For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
DiscussionWT:DYK
RulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
StatsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk 

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 7 1
August 13 1
August 17 1
August 28 1
August 31 1
September 5 1
September 6 1
September 12 1
September 14 1 1
September 15 1 1
September 17 2 2
September 18 2
September 19 1
September 20 2 1
September 22 1
September 23 2 1
September 24 1 1
September 25 3 1
September 26 1
September 27 4 2
September 28 2 1
September 29 2 1
October 1 2 2
October 2 6 3
October 3 6 4
October 4 4 2
October 5 5 2
October 6 3 2
October 7 6 4
October 8 10 6
October 9 5 2
October 10 6 1
October 11 6 3
October 12 5 4
October 13 3 2
October 14 9 6
October 15 5 3
October 16 13 9
October 17 12 10
October 18 8 4
October 19 6 6
October 20 8 8
October 21 6 3
October 22 12 8
October 23 7 3
October 24 8 5
October 25 11 9
October 26 11 9
October 27 8 4
October 28 8 7
October 29 8 6
October 30 12 10
October 31 10 4
November 1 10 8
November 2 9 6
November 3 11 8
November 4 11 5
November 5 16 6
November 6 8 5
November 7 9 5
November 8 11 2
November 9 9 3
November 10 7 1
November 11 6 2
November 12 3 1
November 13 3 2
November 14 4
November 15 2
Total 381 217
Last updated 09:22, 15 November 2018 UTC
Current time is 09:39, 15 November 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

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

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

To nominate an article

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
I.
Create the nomination subpage.

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

    Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

    To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

    • Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
    • Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
    • The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
    • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

      Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

      If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
    • Save the page.

    If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

    Frequently asked questions

    Backlogged?

    This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

    Where is my hook?

    If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

    If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

    Search archived DYK nomination discussions

    Instructions for other editors

    How to promote an accepted hook

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

    How to remove a rejected hook

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

    How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

    • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
    • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
      • View the edit history for that page
      • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
      • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
    • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
    • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at
      • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

      Nominations

      Older nominations

      Articles created/expanded on August 7

      Lula Mysz-Gmeiner

      Lula Mysz-Gmeiner
      Lula Mysz-Gmeiner

      Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol question.svg New, long enough, within policy (the PD copyright templating needed a bit of supplementing at Commons), QPQ done. The red links for two pianists are acceptable for DYK. But the hook should be changed from plural "Lieder" to singular "Lied", since that's what the Meier source says. Also, the redirect from double-s Transsylvania is not so nice. I propose ALT1:
      This would be ready with ALT1. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC) OK with ALT1? Boud (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the review and the changes to the commons! - While ALT1 is correct, it misses that several composers dedicated Lieder (plural) to her which she often premiered, - it sounds like exactly one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      ps: {{ill}} links are no red links, and are accepted on any level of Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      For the plural: "Für ihre Liederabende arbeitete Lula Mysz-Gmeiner untter anderem mit Max Reger, Franz Schreker, Eduard Behm, Emil Mattiesen und Richard Strauss zusammen. Ersterer widmete ihr genau wie Emil Mattiesen mehrere Lieder. Lula Mysz-Gmeiner sang mehrere Uraufführungen ..." - So Reger and Matthiessen dedicated several songs to her, and she sang several premieres. - It happens that a different singer than the dedicatee sings the premiere, but I'd say rarely. To be safe we could say:
      --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      • You're right that the red links are inter-language links - I didn't mean to say they're not normally accepted, but rather that DYK, GA, FA require successively higher standards, and I gave a link to WP:DYKNOT which says that red links are fine in DYK - which presumably means that tl:ill, which are a good step better than red links, are even more acceptable. :) Boud (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      Regarding the assumption that a a dedicatee sings a premiere, or even that she necessarily sings a song dedicated to her: even though this is a reasonable educated guess, odd things do sometimes happen (e.g. a singer might suddenly die before s/he gets a chance to sing the song; might have a personal crisis or political disagreement with the composer and refuse to sing the songs). Maybe you can point to a specific place in Meier that justifies ALT2, but for the moment I propose ALT3. I removed "and others" because this is bit vague - WP:WEASEL doesn't state this particular example, though the WP:WHATPLACE subsection comes close in terms of what rather than who. I don't think putting a tl:ill would look good in the DYK hook, so including Emil Mattiesen there does not seem like a good option to me.
      How about ALT3? Adding the reasonable (but AFAIK not strictly sourced as a fact) expectation that she sung all of the Lieder dedicated to her is not really likely to convince more people to read and/or edit the article... Boud (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      Independently, any objections to removing ", before 1904" from the figure caption? It's sourced, but it sounds a bit odd. There's no default expectation to show photos of deceased people as they were in their oldest age prior to dying, even if that seems to be common (e.g. Einstein). Boud (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      ALT3 is fine with me, I just didn't want to single out Reger as he was "my topic" in 2016. I say it's fine also to receive no more guideline abbreviations ;) - I thought that any date in the caption would be better than no date, but let the style of dress and hair say so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol confirmed.svg Guideline abbreviations avoid having to re-explain what other people have already explained quite nicely and more carefully :). Anyway, good to go with consensus on ALT3. Boud (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg Returned to prep for further consideration of hook, with particular reference to the term "lieder". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      I am not sure I understand what you mean by "term lieder". Every now and then, we use "art songs", but "lieder" is more specific for the German ones, as mélodies is for the French. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol voting keep.svg I have changed the wording in the article and as long as you are happy with that change, ALT3 can be used. I will leave someone else to promote the hook, and they can choose whether to use the image or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      I am happy with the change, thank for a constructive solution. If I had more time, I'd do the same for Strauss, and Matthiesen ... - She must have been quite extraordinary to have inspired so many creative minds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      Did you read the nomination, "She must have been quite extraordinary to have inspired so many creative minds."? Did you see that this was a compromise? A cheap hook for all could be that she was the teacher and mother-in-law of the Nazi dream tenor, another, quirky, that she trained Elisabeth Schwarzkopf wrong, -- but I am here to say something about her singing. Please let me. - On our national holiday, and regular concert day, with company and with a cold, thinking of the amiable dwellings ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      What about a hook based on the approved hook, but focusing only on one or the other? Say, instead of mentioning both Alto Rhapsody and the Lieder, why not a hook only focusing on Alto Rhapsody or only focusing on Reger's Lieder for her? But honestly I still have doubts if the first suggestion could work as the importance of Alto Rhapsody isn't immediately clear to non-classical music fans. Or perhaps, as you mentioned, maybe a hook about Mysz-Gmeiner's links to her students might work as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      We need Lieder, and better many composers than only one, which was a compromise. The well-known Alto Rhapsody with the well-known Philharmonic was meant to add something people are more familiar with, but should not be the only thing said about her who was known for Lieder internationally. - Off to singing, which me luck with my slightly damaged alto voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      Still with a head full of Brahms, new day. Please help me. I have little problem finding one cute thing about a short composition, but when it comes to the rich life of a creative person, I feel that one cute things is enough. No link to a student, please, it's distracting. I didn't even want a link to a specific composer. She inspired several of her contemporaries to write lieder for her, and to accompany her in performance, and I know no other person about whom that could be said. Can you word it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      ps: if possible, still mentioning Transsylvania and teaching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      It's been that long because it was pulled from prep but not returned to the noms page, until I noticed and did it. Last thing was asking YOU for help. I can't look right now. How can we say that she was a great lieder singer who worked with composers such as Max Reger and Richard Strauss - the big names at the time! - who wrote for her and accompanied her, - in 200 chars? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

      Articles created/expanded on August 17

      Georg Cantor's first set theory article

      Georg Cantor, c. 1870.
      Georg Cantor, c. 1870.
      • ... that some mathematicians have disagreed about whether Georg Cantor's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers is constructive or merely existential?

      Proof is constructive: Dasgupta 2014, p. 107; Sheppard 2014, pp. 131–132. Proof is non-constructive: Jarvis 2014, p. 18; Chowdhary 2015, p. 19; Stewart 2015, p. 285; Stewart & Tall 2015, p. 333.

      Created/expanded by RJGray (talk) and Michael Hardy (talk). Nominated by Michael Hardy (talk) at 04:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC).

      • Not a review, but you should link and boldface the article in the hook. Catrìona (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg Recently promoted GA article, so clearly meets the article criteria. Original hook is rather technical; I provided a substitute. The QPQ check didn't turn up a review by the nominator - please provide a link to a review. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
      @RockMagnetist: I did this review. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol confirmed.svg On further investigation, it appears that the nominator, despite over 200,000 edits, has never nominated a DYK article before. Welcome to DYK, Michael Hardy! RockMagnetist(talk) 19:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg I formatted the hook to add "(pictured)". However, there is number confusion between "a transcendental number" and "they" — should the end of the hook be "or merely proves it exists"? Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
      I'm not the submitter of this DYK, but in my opinion the meaning would be conveyed by changing the last two words of the hook. You could change "..they exist" to "..such numbers exist". EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
      @EdJohnston: thanks, I like that. Waiting for the nominator to weigh in... Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Yoninah: @EdJohnston: The singular in "how to construct a transcendental number" is appropriate since in this context one would construct them one at a time, and the plural is appropriate in "they exist" since the proof shows that many transcendental numbers exist, not just one. Whether it says "they exist" or "such numbers exist" doesn't seem immensely important to me, since the meaning of "they" seems clear from the context. I suppose erring on the side of caution one should be explicit and say "such numbers exist." Michael Hardy (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Restoring tick per RockMagnetist's review. Wait a minute — the review didn't confirm that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Here is a full review: GA approved. New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Images in article and hook are freely licensed. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits.
      • Tweaked hook wording:
      • ALT1a: ... that mathematicians do not agree on whether a proof in Georg Cantor's (pictured) first set theory article actually shows how to construct a transcendental number, or merely proves that such numbers exist?
      • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Pulling from prep, with due apologies. @RJGray, Michael Hardy, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: The hook might be okay, but the article is not sufficiently referenced. Indeed, I'm a little confused about how it passed the GA review, because though it's well written and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy, the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" is completely unreferenced. Moreover, this raises neutrality issues, because the article seems to take the view that the proof is a constructive proof ("Some mathematicians have attempted to correct this misunderstanding of Cantor's work.") but this statement depends on the previous section, which, as I said, is not adequately referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This was stuck in limbo as it was not re-listed. Needs a new reviewer to address concern(s) raised. Alex Shih (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
        @Alex Shih: Apologies for not relisting it, but really this doesn't need a reviewer, it needs work from the creator/nominator. If the sourcing issues were fixed I'd put this back into prep myself. Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Alex Shih: By the "creator" do you mean those who created the page, as opposed to the DYK hook? By "nominator", do you mean the person who nominated it for DYK? (That's me.) By "creator/nominator", do you mean the creator _or_ the nominator? Or do you mean it needs both? An earlier posting to my talk page left me with an impression that the issues had already been addressed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Michael Hardy: I think you meant to ping me, rather than Alex. I meant that someone needs to address the sourcing issues I have raised immediately above Alex Shih's comment. The article creator and you are the people best placed to do this, and the people who have an interest in fixing the issue so that the DYK nomination may move forward. This is entirely separate from the message Yoninah left you nine days ago; these are issues I raised two days previously. Vanamonde (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: ok, I think that point is becoming clear. Just to be clear about something else: I am the original article creator, although by now RJGray is to a large extent also the creator. He knows more about the sources and history than I do. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: Concerning the sourcing issue about which you state: "Indeed, I'm a little confused about how it passed the GA review, because though it's well written and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy, the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" is completely unreferenced." In the GA Review, the issue of references for derivations and examples did come up with respect to the section "The Proofs". This issue is the same as the one you are raising for the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" (in this half of the section, I am comparing the derivations in two different proofs). Here is how I handled the issue during the GA Review (next 2 paragraphs I wrote for the GA Review):
      Concerning "The proofs": My approach was to stay within the guidelines of WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements whose first paragraph states:
      "Wikipedia is neither a textbook nor a journal. Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. This is standard practice in journals, and does not make any claim of novelty.[1] In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible – in fact, encouraged – provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred. Furthermore, copying extensively from a source with only minor modifications is not normally permitted by copyright law, unless the source has a free license."
      After receiving my response, the GA reviewer dropped this issue from his list of issues. --RJGray (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
      I don't know about that, RJGray. It's fine to simplify a proof, but even so you should cite the original. At this point, a reader who wishes to know where that proof came from has no way to find it, which is the basic purpose of WP:V. I'm not saying you should cite every sentence, but you should cite the proof. You can add explanatory footnotes with the source if required. Vanamonde (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

      What is the current status of this thing? Is it in a queue to appear under "Did you know . . . ?" on the main page? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

