wikipages ruffling.....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add a category and churn up some possibilities below! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Geography

e.g. for us aussies, Adelaide River is a 98 word stub.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Halloweeny-type things

Thoricourt Castle - still haunted...still a stub...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bastille Day (i.e. French things for the 14th July)

Start with Category:Stub-Class France articles and go from there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Food

Great idea. Being British and having eaten a fair few of them in my time, I'm taking on the Prawn cocktail. Edwardx (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool! Started getting worried no-one watching the thread....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Now where is everyone else? Edwardx (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed to pull hook at Queue 4

Hi, I quote this post to Yoninah on his talk (he has been off wiki since I posted):

Hi Yoninah, thanks for the promotion of 1973 CECAFA Cup. However, I suspect this was an error, you commented on the nom that the review wasn't complete, and didn't close the discussion. It was added with this edit. As the nominator, you have my full blessing to take it out until the review is complete (and my QPQ). (As a note, I checked all the other items in that prep and they were promoted fine.)

Please pull the hook immediately. Thanks, Matty.007 10:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been an hour since you posted this, Matty, so I changed the section title a little here hoping an Admin will see this and act. Not sure how this made it into the Queue, since nothing in the nomination template indicates it was promoted. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks TRM, didn't want that to get through. Best, Matty.007 11:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What's especially odd about the CECAFA hook is that although it was placed in prep 4 (later promoted to queue 4), the template itself was never promoted. Also, a previous lead hook for that set, Typhoon Pat, was pulled from that prep because it wasn't approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, the hook was pulled but the credit wasn't, so the article talk and my talk both received a credit (I have removed both). Thanks, Matty.007 10:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

The nominator has requested that we move Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Oana to a picture spot. However, the only open prep area is Prep 1 (the next prep), and it's my understanding that two people pics should not appear one after another. Could I move the pic to Prep 1, and then wait for Prep 2 to open up so I can move it further? Or should I just move it to Prep 1 and let it be? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You could always rearrange the order so that the picture hook could be included and the one already there could be moved down to 3rd or 4th in the order. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The nom of that pic hook really wanted it too. Reverse the nom nd it can be moved to a later prep aerea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I returned Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Oana to the nom page, awaiting a picture slot. Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought it would be considered grabby to beg like this, but since it's apparently OK I'm gonna do it -- can't Template:Did you know nominations/Widener Library get a picture spot too? The image is a bit different, if that helps. EEng (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
<sniff><cry> EEng (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Berko Gleason?

I recently closed Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Berko Gleason after major issues had been pointed out at the nomination by 3family6 (at the time of me posting this note, the article looks like this) and left sitting for two weeks. The nominator, EEng, reverted this closure with the edit summary "Oh bullshit. This fell off my watchlist and I was unaware that anything had been done". This was followed by a statement which suggests to me that the nominator is singularly unaware of and/or indifferent towards basic Wikipedia policies: "the banners you added are not appropriate" (aforementioned banners being about an overreliance on primary references and a lack of footnotes). As I've had previous... ... let's say, unpalatable ... interactions with this nominator, could a third party look to see if

