For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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
February 6 1
February 17 1
February 28 1 1
March 5 2 1
March 13 1
March 14 1
March 17 1
March 18 1
March 21 1
March 25 2
March 27 3
March 30 2
April 1 1
April 2 1
April 3 2
April 5 3 2
April 6 2
April 7 1 1
April 8 1
April 9 2
April 10 1 1
April 11 2
April 12 2 1
April 13 2
April 14 1 1
April 15 3 3
April 16 2 1
April 17 2
April 18 4 2
April 19 6 3
April 20 6 3
April 21 13 8
April 22 16 10
April 23 12 8
April 24 6 4
April 25 6 3
April 26 10 7
April 27 9 5
April 28 14 8
April 29 19 12
April 30 8 3
May 1 15 4
May 2 9 4
May 3 13 4
May 4 14 3
May 5 3
May 6 3
May 7
Total 231 103
Last updated 00:58, 7 May 2021 UTC
Current time is 01:01, 7 May 2021 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.

How to review a nomination

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, 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 February 6

Hu Zhiying

Created/expanded by Jujiang (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg I'm not sure this article and nomination are ready for primetime yet. There are still some rough edges in the prose that could be smoothed over into more fluid English, and while the copyvio detector doesn't pick up anything that looks like obvious plagiarism, it does suggest overquotation. I have my doubts about the picture being a free image, and even if it were we could certainly do better than "see, this guy is on the right of this group of three that takes up about one-sixth of the image" ... in fact I was preparing a crop when I decided to look at the image's source.

As for the hooks ... let's go with the original one; the one I had to remove a duplicate of, as what is now ALT1 is rather unremarkable as many artists have work exhibited worldwide. And even having said that, we will need to clean up the original hook as it is wordy and still awkwardly worded, as a result of being what seems to be a direct translation of the Chinese. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Thank you a lot. I made a little modification to the hook. --Jujiang (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, but the article itself still needs some work, per what I wrote. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Can you make a small improvement for this article if you find anything inaccurate? My mother tongue is not English. Thank you very much. --Jujiang (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is moved to Hu Zhiying on December 11, 2020, 2 months before dyk nomination.
The DYKcheck of Hu Zhiying mentioned "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (86 days). DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations."--Wolfch (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Jujiang, Daniel Case, the article was at 1523 prose characters prior to Jujiang's expansion on February 4; it is currently 3767 prose characters, about a 2.5x expansion. It will need to more than double in size to 7615 prose characters if it is to reach the required 5x expansion–another 3848 prose characters. Jujiang, do you think you'll be able to add that much material? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, Thank you for your message. Let me think about it. --Jujiang (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I have expanded the content. If there are some minor problems, could you help me to correct it? My native language is not English. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jujiang:, The article was at 1523 prose characters prior to Jujiang's expansion on February 4. The 5x expansion means 7615 prose characters. According to DYKcheck of Hu Zhiying, this article is currently 6254 prose characters, which is still less than 7615 prose characters(5x expansion)--Wolfch (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. --Jujiang (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is currently 6884 prose characters.--Wolfch (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
How is the conversion between prose characters and bytes? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I got the information using DYK check in DYK toolbox. I don't know the details.--Wolfch (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'm still expanding and revising. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Jujiang, according to DYKcheck you're currently at 7448 prose characters; only 167 more to go. You're almost there! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Jujiang, did you use DYK check to get the amount of prose characters?--Wolfch (talk)
@BlueMoonset: Is the prose characters count enough? I am a beginner and do not know how to use DYK toolbox. Or, can you tell me how to use it? My only article Duo Yun Xuan is DYK. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Jujiang, adding references, as you did in this edit, even with quotes in them, will not change the number of prose characters we count. Prose is actual words in sentences in the article proper, excluding lists and blockquotes and references; you're still at 7448. You can go to WP:DYKcheck to find out how to use DYKcheck. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Jujiang, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I just checked the article and there was a very large quote by Bridgewater in the "Connotation and allegory" section. Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, I have reformatted it as a blockquote, and it no longer counts as prose, leaving the article with 6853 prose characters. Another 762 prose characters will be needed. I was confused by the Gao Minglu sentence in the first paragraph of that section: it reads like a quote, and the "stated" and colon before it indicates it's a quote, so I added quotation marks to it. If it isn't a quote, please recast the sentence to better indicate that you're paraphrasing Gao—as a quote it's right on the border as to whether it is a blockquote, so a shorter quote with your own wording for the rest would be a better approach. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to improve the article. I continue to work hard to increase the word count to improve the quality. --Jujiang (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC) --Jujiang (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC) --Jujiang (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello @BlueMoonset: Can you review it again? That paragraph is not Gao Minglu's original words. The added content is rewritten in my own words. The "Note" are also written by me. If there are any incorrect things, please correct them. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Jujiang, the article is currently 9684 prose characters, more than a 5× expansion. You're set there. I did check the Gao Minglu paragraph before your expansion, and while it wasn't always his exact words, it was too close a paraphrase to pass muster on Wikipedia. I edited that particular section so it is (I hope) a paraphrase but not a close paraphrase; as part of that, I put some of the phrases in quotes where appropriate. Now that the article is long enough, I'm hoping that the original reviewer, Daniel Case, can return and continue his review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you for your comments. I have quoted Gao Minglu's original words instead. Thanks again. --Jujiang (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to review expanded article now that it meets the 5× expansion criteria, since it has more than doubled in size since its initial review, and the reviewer has not returned. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough, long enough, and within policy. The hook fact to a foreign language reference can be assumed in good faith. However, the prose of the article is difficult to read due to poor grammar. There are some run-on sentences where the meaning is not clear, and descriptive adjectives with no following nouns. Given the abstract nature of the topic where precision of language/grammar is necessary to communicate complex ideas accurately, I'm not confident that this article is ready for the main page. I would suggest requesting help with grammar at WP:GOCE/R, or perhaps asking for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China where there may be editors highly proficient at reading and writing in both Chinese and English. The prose needs more cleaning up for clarity of meaning.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I have summitted the requirement at WP:GOCE/R. --Jujiang (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 17