      @Michael Hardy: No, it is not. As I said above, the article needs to have references for all the proofs, to comply with our policy on verifiability. Once the required references have been added, I will place this in a queue. Vanamonde (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93:I have supplied the references for the proofs. Because Cantor was writing a research article for researchers, he left out simple proofs. To handle this, I did the same as I had done earlier on the proof of his uncountability theorem. I point out that he did not supply a proof and then provided a proof for Wikipedia readers. Of course, I do supply a reference to where he states the result that he does not bother proving. --RJGray (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: Okay, I've looked at your changes. They are an improvement, but they do not entirely address my concern. My point is fairly simple; Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication. We collate information; we do not provide new information. As such, if we are presenting a proof, it must be based on a proof published in a reliable source elsewhere. We cannot publish our own proofs, even if the editor writing said proof is quite capable of doing so without error. It is possible that Wikiproject Mathematics sees this differently, in which case I'd like to see a link to that, but I cannot see how WP:V can be satisfied any other way. Please don't take this personally; this sort of mixup often occurs when content written and reviewed by editors familiar with a specific topic is brought to wider scrutiny. If you disagree with this, please feel free to request further feedback at WT:DYK. Also, since Michael Hardy has been blocked indefinitely, I'm afraid this falls entirely on your shoulders at the moment. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your feedback. Don't worry about me taking it personally. I like to get things right and I don't mind differences of opinion—I've handled them before. In fact, one of the pleasurable things about Wikipedia is that differences of opinion are handled with respect. Unfortunately, there are too many websites where this isn't true.
      I hope you are not in a rush to settle this issue. Thanks for mentioning the Wikiproject Mathematics site. I plan to bring up the issue there after researching it a bit. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time last week to devote to studying the relevant Wikipedia policies.
      This issue is important for me to because I suspect it will occur in the future. I tend to work in history of mathematics and may be faced again with the fact that research mathematicians tend to leave out simple derivations or proofs when communicating with their fellow research mathematicians via articles and letters. The only reason that I provided my own simple derivations was because Cantor left out two: one in his article and the other in a letter to Dedekind. I could follow Cantor and skip the derivations. However, because Wikipedia appeals to a wide audience, I wanted to make sure readers had a complete proof rather than expecting them to finish it. --RJGray (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: I am not in a hurry, though we should try to keep it to a reasonable schedule to be fair to the DYK process. Thanks for not taking it personally. Your position about wanting readers to have a complete proof is quite reasonable, and I'm certainly not suggesting that your derivation is wrong, only that it wouldn't be acceptable on its own even if it were entirely correct, without backing from a reliable source. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: If I compute 5283 × 6117 and get 32,316,111, it may be that no "reliable source" can be cited for the value of the product of those two numbers. But the technique is taught in elementary school. Something similar applies in many cases to routine algebraic derivations in Wikipedia articles. The is then the question of where to draw the line between that sort of thing and original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Michael Hardy: I would not ask for a source for routine arithmetic, per WP:CALC. However, I would draw the line for requiring reliable sources somewhere between a single-step computation that anyone with access to the internet is capable of performing on their device, and Georg Cantor's theorems. I firmly believe those require a source, and that presenting an editor's own derivation isn't enough. If you disagree, I suggest you invite comments from other editors at WT:DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your patience. Even though I haven't changed my opinion that sources are not needed in this case, I decided that finding sources would be a good challenge of my knowledge of the literature. It took a bit of work but I suceeded. I have updated the Wikipedia article.
      The source I found for my proof of the existence of transcendental numbers is Perron's book, which is in German and has not been translated. However, in my research on Wikipedia policies, I learned how to handle this: I've put the German proof and my translation of it in a note (see WP:V#Quoting). The source I found for my proof of Cantor's uncountability theorem is the article "Georg Cantor and Transcendental Numbers".
      I must say that I am happier having the sources than not having them—I like to saturate Wikipedia articles with citations. I regard citations as doorways to deeper knowledge of a subject.
      However, I think that Wikipedia's verifiability policy of citations and reliable sources can be characterized as "passive verifiability". By this I mean that the citations mostly sit there passively with few people actively looking many of them up. Consider my article with its 63 references with one reference containing 6 citations. How many citations will the typical reader of an article look up? Probably far fewer than 63. On the positive side, the citations are available if issues come up.
      Now consider an article's mathematical proofs. Proofs actively engage readers who think through them and decide if they are correct or not. And if they aren't correct, they can fix them. So proofs are an example of "active verifiability". I always read mathematical proofs carefully and when I find one that is inaccurate or not clear, I rewrite it. So the accuracy of a mathematical proof depends not just on the person who initially writes it. Its verifiability is increased by everyone who reads it, thinks about it, and improves it.
      On the other hand, I seldom look up the citations of a Wikipedia article unless I'm interested in reading further on the subject. I know it's hard work checking sources—the last thing I do before posting an article I wrote is to check all my citations for accuracy.
      Another weakness of Wikipedia's verifiability policy is that reliable sources may have errors. The section "The disagreement about Cantor's existence proof" gives examples. In fact, the books asserting that Cantor's existence proof is non-constructive outnumber the books asserting asserting his proof is constructive.
      I wish to thank you for suggesting your improvement. This article has now benefited from two GA reviews (it failed the first one but that motivated me to do a second rewrite of the article) and one DYK review. —RJGray (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: Thanks for the sources. Unless I'm missing something, though, the "first theorem" still doesn't have citations. Also: I'm understanding, from what you said above, that you're using the same source for all of the second theorem (footnote A). If this is the case, please duplicate it (you can just copy the footnote) at the end of all of the relevant paragraphs; else this is going to run into trouble again when it's in prep. In general, even if you're using the same source for multiple paragraphs, duplicate it at the end of each paragraph. As to your other points, I agree in theory, but the fact is that even though I have more mathematical education than probably 99% of the world's population, I would miss most errors in a proof such as this one; which is why we need the refs, even if they aren't followed up on. Vanamonde (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      (GA reviewer here and I've been lurking for a few days.) Per WP:CITEDENSE, there's no "one citation per paragraph" rule on Wikipedia. Repeating a citation every paragraph is an optional stylistic choice. If a user would remove this from the DYK queue for that reason then they would be in the wrong. As for the "first theorem" section, if my memory is correct then I recall that it's a summary of parts of the Cantor article, vacuously sourced to that article, along with a bit of WP:SCG/WP:CALC. (Per WP:MINREF it didn't need an inline citation... but the fact you claim it does counts as a "challenge" and actually means it now does, somewhat bizarrely.) Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Bilorv: Well, in my opinion articles should always have a minimum of one citation per paragraph, but in any case this is actually codified as a DYK rule (supplementary rule D2, if you're interested). In any case, if parts are based on the George Cantor article, then that needs to be fixed. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and if that article is in such good shape, then it should be easy enough to copy references over. Vanamonde (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      To clarify, when I said "vacuously sourced to that article", I meant "vacuously sourced to the primary source of Cantor's paper", not some other Wikipedia article. Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      That's even easier, then: just add that as a source, with an explanatory footnote if necessary, at the end of every paragraphs that's taken from it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93 and Bilorv: I don't want to bother with the question of whether or not I need references in the subsections "First theorem" and "Second theorem". I was surprised that I didn't put them in! I like to encourage my readers to read Cantor's original article. One way I do this is to supply references to his article and to a translation of his article whether they are needed or not. So I added them.
      Concerning the DYK supplementary rule D2. This rule states: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." According to Rule of thumb: "The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation." If it was a rigid rule that required one citation per paragraph, I've already came up with two problems such a rigid requirement can create:
      (1) Let's say I had an article that I planned to nominate for DYK and one paragraph of my article had no citation but the following paragraph had more than one. Then I might change my paragraphing so the first paragraph would have one citation. Of course, this could negatively affect the writing quality.
      (2) Consider the Cantor article. The first paragraph of Georg Cantor's first set theory article#Example of Cantor's construction is a description of a simple example that I made up to illustrate how Cantor's construction works. I am permitted to have such an example by WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements: "Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. … In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible …" Since I'm providing the example it has no reference. So if rule D2 was rigid, I'd have to decide which was most important: A "Did you know" or an example that helped my readers.
      By the way, I have 67 references in 49 paragraphs, which is 1.37 refs/paragraph. So my article is averaging 37% more refs per paragraph than an article that only contains one ref per paragraph. ≈—RJGray (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: I'm a bit busy at the moment so please forgive the short response. First off, right now I'm only seeing a citation for theorem two. Second, the problems with writing style and structure are easily addressed by duplicating references. I feel like I am somehow not getting this point across, but it's very simple, and it addresses your concern entirely. If multiple paragraphs are sourced to page 2 of Cantor's paper, then you just cite page 2 of Cantor's paper after each of those paragraphs. Why is this proving so difficult? Vanamonde (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: Sorry, I'm a bit tired and it appears that I didn't submit my changes, which are done now. On paragraphing, there may be a problem on "Second theorem". I see three options on the structure of the paragraph starting: "Either the number of intervals generated is finite or infinite" Option 1: the ending of case 3 is the end of the paragraph (this is where I put a ref). Option 2: each case is a paragraph, so in this option, I would put a ref after every case. Option 3: the sentence following the cases is the end of the paragraph, so in this option, I would put the ref at the end of this sentence. I chose Option 1 because I think the colon implies that the three cases belong to the same sentence as the colon. Which option do you think is best? Take your time answering, I'm getting off the computer now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJGray (talkcontribs) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: My apologies, I've been inactive for the past few days. Your latest changes look good. My final citation quibble is about the proof provided in "dense sequences", which also appears not to have a source. Since the article does not seem to hinge on this, you could simply temporarily remove the section if you want to move forward with this quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: I'm happy that you are pleased with my latest changes. I've made one further change. In my last response, I mentioned the "Example of Cantor's construction" as not needing a citation for an example. I suspect that quite a few examples in math articles won't have a citation available, but it turns out that this particular example does have one. When I was writing it, I must have been concentrating on the math and forgot that nearly the same example appeared in the literature as an exercise. But returning to it now, I remembered that it looked familiar and remembered the probable source. I've added a note about this.
      Concerning dense sequences, I have a suggestion. But first the reasons I would like to keep it:
      1. In the next section, I use denseness to prove that Cantor's construction generates infinitely many intervals.
      2. It identifies what is mathematically special about the second case.
      3. It deepens a reader's appreciation of the three cases because they are regarding them from a different angle.
      4. It helped me in my reply to Ipsic's question (see next section of Talk).
      5. See last sentence in next paragraph.
      My suggestion is to bring in Cantor's second proof of the uncountability of the reals, which he published in 1879. This proof is not generally known, at least not in the US. As far as I know, it hasn't been translated into English, but there is a French translation from the 1880s. His second proof only uses 2 cases: The given set of reals is dense or not dense in the interval [ab]. In the second case, there's an open interval (cd) containing no reals from the given set, so any real in this open interval does not belong to the given set (this handles cases 1 and 3 in one step). In ths dense case, he gets a single real number. I think that this addition would add to the comprehensiveness of the article and it's a simple example of a great mathematician viewing his theorem from another angle and developing a new proof.
      Of course, it will take me a bit of time to add the new material in a succinct way that meshes nicely with what's there. I hope to keep it down to a short paragraph. The big unknown is his dense case. I didn't have the time today to look at it (I'd like to figure it out on my own before looking at his proof). Also, I will be on vacation from next Wednesday to the following Tuesday and won't be around computers as much, but I will have hours of travel to work on the new material.
      Thanks for all your feedback. I do appreciate the work you are doing for this Cantor article and the work you do for Wikipedia. —RJGray (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: If you have a citation available, that's great, and you should add it. About denseness: I recognize that there's good reasons for wanting it in the article, but unless Cantor's 1879 paper is implying it very directly, I don't think that's a good route to go down. We're coming back to a fairly basic problem here. I probably have had more education in math than most Wikipedia readers: yet, I could not tell if there was an error in the mathematical argument you put forth above. Thus in the absence of a reference saying that, it isn't really verifiable. Please understand, I'm not blaming you for this; it's quite possibly common practice in the mathematics Wikiproject. But to an outsider, this is a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      I'm afraid this doesn't accord with the text of WP:SCG. It reads "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline." It then gives three statements which I do not understand at all, and yet they don't need citations because they are uncontroversial among people familiar with the subject. In the case of dense sequences, I can understand the argument easily using only first year undergraduate knowledge (because that's my current level of education), so it's hardly controversial or requiring of esoteric methods. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Bilorv: I'm aware of the guideline, but I'm afraid you're misreading it. The guideline allows some flexibility in where citations need to be placed, and how general they might be. It does not permit completely unsourced content. Some source in the article needs to support the information in it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93: My current plan to eliminate the "Dense sequences" subsection and add a new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" following the "Example of Cantor's construction" subsection. I figured out Cantor's 1879 proof and now I've starting reading it. He calls it a simplification of his 1874 proof and it is. It only has 2 cases, the old Case 1 and Case 3 are handled at the same time, and Case 2 is the dense sequence case. This happens because he points out that there are two kinds of sets: those that are dense in the interval [ab] and those that are not. This splits the new proof into two cases at the start. His original proof starts with his construction and the construction divides the proof into three cases. Since I'll be gone for a week, it will take me a minimum of a week and a half, but probably a bit longer since I want the writing to be as good as the rest of the article and this always takes time. So you will have your references and I'll have that Case 2 is the dense set (or sequence) case. Also, readers will learn of Cantor's second proof, which I didn't know about for years. Overall, I think it will improve the article. —RJGray (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: Sounds good, ping me when you are done. Vanamonde (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5 and Vanamonde93: My original time estimate was way off. I have finished the translation of Cantor's second uncountability proof of 1879 and have had it corrected by another editor. I am providing interested readers a with wikitable that consists of the English translation of the proof and the German text so they can be read and compared in parallel. However, there seems to be a problem with having a collapsed table in a Notes section, so it appears that I might have to choose between an uncollapsed (large) table or have an ending subsection titled: "Appendix: Cantor's second uncountability theorem with translation". I need to know the Wikipedia guidelines on this. I am now writing a new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" that will have to be cleanly integrated with a couple of the existing sections. Good news for Vanamonde93: I can use Cantor's 1879 proof as a reference for the proof I gave in Case 2 of the subsection "Second Theorem". My proof appears as part of his 1897 proof, which is no surprise since it's the obvious proof. —RJGray (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
      @RJGray: The niceties of MOS are not my speciality, but as long as it complies with MOS:TABLE, I think both options could work. I personally have not seen an "appendix" before, so I have a slight preference for the other structure. Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5 and Vanamonde93: I apologize for not keeping you up-to-date. I'm nearly done--mostly polishing and a few other relatively small things to do. I should be done by Sunday or Monday. —RJGray (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5 and Vanamonde93: Thank you for your patience. The big changes are the addition of the new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" and the removal of subsection "Dense sequences". If I had been familiar with Cantor's 1879 article earlier, I would have made it a part of the Wikipedia article earlier because it's a case of Cantor improving his old proof using the topological notion of everywhere dense in an interval. So it sheds light on the key proof of his 1874 article. I wish to thank Vanamonde93 for his DYK work on this article. It was his comments that led me to the changes I have made. Also, wish to thank Jochen Burghardt for his help in getting a collapsed wikitable in a ref note and for his correcting my errors in my translation of Cantor's 1879 proof.


      Articles created/expanded on August 28

      Seagull (gamer)

      5x expanded by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) and StarfishCookie (talk). Nominated by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) at 05:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, neither nominator has been active over the past few weeks: TSC's last edit was two weeks ago, while other than a single edit on September 11, StarfishCookie's last activity was in August. As it is unlikely that either will be able to provide an immediate response to the article concern, add to the fact that the article feels incomplete without the issue being addressed, it is with regret that I mark this nomination for closure. If either editor returns to editing before this is closed and responds to the above comment, then the nomination may proceed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
        • @Narutolovehinata5: I didn't see anything about Seagull's early life (at least before he started gaming). I can look, but...
      1) There's absolutely nothing in the DYK criteria that says an article has to be "complete". In fact, by focusing on new articles, there's an implicit expectation that the articles won't be perfect when they hit DYK.
      2) There's no shortage of biography articles that are missing early life information.
      So, I don't see why you would be failing this nomination. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
      @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Please read WP:DYKSG#D7. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
      I am not sure that a biography missing information about a subject's life before he/she became notable would automatically disqualify on D7. If there is little reason to think that a subject's early life would not have received much or any coverage in reliable sources then I wouldn't a Wikipedia article lacking such information to be "incomplete." Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      True. I just really need clarification from the nominators if 1. a search for early life information was attempted, and 2. if such information exists at least online. Once these issues are clarified the nomination can still proceed. If no early life information is known, there's nothing that can be done about that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5: Yes, I did perform a search for the basic bibliographic information. The only thing I came up with that isn't in the article is that he grew up in the "pacific northwest" (this is from an Overwatch League promotional video). There's several sites with his birthday, but none are reliable sources (pro player settings sites, other wikis), and there's nothing else about early childhood, even city of birth, from a any source. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      I see. Would it be fine to at least include the Pacific Northwest mention in the article then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This should never have been marked for closure as it did not require "considerable work before becoming eligible". Early life information is not obligatory in a biography for it to be "reasonably complete". Marking for a new review. feminist (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      The marking for closure icon was not because of the incomplete information part (which by the way has almost been addressed), but because at the time the icon was added, neither nominator had edited in a while. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      In any event, this will need a full review, something it has not yet received. However, The Squirrel Conspiracy only has a handful of edits in the past month, and would need to be able to respond to any requests coming out of a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

      Shannon Evans

      Shannon Evans
      Shannon Evans

      Created by Editorofthewiki (talk). Nominated by Runningibis (talk) at 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol possible vote.svg Article created on 30 August, submitted one day later. Long enough. Neutral & no copyright issues. Fact from hook is included in source but is not immediately followed by an in-line citation. Otherwise sourced appropriately. QPQ completed. Suggest hook has boarderline appeal to a broad audience (who might not understand the significance of playing for a prep school). Fact isn't currently in article but the fact that mother liquidated (cashed out) her 401k might help spice this up and/or make clear why attending prep school was important (to qualify for NCAA scholarships). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      Suggestion, you could also make note of the prep school being a Christian and Military institution. Flibirigit (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      Suggest as ALT2 ... that Shannon Evans left Buffalo to follow basketball coach Bobby Hurley to Arizona State
      This puts the spotlight back on Evans whom the highlighted article is really about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
      Neither of the new hooks are that good to be honest as they're dependent on people being familiar with Hurley, which probably even most basketball fans wouldn't know. The original proposal (about the prep school thing) is probably still the best option, though of course the issues regarding it need to be fixed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
      I don't see what the issue is, the fact is cited in the article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
      The problem is hook interest. Non-basketball fans wouldn't really find it interesting that a basketball player followed a coach to another school, especially if neither person is well-known. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
      I agree with Narutolovehinata5. The proposed hooks are just very pedestrian. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Struck ALTs 1 and 2 per above. So it's either we stick to ALT0 or a new hook is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
        I have no problems with Alt0. It is sourced in the article. Not every hook needs to be a Wow! moment. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      Whether Alt 0 is catchy or not, if used it would need an in-line citation which it currently lacks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      It has an inline citation, not sure what you are talking about. ~

      Cecilia García Arocha

      • Reviewed: (4th nom, but have reviewed some)
      • Comment: I'm trying to improve the references on the page. Hopefully by the time this is reviewed.

      Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

      Symbol delete vote.svg While the article meets length and newness requirements, the DYK nom fails for several reasons:
      • The article currently fails DYK nom guidelines which require "a minimum of one citation per paragraph."
      • The reference used to support the nom is not found in the article.
      • In addition, the domain for the first references is not online and the second is 404. Even if the links were working, I wonder if they might be primary instead of secondary sources.
      • If the article otherwise qualified, the hook is not very interesting -- it could be improved by including mention of the university's history, founding, or prominence in the country.
      • The nominator, despite having added the article to DYK on September 5, has not yet named per QPQ another DYK nom they have reviewed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol possible vote.svg @Btphelps: I think this was only the nominator's fourth nomination so no QPQ was needed at the time. With that said, I'll leave a message on their talk page informing them of your comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      Thanks, I was not aware of the requirement for QPQ not applying to new editors. The other issues still remain however. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I do have to note that the nominator has not edited in over a week, and did not respond to a request for comment that I left on their talk page. I will leave them another message requesting them to return as soon as possible; if there's no response within the next few days, I will mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
      • When I saw the fail sign I just assumed that it didn’t warrant response, no question mark means don’t work on the nom, right? I’ve been having trouble with WiFi since mid September and can edit on mobile but it’s not very easy. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Kingsif, you're welcome to work on the article, whether or not it currently qualifies for DYK. If you could add current citations, that would be awesome, thanks. Because if you can fix the citation issue, it might be reappraised for DYK. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      • It has been a month since the last ping here. @Kingsif: this is your last ping; if you do not respond within the next few days, this nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


      Articles created/expanded on September 6

      Mufti Nemat

      • ... that Afghan militant Mufti Nemat has claimed that he wants others to accept his ideology "with their hearts, not by force" despite having previously waged a violent insurgency and possibly committed numerous war crimes? Source: "At their peak, the ISIS fighters in northern Afghanistan numbered as many as 500 followers of Qari Hekmatullah, until he was killed in an American airstrike in April. Mr. Rahman and Mr. Nemat, who are brothers-in-law, then emerged as the leaders of the group. [...] 'We want other people to accept our ideas with their hearts, not by force,' Mr. Nemat said. 'There is no need to force people to accept us.' [...] Many of the Islamic State's crimes are well documented in their own Facebook and WhatsApp posts, with videos of them burning opponents alive, stoning people to death, training children as fighters, and shooting bound prisoners." (Source: Are ISIS Fighters Prisoners or Honored Guests of the Afghan Government?)

      Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 08:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

      • Oh, sorry! I did not notice that I had already used that QPQ. I will add a new one tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I have added a new QPQ. Applodion (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

      ─────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

      • I'm not sure this hook is acceptable under the content rules, since it focuses primarily on negative aspects of a living person. To be clear, I'm not defending Nemat or his actions, or suggesting that the cited source is not accurate, only noting that the hook as written doesn't appear to confirm to the DYK rules. ♠PMC(talk) 15:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • We could leave out the part about the war crimes, as he denies them. The rest of the hook, namely that he waged an insurgency despite claming be be peaceful, is undisputable, however, and is not necessarily negative. Applodion (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. I've struck the original hook per PMC and am listing an ALT1 that simply removes the final clause of the original, so the sourcing should be the same.BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      • ALT1: ... that Afghan militant Mufti Nemat has claimed that he wants others to accept his ideology "with their hearts, not by force" despite having previously waged a violent insurgency? (same source as above)
      Symbol redirect vote 4.svg *This would land the guy a visit from the police in the UK. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      I have the feeling that this hook is simply not going to work. Perhaps it would be best if I would just withdraw this nomination. Applodion (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      I don't have any great opinion about the article overall, there is probably another hook you can use. Szzuk (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      Ok. How about this one:
      ALT2: ... that Mufti Nemat was the head of a religious school for male and female students before joining the Afghan branch of ISIL? Source: "Mufti Nemat stayed in Sheberghan for almost two years hoping to join the ALP or pro-government militia forces in the province. As a follower of Salafism, he intended to expand the Salafi ideology in the province at the same time. In November 2016, he established a Salafi madrasa called E’ya-ye Sunnat (Rehabilitation of the Sunnah) in the city and where male and female students attended classes." (Non-Pashtun Taleban of the North (4): A case study from Jawzjan)
      Applodion (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
      ALT3 "...that Mufti Nemat has been accused of raping women as a commander of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province?" "His surrender came days after a number of women in Darzab district of the province accused him and his fighters of abducting and raping them." -VOA

      — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talkcontribs) 20:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

      Will review please hold.-RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      ALT4 "... that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province commander Mufti Nemat surrendered to the Afghan government, after a Taliban offensive against ISIL-K in 2018?""Assadullah said that Mawlawi Habib Rahman, Mufti Nematullah, Mullah Suhbatullah and Hussain Qahraman, head of the military unit of the group, along with 200 fighters, were rescued in this way. After surrendering to the government and safely arriving in Sheberghan city, Habib Rahman told media outlets that he was tired of war and had therefore joined the Afghan government’s peace process." -AAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talkcontribs) 22:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

      Policy compliance:

      Hook eligiblity:

      • Cited: Red XN - ALT0 eliminated, ALT1 is uncited, ALT2 ALT3 & ALT4 are cited
      • Interesting: Red XN - ALT3 is the most interesting IMHO
      • Other problems: Red XN - ALT2 & ALT4 do not focus on negative aspects of the subject of the article
      QPQ: Done.

      Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article was nominated for QPQ on 6 September, and was created on 6 September. At the time of its creation and nomination, the article was over 5k characters of prose (without spaces). Each paragraph is sourced in line; while several sentences don't have inline citation, that is not required for a DYKN. While some usage of words on the WP:WTW list are present, it appears to be more or less neutral, if not written in a way that is slightly positive of the subject of the artlce. Article only has a 10.7% rating for Earwig's. Some problems with the hooks, see above. Article needs work for it to pass DYKN. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

      • Please note that ALT3 and ALT4 were proposed by the reviewer, and will therefore need someone else to sign off on them if they are to be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that due to the fact that Nemat is still alive, we cannot use hooks that are overly negative: As result, ALT3 will not be acceptable. In regard to the article title, he is almost universally known as "Mufti Nemat" - per Wikipedia:Article titles that is thus the best choice for the article title. Furthermore, the article subject is probably such a vile individual that any attempt to write neutrally about him does make his article appear more positive than he probably deserves. Applodion (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      I struck out ALT3 per above. Aside from the BLP rule, I don't think it's a good idea to mention rape in the DYK box. Its supposed to be a fun gateway to learning, not a place to shock people. --Krelnik (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
      See WP:NCBIO & the related WP:NCCL, regarding the alleged Mufti predominance for the alleged common name reasoning. I see that a search for Nemat is most likely to get Orzala Ashraf Nemat, so a disambig between the two individual's articles is needed; that said this NYT article refers to the subject as Mr. Nemat, and this National Post article refers to the subject of the article as just plain Nemat, and this AFghanistan Times article refers to the subject as Nematullah.
      Article other issues have not been addressed. No rush per WP:NOTIMELIMIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      @RightCowLeftCoast: The source for ALT1 is the same as ALT0; I am unsure about rewriting the lead. Birth dates are unknown, his nationality as well as position/rank are stated, and I noted that he has been accused of war crimes. In regard to the title, would you prefer "Mufti Nemat" instead of "Mufti Nemat"? Applodion (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      Mufti, a title, shouldn't be included in the article title, I understand the reasoning for including it in the article title, but disagree with the conclusion reached. It should not just be Nemat as the subject of the article is not the primary search result for that particular pronoun. Perhaps Nematullah would be a better article name. As for the birth date, there isn't even an estimated year?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      Titles can be part of article titles if the person is best known by that name (see for example various medieval people, such as the Earls of Warwick); Nemat is simply too unspecific. Nematullah is simply his name, Nemat, with the addition of another title ("Mullah"). In regard to the birth year, the answer is no. I think it is very likely that estimates exist about his age, but I could not find a single source which mentioned his age or birth year or anything similar. Applodion (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      Perhaps Nemat (Taliban Commader) would be an alternate then?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      @

      Timeline of Cluj-Napoca

      1617 engraving of Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg by Joris Hoefnagel.
      1617 engraving of Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg by Joris Hoefnagel.
      • ... that throughout its long timeline the city of Cluj-Napoca was part of many empires and kingdoms, including Roman Empire, Hungarian Kingdom, Habsburg Monarchy, Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Romania ...? Source: "MacKendrick, Paul Lachlan (2000). The Dacian Stones Speak. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies (illustrated, reprint ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press."; Source: "Lukács, József (2005). Povestea "oraşului-comoară": scurtă istorie a Clujului şi a monumentelor sale [The story of the "treasure-city": a short history of Cluj and its monuments] (in Romanian). Levente Várdai. Cluj-Napoca: Apostrof. ISBN 978-973-9279-74-1. "

      5x expanded by Codrinb (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol delete vote.svg Not eligible. List articles must have at least 1,500 characters of readable prose in order to qualify for DYK. Catrìona (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol possible vote.svg This appears to be only the nominator's fifth nomination, and given that the article itself is long (the problem is that the content is presented as a list while DYK's length requirement only applies to prose), this could still work as a hook. @Codrinb: I would suggest you expand the lede section to be a summary of the whole article, ensuring that it is at least 1,500 characters. Once this is done, this can become DYK eligible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      Hi all. Thank you for the feedback. I put a lot of work into this article and I will be happy to make anything that is necessary to make it eligible. Thank you for giving me a chance, @Narutolovehinata5:. The main reason for not expanding the lead more is to keep it "in sync" and consistent with all the other articles in Category:Timelines of cities in Europe. If you look at Timeline of London or Timeline of Frankfurt, they have a similar lead. If you think that I should deviate from this, in order to achieve DYK, I will do it. I will also ping @M2545: and other users involved with such lists, perhaps there are other examples of DYK or longer leads. Thanks! Codrin.B (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      Hi again, I have added a new lead as requested. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


      Hook eligiblity:

      • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
      • Interesting: Green tickY
      • Other problems: Red XN - The grammar in the hook is weird. Roman Empire needs a definite article, as do some of the others.

      Image eligibility:

      QPQ: None required.

      Overall: Symbol question.svg Is this one of your first five DYK noms? Catrìona (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

      @Catrìona: This is the nominator's fifth nomination so no QPQ is necessary yet; however, their next DYK and beyond will require a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      Thanks for the feedback. What is QPQ? ;-) How about this text and new image:
      Cluj coat of arms, awarded in 1377.

      Codrin.B: I would accept that if the caption were significantly shorter. 8 lines is too many. Catrìona (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

      Hi @Catrìona:. I removed less important aspects from the lead and kept the core ideas. The lead is now around 1800 characters. I hope this is acceptable. Thanks.Codrin.B (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      Ah, you were talking about the image caption... I never intended it to be so long. I just added the image previously with the caption I used elsewhere. To goal was to check if this image is better. I trimmed down the caption as well now. Codrin.B (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol confirmed.svg I recommend the wording "throughout its long history" rather than "throughout its long timeline". Catrìona (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      The reason I used "timeline" is to differentiate from the History of Cluj-Napoca article, which I might also work on to get it to a DYK, and also to be inline with the article title: "Timeline of Cluj-Napoca". But certainly "history" sounds better. I am fine if it has to be changed for the DYK. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

      Symbol possible vote.svgI'm a little concerned at the amount of unsourced content here. An entry about Hadrian becoming Emperor may not need a source, but an entry about a redlinked individual such as Flavius Italicus does, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

      Actually all governors of province Dacia come out of the List of Roman governors of Dacia Traiana which in turn uses this reference: Petolescu, Constantin C. (2014). Dacia: un mileniu de istorie [Dacia: a millennium of history] (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. ISBN 978-973-27-2450-7.. I expected that this could be an issue so I started to add individual references for each governor. Thanks for bringing it up. Codrin.B (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Vanamonde93:, @Catrìona:, @Narutolovehinata5: - I finalized adding references to all legates, procurators and other leaders from 2nd and 3rd century. From my perspective, while it could be further improved, the article is quite well sourced for all the centuries and from a wide variety of sources. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make this better and get it approved. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

      Articles created/expanded on September 18

      Ed McCulloch

      Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 05:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

      • As this is your 7th nomination at WP:DYKN, please provide a QPQ. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      I've looked at a couple. And if I'd known there were so many hoops to jump through, I'd never have bothered nominating anything to begin with. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol possible vote.svg At the moment, the article may need some cleanup; specifically it needs a copyedit and a longer lead section. Some of the references are redundant and could be merged. Finally, a QPQ has not been provided, although I am willing to donate one of my own of the nominator is unable to provide one promptly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

      Mark Judge (writer)

      Created by E.M.Gregory (talk) and Sagecandor (talk). Nominated by Sagecandor (talk) at 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been nominated by a topic-banned and blocked user. Pending discussion here. --Pudeo (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • That discussion ended days, possibly weeks, ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol question.svg This is a well-written interesting article, meticulously sources, and I think It's good for DYK. The original hook is a bit boring to readers who don't already know the writer, also it's not clearly stated that way in the article, or did I miss something? The ALT would be better if it also said that he wrote a book about that grandfather. E.M.Gregory, are you willing to work on hooks and article? Or anybody else? - In the article, I think the court incident has too much weight in both lead and article. More lead about other things, please, or less about the incident. His articles: they are formatted with template citation, which expects them to be used as references. Please find a way to avoid the ugly error messages that they are not used. Please never use "Selected" without giving the criteria. I just removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      Second thought, catchy title:
      ALT2: ... that Mark Judge wrote the book A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism, and Rock 'n' Roll, published in 2010? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      ALT3: ...that Mark Judge wrote a book about how dancing helped him stop drinking? E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
      Invited to look again,

      Carol Cox

      Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 00:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

      Review

      Hook eligiblity:

      • Cited: Red XN - The first hook fact doesn't seem to be stated clearly in the main source. The second hook fact, ALT1, looks best but I'm not seeing a clear inline citation and I'd like to be sure that we're getting the claim right – is winning a class the same as winning a trophy?
      • Interesting: Green tickY
      QPQ: None required.

      Overall: Symbol question.svg Andrew D. (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

      "The first hook fact doesn't seem to be stated clearly in the main source." It is: "Just a year before Cox’s breakthrough, women weren’t even allowed to compete at NHRA national events." The second is a bit less clear, since AFAIK, there wasn't an actual trophy awarded in the class, but: "first woman to ever win a trophy of any kind at an NHRA national event" & "Cox won her class, S/SA". Both are cited to the NHRA.com link; all 3 quotes are from there. Clearer? (Personally, I prefer the first hook: it's a bigger deal, & it's less ambiguous. The second has a cool factor, tho: she drove the winning car to the track.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:26 & 02:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg As this is your 8th nomination at WP:DYKN, please provide a QPQ. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      I've offered comment on 2 already. If that doesn't meet a formal standard, you can do what you want with the 8 noms. I won't miss it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Trekphiler: As I was scrolling down the WP:DYKN page, I noticed you had started some reviews. Please list the template of one of them here and one of them on another of your nominations. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      This whole process is so complicated, the nominations begin not to be worth it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      @

      Exhibition of Australian Art in London

      ‘The purple noon's transparent might’
      ‘The purple noon's transparent might’
      • ... that Arthur Streeton's 1896 painting 'The purple noon's transparent might' (pictured) won critical acclaim at the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London? Source: "Such a landscape as Mr. Arthur Streeton's 'Purple Noon's Transparent Light,' with its admirable drawing and aerial perspective, and its splendid force of colour, would hold its own in any London gallery" The Argus, quoting The Studio.

      Created by HappyWaldo (talk). Self-nominated at 02:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

      • HappyWaldo, I corrected the painting title to remove apostrophes and be in uppercase—can you confirm that is correct? Also, is there a reason for "might" vs "light" there? Did the newspaper run a typo? (I want to confirm that there's not a second similarly named painting before we all get egg on our faces!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
      The correct title is ‘The purple noon's transparent might’, with the apostrophes, as the painting takes its title from Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Stanzas Written in Dejection, Near Naples". See the National Gallery of Victoria's page for the painting. It is certainly an error on the part of the newspaper. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      @HappyWaldo: Fascinating! Thanks for the confirmation, and I've re-re-corrected the painting title above. One more query: would you consider this alternate hook? "... that no other "major survey" of Australian art in London has come close to reaching the level of female representation achieved by the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London?" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      No worries. I did consider going with a hook about the level of female representation, but since it's an art page, it seemed fitting to have an accompanying image. I went with the Streeton because many critics called it a highlight of the show. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      @HappyWaldo: Gotcha—I totally get that motivation. Although I don't think it's necessarily the best hook in the article, I'm happy to Symbol confirmed.svg approve this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol possible vote.svg None of the main points of WP:DYKR have been addressed in the review above: I checked and the article is new and long enough, A lone, standalone sentence was not sourced, which technically qualifies as its own paragraph. I corrected this by adding a source to verify the content (diff), so this is okay now. Is the content of the hook properly verified in the article by the source in the article? Does the article contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing? Also it appears that the nominator needs to perform a QPQ review before this can move forward, as per the results of QPQ check. North America1000 05:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      While it would be better to cite The Studio directly, I can't access any online British newspaper archive (from what I can tell, they all require a paid membership). The Argus was "considered to be the general Australian newspaper" of the time, so I think it's reliable and gives an accurate assessment of The Studio's review. I will review another DYK shortly. -

      Disappearing World (TV series)

      • ... that the producer of the TV series Disappearing World acknowledged that the episodes "more often reflect a changing world than a disappearing one"? Source: quote from "Disappearing World: A Guide for Anthropologists," article in Passages: A Chronicle of the African Humanities reproduced at University of Michigan Publishing

      Created by Rigadoun (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

      • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough, plenty long enough, and nominated timely. QPQ was done No copyvios were found (AGF since a major source is not online). The hook is sourced but IMO is not very interesting - not "grabby" or curiosity-provoking as a hook should be. What would you think about something like
      • alt1 ... that the title of the documentary television series Disappearing World has been described as "something of an albatross"? (sourced to the same work as the original hook proposal)

      Rigadoun, if you prefer to stick with the original hook I will still approve this, but I thought I would make the suggestion. MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

      Fine by me. (By the way, the Loizos article is available in a free PDF from AnthroSource here; I just added it to the citation.) Rigadoun (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Good to go with alt1. MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @MelanieN: Per Rule H2, you cannot approve your own hook. Could another reviewer take a look at ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
      Oops, sorry. MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg Second review: Personally, I find the first hook cute, and appropriate for a quirky slot, which is always desirable. But if you prefer ALT1, that hook ref is offline and AGF, and cited inline. However, all the charts under Episodes are not cited. Where did you get this information from? Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Rigadoun: I think the above question, about the charts not being cited, is addressed to you. Also, you and Yoninah should decide what hook to use. MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @

        Conquest Brigade

        Foundation of the Conquest Brigade in 2013
        Foundation of the Conquest Brigade in 2013
        • ... that the Conquest Brigade (pictured) was described as "moderate Islamist" group, despite closely cooperating with ISIL and supporting the extermination of a religious minority in Syria? Source: "Noteworthy also from the fall of the Mannagh airbase is a video released by the battalion Liwa al-Fatah, described by one writer as a "moderate Islamist" group. A quick glance at the video quickly demonstrates that in analysis, the term "moderate Islamist" in this context is quite meaningless. First, Abu Jandal al-Masri, the leader of the JMWA contingent--identified immediately by the speaker who filmed the video as synonymous with ISIS--is seen to be embracing a member of Liwa al-Fatah. Abu Jandal then proclaims, "I swear by God we will not leave a single Alawite alive in Syria... state of Islam, state of the Caliphate." This is all proclaimed to the assent of "God is great" from the other fighters, including the Liwa al-Fatah member who filmed the video." (The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, pp. 24, 25)

        Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

        QPQ: Done.

        Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg You need to include (pictured) somewhere in the hook to attach a picture. Catrìona (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

        Added "pictured" and QPQ. Applodion (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

        Symbol possible vote.svg This was pulled from the main page by Stephen due to sourcing issues raised at WP:ERRORS. As the article was up for less than an hour, it probably deserves a second chance, but right now a lot of work needs to be done if this is to return to DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

        @Narutolovehinata5: Frankly, I do not understand the problem. The source is reliable and clear about the issue, and it is inline-sourced. Further sources for the hook are given in the article, for example the Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism clearly states that the group's members were "aligning themselves with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for a time". Applodion (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
        As the main criticism was about the hook being too broad, how about: ALT1: ... that the Conquest Brigade (pictured) was described by one writer as "moderate Islamist" group, despite closely cooperating with ISIL and supporting the extermination of a religious minority in Syria? (same source) Applodion (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


        Articles created/expanded on September 25

        Wilhelm Kempf (bishop)

        Relief bust of Wilhelm Kempf
        Relief bust of Wilhelm Kempf

        Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

        • Symbol confirmed.svg Good article that reads well. I've only made a couple of minor style tweaks. Checklist: hook validated directly from www.limburg.de source, ☑Y, length ☑Y, timescale ☑Y, sufficiently referenced, albeit some taken in good faith ☑Y, structure and style ☑Y. As far as I'm concerned this is good to go. Bermicourt (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        Symbol question.svg Hello, I came to promote this, but perhaps the hook could be rewritten to make it snappier? It doesn't seem that clear right now, particularly the part that says "introduced the changes of the Second Vatican Council in which he took part". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        Not sure what you mean, - could you make a suggestion? My try (and sorry that I am not gifted with snappyness):
        ALT1: ... that Wilhelm Kempf (pictured), Bishop of Limburg from 1949 to 1981, took part in the Second Vatican Council, and introduced its changes in his diocese?
        The council changed the church's view on/of itself dramatically, but tough to say that in few words. Or could you? Or someone watching? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        The hook seems to imply that it was Kempf who proposed the changes done in Vatican II (as in during the council itself), which is contrary to what the article says (which merely says that he introduced the Vatican II changes in Limburg). As for ALT1, I don't think it works since Vatican II was implemented throughout the Catholic world and thus being the one to introduce it in a diocese is not uncommon (disclosure: I'm Catholic so I'm actually familiar with Vatican II and the changes implemented because of it). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        ALT2: ... that Wilhelm Kempf (pictured), Bishop of Limburg from 1949 to 1981, took part in the Second Vatican Council?
        No room to say that he enthusiastically introduced the changes, and was criticised for it, while others may have done only what they had to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        @Bermicourt: Thoughts on ALT1 and ALT2? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        I like the source which says: "Bishop Wilhelm Kempf carried the ethos [from the end] of the Second Vatican Council, of which he was one of five sub-secretaries, to his Diocese, which - although small in area and numbers - soon set an outstanding example [in terms of the reforms]." I wonder if part of that could be woven into a hook? Just trying to help. Bermicourt (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

        Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

        Created by Pharos (talk) and Piotrus (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 11:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

        • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new enough and long enough. So many sources are offline or in different languages that I will blanket AGF on them. It looks like everything is sourced inline. QPQ is done. Hook seems reasonably supported by the article and interesting. Didn't find any plagiarism or copyvio in a few searches. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed for ALT1, which was suggested after the discussion at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Comment. ALT1 is not correct. The controversy is about whether the time period can be called a Golden Age for Jews in Poland, or if that exaggerates the situation of the Jews. The controversy is not settled so don't go for one option in Wikipedia's voice. It might be better to go with something like the lead sentence at the Polish version of the page: "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is a proverb sarcastically describing the society of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." That sticks to the facts. Please read about the multiple meanings of the proverb here. Then consider whether, with the current worries about anti-semitism in Poland, you want to put this proverb on the main page. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I am totally ok with ALT2 as proposed by StarryGradnma, I just hope it's not too long. It should contain no controversial facts, nor be in inappropriate tone. For referencing purposes, it is described as a proverb here: [6], and as satirical, here: [7], and neither of those two terms have been disputed on talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Note that the Polish wiki article was created (by Piotrus) after this one was created and was edited by Piotrus and one other editors (this edit). There are still serious NPOV issues with the article (and reverts to keep the tag out), and notability/OR concerns for the full phrase (e.g. - the title of the article (present in the hook) - the phrase in this form is not present in any English language source covering this antisemitic proverb). As for what this means, this is - an "anti-Semitic phantasm" per this, a "pasquinade" that is "saying that Jews had it “too good.”" per [8], "'17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" per [9]. As for modern POV - Piotr Wróbel clearly makes clear the various viewpoints around this - On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."[10]. This is not merely an "exaggeration" - it was a call for action against the relative (still overall wretched [11]) safety of Jews in Poland (until 1648) vs. the rest of Europe - the "paradise" being the relative lack of persecutions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
          Icewhiz, with all due respect, what is the point of your rant? Nobody except you supports either the POV or OR claims. You haven't even clearly suggested what POV issues are in the article, as in, you haven't said 'this claim is not-neutral, and this other claim is missing'. We have added the relatively fringe claim (by a minor scholar, in a minor journal) that the expression "Paradise for Jews" is anti-semitic, but it is clear as day that a ton of other scholars and media sources are using it and nobody thinks it is a major issue. Anyway, this is an issue to be discussed on artice's talk, where, I'll note, nobody supports you (so yeah, the tags removed from the article because you are in minority). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
          I presented 4 sources above, not one, demonstrating the NPOV issue here (here's another - " its title is taken from an anti-Jewish text, which claims that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should change" [12]). As for "nobody supports you" -this was pulled from the DYK queue for this reason. You yourself removed the various tags (e.g. here) - without consensus on the talk page for doing so.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
          All the issues / sources you have raised here have been discussed on article's talk, where nobody supports you. Many of your sources and arguments HAVE been incorporated into the text, through there is no consensus for the tags you've added, as nobody besides you wants them re-added - likely because, again, all the issues you've raised have been incorporated in the article. If you dissent against the consensus, well, there's no veto power on Wikipedia, through as I noted on your talk page, you are more than welcome to edit the article yourself. I encourage you, again, to edit the article, as well as to propose a hook that you'd think would be more neutral, if you have concerns about proposed hook ALT1 or ALT2. PS. Since you quote from [13], I will note that your quote is sadly out of context. Interested readers would be well advised to take a look at the entire page 12 of the pdf. To put this in broader context: "...formulated in this manner, the accusation that the authors of the Polin exhibition have not taken into account “modern historical studies,” ignores the immense research fndings and the latest achievements of Jewish historiography... Emblematic here is the criticism against one of the most distinguished experts on the history of Jews in Poland in the modern period, Moshe Rosman. He was accused of “Polinizng” the history of Jews in Poland by promoting a false and ideologized version of it with the myth of Poland as a “paradise of tolerance.”" Long story short, the academic debate about this topic, as well as whether this phrase is anti-semitic, or much more nuanced, is ongoing, and any attempt to simply it is not helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          There is no disagreement in the academic literature that the full phrase is highly antisemitic. There are however uses of the sub-phrase "Paradisus Judeorum" which are not. As for discussion on the article talk page on POV, I believe it was limited to me and you, and that you yourself removed the tag - despite there being a clear lack of consensus (1 vs. 1) regarding POV. I chose not to engage in edit warring over the tag, despite the removal of the tag being highly irregular. The article has severe NPOV and notability (for the full phrase) issues. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          That's your OR not backed up by any sources. A single scholar has stated that the two-word part of the proverb, "Jewish Paradise" is antisemitic. Nobody else said this, clearly, about the proverb or that part, instead numerous scholars use it without any reference to anything but the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Ex. this is Gershon Hundert's use of the proverb and discussion of the related topic Paradisus Judaeorum: A central theme of this paper will be my attempt to diffuse some of the darkness, lachrymosity and sense that the experience of Jews in Poland was of unending pogrom and persecution. I shall argue that this is a story characterized by light and not darkness, by life and not death. If one had to choose a single word to reflect the experience of Jews in Poland, it would be vitality. That and an indomitably positive sense of self. The Polish Jewish community was vibrant, creative, proud and self-confident: sevurim hem deyabashta hava veleika galuta, they thought they were on dry land and not in exile. Their neighbours knew this as well, referring to Poland as Paradisus Judaeorum, rajem dla Zyd6w. The full expression went: 'Poland is heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews'.[4] This is hyperbole of course, but I am emphasizing the brighter side as a corrective to the predominant popular image of the Jewish experience in Polish lands, which seems to me altogether too dismal and to be profoundly coloured by events in the twentieth century. This is my primary goal; my secondary purpose is to complicate your perception. Hundert, Gershon David (1997). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum". Journal of Jewish Studies. 48 (2): 335–348. doi:10.18647/2003/JJS-1997. ISSN 0022-2097. Nothing about anti-semitism of the proverb in his discussion. This is the representative use and discussion of the proverb, not the pretty recent and fringe accusation of a single scholar (Janicka) that it is antisemitic. Feel free to publish a paper that it is a "highly antisemitic saying", then we will have a source to consider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Comment 2 To spell this out more clearly: This Polish proverb comes from the period of increasing feudalism in Poland, with the nobility taking over control of towns and land, worsening conditions for everyone else. It was not meant kindly for either the nobility or the Jews. The proverb links the Jews with the oppressors of the Polish people. At a time of increasing Polish antisemitism I suggest we NOT put this on the main page. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @StarryGrandma: Please note that WP:NOTCENSORED. If an article is neutral, and the hook is neutral, and the article is eligible, there are no reasons not to put this on the front page. The article is now doing a better job explaining some controversies and issues about this proverb, which should help educate the readers about some aspects of antisemitism. Talking about such issues is better than ignoring them. In fact, I am surprised that my ALT1 hook proposal has not been endorsed by those wary of antisemitic POV, as it explicitly draws attention to this very issue, by pointing out that the proverb is not exactly neutral. ==Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • If we are to place a highly antisemtic Polish saying on the main page - quoted in full - it is not sufficient to say it is "exaggerated" or "sarcastic" - we should explicitly spell out that this was an antisemitic polemic saying.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • With the note that you are the only person in the world calling this 'a highly antisemitic Polish saying', I am open to reviewing your proposed hook. Just please make sure any claims you make in it are sourced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Piotrus, Wikipedia is not censored, which is exactly why there are whole categories of articles that never appear on the main page and of images that will never be chosen as featured picture of the day. In this case it is because the topic is currently sensitive and will remain so. And, while in the queue, an American gunman murdered 11 people in a synagogue. The timing would have been unfortunate if the DYK had appeared on Nov 8, so soon afterward. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @StarryGrandma: I lived in Pittsburgh, I know people who knew people who died there, and I still see no connection between publishing a hook related to Jews and this. There are limits to political correctness, and again, fortunately, Wikipedia is not censored. That said, it is likely this hook won't be on Main Page till December. And in either case, I doubt anyone would really make associations like that, particularly as the anti-semitism in this proverb is very slight. It is a simple exaggeration, and that's a far cry from hate. (Of course, anything can be abused, but this is not our fault). The proverb has been used much more in bening contest than in hate speech; in fact nobody has even shown an example of it being used in modern times in hate speech. You yourself just found a reference I quote above where this proverb is used in a positive context, as reference to vitality of the Jewish culture of the Golden Age of Jews in Poland period. It is exactly this positive association that we should focus on. Instead of worrying about sending a wrong message, we should focus on sending the right one. Something like with an alt that would say that "one of the meanings of the proverb is to reference the Golden Age of Jews in the Middle Ages".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @StarryGrandma: I like to think that the article that I started is not such toxic antisemitism bait. I think quality articles on Polish-Jewish history are a good thing for the world still, and this is not one of the tropes that has been exploited by the current wave of hate.--Pharos (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol delete vote.svg I would pull this nomination. There's an RM going on for the page, as well as a neutrality discussion on the Talk page. Concerns were also expressed at the DYK Talk page here: [14]. It's not suitable for mainpage at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree with any suggestion this topic is not legible for a DYK. We should of course wait for RM to finish, as well as to make sure that there is no edit warring and that the article is stable. Unless the topic is deleted, there is no reason for it not to be DYKed, after suitable delay that ensured the article and hook are free of problems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • If the RM is not successful, and the article continues to be on this full phrase which is lacking viable sources (as opposed to the narrower "Paradisus Judeorum" concept which is covered in a secondary manner) - I intend to take this to AfD as a NOTDICTIONARY and GNG fail. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Shrug. There's no deadline, so if you want to waste the community's time with an AfD on that (which is likely, given the RM doesn't have much support), sure. This DYK can wait a few weeks for those issues to be resolved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • NPOV Fail - When editors remove the anti-semitic context of this saying - The term Paradisus Judaeorum [Paradise for Jews] has been present in Polish culture since the 17th century. It comes from an anonymous text expressing anti-gentry and anti-Jewish sentiments, which was published in Latin in 1606 and titled Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone [Lampoons planted at the royal wedding party]. The anonymous writer uses the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum to express his conviction that Poland is ruled by Jews and that they enjoy excessive privileges - from a cited reference [15] supporting the stmt (in a passage filled with 17th, 18th, and 19th century references) - we are repeating hate speech in Wikipedia's voice without context. Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • This claim wasn't removed - you duplicated it, it was already and is still present in the article, in another section. But your attitude towards a normal copyediting edit ("ITS TRYING TO HIDE ANTISEMITISM") is a good illustration of the issue here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • When anti-X (semitism/Jewish) appears in the article not in the lede, not in the first section, but tucked somewhere in the middle in an attributed manner - this is a shameful state for an article on 17th century hate speech, primarily known for being hate speech. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
              • This is because "17th century hate speech, primarily known for being hate speech" are your OR claims. It's not like anyone is preventing you from adding this claim to the lead - with reliable sources. You haven't done that. You can hardly expect we will add this claim to the article, referencing User:Icewhiz on Wikipedia... The lead does, of course, represent what the sources say, i.e. " The "Paradise for Jews" part of the proverb, which refers to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland,[5][6] has been criticized as exaggerating the position of Jews in the Commonwealth society, which was not that comparable to the most privileged class, the nobility." Not you, nor anyone else has disputed this characterization on article's talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Comment. If this phrase or any part of it was highly antisemitic, it wouldn't be used by

          Lee Brian Schrager

          • Reviewed: Don't have to do this in my first one

          Created by Fabdoull (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

          • User:BlueMoonset, can you see if someone can have a look at this? Someone who owes you a favor? Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Symbol question.svg @Fabdoull: This nomination meets the DYK criteria of newness and length. The article is sufficiently neutral and I detected no copyright issues or close paraphrasing. The hook is interesting and probably true, but there is no cited sentence in the article stating that SOBEWFF is one of the biggest food and wine festivals in the world. If you can find a source to back up the claim, please add the fact and cite it in the article. If you can't find a (reliable, independent) source, then perhaps you could suggest a new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the review. I just modified the the hook and found a new source to back up the claim.
          @Dr Aaij and Fabdoull: Neither of the quotes given above states that it is one of the biggest food and wine festivals in the US, and nor does the article make this claim. The hook must have backing from the article and source, so please suggest a better hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
          • ALT1: ...that one of Lee Brian Schrager's books "celebrates" more than 50 recipes for fried chicken? Miami New Times
            • Cwmhiraeth, what do you make of this one? Doesn't it make you hungry? Dr Aaij (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Symbol confirmed.svg I think ALT1 should do, although there might be some resistance from other quarters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 3: Fried chicken. Besides the hook fact not appearing in the article, ALT1 smacks of self-promotion. Please note that I added a few "citation needed" tags for info that must be cited. Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Here's another hook suggestion from that discussion:
          • ALT2: ... that

            Dennis Albaugh

            1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Convertible
            1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Convertible
            • ... that Dennis Albaugh owns "probably" the best collection of Chevy convertibles ('57 Bel Air pictured) in the US? Source: " 'He's got a fabulous collection,' said Murl Randall, 83, a Chevrolet historian and collector from Houghton Lake, Mich., who is known as Pinky. 'It's probably the best assemblage of convertible Chevys in the country.' " ([20])
            • Alt1: ... that Dennis Albaugh has rounded-up "probably" the best collection of Chevy convertibles ('57 Bel Air pictured) in the US?

            Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

            Added Alt - he made his money from a generic version of the pesticide Roundup. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
            • New article that's long enough, decently written, and sourced. Hooks are cited and I prefer Alt1 because of the pun. Image is public domain. Symbol question.svg Will be good to go after Edwardx adds his QPQ. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Symbol question.svg The QPQ has been done. But I don't like putting "probably" in quotes; it looks like it's implying it's not the best collection. Also, the pun is totally lost on the casual hook reader, and clicking on the link to get to a herbacide page looks like an error. Could you submit another alt? If you want to use the "probably" quote, maybe use more of the quote. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

            Vorombe

            fossil femurs of Vorombe
            fossil femurs of Vorombe
            • ... that weighing on average around 650 kilograms (1,430 lb), the Madagascan fossil bird Vorombe (femur pictured) was the heaviest bird known? Source

            Created by Extrapolaris (talk) and Achat1999 (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 09:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

            • Symbol question.svg This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. The image is appropriately licensed but I don't think it adds much to the nomination. A QPQ has been done. @Casliber, Achat1999, and Extrapolaris: I think the hook, which deals with average, estimated weights, could be improved, how about:
            • ALT1 ... that one specimen of Vorombe titan, an extinct elephant bird from Madagascar and the heaviest known bird, was estimated to weigh 860 kg (1,900 lb)? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
            A good suggestion, but it reads as the weight of the specimen. cygnis insignis 04:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            Good point. How about:
            • ALT2 ... that one individual Vorombe titan, an extinct elephant bird from Madagascar and the heaviest known bird species, was estimated to have weighed 860 kg (1,900 lb)? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            Even better, I would have arrived from a different perspective and suggested, "ALT3...that the heaviest bird, known from a specimen of the extinct Madagascan species Vorombe titan, was estimated to have weighed 860 kg (1,900 lb)?cygnis insignis 11:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            I have labelled your suggestion as ALT3, but I don't think it will do because this individual bird is estimated to have been larger than any other known specimen. I think it may be better to look at a different aspect such as
            I think that is what it says, but now I like this one … punchier, and more likely to get the reader to click through. 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

            Articles created/expanded on September 28

            Ignaz Kirchner

            Ignaz Kirchner acting in 2015
            Ignaz Kirchner acting in 2015
            • Reviewed: Maya Krishna Roa
            • Comment: recent death, please handle soon

            Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 08:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

            Hook eligiblity:

            • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
            • Interesting: ????
            QPQ: Done.

            Overall: Symbol question.svg @Gerda Arendt: I'm not sure the proposed hook is interesting. Catrìona (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

            We have only 200 chars. They played more pairs (Jago and Othelle, and those in Waiting for Godot), and they won a prize for doing so, twice. (I don't know if any other male couple did, even once.) Perhaps we should first have an article on the Tabori play in which he is crucified? [21] But I would hesitate to bring that wording to the Main page, same as for "sadomasochistisches Männerpaar". - We could say that his speaking role became the sensation in an opera at the Salzburg Festival, but it's so far off what he normally does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Gerda Arendt, Catrìona, to get this moving again, I'd like to suggest a hook that makes use of that twice-awarded prize, though the article would need to be amended so it specifies the plays that Kirchner and Voss won the awards for (the information is in the already cited wein.orf.at source, FN9):
            There are probably ways to modify this, if it isn't sufficiently interesting: Shakespeare and Neil Simon (who also recently died) could be used to establish range and give touchstones, though Beckett seems pretty strong to me. We're already at 183 characters, so there isn't much room for change without losing something else. (I don't think we need to give the name of the actual award in German, "Schauspielerpaar des Jahres", and I don't think a link to the magazine that awards it is useful, since the article makes no mention of the award and when I clicked on it from the article I was puzzled as to why I was even sent to that page. Also, there's no room for it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
            Thank you for the suggestion, fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed of ALT1 hook, since the original hook was the only issue raised in the original review. Note that Gerda Arendt still needs to modify the article so it specifies which plays won the award. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
            I specified the plays in the awards section, and added the 1998 award to the prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
            Symbol question.svg ALT1 does seem to be interesting and cited inline. However, to conform with the rules, I'd suggest moving the reference to the end of the sentence, as right now it's in the middle without any punctuation mark. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
            Done. When you see me making silly mistakes like that, feel free to correct yourself ;) - e will hopefully get to an article about the play before it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

            Articles created/expanded on September 29

            Ecclesia Athletic Association

            • ... that the Ecclesia Athletic Association, who promoted its children being able to do 1,000 to 5,00 continuous jumping jacks, had 53 children removed from its care in 1988? Source: a pamphlet that also noted that the youths "can do between 1,000 and 5,000 continuous jumping jacks & 42 of the 53 quiet and well-behaved youngsters who stayed there were subjected to ritualistic floggings that sometimes numbered as many as 800 strokes. The children, ranging in age from 6 weeks to 16 years, were removed from the home are from [22]

            Created by Barkeep49 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

            • I'll defer the DYK review to another user, but I think a new hook may need to be proposed here Barkeep49, as it seems a bit obtuse and the relationship between the second and third clauses is not intuitive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
            @Narutolovehinata5: I would welcome alternatives. I think the jumping jacks thing is the most "wow" fact in the article but it was also a cult who abused children and think that the group shouldn't be glorified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
            I have references to it being a cult and a child athletic training organization if that helps. The MOS:FIRST where you took that from does not have inline citations at this time. Would this work using the original two sources and cites? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
            • @Barkeep49: don't you think ALT1 is hookier? It will probably get a lot more hits than ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            I do. It might be the best sentence I've written on Wikipedia. But you tell me if it follows the rules. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            • It does, if you source the "cult masquerading as a child athletic training organization" part. Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I am currently using it as a summary, or in the phrasing of the MOS as a generality. Their being a cult is well sourced, as is their being an athletic training organization, as is criticism of them. In general I try to avoid writing statements that need ih-line sourcing in the LEAD let alone MOS:FIRST. I think adding an inline source for that sentence makes the article worse for the sake of making a better DYK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Well, if it's only in the lead and not anywhere else, it must be sourced. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Which is why I didn't use it as a hook in the first place :). How about:
            ALT3: ... four members of the Ecclesia Athletic Association were charged with enslaving children under the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
              1. Please source the statement in the lead that the cult was "masquerading" as an athletic organization, or change the wording.
              2. You're going to lose a lot of pageviews by taking out "cult". And the 5,000 jumping jacks added a lot.
              3. ALT3 is too U.S.-centric if you're trying to attract a broad readership.
            • Have you ever heard of the journalistic maxim "Show me, don't tell me"? "Showing" is using descriptive language to draw images in the reader's mind. "Telling" is straight facts. Being charged with enslaving children is "tell me". Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2018
            • Ok we're now discussing two separate things: the appropriateness of lead sentence, which I think is a content dispute and would like to handle it as such as a talk page discussion, and what would make an effective DYK which we should obviously do here. I agree that jumping jacks is good stuff, I think it being a cult (which is cited as such in headlines in sources used) is an essential piece of context for the organization. So I'm all for using it. I went to the 13th amendment since I thought you were suggesting that the cult and jumping jacks weren't interesting enough. It now appears you're saying something different. Is it merely that it was worded in a show don't tell way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

            ─────────────────────────Is it just as simple as ALT4:...that the Ecclesia Athletic Association cult claimed its children were able to do 1,000 to 5,000 continuous jumping jacks? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

            Yes that works for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            • OK, I spent some time editing the article. Regarding its cult status, I see Broussard denying it and the neighbors claiming it. Can you add some sourced text stating that it actually was a cult? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            It is sourced in the body beyond the neighbors asking The parents of these children were all members of the cult... which is then sourced to an article describing it as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
            • You are not understanding me. Those sentences assume it's a cult. If it's written in a source, please state it in our article. We need a sentence that says something like "According to authorities, Ecclesia was a cult." I am not able to access the Washington Post source to do it myself. Yoninah (talk)
            So you want me to write a sentence that says "Ecclesia was described in the media as a cult" and then source it? This is easy enough to do but perhaps I am indeed not understanding you when there is clear evidence that it was described as a cult just by looking at the headlines of the citations present in the article now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
            No, it doesn't make it a cult if the media calls it that. We need some authoritative source to say it was a cult. If you have no authoritative source, it's an "alleged cult". Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
            I have no objections to ALT4b: ... that the Ecclesia Athletic Association, which claimed its children were able to do 1,000 to 5,000 continuous jumping jacks was an alleged cult? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
            • No. We do not propagate allegations based on what the media thinks. Why don't you just leave it at:
            • Because that seems to give credit to an organization that did abuse children and so we're back to my original proposal, or some variant of it; if that's the direction to go I am obviously fine with that. We (as in Wikipedia) follow what reliable sources tell us. Reliable sources tell us it's a cult. It was referred to as such at the time. It has been referred to as such in academic papers since then. I'm fine leaving it out of the DYK, and hadn't originally proposed it as such, but this isn't some word I am applying based on my personal opinions; I am instead attempting to be responsibly apply NPOV by applying appropriate weight to what RS tell us. What I am insisting on, out of personal opinion, is that we not glorify an organization that abused children and whose abuse led to the death of one. The extreme athletic training is interesting I think to a wide audience, but needs the context that it was achieved through abuse. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

            ─────────────────────────*@Barkeep49: If you feel that way, it's time for a new hook suggestion.

            • Meanwhile, the article lead is calling the organization a cult, while the article body has the neighbors making this claim and the founder denying it. You cannot call it a cult based on newspaper headlines. You may think that the lead is a content dispute, but I can assure you that the people at WP:ERRORS will jump on this as soon as it's in the queue. If you would like a different DYK reviewer, I'm happy to leave this to them. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
            My position has been, and remains, that the content of the article beyond the DYK belongs at the talk page for the article as a content dispute beyond the scope of DYK. I appreciate your jumping in there and will respond to what you wrote about cults there. We have gone through multiple distinct ideas here (jumping jacks + abuse, slavery, jumping jacks + cult) and so I admit that we've exhausted the topline grabbers, in my opinion. You are the experienced person here and so I defer to your judgement whether it makes sense to fail this DYK, go to what I think of as a less interesting tier of events (death of Dayna, shoorting of Brinson, one of the members growing up to the Portland Timberwolves DJ (this fact isn't present but the source is), or have a different reviewer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            I think you should propose a few more hook ideas, and I'll try to verify them. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2018
            ALT 3a ... four members of the Ecclesia Athletic Association were charged with enslaving children in 1991. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            The four members were charged with manslaughter. The founder and six others were charged with child slavery. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            Sorry you are of course correct. Seven were charged with slavery. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            • So how about:
            • ALT5: ... that in 1991, the founder of Ecclesia Athletic Association and seven other members were indicted for what a federal prosecutor termed "the largest child slavery ring in the history of the United States"? Yoninah (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            Great except I get to be the one to point out this time that it's founder plus six who were indicted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Why? Federal prosecutors indicted Broussard, his brother, Chambers, Jackson, and four others for child slavery. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

            ─────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT5. Yoninah (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

            • As I am not an expert on this subject matter, I can only say that I can approve ALT5 as interesting and being cited inline. However, I have concerns about the article itself. One minor issue is with the sentence "Eldridge has been in Los Angeles at the time of his daughter's death"; "has been" should be in past tense. But more importantly, the article seems to be incomplete in some aspects: does information exist on details on exactly how the children were abused? Also, the article describes the group as a cult, but this direct claim is unreferenced; it might be better to instead say that the group was "described as a cult"; I know the nominator has expressed reservations with that wording, but I feel it may be the best option here. As I am uncomfortable actually doing a full review this time, I will leave the rest to another reviewer.

              EXAI

              • ... that EXAI offers website conversion to make mobile friendly websites for Google's Mobile First Indexing? Source: "Since google announced Mobile First Indexing in November 2016, EXAI started working on a solution that will provide millions of business around the world with a mobile friendly version of their website." ([23])

              Created by Lihaas (talk). Self-nominated at 23:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

              • Personally, I do not consider this sufficiently interesting for DYK. Catrìona (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
              Suggest an altu blurb?Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
              • A drive by comment, and not wishing to give offense, although I probably will: I am not convinced that the grammar and use of English in this article is up to being in Wikipedia's "shop window". I stopped by to see if I could come up with a hookier hook, but in several places I was honestly unsure what was being communicated.
              Could I suggest a thorough copy edit. A possibility re this is a GOCE Request. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
              @Gog the Mild: What part, by example, can you suggest is deficient?Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Honestly the article looks fine to me right now, and the grammar doesn't look too off. My main concern is that the article somewhat reads like a promo piece, and probably needs to be rewritten in a more neutral tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
              @Narutolovehinata5:In what way do you think it needs a change?Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
              Well for one, I'm not sure if the "novel" should be used here: it sounds like a peacock term to me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


              The Nature of Prejudice

              Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

              • Symbol possible vote.svg -- there is work to do here. For starters, it would be nice to have sections. And the book cover. Second, it needs a copy edit; I made a few obvious ones, but I note that the third paragraph starts with a grammatical error. In the second note the book title needs to be italicized; etc. Oh, the claim in the last sentence needs to be ascribed to someone; we can't be saying it I suppose a summary of the book isn't mandatory, but it would be nice--it's what we expect from a book article. Now, the hook is verified, the article is new enough and long enough and I smell no plagiarism, but it needs serious cleanup. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Why I don't disagree with you, the issues you are raising are IMHO irrelevant to the DYK (now, if this was a WP:GAN, you'd be dead right). Quality issues like this are not part of the DYK requirements. I am of course happy if people would like to expand things, but I don't believe it is necessary. Btw, I don't see the grammar error. Also, I don't see the need for attribution (the sentence is cited, after all). Lastly, academic books don't have plot summary sections, the content of the book is already summarized. I guess we could add a chapter list? PS. I did add an infobox (through again, it is not required for a DYK; it's not like I am self-assessing this article any higher than start, maybe C-class...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Piotrus, we've danced this dance before. I'm happy you wrote this up, it's important, but if we're putting it on the front page it should be representative of our quality. The grammar error is in "Describing the book significance"--needs to have a genitive for "book". I didn't say "plot summary", I said summary, and the only thing the article says about the book is the one sentence about some scale. The rest is all caught up inside reviewers' remarks. Having a summary is a Good Thing. I don't care about the infobox, BTW, though lots of people do. And the attribution, that is necessary. That it's cited is beside the point: what matters is that an opinion is cited ("One of the reasons for its success"), and it may be a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, but it's not a fact. Thus, attribution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Drmies Yes, we danced this indeed, and as I am sure I said it before, your standards are too high for DYK. If you see a grammar error, please fix it. I am not a native speaker and occasionally I don't see them. I stand by what I said - all your other requests, while all beneficial to the article (except the attribution, which I say is not needed through harmless) are not required for this to be on the front page. If you have a problem with that, try changing DYK requirements/guidelines. Ping User:BlueMoonset for 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                Well, I am not a native speaker either, and I'm not your copyeditor. Yngvadottir, thank you so much for looking over the article, and for the attribution--which of course is necessary, given NPOV. Good day Piotrus. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

              2018 National League Central tie-breaker game, 2018 National League West tie-breaker game

              Created by Muboshgu (talk), Spanneraol (talk), Mdumas43073 (talk), and Eposty (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 03:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

              • The above noms have redundant highlighted links and WP:EASTEREGGs. I think we should use informative links for the readers as suggested below. Any comments?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
              • The editing seems to be winding down and limited to the aftermath at this point. However, we now know the aftermath will not conclude until the season is over. I am actually quite shocked that the article is being presented without any mention that the Rockies were going for their first ever NL West title, which is as important as the Dodgers being 5x defending champs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              • I realize that there is a whole featured topic of these to be modeled after, but I think each article should say Team A was going for their Xth National League Division title and Yth National League Foo Division title (if the team has moved divisions like the Cubs) for each team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              • The above are suggestions. However, here is the review:
              Both articles are long enough and new enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              I prefer the ALT2 that I have nominated to the other noms and consider this an interesting, well-formed hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              Content is within policy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              There are still no QPQ reviews presented.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              Although I am not sure why, there are no images. It would seem to me that some biographical photos could be included, but I realize there are probably no photos from the game to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
              Can we get a citation for "This game was also in fact the first National League divisional tiebreaker ever to not involve the Dodgers."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
              I don't know who added that sentence, and can't find a source saying that, so I deleted it. I'll do qpq shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
              Isn't there a page somewhere on the internet that lists all NL tie-breaker results historically?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
              The best appears to be this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
              Which points out to me that the statement I removed was false, because the Dodgers were not involved in 1998 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
              I thought divisional tie-breakers and Wild Card tie-breakers were different things. Why would a Wild Card tie-breaker invalidate the prior statement?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
              @TonyTheTiger: I had forgotten about this nom. You're right, it doesn't invalidate it, because of the "divisional" qualifier. But that's too trivial anyway. A tiebreaker is a tiebreaker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
              @Muboshgu: we are not really tasked with determining what is trivial. We summarize the secondary sources. If they are mentioning it, we should mention it. I consider it significant (but I am a lifelong Dodger fan).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
              @

              Lapa do Santo

              View from the rockshelter entrance
              View from the rockshelter entrance
              • ALT1 that Lapa do Santo, in Minas Gerais, Brazil, has evidence of human occupation around 12,000 years ago, as well as the oldest recorded case of decapitation in the Americas? Source: [25] [26]
              Reviewed The Sensorites

              Created by Strauss MAE-USP (talk). Nominated by Mike Peel (talk) at 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC).


              Policy compliance:

              QPQ: Done.

              Overall: Symbol question.svg epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

              @Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. Can you have another look? I've proposed a longer hook, ALT1, above. @Strauss MAE-USP: has added references. The similar phrases look minimal to me, are there particular ones you think need rewriting? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
              @Strauss MAE-USP and Mike Peel: ALT1 looks much better. I definitely might be interested by the first recorded decapitation in the Americas. So you have my thumbs up for that one. I really only have three concerns with copyvios, and here they are:
              • "the reduction of the body by means of mutilation, defleshing, tooth removal, exposure to fire and possibly cannibalism, followed by the secondary burial of the remains according to strict rules" - possibly unattributed direct quote
              • "the oldest case of decapitation in the New World" and "were filled with disarticulated bones of a single" - these phrases are too close to the quoted text, even a paraphrase would be good.
              • "three distinct periods of human occupation" - same as above from this source.
              That's all of the phrases I was concerned about. Now for the sourcing:
              • "The rockshelter and the archaeological site" doesn't have any sources. A general rule of thumb is to aim for at least one source per paragraph.
              • "Mobility" still doesn't have any sources.
              • The ends of many paragraphs don't have sources. In some cases only the first sentence has a source. On the other hand, all of the references look reliable and authoritative. My issue is with the placement of the sources. Could you move them to the end of the paragraph?
              That's all of the outstanding DYK issues. Now going off on a few personal style nitpicks:
              • Although not necessary, I'd also suggest cleaning up this article to comply with some MOS guidelines. For instance, putting the periods before the references.
              • I'm concerned that there are way too many images in this article (there are 231 in total, but only about 4 thumbnail images, the rest are in galleries). WP:NOTGALLERY. Have you considered creating a gallery on Commons?
              Sorry to bother you with all these issues. I know it sounds like a lot, but from the looks of it, this article probably does not need that many modifications to get it into good shape for DYK. On a personal note, I am impressed by Strauss MAE-USP's work on this article with over 25 kB of prose size. Maybe this can be nominated as a good article later. epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
              @Epicgenius: sorry for the delay in following this up. I've sorted out the copyvio issues, and quickly checked through the style formatting. I don't think that a gallery on commons would be useful (they fell out of style on Commons quite a while back now), although I'd agree that there are too many pictures here right now. I started this nom after seeing @Strauss MAE-USP's work here, I don't know the subject myself, so I can't help with improving the referencing so much. Maybe @Joalpe: can help there? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
              @Mike Peel: It's OK. I'm still monitoring this nomination. So far it doesn't look like there has been much activity on the page since I last commented. I'll give it a few more weeks before I ask someone else to look at this. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

              Oswald Boelcke

              • ... that Oswald Boelcke is considered "the father of air combat"? Source: "Oswald Boelcke did not invent air-to-air tactics, the squadron organizational system, or the German Air Force. Still, his contributions to air warfare are so profound, he is considered the father of all three."
              • ALT1: ... that Oswald Boelcke is considered the father of air combat tactics, the organization of squadrons, and the German Air Force?

              Source: "Oswald Boelcke did not invent air-to-air tactics, the squadron organizational system, or the German Air Force. Still, his contributions to air warfare are so profound, he is considered the father of all three." The title of the major source for this article is "Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat", and the entirety of the book is devoted toward proving this point.

              Improved to Good Article status by Georgejdorner (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk). Nominated by Georgejdorner (talk) at 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

              • Symbol question.svg The source provided does not actually include the quote "the father of air combat". Catrìona (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
                • The title of the major source for this article is "Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat", and the entirety of the book is devoted toward proving this point.

                  Memoriale della Shoah

                  Source: A Wall of Indifference: Italy's Shoah Memorial" & "'We could not remain indifferent': Milan's Holocaust Museum now a shelter for African refugees"
                  • Comment: The option also exists to hold this until 6 December, the 75th anniversary of the first train from Milan to Auschwitz, and use the below, rather sombre, hook, as long as people don't feel putting it on the main page like this trivialises the events.
                  Source: Timeline – from 1922 to 1945 (in Italian, mostly)

                  Created by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

                  QPQ: Done.

                  Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg I was about to create this page and suggest ALT2 (below). However, I really like ALT1 or its variation, ALT3, below—some might take exception to the fact that some deportees might have been removed from Auschwitz and died in other concentration camps. I recommend that the hook is held until 6 December. You have a very minor close paraphrasing issue according to Earwig.

                  Symbol redirect vote 4.svg for ALT2 and ALT3. Catrìona (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

                  • I have rephrased that sentence, the Earwig score has now come down to 2.9%. In regards to Auschwitz you do have a point there. The translation of the source states The first convoy of Jewish deportees to Auschwitz-Birkenau departs from an underground railway of the Milan Central Station. It includes 169 people, of which 5 will survive, which doesn't quite support that they were actually killed there. I think your Alt 3 addresses that issue of uncertainty.

                    Muhammad Tapar's anti-Nizari campaign

                    • ... that Seljuk sultan Muhammad Tapar's campaign against the outnumbered Nizari Ismailis (the Assassins) eventually failed after a decade of war? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

                    Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Symbol possible vote.svg - article needs expansion. Still too short. And another source or two are needed as well. If that gets fixed please ping me. And I will give a final review.BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • Note: the article currently has 888 prose characters and needs to be at least 1500 prose characters, so it needs to add over two-thirds to its present size in order to qualify for DYK. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Shahdiz

                    • ... that a small group of besieged Nizari Ismailis (the Assassins) in Shahdiz fortress refused offer of a safe withdrawal and fought against the Seljuk army from tower to tower in a last stand? Source: "Aḥmad and his small band of Nezārīs fought the Saljuqs gallantly from tower to tower" [27]

                    Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Articles created/expanded on October 6

                    Sheng Zhongguo

                    Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, well written, and properly sourced. QPQ done. But Earwig found what looks to me like too much close paraphrasing from https://www.thestrad.com/chinese-violinist-zhongguo-sheng-dies-aged-77/8174.article (e.g. source for the hook claim "In 1980 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation listed him as one of ‘the world’s greatest artists" vs our article changed only from active to passive "In 1980, he was listed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as one of the world's greatest artists.") and from http://en.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/11/content_43033.htm (source: "His father, Sheng Xue, was a famous violinist and professor who taught at the Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute. His mother, Zhu Bing, majored in vocal music."; our article, "His father, Sheng Xue, was a well known violinist and professor of Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute. His mother Zhu Bing was a vocalist.") And the incredibly boring hook conveys no useful information about the subject and probably violates WP:PEACOCK. Can't we find something more distinctive to say about him than "he played really well"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @David Eppstein: Thanks for your review. The close paraphrasing is mainly of proper names and set phrases. I've put "one of the world's greatest artists" in quotation marks and edited the other sentence as well, please check again. I disagree with your "peacock" comment. WP:PEACOCK refers to "Words such as these are often used without attribution" while the hook is clearly attributed. In fact, WP:PEACOCK uses the sentence "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century" as an example of factual statements. And there's a huge difference between playing well and being named by a major broadcaster as one of the world's greatest artists, an honour that is prominently mentioned by most of his obituaries. I can't imagine how you can treat them as the same. -Zanhe (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
                    So you disagree that the close paraphrasing that I specifically identified is a problem and that the bad hook is bad. I suppose that's a response, but it's not one that's going to lead me to pass your hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
                    I thought I addressed the close paraphrasing issue with edits including putting the set phrase in quotes. I disagreed with your assessment of the hook as uninteresting/peacock. Please read my reasoning and reconsider. -Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
                    The problem is not the set phrase, it is that you are constructing the article by taking sentences from the source and making minor changes to individual words while repeating the same concepts in the same order. That is close paraphrasing and it is not ok. You need to internalize the concepts involved and then present them in your own order, in your own language, not merely by making cosmetic changes to someone else's writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
                    The sentences highlighted by Earwig were made of long proper names and phrases strung together with simple words. I've further edited the article and deleted some info ("professor of Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute") which I don't think I can paraphrase further without making it sound unnatural. Earwig now reports 5.7%. Please check again. Thanks. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @David Eppstein: I've edited the article to address your concerns. Did you see my message from a week ago? -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
                    It still seems very similar to the sources to me and you still haven't proposed an interesting-enough hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It appears we're in disagreement. Requesting third opinion. -Zanhe (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Comment: An article may be passed by Earwig and still be full of

                    John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter

                    • ... that in 1342 John, Lord FitzWalter accused men from Colchester of invading and damaging his park at Lexden, and soon after, besieged the town for over two months?
                      Source: For 1342, V. C. H. (1994). A History of the County of Essex. IX: The Borough of Colchester. London: Victoria County History; for FitzWalters accusations, Starr, C. (2004). "Fitzwalter family (per. c. 1200–c. 1500)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; for te damage done, Furber, E. C. (1953). Essex Sessions of the Peace, 1351, 1377-1379. Colchester: Essex Archaeological Society; for the link between the two events, Britnell, R. H. (1988). "The Fields and Pastures of Colchester, 1280–1350". Transactions of the Essex Archaeological and History Society. 3rd series. 19.; for the siege itself and its duration, V. C. H.

                    Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Articles created/expanded on October 8

                    Tawasa people

                    • ... that "The Account of Lamhatty" was a document created by a man of the Tawasa people, named Lamhatty? Source: Bushnell, David (1908). The Account of Lamhatty.

                    Created/expanded by Amay1355 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Amay1355, the moment you work on that particular section a bit, you'll be able to write something more exciting. This hook generates no interest, since there is no reason to think it unusual that a man named X made a document named "the account of X". You have to start thinking about what is interesting or exciting about this--for other readers. Dr Aaij (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

                    Slovak Three

                    • ... that in June 2001, three members of the Real IRA tried to buy arms from Iraq, promising the men they thought were Iraqi Intelligence that their use against Britain would "bring a smile to your face"? Source: For the RIRA negotiating with Iraq, Barrett, R.; Parker, P. (2018) "Acting Ethically in the Shadows: Intelligence Gathering and Human Rights", in Nowak M. Using Human Rights to Counter Terrorism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; for MI5 impersonating Iraqi Intelligence, Clarke, L. (25 June 2006) "Sting by security services foils renewed Real IRA campaign", The Times; for the quote, Steele, J. (8 May 2002) "Real IRA men snared by MI5 given 30 years", The Daily Telegraph.
                      • ALT1:... that in 2001, members of the Real IRA attempted to buy arms from MI5 agents, believing them to be Iraqi gunrunners, and wrote their list on a napkin which an agent blew his nose on before pocketing? For the gunrunning &Iraqi connection, Barrett & Parker, and Clarke, per ALT0; for the nose-blowing, etc, Johnston, P. (3 May 2002) "Tip-off that set up Real IRA 'Arab sting'", The Daily Telegraph.

                    Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Hook eligiblity:

                    • Cited: Green tickY
                    • Interesting: Green tickY
                    • Other problems: Red XN - I think shorter hooks would be more effective. Just my 2c.
                    QPQ: Done.

                    Overall: Symbol question.svg Well written, well over required length, excellent DYK material. Catrìona (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

                    Einsatzgruppe H, Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions, Kremnička and Nemecká massacres

                    * ... that Einsatzkommando 14 and local collaborators committed the two most notorious massacres in the history of Slovakia? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

                      • ALT1:... that Einsatzkommando 14 and local collaborators committed the two largest massacres in the history of Slovakia?
                      • In case three articles in one hook is too many, we could also go with:
                        • ALT2a: ... that "Slovaks killed Slovaks" during the two largest massacres in the history of Slovakia? Source: Title of this article, Schön, Jozef (16 March 2017). "Keď Slovák vraždil Slováka". Hnonline (in Slovak). "When Slovaks killed Slovaks"
                        • ALT2b: ... that along with murdering or deporting thousands of Jews and Romani people, Einsatzgruppe H targeted German soldiers suspected of defeatism and homosexuality?

                    Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Comment I'm fairly sure for three bolded links you need 3 reviews, or am I wrong? Juxlos (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Comment Where are the source texts for hooks requested in the nomination form?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @Juxlos: You're correct, that's in the supplementary rules and I wasn't aware of it. plus Added. @Georgejdorner: It is not actually a requirement to quote sources, as long as they are cited in the article (which these are, see then end of Kremnička and Nemecká massacres). The reason why I commented on your hook is that it was odd to include a quote that did not actually support the proposed hook. There is actually no source describing the massacres as "notorious" simply because almost all sources are non-English, but being described as the "Slovak Katyn" and similar means that it's reasonable to conclude that this is the general view on the massacres in Slovakia. Catrìona (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Thank you for the comment on my nom. It aided me in writing an improved hook.
                    I made the comments above about sourcing so you might correct the problems before you are reviewed. As your own nomination form states above (where you failed to give a source), "Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)" Hooks ALT1 and ALT2b have no sourcing whatsoever. A lenient reviewer might let you slide on ALT2a.
                    And, yes, I recall when mentioning your cite without a link or quote was acceptable here in DYK, but times have changed.
                    Best regards.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @Georgejdorner: I don't understand your emphasis on putting the sources in the hook nomination. The most important thing is that the hook facts are cited in the article, per WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria 3. Cited hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Comment: I haven't seen a link to somewhere in the middle of a bolded article, and think it's not a good idea, - found it confusing. - And yes, 3 qpq reviews please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your comment. There are 3 qpqs listed above. How about:
                        • ALT3a: ... that Slovak collaborators participated in the two largest massacres in Slovakia during World War II? Rajcan, Vanda; Vadkerty, Madeline; Hlavinka, Ján (2018). "Slovakia". In Megargee, Geoffrey P.; White, Joseph R.; Hecker, Mel. Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany. Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. 3. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ISBN 978-0-253-02373-5. p. 849
                        • ALT3b: ... that along with murdering or deporting thousands of Jews and Romani people, Einsatzgruppe H targeted German soldiers suspected of defeatism and homosexuality? Šindelářová, Lenka (2013). "Einsatzgruppe H na povstaleckém Slovensku". Soudobé dějiny (in Czech). Prague. XX (4): 582–603. ISSN 1210-7050. p. 588 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrìona (talkcontribs) 08:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that new ALT hooks have been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • It appears that this is a November 5 date request and it is November 2. No one seems to want to take on this review, so I might as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • First, let's get these nominations into one hook. Based on the WP:LEAD of Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions you could go with the following, although I have to take a look at the sources and make sure it is backed up:
                    • ALT4... that the Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions were known for there crimes against humanity in the Kremnička and Nemecká massacres in conjuction with Einsatzgruppe H?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
                    @TonyTheTiger: Thanks for taking on this review. Your proposed hook is factually correct, except as far as I know "crimes against humanity" as a legal matter was not used to charge any of the perpetrators. It would be more accurate to say that Einsatzgruppe H sponsored the massacre, and the Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions was drafted into helping them. However, after writing this I decided that trying to shoehorn the three articles into one hook wasn't as effective as separating them into two hooks; see above. The special occasion date (for the hook mentioning the Kremnicka/Nemecka massacres) doesn't have to be 5 November; it would be equally appropriate to have it on 20 November, 12 or 19 December, 4, 5, 11, or 20 January, or 19 February (the massacres took place on multiple days). Catrìona (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
                    1. @TonyTheTiger: I don't think that ALT4 is a good hook. So what if the two units were involved in a massacre? It doesn't give the reader any reason to click any of the links. Whereas, that Slovak collaborators were involved in the largest massacres on Slovak soil, that is noteworthy and interesting, and so is the fact that Einsatzgruppe H also targeted their own men.
                    2. They're separate articles on the Czech and Slovak wikis, but I thought it made more sense to keep them in the same article since most sources discuss them together. The massacres involved the same perpetrators and victims, took place at the same location and with the same motivation. The victims had even been arrested in the same way and were taken from the same prison. According to one source, the perpetrators decided to switch the site of killings from Kremnicka to Nemecka because they ran out of space in the anti-tank ditches. (The Katyn massacre also took place in multiple locations.) Catrìona (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • TonyTheTiger, I don't see that you've yet given this review an icon. Even if there is still more to do, in a review this long, it's important to let the nominator and others to know its current status. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • Symbol question.svg This set of articles is pretty close. However, I am a bit troubled by the merger of two articles here that seem to be separate articles in other wikis that are culturally closer to the subject. I sort of view the Czech and Slovak wikis as the place where the subject matter experts are. If they view these as separate topics, why should we have a merged article. I am open to outside opinions on this matter, but encourage considering splitting the articles. I also mentioned an issue with alternate wikis in the text following a redlink. We can revisit the hooks, when we resolve the article merge/split issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
                    @TonyTheTiger: Personally, I think it's odd that you would consider the Czech and Slovak wikis as definitive, given that the articles you are talking about (both Czech and Slovak) have no citations at all. Also, you haven't advanced a proposal or much of any argument why separating the articles would be beneficial. Currently, the article is independently rated B-class but it would probably be stub- or start-class if split. As for interlanguage links, a specific template exists for this purpose, and is widely used all over Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you should nominate the template for deletion. Catrìona (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Honestly, I don't know what interlanguage link templates are suppose to be used for. I have met with great resistance in my editorial experience. I have also never chanced upon one in article space, to my recollection. That being said, my calling in to question whether they meet core policies and guidelines is one of the few things I am suppose to check according to the review criteria here at DYK and has nothing to do with whether an article should be at

                    Super League XXIV

                    • ... that the London Broncos will play in rugby league's Super League XXIV in a rugby union stadium smaller than RFL standards? Source: Sky Sports

                    Created by L1amw90 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Symbol question.svg @The C of E: I don't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. It's not that uncommon for sports teams to play games in smaller-than-normal stadiums (like DC United's occasional home games in Maryland, Seattle Sounders FC sometimes playing in its training ground, or the Los Angeles Chargers playing at a soccer-specific stadium). In addition, I feel that the hook is not interesting to non-rugby fans, and as far as I am aware, it's not uncommon for stadiums to host both union and league, and in any case the hook feels rambling. How about something simply something like "the London Broncos will play their rugby league game at a rugby union stadium?" or something to that effect? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • @Narutolovehinata5: No, I think that this hook has sufficient interest and I don't see any reason to change it. I think the general public might find it interesting in that there will be a club that has allowed to play their matches in a stadium smaller than the league's regulations. indeed your proposed alt is basically the same as my original just without the mention of that fact so I am happy to stick with the one I have proposed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
                    I'm afraid your proposed hook is not interesting to a broad audience. Like audiences wouldn't really care about stadium sizes and the like; I'm pretty sure we've discussed something similar to this before. And in many parts of the world, smaller stadiums are the norm, not the exception. Perhaps if the RFL was a well-known league worldwide like the NFL, the Premiere League, or the IPL, but the RFL is much more niche. As such, I've gone ahead and struck the hook. Also, I'd also like to ask the opinions of fellow sports article contributor Hawkeye7 on their thoughts on both the article and the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    I disagree, I think the hook is fine as it is and as I mentioned above your proposal is exactly the same as the original (less the reference to size) so what is the difference. I'm not prepared to change it at this so have unstruck it for another reviewer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Once a hook has been struck, it can't normally be unstruck by the nominator, only by a reviewer; I have re-struck the hook, please do not unstrike unless me, Hawkeye7, or another editor says so. I'd wait for a second opinion here on whether or not it's appropriate, but for now, a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    I think you'll find that under WP:DYKRULES, there is no such rule that says that. As such, I am unstriking and prepared to wait for a new reviewer. It is certainly appropriate as it is accurate and sourced inline in the article. Subjective opinions on if it is interesting are irrelevant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    You may wish to read the comment left by BlueMoonset on Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, specifically the quote he certainly should not be unstriking any hook struck by a reviewer. With that said, I will request a second review over a WT:DYK on hook interest and will leave the hook unstruck for now while waiting for other opinions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Boring hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Symbol possible vote.svg Adding an icon reflective of a nomination without an unstruck hook. If The C of E doesn't wish to provide a new hook, then they can always withdraw the nomination. No one gets to insist on keeping their hook in the face of reviewer agreement that there are problems with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • The issue here is that it is going to be very difficult to find an interesting hook when there is so little information in the article other than the utterly routine stuff such as the format of the league and the teams in it - hardly surprising as the season hasn’t even started yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @BlueMoonset and Pawnkingthree: Per discussions on Discord and reading through the article again, would this work?
                    ALT1 ... that rugby league's Super League XXIV will feature a top five play-offs system?" Apparently such systems aren't actually unusual in rugby (given that the format has an article), but as a non-rugby fan, I kind of found that fact interesting since most playoff formats involve an even number of teams. Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Let's go with ALT1. Top five playoffs are fairly common in Australia, but unusual elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Narutolovehinata5, Hawkeye7, source 3 appears to be talking about the top five playoffs system being reintroduced for promotion of one Championship League team to the Super League at the end of a season (taking the place of the Super League team with the worst record, which is relegated to the Championship League). So ALT1 is not properly sourced. The Championship League had an eight-team playoff through 2018; Super League abandoned their eight-team playoff in 2015 for a four-team playoff system if one is to believe the Super League play-offs article. That same article notes that the top five system was used from 1998 through 2001, and that fact, if it can be supported (no sourcing in the article), might make a good hook:
                    Reading between the lines of the Super League play-offs article, 1998 was the year of Super League III, the first year there were playoffs in Super League, and it was the top-five version that's being used anew in 2019. Again, if sourcing can be found (the only source used for Super League III is behind a paywall, and I can't check it), an even more interesting hook would be possible:
                    Would someone know where to find the necessary sourcing and be able to make the necessary additions to the article for these hooks to be supported, assuming they're deemed interesting enough? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    So the playing in another club's ground with permission is more boring than the playoff format? I'd have thought that would have had even less of a "broad" reach plus I find them boring therefore I do not accept these proposals so I am striking them. I am prepared to amend my hook by adding a geographical indicator to make it more "interesting":
                    ALT4 ... that the London Broncos will play in rugby league's predominately Northern England based Super League XXIV in a rugby union stadium smaller than RFL standards? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • That does not make the hook any more interesting in my opinion. The ALT2 and ALT3 are marginally better. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    The C of E, I am very aware that you really want to stick with your proposal on stadium size, but multiple reviewers here have already stated that it is not a good option. ALT4 is just as bland as the original and arguably even more inaccessible, because let's face it, the average reader is unlikely to be one that cares about RFL standards or Northern England. I am unstriking ALT2 and ALT3 and have struck ALT4 as not addressing reviewer concerns; please do not revert unless told to by a reviewer, as this is considered going against reviewer consensus. Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I will also make a request at WT:DYK for an uninvolved editor to make the full review here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    ALT5 ... that London Broncos defeated Toronto Wolfpack to earn promotion to the mostly Northern England based Super League XXIV? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    I'm afraid that's not really a good hook either, although it's probably a better option than ALT0 and ALT4. The problem is that promotion and relegation isn't unusual at all and most readers would be unfamiliar with either team. With that said, the opinions of previous reviewers @Pawnkingthree, BlueMoonset, Hawkeye7, and The Rambling Man: would still be appreciated here, since this is a new proposal. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Fail. There's nothing interesting in a league that's yet to start, no matter how contrived anyone tries to make it. Send in Vanamonde93 to find something here given he's solely in charge of what is and what is not interesting, despite allowing dozens of hooks go through to the main page, including those which are on the main page today, apart from just one that I was involved with. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                      This is getting rather tiresome: there was absolutely no cause to ping me here. I have pulled hooks for reasons of interest on several occasions. I do so typically when I promote a prep to queue, or promote a special occasion hook, which is what brought me to your hook. If you think I'm giving you special attention, I'm flattered, but I don't have that sort of time. FTR, the original hook is not interesting to a broad audience. Vanamonde (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                      Yet this so-called admin who has seen "more football than most" deems other hooks instantly boring? Wow. This may be tiresome, but this is the lot you have chosen. Fail this, and I will continually question Vanamonde93 as to why every boring hook that gets through hasn't been pulled. That's reasonable given the short shrift the hook I proposed was given, yet pulled and then replaced with a bunch of shit, without any kind of apology. Even now. So, that's your lot Vanamonde, deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                      That makes no sense. I will pull hooks only when I review them at some stage of the process. If you think I ought to check every hook posted to the main page, please think again. Vanamonde (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                      No, of course, you only check the hooks you read. Revelation. So this hook falls squarely, more squarely, into Vanamonde's "not interesting" loop, and certainly mine too. Fail this nomination, move on. Looking forward to the next revelation from this admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                      So you didn't have a good reason to ping me, because I was uninvolved, and you were not asking for my input. Please don't ping me under those circumstances again. Vanamonde (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
                      Please don't act unilaterally against consensus and introduce errors at the last moment. Please approach DYK consistently. Please try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • I agree with TRM that there is fundamentally nothing interesting that can be said about a league that has yet to start. I don't find the fact that there's one London based team and the rest are northern interesting enough for a broad audience. Not every new article is suitable for DYK and I think this should be failed.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @Pawnkingthree: I disagree. Just because something is new doesn't mean that it can't be suitable for DYK. Yes the league has yet to begin, that doesn't mean something can't be said about it. For example, I actually like the part about that Top 5 playoffs; as mentioned above, it appears to be common in Australia but not elsewhere, and as a sports fan I found it unusual that their playoffs system had an odd number of teams. With that said, I'd like to hear your thoughts on ALT2 and ALT3; if you don't like them, I'd like to hear The C of E's thoughts one more time, and if we can't get into an agreement, I'm willing to fail this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Sigh* I see I have little choice, I for the life of me cannot see how a hook about a playoff format is more interesting than the fact we had a London team fighting it out with a Canadian team for a place in a mostly Northern competition. I'd still prefer one of my hooks but I regrettably won't object if they use one of the others. It's this sort of thing that made me take a brief hiatus from DYK because I used to enjoy doing it; it relaxed me not stressed me out as it does with this sort of thing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
                    @Narutolovehinata5: I'm not thrilled about a format-based hook but If you like the playoff suggestions and C of E won't object, it does seem to be the best we have. I would say that ALT 3 is the marginally better one. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Narutolovehinata5, as I pointed out when I suggested the ALT2 and ALT3 hooks, reliable sourcing will need to be found for these facts; some facts and sourcing are not in the article now, nor are the sourced in the various league season articles here on Wikipedia where I found said facts. There hasn't been any attempt to source them in the nominated article, so unless that attempt is made, this could all be moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Thanks. Please address the sourcing issues so that this can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • The C of E, it's been a week. Last call to address the sourcing issues for those hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • I have added a source to it, I still object to this hijacking of the nomination and still feel that one of my original proposed hooks are better because I still do not believe the playoff hook is more interesting than either the stadium or team hooks I proposed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • The article looks better now and it appears that whatever can be sourced has been sourced. The "Teams" section seems to lack references, but I'm willing to let that pass as long as each statement is verified in each team's article (though to be on the safe side, a single general reference, perhaps to the league's website or an official stats site, could also be added here). The same for the tables, which right now are empty. As for the hook suggestions, it was not a "hijacking" but rather a reflection of consensus; although the stadium size hooks was greatly preferred by the nominator, consensus determined that they were not interesting enough to a broad audience and thus had to be substituted with different proposals. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

                    LeCompte maneuver

                    • ... that the LeCompte maneuver helps surgeons switch a baby's aorta and pulmonary artery? Source: "Anterior translocation of the pulmonary arteries (PAs) in relation to the aorta was first described by LeCompte in 1981 in his description of a new technique of the arterial switch operation (ASO) for d-transposition of great arteries (TGA)."

                    5x expanded by Keilana (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • General eligiblity:
                    QPQ: Done.

                    Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I'm afraid it's a bit too short for a DYK nomination, but should be salvageable with some more work.

                    Content-wise, the sentence "cutting the main pulmonary artery and moving it anterior to the aorta before continuing the reconstruction of the great vessels" is not clear. Firstly, the verb "moving" is confusing - does the procedure involve simply pushing the cut end of the main pulmonary artery around or attaching it anterior to the aorta? I'm assuming it's the latter, but the mental image persists. Secondly, this sentence mentions reconstruction of the great vessels, while the next one talks about reconstruction of the right ventricular outflow tract (part of the heart itself, not the vessels). Might be good to clarify.

                    Other aspects ok. — Yerpo Eh? 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

                    @Yerpo: My apologies for taking so long to take care of this - I just finished my inpatient month and am slowly getting around to my real life. Just to clarify, the right ventricular outflow tract must be reconstructed when the PA is reattached to it during an ASO, or any kind of vessel reconstruction that's proximal enough to need a LeCompte configuration. Does that need to be explicitly explained? (I have spent I think I made the rest clear -- and the article is now 1532kb thanks to these clarifications. I'll try to check in asap, I take a massive exam on Friday so I may be less accessible than I would like. Keilana (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Karel František Koch

                    Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Articles created/expanded on October 10

                    Martin Hellinger

                    Martin Hellinger
                    Martin Hellinger
                    • ... that Nazi dentist Martin Hellinger (pictured) was sentenced to 15 years jail for removing dental gold from those killed at Ravensbrück, but released in 1955 and received a grant to establish a dental practice?
                    • ALT1 ... that following sentencing in 1947 and early release in 1955, Nazi dentist Martin Hellinger (pictured) received a special grant to re-establish his dental practice?

                    Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Edgecliff (Winnetka, Illinois)

                    • ... that Edgecliff was the building with the highest residential property tax in Cook County in 2014 and 2015?
                    • Comment: I realize that this is not yet 1500 characters. There is a book coming from the Chicago Public Library. I will pick up "North Shore Chicago: Houses of the Lakefront Suburbs, 1890-1940" on the 18th.

                    Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 05:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Tribulation 99: Alien Anomalies Under America, Spectres of the Spectrum, Mock Up on Mu

                    Craig Baldwin with his collection of films
                    Craig Baldwin with his collection of films

                    Created by Hinnk (talk). Self-nominated at 03:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Pachara Chirathivat

                    Pachara Chirathivat
                    Pachara Chirathivat
                    • ... that while shooting a strangling scene from the 2012 film Countdown, Pachara Chirathivat (pictured) was already suffocating while the crew continued shooting?

                    5x expanded by 001Jrm (talk). Self-nominated at 21:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • ALT1: ... that Pachara Chirathivat (pictured) was actually suffocating during a strangling scene in the 2012 film Countdown, but the film crew thought he was just acting? Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Saphir-class submarine (1928)

                    Scale model of Saphir
                    Scale model of Saphir

                    Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Articles created/expanded on October 11

                    Wolfgang Rennert

                    • Reviewed: to come Black-collared starling
                    • Comment: Confession: we are late, I forgot that LouisAlain created this already on 11 October. There would be enough material for more expansion, but it seems a bit unfair to other great conductors. IRA, please?

                    Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • I think this could be accepted per IAR, but the hook doesn't really seem interesting to a broad audience. Non-opera fans probably can't appreciate how conducting at the Frankfurt Opera is a big deal. Perhaps another hook can be suggested here, more about his actual work? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
                    They can nonetheless be astonished that someone was working in both West and East then, and conducted several premieres, and on the side learn about the Franfurt Opera, which has been named Opera house of the year just as often as the three operas in Berlin together, including 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Helen Hays (ornithologist)

                    Helen Hays on Great Gull Island
                    Helen Hays on Great Gull Island
                    • ... that since 1969, ornithologist Helen Hays (pictured) has lived half the year on an island owned by American Museum of Natural History? Source: "[T]he American Museum of Natural History bought the old fort and asked [Hays] to pay a visit...Working out of the old barracks, she and a handful of volunteers are the only ones living here six months a year." CBS News "Ms. Hays, who since 1969 has lived on the island six months a year" NYT
                      • ALT1:... that in the half-century of ornithologist Helen Hays's (pictured) conservation work, the near-extinct tern population of Great Gull Island increased tenfold? Source: "The terns were on the verge of extinction. Hunters seeking their beautiful feathers for hats decimated the population in the early 20th century. As few as 2,500 birds remained...Today their numbers are thriving: some 26,000 terns are on the island" CBS News
                      • ALT2:... that across a half-century of conservation work by ornithologist Helen Hays (pictured), the near-extinct tern population of Great Gull Island increased tenfold? Source: "The terns were on the verge of extinction. Hunters seeking their beautiful feathers for hats decimated the population in the early 20th century. As few as 2,500 birds remained...Today their numbers are thriving: some 26,000 terns are on the island" CBS News

                    Created by The lorax (talk) and Innisfree987 (talk). Nominated by Innisfree987 (talk) at 05:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed, but a little "restless" in small size, it also shows no island but interior. I'd prefer ALT1 (not just living somewhere but results!), but please reword it in a way without possessive followed by the pictured-clause, best no possessive at all but her active ;) - Also waiting for qpq. - Suggestions for the article: find a way to have the link to Island before the committee, and mention what ALT1 says in the lead. Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs, and merge the Manhattan sence to somewhere else, - doesn't deserve its own para ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
                    Thanks so much for all the feedback, Gerda Arendt. I've revised the hook, see if it seems better? I'm fine leaving off the picture if folks think it's not up to snuff, just wanted to note it's available. Next to turn to your suggestions for the entry, thanks again. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Just to say, article now revised per suggestions as well. Thanks again for the input, I really think it improved the entry (I hope you'll think so too--please feel free to change anything you think could be done better, of course!) Innisfree987 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • Please do not include the word "extinct" when describing historical population statuses of either common terns or roseate terns. Terms such as "near-extinct" and "verge of extinction" are factually incorrect and result only from hyperbole/misunderstanding by the CBS journalist. North American roseate tern populations were indeed devastated by the millinery trade in the nineteenth century and were saved only by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. North-eastern US populations rebounded until 1930, when the rising presence of humans increased predation by racoons and other animals. While regionally the terns were certainly threatened with extirpation, as a species with a global distribution, their survival has never been threatened. The IUCN Red List assessments only date back to 1988, where roseate terns were listed as "near threatened". Common terns are much more abundant and have never been at risk. Loopy30 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Could we simply drop the term? A tenfold increase seems impressive enough to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Certainly! I had already corrected the article text to remove the term and did not want the DYK to be published with the same error. A tenfold increase (locally though, not globally!) is especially impressive because it occurred at a time when other regional breeding pair populations were still in decline. Loopy30 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Just to be clear, the hook as well as the sources refer to the risk of extinction of this colony, not the worldwide species. But I'm fine with not using the word extinction if some prefer. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • The article looks good in its present state and Hays is an interesting subject for a DYK. The objection to the term "locally extinct" is that it is an oxymoron and similar to saying that someone is "half-pregnant". A species cannot be both locally extant (elsewhere) and extinct, the correct term for this would be "extirpated". The most reliable (specialized) sources are clear on this, even if a (generally) reliable popular press source gets it confused. Loopy30 (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Miluj blížneho svojho

                    • ... that an antisemitic and antiziganistic statement had to be censored from a Slovak documentary about a post-Holocaust pogrom? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
                      • ALT1:... that Dušan Hudec criticized the removal of an antisemitic and antiziganistic statement from his film, which connected a post-Holocaust pogrom to modern-day Slovak racism?
                      • ALT2:... that Slovak Jewish leaders criticized the removal of an antisemitic statement from a documentary about a post-Holocaust pogrom?
                      • ALT3 ... that during the filming of a documentary about the 1945 Topoľčany pogrom, a local man stated that "Jews and Gypsies are the worst scum under the sun"?

                    Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Articles created/expanded on October 12

                    Fernando Albán Salazar

                    • ... that the devout Catholic faith of Fernando Albán Salazar is primary evidence cited by family, friends, colleagues, and bishops, as a reason to not believe the story of his apparent suicide? Source: "Also expressing concern was Venezuela’s Catholic bishops’ conference and Luis Almagro, the head of the Organization of American States and a sharp critic of Venezuela’s government. [...]Friends said the councilman was a family man and devout Catholic. “Albán is a very Christian person, with deep spiritual convictions that go contrary to a decision to take one’s life,” said Joel Garcia, a lawyer who met with Mr. Albán the night before in the tribunal, and said he seemed calm." (New York Times)

                    Created by Jamez42 (talk) and Kingsif (talk). Nominated by Kingsif (talk) at 22:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Comment: I have to mention that the main description is half true since there are other reasons given for not believing suicide as the cause of death, including the differences of the versions given between the Attorney General and the Interior Minister, the fact that there weren't open windows in the tenth floor of the building, that Fernando was likely handcuffed at the moment, among others. I support the alternative nomination.

                    Articles created/expanded on October 13

                    Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

                    Building of the Supreme Court of India
                    Building of the Supreme Court of India
                    • Reviewed: I don't think it's needed now; less than five DYK credits (four three).
                    • Comment: Created in userspace on 26 September 2018 and moved to mainspace on 13 October 2018.

                    Created by SshibumXZ (talk). Self-nominated at 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Articles created/expanded on October 14

                    Sophie Koch

                    Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

                    • Symbol question.svg Claiming this for review. The full review will be to follow. The proposed hook I suppose is somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure if non-opera fans will like it. I note that the article states she began performing opera at the age of 11; is that unusual in opera? Because personally I think that performing opera at such a young age is interesting to a broad audience. Secondly, the sentence "Sophie Koch is a patron of the Coline Opera Endowment Fund." and much of the Discography section is unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • Thank you for looking. Beginning young is not unusual, and nothing about her. - Becoming internationally known, without what follows, should be enough for the not so operatic ;) - LouisAlain, can you take care of the facts for which I couldn't find a reference? Reference or remove, that is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Gerda, if you couldn't get refs as pertains the discography, there's no way I could, so my suggestion is to mask the whole discography section unless someone is ready to search through the different record labels catalogues. Is it worth the pain for a DYK article?
                    I was in a rush and only saw the endowment fund. I will take care of the discopgraphy, but don't know when. Am on vacation. just returned after a day out, and after dinner will today's article. Patience please. - I will never understand why published books and recordings - which are in authority control (in national libraries, among others) - also need a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Same here. But 'never' say "never" nor "always" Face-wink.svg LouisAlain (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Thank you for the reminder, I forgot over vacation. Later today, or tomorrow, or ping me again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Narutolovehinata5, I referenced the recordings, and dropped the one line without ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
                    ALT1: ... that mezzo-soprano Sophie Koch made her Metropolitan Opera debut as Charlotte in Massenet's Werther?
                    The Met is probably better known, but the ROH is the better article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Honestly I'm not sure about ALT1, as it assumes familiarity with Werther, which most of our audiences are not. I still think the fact she debuted as an opera actress at such a young age is a more interesting fact to a wide audience. It may probably be common knowledge for opera fans, but probably less so for the layman. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
                    I hear you but am unconvinced. Many artists start young, that's nothing personal. DYK is for things the readers don't yet know, including Werther. A headline in a review said "is a Charlotte to die for", - that is personal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Well I suppose if you don't want to talk about her debuting as a child, we probably should stick to the original hook. ALT1 just isn't very interesting, in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

                    Theresienstadt (1944 film)

                    5x expanded by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Edgemere Landfill

                    • ... that the Edgemere Landfill in New York City was claimed to be "the longest continuously operating dump in the United States", accepting waste from 1938 to 1991? Source: NY Times 1991. "Opened in 1938, Edgemere was the longest continuously operating dump in the United States and perhaps the oldest, the Sanitation Department says."
                      • ALT1:... that food waste at New York City's Edgemere Landfill was shredded and poisoned to prevent birds from interfering with operations from nearby JFK Airport? Source: NY Times 1975. "Intensifying their campaign to minimize the bird‐strike hazard at Kennedy International Airport, local authorities have applied for permission to conduct a limited food‐poisoning experiment at a nearby garbage dump. They also are erecting a grid of horizontal wires over the disposal area, which is located at Edgemere in the Rockaways."
                      • ALT2:... that the Edgemere Landfill was created because New York City parks commissioner Robert Moses wanted to develop the landfill as parkland? Source: Rockaway Wave. "An extensive landscape waterfront park is planned eventually for the property now being filled by the Department of Sanitation in Edgemere on the Jamaica Bay shore. The site is between Norton and Somerfleld basins north of Almeda avenue and was originally a part of the former state lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Aviation.""

                    Created by Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC).

                    Review

                    Policy compliance:

                    Hook eligiblity:

                    • Cited: Red XN - Issues with all 3 hooks. The first hook cites a 1991 source which is too old for such a claim. The citation for ALT1 says that permission was applied for but not that it was granted and actioned. The citation for ALT2 doesn't mention Moses and his intentions.
                    • Interesting: Red XN - All hooks have reasonable potential but would benefit from work to improve their impact.

                    Image eligibility:

                    QPQ: Done.

                    Overall: Symbol question.svg I am interested in the topic, having written the article dirt which highlighted some other landfills. A lot of work has gone into this page and the authors' efforts are appreciated, Andrew D. (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

                    @Andrew Davidson: Thanks for the review. For ALT0 and ALT1, how about this?
                    • ALT0A: ... that when it closed in 1991, the Edgemere Landfill in New York City was claimed to be "the longest continuously operating dump in the United States", having accepted waste since 1938?
                    • ALT1A: ... that officials proposed shredding and poisoning food waste at New York City's Edgemere Landfill to prevent birds from interfering with operations from nearby JFK Airport?
                    For ALT2, Moses is mentioned in a later source. I think it's this one, where Moses remarks, "... lies the new Edgemere Park, the newest and largest park on the Rockaway peninsula. [...] When this area is filled and covered with manufactured topsoil, this park will be done. Eventually there will be an 18-hole golf course and marina together with passive a n d active play areas to care for the recreational needs of all ages in the housing and surrounding neighborhoods." There are other hooks I wanted to put in the article, but I forgot about them. I will do that tomorrow.
                    As for quotes, all of them are cited. The "toxic landfill" quote, for example, is reference 6, two sentences up. I guess the source was placed at the end of the three sentences so it wouldn't be repeated. Other controversial quotes also have references, but they're just at the end of the sentences. I can fix them tomorrow (put the sources at the end of actual quotes) when I have access to an actual computer. I'd like to have an image in the hook. Maybe this might work? epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Ok, no rush. Just ping me when it's ready for another look, please. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)