  1. The tags are appropriate/inappropriate
  2. The closure was correct/incorrect
  3. The revert was correct/incorrect

Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just from browsing the nom template and the article, I think the nominator believes in this passionately and will fight for this endlessly. No matter what DYK rules or "rule of thumb" is presented, the nominator is going to argue it. It's already more detail than most reviewers want to read. But let me add some items here to clarify:
  • So far, it does not meet minimum 5X readable prose on BLP source expansion. BLP was not unsourced, so does not qualify under the 2X tule. Expansion began Apr 28. The last edit before that was 5 Dec 2013 and had 3,190 readable prose. 3,190 X 5 = 15,950
  • Nominated on May 2, readable prose was 15,262. There were many unreferenced paragraphs.
  • Readable prose size is currently 14669.
  • 3family6 added a header template for multiple problems. The nominator removed the template, believing it was in appropriate.
  • There are still unsourced paragraphs and inline dispute tags.
This is not going to be a quick resolution. One of the problems is that DYK rules are sometimes worded vaguely. We already saw a similar battle play out on the Widener Library nomination. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is, coincidentally, by the same nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
And who's complaints remain valid. EE, in his ineffable fashion, was pointing out a clear truth: the nom process has turned into something that has very little to do with following any sort of agreed-upon DYK process, and has devolved into a process whereby any editor can kill the process by asking for anything. Lets see, in the nom area right now I see people holding up noms because of picture formatting issues, where a quote character should appear in a line, and a couple because of what appears to be a technical error in the DYK tool. And the result of these "improvements"? Noms that almost always stretch off the bottom of my screen, and I have a 30" screen. I don't know when the process changed from "fun and easy" to "every article must be perfect", but we have lost the entire plot along the way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you've been watching this page, but we had a period of around one month where it was pure hell for everyone here, nominations were pulled near daily with accusations flying. No-one wants to go through that again. Matty.007 14:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) Links please... first one, oicture formatting issues - did you see WT:MP today? People complain. Other people get fed up and try to avoid getting that many complaints (or did you miss the massive amount of criticism on this page in the past month?), which means that some of the less prepared nominations are getting picked over with a fine-toothed comb. Let us not kid ourselves: we both know that, if the Gleason article had been run in the state it was in when nominated, it would draw some very quick criticism and be removed from the main page (assuming it hadn't been removed from prep or the queue). I doubt it would have survived 30 minutes on the MP. The other contentious article mentioned above would have lasted a little longer, but I doubt it would have survived a full 12 hours on the MP in the state it was in when it met the length criteria.
We should not equate "fun" with "poorly prepared articles", just like we're not equating DYK articles with "perfect" articles. If one is familiar with general writing and policy, it shouldn't be too hard to meet the DYK criteria. Soeara Berbisa and Union Films (some of my recent articles) were fun to write, fairly quick to finish, yet also polished enough to not raise ire at WT:MP or WT:DYK. Kota Kinabalu City Mosque, in prep now, is likewise well prepared without being "perfect". It's short, yet gives a reasonable overview of the subject and is referenced adequately. It took me maybe half an hour to write.
Once people get in the habit of writing well and referencing thoroughly, there should be no problems during review or on the MP. Or would you rather we pass everything and let this page get filled with complaints and requests to completely dismantle DYK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I guess your experience is different than mine. My experience is that the DYK process is now impossible to satisfy at first attempt. No matter how carefully you write, someone will complain about something, often nothing to do with the DYK, and that will scupper the entire process unless you immediately make an edit. It doesn't matter if the complaint is valid or even correct, and god forbid you should dare to question the validity of the comment.
This has been my complaint all along. If there are things that are going to cause complaints or get hooks pulled, then make those things rules. Is a lack of a cite on every para really something that causes an article to be pulled? We're all happy with that and don't want to push back? Fine, let's modify D2 so its actually a rule. And then when someone complains about picture formatting, we can say "not a part of DYK" and move on.
But my real concern is, and always had been, that the process now rewards all the wrong things. Do you recall the article about Sweden's nuclear arms policy? The argument went on for page after page about the relevance of this or that citation. Yet it didn't address the fact that the article was absolutely pants in terms of unreadable prose. We're missing the forest for the trees, and our solution is always "more trees, we need MORE TREES!" Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
D2 is a rule. Matty.007 15:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but look at what D2 says:
The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. (underlining added)
Note the qualification rule of thumb i.e. "a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation". Unfortunately, as with so many things here in DYK-land, this seems to have been turned into "<BEEP!><BLOOP!>ATTENTION HUMANS! EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END WITH A CITATION! NO PRIMARY SOURCES! THE ANCIENT WISE ONES HAVE DECREED IT! <BEEP!><BLOOP!>EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END WITH A CITATION! NO PRIMARY SOURCES! <BEEP!><BLOOP!>EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END WITH A CITATION! NO PRIMARY SOURCES! <BZZZZ!> DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!" EEng (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
To be honset that could work both ways. An article could have one citation in a paragraph and it still not be enough, it is not by default saying either way. Thanks, Matty.007 16:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but let me be clear on what I'm saying: statements like D2's "one per paragraph" encourage mindless pattern-matching instead of actual checking. I keep hearing talk of "underreferenced" articles, and "not enough" citations, as if what's required is a sufficiently high "citation density". But it is not. What's required is for everything to be appropriately cited (with perhaps allowance for few cite-neededs on uncontentious points)? That's all that matters, whether that turns out to be 10, or zero, cites in a given paragraph. And yes, a paragraph can have zero cites -- if two or more paragraphs rely on the same source, a single callout at the end is fine. If that weren't true, then every single paragraph would have to end in a cite callout.
If reviews aren't catching embarrassing errors which then reach the main page, maybe its because reviewer attention has been diffused over a lot of trivial stuff, some of it out of left field. No one's saying we shouldn't be doing careful reviews -- we're just saying they should be careful reviews focused on what DYK requires. EEng (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "And yes, a paragraph can have zero cites -- if two or more paragraphs rely on the same source, a single callout at the end is fine. If that weren't true, then every single paragraph would have to end in a cite callout." - Although this is true per WP:V, you'll be hard pressed to find DYK detractors who will accept that. The "rule of thumb" is just that: a basic, easy to remember rule which shows what general consensus at DYK is. However, in practice (and this is where DYKSG is hopelessly out of date) anything less than that proscribed by the rule of thumb is likely to draw complaints, if not from reviewers, than the wider community. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, sometimes people fail to see the forest for the trees. In several recent nominations this has happened (that Ukranian politician...). However, my 600 or so self-nominations have been, for the most part, pleasurable. Yes, sometimes there are issues that are pointed out (my first contentious nomination was a quintuple nomination for Badai Pasti Berlalu and related topics, and that was held up for a week or so because an editor found the hook not interesting enough; sadly that was before individual nomination subpages were used, so I can't give a link). However, my experience is that most reviewers usually have a point. Sometimes their point may be mistaken or against the rules (say, requiring footnotes in a plot summary of an extant work), but that doesn't mean they are exercising bad faith or knowingly asking for something which is not part of the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder into which category fall the claims that...

  • a secondary source is needed for a statement of the content of a research paper, or
  • there can't be any cite-needed tags, or
  • there must be a citation in every paragraph or
  • physics articles are immune to UNDUE or POV problems,

(all things you said at [10]) or claiming that DYK standards aren't met

  • if some image doesn't conform to "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates", or
  • because an article "violates" your interpretation that "Template:Infobox library implies that thumbnails should not be used by including a specific 'caption' parameter"

(all things you said at [Template:Did you know nominations/Widener Library]).

Do you honestly not see why people feel they're being run through a series of arbitrary mazes according to reviewer whim? EEng (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

    • "Physics articles are immune to UNDUE or POV problems"? If that is the quality of your paraphrasing, then none of the articles you write should be passed. How the fuck does "comparing her with Oppenheimer (a physicist) is like comparing apples and oranges. Firstly, in the humanities, a theory can be challenged by another mainstream theory without being considered entirely wrong by experts in the field (just look at the plethora of literary theories out there that are still in use), whereas (AFAIK) in physics this is not true. Secondly, the percentage is completely skewed. Give or take 60% of the content in Gleason's article versus what, 5% in Oppenheimer's article?" paraphrase to "physics articles are immune to UNDUE or POV problems". If that is the level of your reading comprehension, the articles should be failed right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, give me a direct quotation of where I said "a secondary source is needed for a statement of the content of a research paper". To the best of my recollection, I've said (twice so far) that the section should have some secondary sources to ensure it is balanced (i.e. adheres to NPOV, etc.), not that the contents of her research papers should all be cited to a secondary source.
    • You'll find that the middle two ("there must be a citation in every paragraph" and "there can't be any cite-needed tags") have wide support within the DYK community, partially as a result of the month of everyday complaints in April/May.
    • Regarding the images: those were recommendations, not part of the rules. The nomination was being held up because of the quality of the prose that you dumped from your footnotes to reach 5x expansion. I could have phrased that more explicitly, or simply changed it myself, but considering how contentious the nomination was I thought doing so would be unnecessarily provocative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on self-appointed DYK gatekeepers devoid of judgment

The last hook in the set, Jack and Ed Biddle, has several unresolved tags in the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from Prep area.The issues came up on the nomination template, and the nominator balked at cleaning them up. Same nominator as above for Jean Berko Gleason and Widener Library, both of which carry dispute tags. The reviewer who approved this stated, There are two question templates remaining ("When" and "Clarification needed") in order to encourage further editing, but that is OK for a DYK. Yet, the Reviewing guide specifically states Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
...which would make some kind of sense if [when?] and [clarification needed] were "dispute" templates. At long last, what is wrong with you people? Can't you see the difference between "Maybe someone else can locate this minor bit of information I couldn't?" and "Hey, wait! That's not true!" The reason blatantly embarrassing DYK material appears on the main page is that there are so many editors here devoid of judgment as to what's a "problem", so that time is wasted worrying about things that are not just not a problem, but even advantageous -- a DYK with a few minor tags may draw new editors into the project. EEng (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I took a look at Category:Inline dispute templates, Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, Template:When, [[11]], and "when" and "clarify" tags ARE NOT dispute tags.--¿3family6 contribs 00:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Just want to mention that I've clicked Thank on both Yoninah's and Maile's post just above, in appreciation of their so perfectly illustrating, in such an exquisitely timely manner, exactly the very serious problems discussed in the earlier part of this thread. Thanks, guys (or gals) for making the case for everyone disgusted with DYK! EEng (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have an idea. Since your ideas are perfect and never wrong, and reviewers are just making up bullshit to slow you down, how about we just all of your articles through DYK without any review? Of course, you would be then personally responsible for facing any and all criticism which results from your articles being considered under par by the general community (i.e. outside of DYK reviewers). Deal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Except I never said my ideas were perfect and never wrong. I said that the actions of editors with poor judgment have somehow become precedent and common practice, and as a result not just my time, but the time of literally thousands of other editors, is being wasted to no purpose. Nor did I say reviewers were just making up bullshit to slow others down, merely that that was the effect, and I never questioned anyone GF.
So I have a better idea. Instead if attacking things I didn't say, why don't you defend some of the things you did say. Above I bullet-listed, with links, a half-dozen knee-slappers your random-requirement generator has emitted in the last few days. Go on... take one of them and show either that (a) you didn't assert it, or (b) that it is, in fact, a valid DYK objection. Go on. I dare you. I'm particularly looking forward to your explaining how "Image isn't in the right section of the article" is a DYK objection. EEng (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Try to reread your reply to my comments about the prose in the library article, about how it needed some serious polishing. Do you not see how your reply implies that you cannot be incorrect in ... utterly demolishing ... the article, simply to meet the length criterion? You give off the impression of one who does not care about article quality, but a simple fucking DYK question mark on your user page. Every single objection to articles you write draws wrath, and when someone in good faith tries to help you polish the article, they are told they are implying insane rules and being "mindless".
Furthermore, you seem utterly incapable of understanding how indicating something is against the MOS is not necessarily stating that it must be fixed to be presented in DYK. The main issue I had with the library article, and the one that was holding the article back, was the prose, which read like absolute shit after you decided to "meet the requirements of the mindless script" by simply removing the EFN template tags. The image issues were an attempt to educate you - a task which increasingly appears to be impossible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 and EEng please be a bit more civilized on this talk page.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I will attempt to be more polite in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492 In Indonesia it's still morning and if you let anger overpower you then I'm afraid you might lose a precious and productive day.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps... though it's a rather boring day so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the explanatory footnotes into the main text because you refused to count them as prose otherwise. That decidedly impaired readability, but since DYK values mindless character counts over quality, you shouldn't be surprised when editors attend to the former at the expense of the latter. After the character-counting exercise was over I planned to move the notes back where they belong.

Not every objection draws wrath -- only the absurdly stupid ones, such as yours given in the bullet-list above. I note that you have ignored my challenge to substantiate any of those ridiculous assertions. EEng (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • "Since DYK values mindless character counts over quality"... and yet you insist on getting the DYK question mark. Why? I've already replied to your points. If you have not seen the replies, that is not my fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what a DYK question mark is. And no, you haven't replied to any of my points in the bullet-list above. How about a diff? Like I said before, go on, I dare you. EEng (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: and @EEng: - Is any of this discussion relevant to the Jack and Ed Biddle nomination? If not, can you please take it to your talk pages? It just gets difficult to follow the discussion when it's full of tangents and rabbit trails (this is me speaking as someone prone to going down rabbit trails). Thanks.--¿3family6 contribs 14:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's the interesting thing. Two editors pulled an article for an invalid reason. You pointed out that it's invalid. I pointed out (perhaps with poor timing) that this beautifully illustrates exactly what we've been talking about for days now -- that the DYK rules are routinely misinterpreted according to the whims of individual reviewers. Crisco, instead of just saying, "Hmmmm... maybe you've got a point. I can sure see why you'd be upset by being jerked around like this", emits more unintelligible doubletalk.

However, I have faith that, in good time, sanity will prevail on this nom as it has before, and someone will restore the article's approval. EEng (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No opinion so far on whether the hook should have been pulled, but the article needs a thorough check for accuracy. Examples: the article states that "Jack died at 7:35 am on February 1", but the linked source gives 7:35 PM instead; and in the preceding sentence, the article states "Ed had sustained seventeen gunshot wounds (two self-inflicted), and Jack three (one self-inflicted).", but the source given states the exact opposite, starting "Jack was shot by the troopers fifteen times"... I hope I stumbled upon the two worst sentences by accident, but it doesn't bode well for the quality of the article. Fram (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done a fact-check, and fixed the two issues brought up by Fram. I did not see any other errors, but I might have missed something.--¿3family6 contribs 14:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
In the same section, there is "Thousands showed up to their viewing, [...] some wanting to see their famously handsome faces.", which second part is not in the sources given. Next sentence, "a quiet service", doesn't seem to be in the sources given either. And you added a stray "e" at the end of the section, I think. All this from just one short section. Fram (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Those aren't exactly errors, but rather unattributed claims (other than that stray "e" - I think that might be a bug, as stray "e"s also show up sometimes under Visual Editor). I'll see what I can do later today.--¿3family6 contribs 15:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
See? This is exactly the sort of thing which shouldn't be going on. Poor 3family had the misfortune to choose this harmless-looking article for review, and through a series of silly turns of events he's now expected to check everything. It's OK that the Biddles' handsome faces aren't sourced. Do you think the expanding editor (who, I'm happy to say, isn't here to witness this mishegas) made it up? And even if you suspect that's possible, is it the sort of thing (e.g. BLP) we really should be worrying about at this stage? We should see a DYK appearance on main page as an opportunity to attract a new editor interested enough in the subject to check all this stuff -- and then take the article even further. Instead, poor 3family, who probably wishes he was doing something else, is made to feel guilty enough that he has to go check everything -- and then as soon as the article gets a pass he'll be so sick of the thing he'll never want to see it again. Thus are the consequences of the dysfunctional DYK process as it now operates. EEng (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, EEng, but if I was totally fed up with this I would have bailed. Tomorrow I'll revise those sentences.--¿3family6 contribs 02:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you were totally fed up yet, just that you will be by the time this is over. Your continued good humor is appreciated. EEng (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I made no claims that 3family6 needed to correct anything, I would have expected the nominator to make sure that the article was correct but I know that that expectation isn't universally shared. 3family6 is correct though that the two things I said were incorrect may simply be unattributed instead of wrong, although none of the sources in the article support the statements. Do I think, like EEng questions, that the editor made it up? That's obviously a strawman argument. It may be correct but unsourced, it may be an error, a misinterpretation by the editor, or it may in the worst case be made up. The lasst possibility is the least likely (although I have seen it happen, even long established editors have been banned for creating hoaxes). But yes, we should be worrying about putting articles on the main page which are riddled with incorrect statements (note that both the first two errors, and the two dubious claims we are discussing now, are all in one section of a few lines long only; if the remainder of the article is similar, it really is full of errors). DYK articles don't need to be perfect, but what is there needs to be correct. Fram (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
So you "would have expected the nominator to make sure that the article is correct"? Um... where in the DYK procedure is that? If some of the sources are offline, is the nominator supposed to go to the library to look them up? If the nominator does that, what exactly is the reviewer responsible for? These are not strawmen. I'm serious. You seem to be talking about a DYK process completely different from the one actually operating. EEng (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"You seem to be talking about a DYK process completely different from the one actually operating." Yes, that's why we have so many problematic and incorrect hooks and articles passing through DYK. Fram (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit rushed. What I meant to say (though what I actually did say is true as well) is that you seem to be describing a DYK process completely different from this one which current procedures call for. Please pretend I said that in the first place and respond to that. EEng (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on editors mistakenly believing DYKs are thoroughly fact-checked

First let me say, again, that while I stubbed the article long ago, I didn't do the recent expansion. Someone else did that, after which I did a heavy copyedit and then nominated. Checking the diffs it looks like somewhere in there I changed PM to AM. The reversal of who got how many wounds was by the expanding editor.

But so what??? Where in the DYK process was every point supposed to be checked against the references? Not even GA calls for that. Of course errors exist, and that's OK, because DYK is our newest content, not our best content. As I've said over and over, if DYK was touted frankly as "new content -- probably needs improvement -- come help!" then there would be nothing to be embarrassed about. Instead this charade of tag-free articles presents content as final which almost certainly needs work beneath its shiny, pretend-perfect surface. That's embarrassing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm grieved that I was the source of the AM/PM mixup, and articles into which I put substantial work are carefully fact-checked. But DYK isn't supposed to be, and shouldn't try to be, a process that guarantees that (with special attention to BLPs of course). In fact, if cite-needed, clarify, and similar tags were not treated here as badges of shame -- if editors were allowed to be frank about their uncertainty or confusion on a given point, without fearing to anger the judgment-devoid DYK gatekeepers -- then (I predict) there would be fewer errors, caught sooner.

The idiotic 5-day rule, which requires articles to go from nothing to tag-free-perfect in no time flat, doesn't help either.

So if someone wants to go through this article carefully checking every fact, knock yourself out. But that has nothing to do with why the article was pulled, and is irrelevant to the seriously dysfunctional DYK process that rewards all the wrong things: slapdash articles that pretend to be perfect.

EEng (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe DYK articles are thoroughly fact-checked, quite the contrary actually. I do believe that articles with too many obvious errors (and these two really aren't the only ones in the article) shouldn't be featured on the main page. Fram (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
They're not "obvious" until someone checks against the sources, which is not expected, in general, in a DYK review. Nor are they the sort of "red flags" to which the reviewer would be expected to give special attention -- not a BLP fact, not anything that should have caught the reviewer's eye as suspicious, not the kind of thing known to be frequently subject to error, not ... Thus while every error is worth correcting once found, these minor points about time of death and # of wounds aren't errors WP should feel embarrassed about for not having been found yet in a new article, even one linked from the main page.
If you disagree with that last statement, then you need to explain what in DYK procedure you think should be changed to catch such errors.

In advance I'll say, however, that I don't think you're going to have an answer for that, since the only conceivable answer would be that someone is supposed to do an FA-level point-by-point fact check, and that's certainly not going to happen. Thus again we return to my tired point that if we were frank, in presenting DYKs, that this is new content we openly are inviting help improving, there would be nothing to be embarrassed about.

EEng (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"They're not "obvious" until someone checks against the sources, which is not expected, in general, in a DYK review." Well that says it all perfectly for me. And the point of the review actually is? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion on that. DYK procedures call for checking that the hook is sourced, that there are no bare URLs, and other stuff like that. Nothing about checking all the facts against sources. Now, whether or not checking facts against sources ought to be required is something that can be discussed, but the discussion never gets going because we seem perpetually stuck at the fact that some people seem to expect that to happen magically, without the procedures calling for it. EEng (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Admin still needed; only half an hour before the next (as-yet-unfilled) queue needs to be promoted. All four prep sets are full and available for promotion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_104&oldid=1143403349"