Koo App

  • ... that the Koo App shot to prominence after Twitter got into a weeks-long standoff with the government of India? Source:Japan Times article
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Aman.kumar.goel (talk). Self-nominated at 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

Collapsing prior review from Bahnfrend. DanCherek (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - I checked only three of the sources, and two of them didn't support the relevant assertion. So, eg, where did the assertion that the messages are known as "Koos" come from? Similarly, where was the list of intended further languages sourced?
  • Neutral: Green tickY
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Red XN - Can't tell yet, as the sources for some of the content are unclear.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I've added a link and made a minor amendment to the hook. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: I have addressed above issues with my recent edit. I don't think QPQ is needed because I have less than 5 nominations. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It has been more than two weeks, and reviewer Bahnfrend has not returned; new reviewer needed to check the issues previously raised and see whether they have been addressed so the DYK criteria are met. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
New review by DanCherek
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - need sources for "first launched in Kannada", "Hindi", and all of the future languages. The Japan Times source says that Koo installs increased by 901,000, not that there were 901,000 installs
  • Neutral: Green tickY
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Red XN - it would be great if the first two sentences of paragraph 3 (about Koo vs Twitter) could be reworded a little to make it more different from the source
  • Other problems: Red XN - there are concerns on the talk page about the article's title, and whether it should be moved to Koo (app) or Koo (social network), these should be addressed (whether or not the page is ultimately moved) prior to approval. (FWIW, I think I agree that it should be moved since the name of the app is just "Koo")
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg @Aman.kumar.goel: Thanks for your patience with this nomination, sorry for the delay. See comments above, there are a few remaining things that I think should be resolved before approval. Let me know if you have any questions. DanCherek (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Fixed these issues except the last one. The concern over the title might be outdated because it was 2 months ago and this microblogging service is referred to as "Koo App" in the sources that we have used. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@

Steve Cherry

  • ... that professional footballer Steve Cherry injured himself trying to prevent his pet kitten escaping the house? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
    • ALT1:... that a two-year old Steve Cherry woke his family with his teething cries during a house fire? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
    • ALT2:... that Steve Cherry prevented an unconscious John Fashanu from choking on his tongue? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
    • ALT3:... that professional footballer Steve Cherry was described as a "goalkeeper, wit, raconteur and failed anorexic" after struggling to keep his weight down? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
ALT4:... that Kidsgrove Athletic F.C. became the first football club in England to have father and son goalkeepers when they signed Steve Cherry in 2003? Source: Kidsgrove Athletic are claiming to be the first senior club in the country to have father and son goalkeepers on their books at the same time. They recently signed experienced Steve Cherry, 43, as cover for the injured Phil McGing and the former Derby County, Walsall, Plymouth Argyle and Notts County goalkeeper has been joined by his 18-year-old son, Jon.

Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC).


  • Symbol voting keep.svg This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. I prefer ALT2 and ALT3; the hook facts for these are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Returning this to nom; article has been tagged. —valereee (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg While the tags have been removed, the issue with ALT2, the previously promoted hook, appears to remain per the discussion at WT:DYK. It should either be struck or a new variant proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay let's go with ALT3 then. EchetusXe 10:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the tags. This needs discussion. ALT3 has the same issues as the other ALTs -- they're all sourced to his autobiography. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I have added a fourth hook and removed the original three that were cited to the autobiography. Thanks! EchetusXe 13:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • approving ALT4 —valereee (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has two tags. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: How can you have given this nomination the green tick of approval when you had made it ineligible by adding the banner tags? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, you're right, removing check, I'm too distracted right now to work well, sorry —valereee (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to get those tags reviewed? It's just me and valereee agreeing to disagree on that talk page. EchetusXe 19:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment The GA reassessment should have no baring on DYK. GA review is not AFD or a high stakes problem. It's optional. The only thing holding up this review is the tags. That may get resolved before the GA reassessment concludes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought that since the only reason the article qualifies for DYK is it being a Good Article, the article wouldn't qualify if it was demoted. Maybe BlueMoonset knows as someone with great DYK experience. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was new or expanded nom. Never mind.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be settled, but since I've been pinged, it is true that DYK nominations where a new GA is being reassessed are put on hold until the reassessment closes, much like nominations are put on hold while the nominated article is being considered at Articles for Deletion. (Some new GAs have been reassessed and delisted, and the DYK's were rejected because they no longer qualified.) At the moment, this is waiting on both the reassessment and the tags. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've pulled the article from prep per a WT:DYK talk discussion. It's probably best to wait out the reassessment before making a final action on this nom. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @4meter4: Any updates on the GAR? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I have supported that the GA status be maintained, but am waiting for another non-participating editor to close the review because the consensus is narrow.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As the GA reassessment appears likely to result in the article's GA status being kept, this is probably ready for a new review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 Procedurally that doesn’t work. A new reviewer can’t approve the hook until the GA reassessment (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1) is closed officially, and the tags are removed from the article. Since it’s 2 editors supporting the GA status (myself included and the original GA reviewer) and 1 editor opposing, I don’t feel comfortable closing it myself. I think an editor other than myself or the others involved in the GA review could close it out and remove the tags if they agree with the narrow consensus to do so. Until then we can’t move forward at DYK. I am hoping an editor here will step up to the plate and help out at the GA review.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@4meter4: Would you be okay if I closed it in your stead? I could try, but I've never closed a GAR before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: It's ok if you do, as long as you take the time to really look at the complaints and evaluate whether they have indeed been addressed. If you think the concerns still have merit, then say so and the GA reassessment will have to continue. If you agree that things are good, close it as meeting GA, remove the tags on the article, and then inform us here. Thanks for being willing to participate.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@

Mr. Dick

Mr. Dick drawn by Fred Barnard
Mr. Dick drawn by Fred Barnard
  • ... that the delusion of Mr. Dick (pictured) went from a bull in a china-shop to King Charles' head?
  • Reviewed: Fish kick
  • Comment: I have more plans for expansion but need to get the nomination started during the 5x window. More anon.

5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC).

  • Mr. Dick was not created, promoted to GA, or expanded 5x in the 7 days preceding this March 13 nomination. Given my understanding of the criteria, I don't see a way to move forward with this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Dugan Murphy: The article was nominated on the 20th March but was put under the heading for the 13th. You see, the 13th is when the expansion started and WP:DYKNOM states "list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began".
Here's an exact calculation using the WP:DYKCHECK tool.
on 13 March 2021: Prose size (text only): 429 characters (75 words) "readable prose size"
on 20 March 2021: Prose size (text only): 3311 characters (543 words) "readable prose size"
So, it went from 429 to 3311 – an expansion of 7.7 times. Ok?
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Thank you for making that clear. This is my second DYK review.
Symbol question.svg Here's my review below.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg My first reaction is that this hook doesn't make sense to someone like me who hasn't read the book, but I guess that's incentive to click on it. All I think is needed are citations for the block quote and the portrayals, unless there's a policy I'm not aware of exempting these cases. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Dugan Murphy: Thanks for the review. You're already doing well by using the {{DYK checklist}} as it took me much longer to discover that. Regarding your points
  1. I will make another pass through the article to add more citations and ensure that every quotation has one – this is specifically expected by WP:V.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean by "portrayals" but suppose that's the character descriptions so I'll make sure they are cited too
I'm referring here to the section named "Portrayals." Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  1. The hook is deliberately perplexing to encourage click-through, as you say – it is supposed to be a hook, not a summary of the article. I'm not entirely happy with the wording as it's a bit of a mouthful and so will see if I can make it wittier and/or flow better.
So, I'll ping you again in a day or two to take another look. More anon.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Great! Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Like Mr. Dick, I am easily distracted. Thanks for the reminder. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The nomination is already over a month old, any article issues need to be resolved as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: Please return to the nomination and address the remaining concerns, the nomination may be marked for closure if they are not resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My muse has stirred again and so I'm back on it. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that the list of portrayals now has citations. I think the only issue now is that the block quote needs a citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You mean the quote in the Appearance section? That had in text attribution to the relevant chapter of David Copperfield and footnote #6 too. I've repeated footnote #6 but this is overciting IMO, as the quote obviously comes from the novel. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the Appearance section is what I was talking about, but I see this is no longer an issue, so I think this review is done. I just updated my review above to reflect that all the issues I identified have been addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 14

Hrant Dink Foundation

  • ... that the Hrant Dink Foundation was founded to "carry on Hrant's dreams, Hrant's struggle, Hrant's language and Hrant's heart" following his 2007 assassination? Source: Eygören, Esra Nur (2015). "Hrant Dink Foundation: Working for dialogue, empathy and peace". Turkish Review. 5 (2): 152–153.

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 09:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC).