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.

Section # of Hooks # Verified Count of DYK Hooks August 6 1 August 9 1 August 14 1 August 17 1 August 18 1 August 19 1 August 20 1 August 21 1 August 24 1 August 26 1 August 30 1 September 1 2 September 3 2 1 September 4 3 1 September 6 1 1 September 7 1 September 8 4 3 September 9 2 1 September 11 3 2 September 13 3 1 September 14 1 September 15 1 1 September 16 4 1 September 17 1 September 18 3 1 September 19 4 3 September 20 10 6 September 21 9 6 September 22 11 4 September 23 12 7 September 24 6 3 September 25 5 4 September 26 10 4 September 27 6 4 September 28 9 3 September 29 9 2 September 30 Last updated 00:58, 30 September 2020 UTCCurrent time is 03:21, 30 September 2020 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).

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. Post at Template talk:Did you know. 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.

• 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.

#### 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.

## 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 6

#### Airborne Cigar

• ... that Airborne Cigar confused German night fighters by broadcasting sound over the voices of their ground controllers? Source: Sugarman p.190 and all the other refs
• Comment: I had nommed this on the 6th but I guess I didn't press save. I'm 12 hours over the limit.

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are freely licensed. QPQ done. Please add an inline cite for the hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Cite #5 does so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

what's the sentence, please? Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• New enough (AGF on the delay in posting), long enough, within policy, QPQ done. The hook is ok for length and interestingness, but the article nowhere states that jamming consisted of broadcasting noise. It does say that Tinsel broadcast aircraft engine noise, that Cigar fulfilled the same task as Tinsel at VHF, and that Airborne Cigar was an airborne version of TinselCigar. So it is implied by a three-step induction, but if it is to be used as the hook it really needs to be directly in the article. Also, the Sugarman source you cited above says the jamming consists of a note running up and down the scale rather than the Tinsel engine noise. SpinningSpark 12:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry Yoninah, you edit conflicted me and I did not realise you had done a full review. I only read the last line. SpinningSpark 12:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• no problem; you can continue. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"jamming consists of a note running up and down the scale" - well that's what I'd call noise, as our own article puts it, "Noise is unwanted sound considered unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing" But perhaps you have some other term that is more correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
In an ECM context (and electronics generally) the term noise used unqualified would usually imply some sort of stochastic noise. But that is not really the objection. The point is, firstly, that the fact is not stated explicity in the article, and secondly, that the implicitly referred to noise is apparently not the noise used by this system. SpinningSpark 15:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so you don't call it noise, what would you call it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
How about that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd call it what the source calls it, but as I said, that's not what's holding this up. Also, please don't edit the hook. That confuses the discussion. Suggest an alt hook instead. SpinningSpark 21:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Then what exactly is holding up this nom? You had two issues, one about "implicit" assumptions and another stating that the article does not state it plays noise over the ground controller frequencies. The hook states neither, and the fact that it plays sound over the ground controller frequencies is well established in the articles and the refs. So what exactly is the problem now? Please be precise, I can't read your mind. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please fix the issue with post-discussion editing of the hook. I won't do a new review until that is done. Please quote here the exact passage from the article which you think supports the hook (either the old one or the new one). SpinningSpark 18:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Please return to the nomination and respond to Spinningspark's concerns. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• would you like to make a verdict? I doubt this person is coming back. It's been a week since their last edit. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not prepared to recommend it as it stands. The hook is not directly cited as required by DYK and the article conflates two slightly different methods of jamming. This is a shame since it is an issue that is easily fixed, but I'm not willing to do it myself when the creator seems to be so opposed to it. SpinningSpark 22:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reopening per nominator's request to improve this. Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In your last comment, you say the hook is not directly cited, but it clearly is in the lede. You then state "the article conflates two slightly different methods of jamming", but I am unclear on which two methods you refer to. The cite in question states "Initially in its infant stages, ‘Jostle’ used a simplistic form of frequency jamming. A microphone mounted in one of the engine compartments was found to be effective. I don’t think anyone who has heard the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin engine under full power would disagree! However, later developments relied upon an undulating pitch that served just as successful in preventing the transmission of instructions to the Luftwaffe night fighters." I do not see the problem here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm now asking you for the third time to revert your editing of the hook and propose any change as an alt hook. Editing the hook after discussion of it has begun causes confusion and in some cases the comments are unintelligible. If you are not willing to do that I'm just going to unwatch this page and not respond any further.
I had not previously noticed that you had a cite in the lead. My comments on conflation were based on what the article body said and the Sugarman source. But now that you've brought it to my attention, it seems of dubious reliability. It is a website run by one person, much of which is written in the first person, and who does not seem to qualify as an expert under WP:SPS as far as I can see. To quote the source itself, "There are published books, which deal with this system in some detail, written by people far more qualified than I." SpinningSpark 16:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well we're into month two here, so in the interest of speeding this along, would you agree that this statement supports the hook and meets SPS:

"The jamming caused a loud and constantly varying note running up and down the scale of the relevant speech channel" - Sugarman

If so I will change the cite. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• #### Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 12:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. But .... why is the hook so complex? How about ALT1? (The German Shepherd dog is known as an Alsatian in the United Kingdom) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that the hymn "Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied" was written by an Alsatian?
That would leave the reader with no understanding of what the title means, so would need a translation in brackets. I thought that the connection to the psalm (actually 3) was more elegant. Also, the world war aspect seems almost sensational in the context. Perhaps you could word that somehow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Approving ALT0. I knew you would not like ALT1, but it is much hookier than ALT0. (If the reader wants to know what the title means, they could click on the link to find out. The hymn seems to have six or more biblical sources, so why single out one?) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth is right. ALT1 is much hookier; it's not clear why these two points are being made in ALT0. Yoninah (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It's hookier, but the psalms are a topic of the year, and the first line is my motto, - and readers who don't read German may miss the meaning. I find it much more sastinishing that he wrote that in the middle of a war, than that he was Alsatian. How is that even hooky? Would it be hooky if we said Bavarian? Open for suggestions, but the translation has to be there, minimum. ... "wrote it in German and French" might be better than hint at a region that some may not even want to find out about, no? - Lovely Main page today for me: TFA and DYK. Waiting for ITN for Jürgen Schadeberg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that during World War, "Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied" (Sing a new song to the Lord) was written in German and French? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Well, that's not much of a "hook"... Yoninah (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean people will not know that the Germans occupied France, sadly? I had no time for a hook, just the building blocks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Returning from a great day out: what do you expect? If someone can word that it's quite unusual that in World War someone wrote to sing a new song to the Lord daily, in two the languages of enemies, go ahead. I thought I did, and you told me not enough. We could still just try it, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think ALT4 is good. Gerda? Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
(returning after a funeral day, so not caring about peanuts too much:) I don't think it's good, because the key thing - that he did so in 1941 during the war - is missing, and the fact of the German phrase being how Psalm 98 (and some others also) begins is nothing unique to this hymn. I think the original hook may have been not phrased the best, but covered the contrast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT5 sounds better to me than ALT4 since it appears to be more accessible to readers, and also because it conveys the originally-proposed hook in an easier-to-understand way. Gerda, would you be okay with going with ALT5 instead? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
What I miss in ALT5 is any help to understand the German, which might be a translation in brackets or a reference to that it begins like Psalm 98. Otherwise we'd have six words which mean nothing to readers who don't read German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the translation would be required in any case since the hook fact isn't dependent on it and readers could always click on the article itself to know the translation if they wanted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes they could. But I think that they might miss the most unusual thing, that he called to fight misery by singing daily songs of praises. Without that contrast (and actually a good recipe any day), the mentioning of the timing makes no sense to me, sorry. --

• ... that Doppler DF uses the Doppler effect to measure the bearing of a radio transmitter, although neither the transmitter or receiver have to be moving? Moell, p.21

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

Reviewed Avrodh the Siege Within
• Article is quite jargon heavy. I think the hook is interesting, but wonder if it will be to someone less familiar with the jargon. I have concerns about the sourcing, as the first source I checked (Sadler 2010, p. 4.) doesn't support all of the text attributed to it. The article should be checked to ensure everything cited is actually in the sources. It could also use some diagrams to aid with the understanding, much like the Sadler source uses, although the DYK nom won't hinge on this. CMD (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm suggesting this hook using the same fact as the original, but it better brings out why this is surprising, and hence more hooky. Also, there is no reason not to use the full article title rather than a jargony abbreviation. SpinningSpark 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I can, but there's been no edits to the article since this nomination. CMD (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Any updates? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, two weeks at the cottage and start of school. I'll get to this shortly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Alt1 works for me. I have no diagrams to add, and that should not hold up a DYK. All else appears fine? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, "article is quite jargon heavy". Maybe you can discuss with Chipmunkdavis about this. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I made a number of minor edits to gr, but to be honest, this is not particularily jargon heavy and most of the terms do have inline explainations. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've made some touchups, can you have another look? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I brought up sourcing, and specifically mentioned Sadler 2010, p. 4. This has been edited a bit, but Sadler is still used to source "The operator rotated the antenna looking for points where the signal either reached a maximum, or more commonly, suddenly disappeared or "nulled". A common RDF antenna design is the loop antenna, which is simply a loop of wire with a small gap in the circle, typically arranged to rotate around the vertical axis with the gap at the bottom." The text on p.4 is "Traditional approaches to DF – directional antenna, Simplest approach for DF is to mechanically rotate a directional antenna, A peak in the response indicates the approximate signal direction, Not easy to rotate directional HF antennas due to large size, Can use an electrically small loop, Not high accuracy, Problems with polarization – no good for skywaves, 180° ambiguity, Only needs a single receiver, Loop rotated so that the signal is nulled." The source relates to the text, but it does not seem to be the basis for the text. There's quite a bit in the text which isn't in the source. Most sources are offline so I can't check them, but Bauer shows similar issues, and is further reportedly accessed in January 2008, which feels unlikely. CMD (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The diagram on page 4 shows an antenna consisting of a loop of wire being rotated to sense the null. I added "arranged to rotate around the vertical axis" because it's not obvious from the diagram, although it is on the next page. But that's fine, there's a better diagram in Hunting.

#### Christian views on lying

• ... that Augustine maintained that it is never permissible to lie, even to save a life? Source: Is it ever necessary to tell a lie—perhaps to save a human life, to bringabout someone’s eternal salvation, or to fulfill the role-specific duties ofone’s public office? The broad consensus among scholars is that Augus-tine’s consistent answer to this question is “No.” Regardless of the cir-cumstances, and contrary to occasional scholarly objections and minorityreports, Augustine’s position is that all lies are sins, and therefore oneshould never tell a lie. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=cc_fac_pub

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the hook wording. In particular the link might count as an Easter egg. The hook fact itself is fine, but the hook could probably be reworded a bit to make the article subject clearer. It might also be a good idea to either link to Augustine or add a description of him for the benefit of non-Christian readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Buidhe: again. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I can't think of any way to accomodate the suggestions without making the hook substantially less hooky. Perhaps Narutolovehinata5 could provide a concrete suggestion if the issues are really deal-breaking (I don't think they are necessary). (t · c) buidhe 10:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps just reword the current hook in such a way that it mentions both Augustine and "Christian views of lying"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Another option, of course, is to try different hook facts. The one about theologians disagreeing on what counts as a lie could be a start, for example.

#### August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC).

• Comment: grammar? Probably use plural 'passersby' or 'a passerby' with an article in original and ALT1. ALT2 is badly-worded. Should be: '...or while passing the demonstration'. Malick78 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Typos fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. In future, feel free to do it yourself... (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• While this article is overall good for a DYK, I am unsure if the proposed hook is correct. Some media sources have dubbed this event Polish Stonewall, but I don't think this is a common name yet. I would be cautious when it comes to saying, in wiki voice, that this is the name of the events. At best, I'd suggest saying that "has been dubbed by some media as such", but it is a bit WP:WEASELish. I recommend this is placed on hold while the name is discussed on article's talk, where I'll start a discussion. (Note: I have no other concerns except the name; otherwise - date, size, copyvio, etc. the article is good for a DYK, but I think we need to have a discussion about the naming). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• ALT0 states that this is an informal name for the event, which is accurate. Alternatively, another hook could be written which did not include the name. However, I think ALT0 is good. (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The article was moved, however ALT0 is still accurate and works. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree except as noted on talk, there have been other incidents dubbed as such. Maybe adjust the hook to say "has been one of several incidents described as the PS"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
the hook does not state that it is the absolute only incident that has ever been described by anyone as such. Besides, a google search in English or Polish confirms that this is the main incident that primarily goes by that name. Your suggestion would make the hook less accurate (what are the "several incidents"?) and less hooky. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I have adjusted this template to reflect the article's move (the template page itself should not move). I have also struck ALT1 and ALT2, as they use "Polish Stonewall" as if it was an official name (it seems clear, since the article was moved, that it is not a common name and therefore shouldn't be used as such). I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that ALT1 disagrees with the other hooks in that it gives the number as 48 rather than 47. Which should it be? Out of curiosity, have any American sources characterized this as "Polish Stonewall"?

#### Offending religious feelings (Poland)

• ... that, in Poland, offending religious feelings is punishable by two years in jail? Source: "Poland’s blasphemy law, Article 196 of the Penal Code, states that “anyone found guilty of offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship is liable to a fine, restriction of liberty or a maximum two-year prison sentence.”" Freedom House

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

• Comment: Not reviewing the hook, but it seems a bit misleading. The hook creates the misleading impression that Polish law prohibits merely offending someone's religious feelings. In fact, the law prohibits calumny (i.e., the making of false and defamatory statements causing reputational harm) directed at religion. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• If you read the article, you would discover that not all of the incidents involve false statements about religion; in fact, many involve things that are not defamation by any strech of the imagination but simply things believers find offensive (such as rainbow halo on Madonna). "Offending religious feelings" or "insulting religious feelings" is the term used in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• There is a separate law, Article 256, which forbids incitement to hatred based on religious belief. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The language of the statute, as quoted in the article, limits the crime to offense "through public calumny of an object or place of worship". Cbl62 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but in practice the law also punishes modifications / reproductions of objects that believers don't like, irreverent statements about the Bible and such, there is nothing misleading about the hook. (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
IMO the hook grossly oversimplifies the statute, in an apparent attempt to make it appear ludicrous, but I will leave it up to the person conducting the review to make the final call. Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe ALT0b would help: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
... that, in Poland, extreme offending religious feelings is punishable by two years in jail?
I don't think that works. Whether these incidents are "extreme" or not is a value judgement not found in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, this is interesting and hooky, but I do kind of share some of the concerns of the previous drive-by commenter: in particular, does this article meet, or aspire to meet, DYK eligibility criterion 4a on neutral point of view? To start with, the translation of the law in question (the article's lede) is sourced from a site that is criticising this law, indeed from a document that concludes: "(blasphemy) prosecutions under Article 196 of the Penal Code represent undue restrictions on freedom of expression". The wiki Polish Penal Code article linked has an external link to this translation: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by outraging in public an object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years." [1] "Outraging" is also the translation used by the UN here; (znieważając seems to be the Polish word in question.) If you look at the definition of "calumny" in wiktionary, Wikt:calumny, this is defined as (noun) (1) "A false accusation or charge brought to tarnish another's reputation or standing" (2) "Falsifications or misrepresentations intended to disparage or discredit another"; (verb) "To make false accusations or levy false charges against a person with the intent to tarnish that person's reputation or standing; to calumniate". As might be expected the attack article you use as your source is spinning the law before it even starts. Such articles may not be the best sources of statute law, you must know that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, the translation used (1) elides the "victims" of the "crime", by vague reference to "religious feelings" rather than offence to "other persons"; (2) introduces a structural ambiguity through calumny of "an object" rather than "an object of religious worship", and (3) reduces "a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites", emphasising the public/communal spirit of such, and thus the lack of concern for the public/communal good of contravenors of such, to "place of worship" (?also now private, despite "publicznego"?); (?4?) both with "an object" and "place of worship", this "translation" could be seen as purposely geared to lead readers to thoughts of overreach, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I had a quick look, but couldn't immediately find anything - in the UK, while the church is in general a legitimate target for attack (from the left), (some) other religions of the book are not; it would be interesting to know whether this law has been used in relation to/to protect "minorities"/other beliefs in Poland (do you think the article should have "(Poland)" in the title)? This may be one way in which this article becomes a little more NPOV. Are there any others? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Finally, from me before I hear from you.., would it be possible to expand in the image caption upon why this might be regarded as "offensive" - indeed, why on earth the "LGBT" movement, or an artist so affiliated, chose to put some colourful stripes in the halo of an early mediaeval icon of all places to put them, why on earth would they chose that rather than say a box of shreddies that may be more readily to hand? (The article linked in the caption does not explain.) Where is the frisson? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• You're mistaken, rule 4a states "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy." There is no requirement for hooks to do the same. Please see WP:BIASED when it comes to biased sources. News articles in English use similar translations with "offend",[2][3][4] The Cambridge book cited translates as follows:

Th e provisions of Article 196 of the PPC are directed at anyone who ‘ o ff ends the religious feelings of other persons ’ , that is, who acts in a manner that is perceived as demeaning or off ensive to the object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites. A particular type of behaviour is to be viewed as demeaning or off ensive based on objective criteria, following the moral standards of a particular religious community.

And as I say above, "calumny" in English is misleading, because per that quote it does not require a false statement, just any action or statement that offends believers. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, where am I mistaken? Do I not question the NPOVness of the article, not of the hook? Re WP:Biased, to which you refer me, are you saying that such may be good sources for supporting information? I'm not denying that, I'm saying for statute law. For the law itself, it may not be. Would you be prepared, or be happy for me, to switch the translation and the reference to such in the lede to that per and eg the UN link provided above? Also, are you happy for me to put an X against this article on lack of article NPOV grounds? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If the Freedom House translation is inaccurate or that the ones you cite are better, I would be happy to replace it, but you've not presented any evidence that it's the case. The bias of a source is not necessarily related to accuracy and there is no issue with citing a biased source in the lead of an article. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Have you yourself not just said that the translation you have used, that forms the lede, and is cited above, is "misleading"?... (In terms of (wiki)-pedagodical value here, should we not be trying to encourage good or at least neutral sourcing for such as laws; what is the best source for English translation of Polish law? It's a new field for me and you seem to be better placed language-wise, where should we be sourcing translations of Polish law?) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I switched to the translation provided by European Court of Human Rights, which is probably more authoritative. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Great - though you're probably right to question that... in fact this avoids "outrage" so is probably at least as good as the others, and as that is the court the article says is hearing some of these cases, hopefully they've pored over the semantics of the legislation in question. Are you able to address the points about the image caption and maybe some balance in non-criticism/relation to other beliefs? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
1. For the purpose of the law, it does not matter why believers find it offensive, just that they do; further context is provided at the article linked in the caption. The caption already meets WP:CAPTION and adding more info is likely to impede the second criteria, being succinct.
2. WP:NPOV requires the balance of reliable sources, not the balance of opinions. The article already states that the law has not been found to contravene the Polish constitution or the European Convention of Human Rights. However, most reliable sources, either inside or outside of Poland, are critical of the law. The article should reflect that. The highest quality source I was able to find, the Cambridge one, states at the end: "Consequently, the necessary prerequisites of predictability and proportionality needed for any restriction of a fundamental human right [i.e. freedom of speech] to be legitimate are not met by the Polish criminal blasphemy clause." (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

 QPQ: Done.

Overall: someone is trying to have this article merged/deleted; like the nominator, I strongly oppose this, but presumably we need to wait for this to conclude before promoting; I have amended the article semi-considerably to try to address previously significant NPOV concerns; assuming there is no reverting of my edit, this is/should be otherwise good to go, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

- revert of reliably sourced additional material to reinforce the POV-pushing, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
: Changing no to a maybe as the nominator has attempted to address (some of) the points raised, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
What is POV-pushing? Please be specific. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
1. For "most revered Catholic icon", even if it's true, you would need to cite a more authoritative source than The Independent. Also, your expansions brought the caption to 8 lines, violating the requirement to be succinct.
This was a quote. Abbreviated to the point of incomprehension unless you already know, policy sounds good though, and it helps the slant, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
1. It's not clear to me what the population of Catholics in Poland has to do with the law; the source doesn't mention any connection. According to WP:OR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
Catholics, and Conservative Catholics to boot, sound like some kind of fringe group. Apparently lots of Catholics in Poland, which the link, the source, and the text helped communicate, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
1. Ordo Iuris is mostly known for right-wing culture warrioring[5][6] It is influential among certain circles in Poland but I cannot see any indication it is a reliable source. If you think it's reliable, WP:RSN would be the right place for the discussion.
I have done as suggested here, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
As I said this is not being used for their editorial but as a convenient summary of the preceding related legal provisions. If you wished, you could have found alternatives, if their quotes of the historic/legacy legislation are no good. It's the same point I was making before but I don't know where to turn. I provided pdf links for better translations. You could show similar willing. Presumably the content is relevant at least, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
1. Hate speech article is already linked in the article so it should not be linked in see also (MOS:SEEALSO). (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it? That hate speech in Poland article? Where? Ah, did a search in the edit screen; lurking behind "Article 256". Could probably risk a see also with hate speech in Poland in its own right? Quack Quack Quack even more, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I added what the Cambridge source says about the Catholic aspect and about the history of the law. WP:DYKRULES requires that the article only cite reliable sources. Nor is the article expected to cover all aspects comprehensively; this is not GA review. As for Catholics, and Conservative Catholics to boot, sound like some kind of fringe group, I really have no idea where you got that idea. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You have now, at least in part, addressed this point by adding contextual information to Catholicism being widespread in Poland, if not by also reinstating the link to the related article; I am not saying this needs to be GA quality; at the same time, that it does not need to be does not necessarily mean it should be (kept) as non-GA as possible; where are we with the renaming of the article to "(Poland)" or similar? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• If you make significant changes, you cannot review the article, because you've become WP:INVOLVED. Also, these changes were made without regard to WP:RS and in my opinion did not improve NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I do wonder if the article title needs disambiguation; many countries have similar laws, after all. When I clicked the link, I fully expected an article about the concept generally, not a legality specific to one country. 20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, thanks for your comment. Now moved to Offending religious feelings (Poland). (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated.

#### Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions

• ... that almost half the known words on Phoenician inscriptions are never used again? Source: Rollig, 1983, "The Phoenician-Punic vocabulary attested to date amounts to some 668 words, some of which occur frequently. Among these are 321 hapax legomena and about 15 foreign or loan words. In comparison with Hebrew with around 7000-8000 words and 1500 hapax legomena (8), the number is remarkable."

5x expanded by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 20:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC).

• I'm only getting 1104 characters of readable prose, which is lower than the required 1500. Note that bulleted lists generally don't count towards the length criterion. This would still be eligible if expanded to 1500 characters. Also, the hook and article aren't clear about the relationship between Canaanite, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Punic. The article also mentions "Northwest Semitic script" which links to "Northwest Semitic languages", but this is confusing since scripts and languages are distinct. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 07:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antony-22, thanks for the review. I will address these items. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Article has been expanded and now meets length requirements. Here is a review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are freely licensed. Hook is interesting and offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. However, the text in the image caption, while mentioned in the article, is not sourced, and therefore the image shouldn't be used. QPQ still outstanding. Yoninah (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Yoninah. The caption undersells it actually - this was the first ancient inscription in "local characters" found anywhere in the Levant - i.e. its discovery preceded all other ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Phoenician inscriptions. I will find a source which explains it properly. QPQ now done. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The hook is unclear—the words are only used once within the extant corpus. Presumably they were used other times in works that have been lost. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, I am working on the image caption one at the moment. Regarding the second point, having "in the extant corpus" in the hook, I think it will feel less "hooky" with those extra words, which I consider to be already implied. If others agree with Antony I don't mind though. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added these sources to the article image caption as well:
• Lehmann, Reinhard G. (2013). "Wilhelm Gesenius and the Rise of Phoenician Philology" (PDF). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. 427: 209–266. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-04-08. Quote: "Alas, all these were either late or Punic, and came from Cyprus, from the ruins of Kition, from Malta, Sardinia, Athens, and Carthage, but not yet from the Phoenician homeland. The first Phoenician text as such was found as late as 1855, the Eshmunazor sarcophagus inscription from Sidon."
• William Wadden Turner, 3 July 1855, The Sidon Inscription, p.259: "Its interest is greater both on this account and as being the first inscription properly so-called that has yet been found in Phoenicia proper, which had previously furnished only some coins and an inscribed gem. It is also the longest inscription hitherto discovered, that of Marseilles—which approaches it the nearest in the form of its characters, the purity of its language, and its extent — consisting of but 21 lines and fragments of lines."
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

### Articles created/expanded on August 21

#### Yeshivas in World War II

• ... that the Soviet government sent some students of yeshivas in World War II to do forced labor in Russia's Komi Republic? (Eliach, Rabbi Dov Tales of Devotion (pp. 50-51) "The replacement soldiers who arrived ordered us onto freight boats that took us to the Komi Sasar Republic ... We were taken to Zeschart, a small village ... We were sent to forced labor the very next day ..."
• ALT1: ... that some of the students of yeshivas in World War II were exiled to labor camps in the remote Komi Republic? (Eliach, Rabbi Dov Tales of Devotion (p. 366) "These sailed up the river, bringing us to our destination on the banks of Vychegda River - the autonomous republic of Komi, which was part of the Soviet Union ... In the end we weren't taken to Siberia, but to a forsaken region to its northwest called Komi-Koli, which is inhabited by a small, impoverished population.")
• Reviewed: First nomination

Created by Charlie Smith FDTB (talk). Self-nominated at 22:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: N - I am not convinced that "Tales of Devotion" is a WP:RS. (It is reliable for that Eliach said so, but without corroboration may not be reliable for a factual claim).
• Interesting:
 QPQ: None required.

Overall: This is a good start, but needs some work. (Also, the title does not match the topic—it does not discuss the situation of yeshivas outside Europe during World War II.) (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for reviewing my DYK nomination. At Template:Did you know nominations/Yeshivas in World War II, you said that the book, Tales of Devotion, may not be a reliable source. What prompted you to come to that conclusion? Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Smith FDTB, there is no presumption that sources are reliable. I take the perspective that memoirs are not generally reliable, as an individual person may be mistaken or misremember, as well as the possibility of occasional hoaxes. If cited at all, it should be attributed as the claims of so-and-so (unless you can find a reliable secondary source which corroborates the information).
The article also has other issues: some WP:editorializing ("warmly welcomed", "famous", "infamous"), non-cited information, and other sources which are questionable (dead link to "project witness" which, despite its claims, does not appear to be referenced in actual Holocaust research[7]). (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on the WP:editorializing problems. I intend to fix them as soon as possible, if they're not fixed yet. It may take some time though, as I'm in school and have less time for editing. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Tales of Devotion is not a single memoir. Rather it's composed of conversations that Rabbi Dov Eliach had students in pre-World War II yeshivas. Among the interviewees were two students who were sent to do hard labor in the Komi Republic. As for the Project Witness source, it was a webinar about yeshivas in World War II, likely recorded, although the link may no longer exist.Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I removed the words "infamous" and "warmly welcomed", although I think the saying that the yeshivas were "famous" is a factual statement. Regarding the non-cited information, were you referring to anything specific? I will try to replace the Projcet Witness reference with more reliable sources. Thank you. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The article still uses unreliable sources such as JewishGen, which are self-published and/or user-generated. Whereas, there are reliable sources that cover the subject:[8][9] (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Smith FDTB Hi any progress on this? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I replaced JewishGen references.

#### Profaning a monument

Rainbow flag on the statue of Maria Konopnicka in Kraków

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

 QPQ: Done.

Overall: Either of the hooks is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I found an image, can you approve it? Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• No problem. The image is also good. epicgenius (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. It may not be stable yet, and may need globalizaiton. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The author made the article on a global subject only cover Poland, then started deleting any efforts to globalize. The article was also created when this is a political controversy in Poland so this looks like a WP:RGW.T Magierowski (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is only about the law in Poland. Content about other jurisdictions was added without regard to sources which actually draw a connection between them in breach of WP:OR (implying that the laws cover the same offense, without any source saying so). I have removed original research from the article because it violates core content policy. (t · c) buidhe 16:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, but let's keep the discussion in one place (article's talk page). That said, the article is not stable right now and saw some major additions and reverts yesterday. This nomination should be put on hold for a few days at least until the article is stable and not tagged. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There are open maintenance banners on the page now, unfortunately - specifically globalize & neutrality - so I have to reopen this nomination for now. Please do ping me when these issues have been resolved, though. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, They have. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: all right. The maintenance tags just have to be removed, and then this is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Clinical trials in India

Created by Bluerasberry (talk). Self-nominated at 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

• New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ done. There are two sentences in the "Government regulation" section with unclear citations. Both hook facts check out. This is not a DYK issue, but is there a reason you're repeating the same citations for consecutive sentences? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.
I repeated citations because I felt this article needed the extra clarity. Someone who felt otherwise could format citations in a different way.
I found those two sentences. The one about the registry I matched with a citation, and the other about state level regulation I removed and put here because I have no citation, and because that sentence needs one. I am working on another wiki article about a trial which had state regulation, but as of now, I have no source for state regulation in general.
Any other comments here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
state level regulation I posted this sentence without a citation. I am removing it from the article and keeping it here in the talk page. "Outside of the central government, each state has its own regional regulatory agencies with some input into governing trials." I could not find a source for this. What I did find is a few cases where state level government ordered inquiries and possibly modification to clinical trials in India, such as for the Indore trial scandal. Although some states have intervened, those cases are not a reason for generalizing, so I am just removing this until and unless anyone identifies sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me then! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why we've been having a rash of hooks trying to prove India is the biggest and best. Striking ALT0 in favor of ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for selecting a hook. It is fine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not see anything about the Supreme Court making trials safer; there is only something about making them more ethical, with a cite. Could you point out the cited hook fact to me please? Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I re-read the source and you are right, it does not say that they wanted to make trials safer as I wrote. It only says that if the research kills people then there should be compensation, and it makes the claim that paying in case of death would make the trials more ethical. I think other sources talk about safety, and I think safety is the intent, but you are right, I should not be interpreting this source in that way. I wrote another hook which replaces "safer for research participants" with "more ethical", which better matches the source. Thanks for preventing a later potential problem for me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thank you, but while you're writing the hook in an active voice, saying that the Supreme Court ordered this reform, the Supreme Court is not the actor in the article; rather it seems like "government agencies" enacted reforms on their own in this sentence: Following the 2013 case Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India in the Supreme Court of India, various government agencies reformed their regulations to make clinical trials more ethical. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for the feedback. It might be simplest and still accurate to do exactly what you suggest, and say

It is as you say, various government agencies made the changes. I interpreted the sources to say that the 2013 Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India case led to the Supreme Court ordering changes, but as you say, it is not the courts which order changes. As I looked at available sources, I found them to be dodgy about who committed to make the reforms. I am just guessing, but I think the court case identified some chaos and multiple government agencies took some years to sort out their responsibilities. Also, there were 2019 reforms as well, and although I personally cannot see the differences between pre2013, 2013-19, and 2019 onward, I think it may be best to avoid presenting sources about the transition period and just talk about how things are now. I have a new hook and a new source:

• ALT4: ... that in 2019 the Indian government strengthened laws to protect participants in clinical trials in India? Source: "This document summarizes major changes... by India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ...to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of trial subjects"Singh, N; Madkaikar, NJ; Gokhale, PM; Parmar, DV (January 2020). "New drugs and clinical trials rules 2019: Changes in responsibilities of the ethics committee". Perspectives in clinical research. 11 (1): 37–43. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_208_19. PMID 32154148.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that the first proposed hook presents India as "the biggest and best". IMO it presents India as one of the worst. About 17% of people live in India. 1.2% of clinical trials are happening there. That means that India is doing 1/15th of its 'fair share' of medical research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@

#### Jenny Bui

• ... that designs by nail artist Jenny Bui have become part of Cardi B's signature look? Source: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/cardi-b-nail-technician-jenny-bui-did-my-nails-video "Ariana Grande has her ponytail, Harry Styles has his Gucci suits, Taylor Swift has her red lipstick. And when you think of Cardi B, it's hard not to picture her intricate manicures. Those signature Swarovski-encrusted talons are so recognizable, they even played a central role in her Pepsi SuperBowl commercial. The woman behind them? Manicurist Jenny Bui, a.k.a. The Queen of Bling."

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 16:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: N - Not done
Overall: Seems a reasonable hook from a decent new article, well referenced. Just I can't see the QPQ here? EchetusXe 18:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, EchetusXe, thanks for reviewing! I deliberately neglected to include a QPQ because I'm hoping for a photo and I don't want this slotted until I know whether one is going to be available or not! Reviewed, please hold until I find out whether I can get a photo. —valereee (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Okay great, I guess I'll keep it as on hold until you get a picture for it.EchetusXe 08:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! :) I'm hoping to know within a week or so whether we'll be able to get one. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Valereee, do you have the picture now? Just checking in thank you lots <3 VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Vincent60030, I don't; the friend in NJ who offered to drive to the Bronx to take photos is trading missed messages with Bui. :) —valereee (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I found a picture, though it might not be ideal. You like? --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
GRuban, nice! It's definitely good for Bui! Doesn't show the nails very well, which is the more interesting image for DYK, I think. That's the problem I've found -- pictures of people holding up their nails, but you can't really see the nails. It's definitely good for the article. DYK? Maybe? I think as an illustration of the nails, maybe not? Although there may be an associated problem of the nails being artwork? I don't know. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there are images in that same video focusing on the nails themselves, and I even uploaded a quick screenshot, but now that I think about it, it probably isn't good, we probably do need permission from Bui specifically. The key point is Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Useful_articles. We can show a picture of a pretty car, because it's a useful object, and most of its visible parts, from the wings to the wheels to the streamlining are a big part of that usefulness, so can't really be copyrighted, but is a nail design useful? Probably not very, to be honest. So it's copyrightable. And if you do get permission from Bui, she will probably have a better photo. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the friend in NJ is planning to go to the salon on Oct 8

#### Marian Anderson

Marian Anderson
• ... that African-American contralto Marian Anderson (pictured) was denied permission by the Daughters of the American Revolution to sing at Constitution Hall in 1939, causing thousands of its members to resign? In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) denied permission to Anderson for a concert on April 9 at Constitution Hall under a "white performers-only" policy in effect at the time. . . . As a result of the ensuing furor, thousands of DAR members, including First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, resigned from the organization.
• ALT1:... that African-American contralto Marian Anderson (pictured) was a significant figure in the American civil rights movement, singing for benefit concerts at the NAACP and at the 1963 March on Washington? She was active in supporting the civil rights movement during the 1960s, giving benefit concerts for the Congress of Racial Equality, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the America-Israel Cultural Foundation. In 1963, she sang at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Improved to Good Article status by Ahsoka Dillard (talk). Self-nominated at 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC).

Substantial GA on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - The iconic image is licensed and almost must. I learned a lot reading! I knew that she was the first African-American at the Met, but didn't know it was her only role there. I like the original hook a bit better, but perhaps only because I'd have to look up NAACP ;) - I'd probably say that Sibelius dedicated a piece to her. Finland seems not regarded as Europe then? I'd say "recital tour" instead of "singing tour". Do know what she sang for her first in Carnegie Hall? ... or anything more detailed about repertoire? Just curious, having written some of Jessye Norman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• The QPQ is not a full review, but as the nominator has less than 5 DYK credits, no QPQ is necessary. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, I came by to promote ALT0 to an image slot, but the hook is over 200 char. We see she's African-American. Can we delete that?
• There is also close paraphrasing from the sources:
• Source: In the late 1930's, she gave about 70 recitals a year in the United States. But her fame did not entirely eradicate the prejudice she confronted as a young black singer touring the United States.
• Article: In the late 1930s, Anderson gave about 70 recitals a year in the United States. Although by then quite famous, her stature did not completely end the prejudice she confronted as a young black singer touring the United States.
• Source: In 1980, the United States Treasury Department coined a half-ounce gold commemorative medal with her likeness, and in 1984 she was the first recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award of the City of New York.
• Article: In 1980, the United States Treasury Department coined a half-ounce gold commemorative medal with her likeness, and in 1984 she was the first recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award of the City of New York.
• And why is there so much copying from the Western Connecticut State University site? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yoninah, Could you verify when the Western Connecticut State University site page was written and published? Is it possible that WCSU copied from Wikipedia? When you look at the citations for those sections, they do not cite the WCSU copy as the source. Please let me know. Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• I do not know how to check that. The website is copyright 2018. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the entire university website was certainly present in 2018. From the wayback machine, the Marian Anderson History Page was captured on June 22. I've been trying to search the page for when the fundraising campaign began, but to no avail. I began revising the article in July to be considered for GA status. As a trained historian, I would not have used this page as a source because I understand the 5 Tenets of Wikipedia and went through a 10-week Scholars and Scientist course through WikiEdu this past spring. Please feel free to review my article history and to confirm that the sources within Wikipedia are correct. I suspect that WCSU copied from Wikipedia. Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yoninah and Ahsoka Dillard, I did note on the GAC review that two websites had copied the Wikipedia article verbatim, and that only one bothered to acknowledge it. I should have left urls in the review, but I didn't - my error. WCSU specifically credited their entire biographical text to Wikipedia. I thought it was odd that, given their naming their school for the performing arts after her, that they would not dig into their own records and write an original bio of her contributions. That declaration seems to have been removed, as I see nothing on the WCSU page that credits Wikipedia. Without urls, I can't recall the other website I noticed. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Angela Russell (politician)

Created by Jon698 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: N - I don't think the hook is particularly interesting. You would expect someone who supports civil rights to also support MLK day.
 QPQ: Done.

Overall: (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: It is not interesting that she did both it is interesting that she did those things at all. Not everybody participated in those marches and not everybody in those marches was elected to offices where they could introduce such legislation. Also I edited the early life section to fix the "close paraphrasing" problem. - Jon698 talk 15:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jon698 and Buidhe: Would simply focusing on the "introduced legislation in Montana" hook fact work better? How about:
Another possible option could be to combine ALT1 with her being a member of a Native American tribe; personally I thought the contrast between her being Native American and her introducing legislation to honor an African-American was interesting, though others may have different opinions

#### Pell's equation

Improved to Good Article status by Eumat114 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC).

• Comment (not a full review): Although this has been approved for GA status, it appears that it is not yet in compliance with DYK rules for sourcing, which require at least one reliable source in every paragraph (other than paragraphs in the lead of the article or in the lead of a section that summarize later sourced content). In particular, unsourced paragraphs include: the penultimate paragraph of "History" (the one with the hook claim! the note from the lead can be repeated here but it doesn't really contain a reliable source for the claim that Euler was mistaken, and the link you give in the nomination is not reliable), the first paragraph of "Fundamental solution via continued fractions", the first paragraph of "Concise representation and faster algorithms", the entire section "Continued fractions", the first paragraph of "The negative Pell equation" (note 3 is not a source). Incidentally (although this is not a DYK issue) I am a little surprised that the highly inconsistent reference formatting (where half the references are footnotes and the other half are inline parenthetical references, not counting the ones where the inline reference is also part of the text of the article) was allowed to pass GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I am working on the sourcing, and as for the style I think using the footnote style is preferred. Eumat114 (Message) 07:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• I note what David Eppstein says which puts us DYK folks in a dilemma because we don't have the mathematical knowledge to properly assess the position. My view is that as a newly promoted GA, this nomination should be allowed to proceed, even if it is on an IAR basis. So I will review it. The article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact in the lead is cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ is needed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• It does not take any mathematical expertise or careful reading to look at the article and observe that it still has entire paragraphs without sources (at the ends of their sections so not summaries of anything later). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I have to note that I will have more time to work on this in 1 or 2 days, and given the waiting time for DYK it probably won't take too long for it to work out. Eumat114 (Message) 03:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• #### Slavic creation myths

Creation of the Earth, Maxim Sukharev.
• ... that according to the Slavs, creation of the world required the cooperation of two gods? Source: Aleksander Gieysztor (2006). "... two main motifs intertwine: the oceanic motif of the primal waters, where the seed of the Earth is to come from, and the dualistic thread of the creation of the world and man in the necessary cooperation of two antagonistic beings."

Created by Sławobóg (talk). Self-nominated at 17:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

• Comment: Hi, Sławobóg. The hooks are interesting. You can also add one about the myth requiring the cooperation of the devil instead of the two gods. I suggest: 1) adding more citations as there are unsourced parts; and, 2) rephrasing some content to avoid using several or lengthy block quotes. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi. Hook has to be like that because there is no "God" or "Devil" in the Slavic mythology and it is explained in the article. Everything in the article is sourced. I don't understand last part. There are just few quotes and these are pretty important. Sławobóg (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, Sławobóg. The article does cite the Devil in the "dualistic motif". Regarding the unsourced parts, when you make a factual claim (ex. "The dualistic creation myth by "evil god" diving has 24 credentials in Balto-Slavic areas and 12 credentials in Finno-Ugric areas."), you have to provide your reference. Otherwise, it constitutes primary research WP:OR. About the block quotes. Certainly, there are important ones. However, there are those that you are expected to paraphrase. Take the case of the first block quote (Creation by diving). The subsection did not provide a description of this myth but simply pasted the narrative. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi. Article indeed does cite "God and the Devil" but even in the lead there is explanation that God is "good god" and the Devil is "bad god" from Slavic mythology. Again – there is no "Devil" in Slavic mythology, it is just christianized nickname of god of Underworld. That "unsourced" part has a reference 2 sentences later because all 3 sentences are from the same part in the book. Sławobóg (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Does the god and devil have a native name? --evrik (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think that you should use the names, rather than god/devil. --evrik (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• But in folklore they are always "God" and "Devil". The way I wrote the article and hooks is the only one that makes sense. Sławobóg (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Okay. @Sławobóg: Do you have to contribute a QPQ? --evrik (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• This is my third nomination for DYK yet. (see profile) Sławobóg (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: N - hook needs rewording
 QPQ: None required.

Overall: Earwig flags one quote, but otherwise okay. QPQ issue needs resolving. --evrik (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• ALT0a:... that according to the Slavs, creation of the world required the cooperation of two gods, one good and one evil?
• ALT0b:... that according to the Slavs, creation of the world required the cooperation of a "good god" and an "evil god"?
• Need some help with the hook. I have proposed two alternates. Everything else is okay. --evrik (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Problem is that "Slavic dualism" is hard topic and "Slavic dualism" probably wasn't as exetreme like it is in christianity or zoroastrianism. Devil is always reconstructed as Veles, but Veles was not god of evil, but god of underground, magic and wealth. So IMO most correct way is just "... required the cooperation of two gods" or "...required the cooperation of "good god" and "evil god"", so it will be less confusing. Sławobóg (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• ... so Alt0b is best for you? --evrik (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, I think it is best one. Sławobóg (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hook review needed from a new reviewer. --evrik (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Suffix automaton

Suffix automaton of abbcbc and suffix tree of cbcbba
• ... that Weiner's 1973 suffix tree construction algorithm while building suffix tree of the string ${\displaystyle S}$ constructs suffix automaton of the reversed string ${\textstyle S^{R}}$ as an auxiliary structure? (pictured)
• ALT1: ... that Weiner's 1973 suffix tree construction algorithm constructs suffix automaton of the reversed string as an auxiliary structure? (pictured)
• ALT2: ... that suffix automaton (pictured) appeared as an auxiliary structure in 1973 suffix tree scholarly article, 14 years before it was discovered and introduced to scientific community as an independent concept?

5x expanded by Adamant.pwn (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC).

• Hi, before I do a review, could you simplify the hook please? You have the word suffix three times, and I don't really understand it because there doesn't seem to be a verb. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, Yoninah! I changed it a bit, hope it's clearer now. The most interesting part here is that Weiner's algorithm is of 1973, but suffix automaton was formally introduced as an independent concept only in 1987. But I'm not sure how to include this part without stepping in too much of verbosity. The word suffix is a part of "suffix tree" and "suffix automaton" titles, it stands for suffix as for the last part of arbitrary string in computer science. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 13:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you, but please do not overwrite hooks. It makes it impossible for other editors and administrators to follow the discussion. I have restored the thread. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• The alt hook is still too technical and the lead of your article is very difficult to read for someone who is not familiar with this subject. Could you find a hook angle that, while mentioning a technical term, would still appeal to a broad readership and make readers want to click on the article? Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yoninah, I hope new version is more appealing to a broad audience, what do you think? If it's still too technical, I would be grateful if you point on some specific areas for improvement. adamant.pwncontrib/talk 16:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• thank you. In the hook and the article, you are neglecting to use the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a") before nouns, which makes it hard to read. Please have someone edit your article with an eye to English grammar. I'm wondering if you can work the words computer science into your hook? Like:
• ALT2a: ... that a suffix automaton, a string of symbols used in computer science, appeared as an auxiliary structure in a 1973 scholarly article 14 years before it was discovered to be an independent concept? Yoninah (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Yoninah: Sorry for (in)definite article thing, my native language does not have them, so I often forget about them... I left a request on WP:GOCER, but it might take time to be processed. I'll try to ask some friends who are more familiar with this stuff as well. Meanwhile, I've updated the hook with your recommendations.
• ALT3: ... that a suffix automaton (pictured), a data structure used in computer science, appeared as an auxiliary structure in a 1973 scholarly article 14 years before it was discovered as an independent concept? Source: "A clean version of Weiner's linear-time compact-subword-tree construction simultaneously constructs the smallest deterministic finite automaton recognizing the reverse subwords." (Efficient and Elegant Subword-Tree Construction )
• adamant.pwncontrib/talk 17:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Article has been listed at WP:GOCE, thank you. Yoninah (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

### Articles created/expanded on September 7

• Comment: This is my 1st DYK nomination.

Improved to Good Article status by Pizzaking13 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: N - The hooks would be much more hooky if rewritten in the active voice, ie. "... that the 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état set off the Salvadoran Civil War?" However, since it's not unusual for coups to lead to civil war, a much more interesting hook could be devised.
 QPQ: None required.

Overall: (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed the source that was brought into question with an archived government source. Suggested 4 more hooks. Pizzaking13 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The article still cites a Wordpress blog[11] I think ALT 6 is best if the sourcing issues can be sorted (t · c) buidhe 08:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The issue has been sorted.

#### Gabriel Scally (physician)

• ... that Gabriel Scally of the Independent SAGE committee has described the British government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic as "too little, too late, too flawed"?
• ALT1:... that ...?

5x expanded by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 20:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: N - TBD
Overall: (t · c) buidhe 08:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @

#### Baburao Shedmake

Created by Shivashree (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC).

• Article is new, long enough and neutral. It is sourced with inline citations. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports no significant text similarities. The hook is well-formatted, neutral and interesting. Its length is within limit. Its fact is cited inline. QPQ was done. Good to go. CeeGee 12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Based on one of the sources, Gatoclass has raised an objection on word "won" rightly stating that some of the battles were indecisive. I am removing the word "won" from hook, rest remains the same. I hope that is good enough.

GD (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• ..also removed honorific from hook. GD (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• I would be glad to review the alt to get this nomination moving, but the lead still says that "he fought and won multiple battles against the British". SL93 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Check now please. GD (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I checked it again and it still said that, so I removed "and won" from the lead. This is ready. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• #### Okama Report

• ... that a Japanese LGBT rights group protested the 1989 manga series Okama Report for what it argued were its stereotypical and inaccurate depictions of LGBT people? Source: 1 2
• ALT1:... that reprinted editions of the 1989 manga series Okama Report contain a postscript from an LGBT rights group noting that the series contains exaggerated and inaccurate depictions of LGBT people? Source: 1 2

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

• #### Raissa Calza

• ... that actress and dancer Raissa Gourevitch moved to Italy after divorcing Giorgio de Chirico and became an archaeological authority on Roman statuary? Source: "In the year 1950, Raissa, universally known as the "Signora Calza" (so, in italian, she is also cited in most scientific papers in foreign languages), had an authoratiative reputation in the study or Roman art" Da Ostia a Roma e Oltre: Raissa Calza e la Fotografia source for De Chirico marriage
• ALT1:... that Raissa Gourevitch married painter Giorgio de Chirico after he saw her playing Pierrot in his brother's play The Death of Niobe? Source: "Raissa, wearing a Pierrot costume was portrayed by the Bragaglia brothers, most probably during this performance. Raissa and De Chirico got married in Paris after some time." source
• ALT2:... that actress and dancer Raissa Gourevitch performed surrealist plays before moving to Italy, where she helped excavate Roman Ostia Antica and became an archaeological authority on Roman statuary? Source: "In the year 1950, Raissa, universally known as the "Signora Calza" (so, in italian, she is also cited in most scientific papers in foreign languages), had an authoratiative reputation in the study or Roman art" Da Ostia a Roma e Oltre: Raissa Calza e la Fotografia surrealist performance source

Created by Wingedserif (talk). Self-nominated at 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC).

 QPQ: None required.

Overall: Please link and bold the subject of the hook, and use the article title. "Ukrainian" in the infobox needs to be disambiguated. I am AGF that the two sources provided here are reliable. I find ALT0 more interesting. Corachow (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just realised the subject was known as Raissa Gourevitch during the events in the hook so that's fine; Infobox had been disambiguated. Corachow (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, I came by to promote this woman's biography, but focusing on her marriages and divorces in the hooks is not something that the WP:Women in Red project encourages, nor should we. Could you provide a hook that focuses on her achievements? It's particularly interesting that she moved from dance to archaeology. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• I have also added a few "citation needed" tags to facts in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• OK, I have altered the hooks accordingly. Wingedserif (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• please do not overwrite the original hooks; it makes it impossible for reviewers and promoters to follow the discussion. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• thank you. The new alt is quite wordy and full of information, which doesn't give the reader much reason to click on the bolded link to learn more. Could it be condensed to the salient points, like:
• ALT3: ... that actress and dancer Raissa Gourevitch performed in surrealist plays before becoming an archaeological authority on Roman statuary?
• Also, please note the "citation needed" tags in the article. Yoninah (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Wiebke Lehmkuhl

• Reviewed: to come

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 10:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

• Gerda, you seem to be churning out new articles faster than you can write hooks or do QPQs. Any hook that uses "is" as the verb is going to be a statement of fact, not a hook, and this hook is no exception. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
No. It's LouisAlain who is churning out several articles a day, and many of the subjects - such as this woman - are just to good to not be known. I almost wrote a comment such as "today is Sunday, I have no time, but need to nominate to not miss the deadline, no time to read the article and word a hook", but had no time for such comment, sorry. Today should be slightly better. I should tell LouisAlain to write no interesting article on Sundays, and only one interesting the other days :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Dances at a Gathering. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you. Now we need a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I finished copy-editing, but there's much more in the sources, including the potential hook. Too tired right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that

#### Majestic, Leeds

5x expanded by Rcsprinter123 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

• Hi Rcsprinter123, just started to take a look at this one. I'll continue looking at it but for now I note the final two sentences in the article aren't referenced? - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
5x expansion from 14 September confirmed; barring the above citations seem to be in order, though preferably there should be page numbers for Cook and the Heritage Statement. Is the heritage statement not available online, perhaps as part of the planning application? I didn't spot any issues with overly close paraphrasing; hooks are interesting; I have some issues with verifying the hooks, for ALT1 I can't see that the 2014 Yorkshire Evening Post article verifies that the refurbishment was complete at the time of the fire (indeed much of the first paragraph of the "Fire and redevelopment" section does not appear in the source and needs to be checked); for ALT0 the article states that Channel 4 have yet to move in? - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, Dumelow. Last sentences now covered by Yorkshire Post source. The heritage statement and officer's report are available online, but do not have a stable link; they have to be accessed through the planning portal. This was explained on a hidden note, but I've moved it into the citation to make access easier for readers. Unfortunately, said portal seems to be down tonight, but I think that a lot of the fire paragraph and ALT1 is sourced from the heritage statement on there. I will have to try again tomorrow to source that better and get page numbers. As for ALT0, I don't have anything up-to-date enough to say Channel 4 have moved in, but I would say being confirmed by multiple sources as anchor tenant counts as becoming the headquarters for the purposes of the hook? Alternatively, publication of the DYK could hold until C4 are using it. Rcsprinter123 (comment) 00:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rcsprinter123, I think that's OK re: the report but are you able to add page numbers, I imagine it's rather lengthy? For ALT0 we could just change it to "will become the national headquarters of Channel 4" - Dumelow (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that Public Access, the planning portal, still seems to be down for essential maintenance so I can't get that paragraph sorted out yet. I support the change to ALT0, if we have "will soon become". Rcsprinter123 (dialogue) 21:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dumelow. With it being back online, I've taken a look at the source added an extra citation on the paragraph covering the parts which use it, and added the page number range. Rcsprinter123 (relate) 22:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's been almost two weeks since you started this nomination. Have you accomplished a QPQ yet? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5: I'm so sorry, I forgot that that's what we were waiting for. QPQ review is linked above. That'll teach me to submit a nomination at bedtime. Rcsprinter123 (pitch) 12:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. @

#### Bureau of State Services

ALT1: * ... that the U.S. Public Health Service's Bureau of State Services was broken up to become the Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and parts of two other agencies?

Created by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

• John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The hook information is directly cited and I prefer the original hook. There are only two issues - A QPQ is needed and the 36th reference has an error message with its formatting. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: QPQ provided, reference error corrected. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. This is ready. SL93 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• There is an awful lot of blue-linking in these hooks. Is this the hookiest thing you can say about the subject? It sounds like it would have limited interest outside the U.S. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Unfortunately, it seems to just not be that interesting of an agency on the whole. Here are a few ALTs, but I'm not sure if they're any better. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Cups (song)

• Improved to Good Article status by The Ultimate Boss (talk). Self-nominated at 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

 QPQ: None required.

Overall: The Ultimate Boss Just need to bold the page article in the hooks, and removed the commas between "Cups (When I'm Gone)" and "is a version of..." Corachow (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Corachow, I have done what you asked :). The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss I just realised that the source cited here doesn't seem to be very reliable but in the article there are several good references backing the hooks up so I suggest using them, everything else seems fine to me. Corachow (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Corachow, how does the new source look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss It’s good. Corachow (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, I came by to promote this, but I wonder why you find this hooky? People who have never heard of either song won't really care. I personally find it hooky that Kendrick taught herself how to do the cups by watching a viral video. Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

#### List of Arjuna award recipients (1961–1969)

Commemorative postage stamp on Indian Everest Expedition of 1965
• Reviewed: This is my 2nd DYK nomination and I am still learning the review process, hence didn't do a DYK review as per QPQ

Created by Roller26 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC).

 QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a useful and necessary article; thank you for creating it. The article was created on 15 September (not 16), but it is still new enough. Although this is a list, there is sufficient prose covering the history and background of the subject to cover DYK length requirement. The prose and lists are all sourced. ALT0 and ALT1 are sourced with online citations. No QPQ is required. Issues: (1) The following extracts should have quotation marks, otherwise they may be taken as plagiarism: (a) "performance of Indian sportspersons in the Commonwealth, Asian Games and Olympic Games", (b) "certificate, ceremonial dress, and a cash". (2) All of the prose is currently in the header, and most of it does not belong there. Please arrange most of the prose under subheadings, for example the meaning of Arjuna, the history of the award, the recipients, or whatever. It is OK to repeat some of that in the header. (3) Please check the prose for typos and language errors. For example, the spelling of "honour". (4) I am not sure whether the image is suitably free for DYK use. I have asked an administrator to check it. It is worth getting these issues right now, so that this nomination goes through DYK prep smoothly. Storye book (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book I am have made certain changes regarding (1) concern. Let me know if it works. Roller26 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: An administrator has now reviewed the image, and confirmed that the image is OK, so I have struck out issue (4) in my original review. Storye book (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2020 (U
Update: I'll write out again the information which was lost. (3) Typos and language errors. (a) IS the sports honour (not are). (b) AWARD WAS the highest sporting honour (not awards were). (c) Has undergone (A) number. (d) IT HAS introduced ... AND introduced A lifetime ... (e) AT LEAST (no hyphen). (f) Individuals ... which INCLUDE (not includes). (g) TO date (not till date). (h) In 1965 BY the successful (not from). Storye book (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, thanks for the image review and the list of typos. I have corrected the mentioned typos and language issues + 2 more minor ones. I have also rephrased (1)a. Let me know if it works. Regarding the caption in the images used in the article, these do not belong in the article prose itself. If they do not seem appropriate then either the caption itself or with the image can be removed.
Also I do not think that creating sub headings for introduction of the award in the list of awardees of a particular decade is a good idea. If you feel that a lot of information has been added in the lead section, either let me know which statements should be removed/modified or feel free to do it yourself. Also to note is that other similar Indian Government awards from which this article is inspired are following certain styles which have been reviewed by the community to be voted/nominated at the highest standards. As a relatively new user, its much easier for me to follow particular good examples and imitate them, rather than try to do everything from scratch. Roller26 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, roller26, for resolving the remaining typos. I have struck out all issues which are now resolved. All that remains is the issue of the header. I cannot re-write the header for you, because that would be a big change, and that would compromise the value of my review. To get this final issue resolved, I guess you now have a choice. (1) You could find someone to help you change the single big header into a smaller header plus some new sections, OR (2) if you do not want to change the header at all, you can call for a new reviewer. I don't mind which you choose - my job here is to try to give you a quick and smooth run through the DYK process. You have achieved a lot so far, and thank you for your quick and efficient responses. Storye book (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• #### California Border Protection Stations

A California Border Protection Station on Interstate 15

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 05:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: N - The "protect it against invasion" is potentially misleading, since it's not clear it refers to an agricultural pest invasion. My first assumption was that these stations were about immigration, and many readers may assume the same.
 QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think the image caption could be improved. It'd be better to specify the location than to give the year the photo was taken (no one really cares that it was 2013). No copyvios (Earwig just finds a quote); article is neutral and adequately cited. Once the wording is tweaked, this will be good to go. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wording in caption changed. I think the ambiguity of the hook is what makes it interesting, right? Though factual and inline cited some people may, like yourself, make more fantastical assumptions and be inspired to click the link to learn more. I'm not sure there's much of an interesting hook that could be created about noxious weed control. Nonetheless, I've begrudgingly proposed an ALT. Chetsford (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

### Articles created/expanded on September 18

#### Tenzing Norgay National Adventure Award

INSV Tarini with members of Navika Sagar Parikrama leaving Cape Town

Created by Roller26 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

• Article created in draftspace, moved to mainspace and nominated within the appropriate timeframe. Article is long enough. It appears to be written neutrally. The hook fact is cited inline in the article. This is the user's second DYK so QPQ is not required. The only issues is a lack of sourcing. I am adding tags inline for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu thanks for the review. I have done some major changes in the article plus I have added a photo with the hook. Let me know if this works. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Site of the Saracen's Head Inn
• ... that the Saracen's Head is where Nicholas Nickleby first encountered the one-eyed schoolmaster Wackford Squeers? Source: "Is is here that Wackford Squeers, the dreadful schoolmaster who has but one eye ... is introduced to Nicholas Nickleby" The London Encyclopedia 3rd edition p. 822

Created by Ritchie333 (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 19:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, neutrally written, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Image is freely licensed. QPQ done.
• My only concern is how this hook works vis a vis Rule C6. The novel is mixing fact and fiction, as novels often do, but it seems borderline per DYK rules. I'm wondering if you could mention that the real-life signs and structure of the pub were incorporated into the fictional plot, or something like that? Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, it is talking about fiction but in a non-fiction reference book, which highlights its relevance. Several other blogs talking about the inn also mention the Dickens connection as a cultural reference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Alt1 ... that the

#### Princess Bride Reunion (2020)

Actor Mandy Patinkin in 2012

Created by HouseOfChange (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

• There's a shortage of perfect DYK hooks in this world; it'd be a pity to damage this one. Article passes all DYK criteria without complaint. Sceptre (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, I came by to promote ALT0, but "got rave reviews" is not exactly encyclopedic, and also doesn't appear in the article. In the article, I changed "got good reviews" to "received positive reviews". Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for your helpful changes to the article. Based on your input, I changed the final sentence of the lead to summarize more info from the body: "More than 110,000 viewers donated a dollar or more to Wisconsin Democrats to view the livestream, which raised \$4.25 million and received widely positive reviews, with special praise for the performance of Mandy Patinkin." How about
• thank you for the alt, but I wasn't planning on promoting this to an image slot. The alt also sounds even more fanzine-y than the original. Perhaps you could try another hook angle? Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I chose that hook because it seemed notable to me that the same actor performing the same role 33 years later inspired wide enthusiasm from reviewers. Here is another, and it seems a shame not to use Patinkin's picture, which was taken by User:Bearian. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• That sounds better, thanks. @Sceptre:, could you review ALT2? As much as I appreciate someone taking that picture, it's 8 years old and he's pretty hidden in hat and clothing. It would be better to show him in the film. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Six-fingered glove and prop sword from the film
• The image is good, but the image caption at Commons says it's a six-fingered glove and a sword. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
People (e.g. AV Club) call it the "six-fingered sword" (5,000 Google hits) because William Goldman called it that and because Inigo Montoya's father made it for the six-fingered man, the man who wore the six-fingered glove. I can easily change the caption on the image at Commons, considering that I created that image by cropping a Flickr photo somebody uploaded. Or we could change the hook to say "prop sword" instead of "six-fingered sword" -- both are correct. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Well, calling it a six-fingered sword makes the hook. The caption could say: Six-fingered glove and prop sword from the film. Striking unused hooks. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Here is the formatted image for the main page:
Six-fingered glove and prop sword from the film

### Articles created/expanded on September 20

#### Vaccine Confidence Project

• ... that the Vaccine Confidence Project is an early warning system for rumours about vaccines? establish the Vaccine Confidence Project as a means of anticipating problems associated with rumours and other sources of misinformation and countering these problems while are sill manageable"..."The project's premise...is that early detection of and timely response to rumours"[23]
• ALT1:... that ...?
• Reviewed:

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 19:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, long enough, is neutral and without copyvio, but it needs a reference adding to the DYK nomination, so we can see which specific reference you are citing (not just the page as a whole). Although the hook is short, I think it's quite punchy. I would suggest changing "rumours" to "public concerns" though as it's more accurate. Thanks (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
• Thanks for reviewing . I have added the source. I still need to provide a QPQ, which I will do soon. "Misinformation" might be an alternative to "rumours", as in the source. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Whispyhistory, Yup. "Misinformation" is a nice suggestion. Please let me know when you've done your QPQ. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

#### National Covenant

• Comment: This feels like one which might read better without the word 'that'. Is there actually a rule which requires this?

Created by CSJJ104 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

• CSJJ104, the format rules for the hook can be seen at WP:DYKHOOK. I don't see anything that explicitly says that "that" has to begin the hook, but then again I may have overlooked it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't either. I am adding the following two hooks to the proposal which would be my preference. They are the same as above, just with the word that omitted. CSJJ104 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Three Warfares

Created/expanded by ArvindPalaskar (talk), DiplomatTesterMan (talk), Georgethedragonslayer (talk). Nominated by ArvindPalaskar (talk) at 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

• I formatted this nomination template and also moved the page to Three warfares, as it is not some official policy that needs capitalization. I notice in the article that you are occasionally capitalizing other kinds of "warfare" and suggest that you lowercase it. Additionally, the hook repeats the word "warfare" four times. Surely DiplomatTesterMan can help you write a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Let me try... DTM (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Review

Policy compliance:

 QPQ: None required.

Overall: We could use more Chinese input to this. For example, what is the literal meaning of the phrase (three kinds (of) war law?). Google suggests "three tactics" as a translation which seems to be better English. What is the current Chinese view and how does it fit into their overall geopolitical strategy? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted. DTM (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Andrew The article is a warfare doctrine and strategy. There will be strong opposing views. You can't defend warfare strategies all the time.
Google suggests "three tactics". I don't think we are going by google's view since academics and nearly all articles I have come across use "warfare". I stumbled across this myself too and clarified the usage of warfare. Better English just doesn't work here. DTM (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That said, I will work on the points raised. DTM (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Lastly, you wrote Characterising China's use of the law and media as "warfare" seems tendentious.. Did you even read the article, even a bit? DTM (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
1. The lead gives the phrase in Simplified Chinese characters and pinyin but does not provide a literal translation. As this is the English language Wikipedia, our readership cannot be expect to read Chinese.
2. The lead also styles this as the 3Ws but I'm not sure that this is a standard abbreviation
3. The lead does not say what the three different components are
4. The lead references the amended Regulations on the Political Work of the People’s Liberation Army (2003) but doesn't provide much context. The PLA has lots of rules and regulations which are regularly revised.([24]) Why are we cherry-picking this particular detail from them and emphasising it? Is it still current?
5. The lead then gives the opinions of a couple of think-tanks. Are these impartial or do they represent the strategic interests of their respective nations -- Australia and USA?
6. When the lead concludes by saying that "is a strategic option that is underway all the time", this suggests a state of cold war in which China's statements are not to be taken at face value and in good faith, but as aggressive and devious. This seems to be an expression of Anti-Chinese sentiment.
7. If we read about psychological warfare, we find that most great powers do this sort of thing, going back centuries. Is the Chinese doctrine anything special or is it just standard military thinking? Is this not just the latest form of words expressing the idea that it's smart to dominate without fighting -- an idea that goes back to Sun Tsu?
Now this is just my take on the topic but, as a reviewer, I am supposed to challenge nominations with respect to core policy such as WP:NPOV. As the Chinese tend to react hotly to suggestions that they are bad people, we should be careful before we go splashing this onto the front page. As Wikipedia is banned in China, I don't suppose that we're going to get much help from inside the country but perhaps some editor such as User:Deryck Chan can help?
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks Andrew and I've delved into this and checked the sources. Here's what I understand about this topic:

• Basically, this "three warfares" strategy first came into public discourse via international observers' testimonies. Almost all the Chinese-language articles I can find are responses to international publications about this strategy. (e.g. [25][26][27][28] - note, some of these are banned from being used in Wikipedia article citations)
• These Chinese-language reports parroted the international media reports rather matter-of-factly, without challenging the content. Notably even Chinese state media Huanqiu parroted without much original commentary. This, and the strength of international sources, give credence to the verity of the "three warfares" strategy's details.
• "Three warfares" is the English term used by the vast majority of sources cited by this article. There is no reason to change that.
• I don't see any sources using the "3W's" abbreviation. Please provide a source.
• I guess one could say "三种战法" is better translated "three strategies" than "three warfares", but I don't feel strongly about this.
• With all these in mind, I guess we could caveat both the DYK hook and the lead section of the article with "According to international observers, Three Warfares is...". But again I don't feel strongly about this.
• Concerning possible Chinese establishment backlash if this goes onto Main Page, I really wouldn't worry about it. It seems that this topic first emerged into public view through international media a decade ago. As Andrew said, Wikipedia is banned in China. And each hook only gets 8 hours on Main Page. I seriously doubt that Chinese censors will even care, but - disclaimer - I don't claim any responsibility if DiplomatTesterMan gets banned by China as a result of getting this article onto Main Page.

--Deryck C. 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew and Deryck, thank you both for the above points which I am seeing only now; I will make changes to the article accordingly.
Thank you for the light hearted humour of the disclaimer and the seriously improbable chance of all this leading to a ban.

#### List of Arjuna award recipients (1990–1999)

Indian stamp featuring Sachin Tendulkar

Created by Roller26 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

• You have a few hooks like this. Instead of spending so many words explaining what the award is, why not write a hook with the award as the subject, perhaps saying what it was named after? Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, the awards are named after Arjuna, a well known figure in Hindu mythology. The Indian audience will not find that interesting. You can read about naming in the first few lines of the article and tell me if it will be interesting to the worldwide audience. I also plan to nominate List of Arjuna award recipients (2000–2009), List of Arjuna award recipients (2010–2019) with some controversy related hooks and also the main article Arjuna Award once the article is completed with history, nomination, selection, recipients, controversies and criticism section something along the lines of Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna & Tenzing Norgay National Adventure Award, but more detailed than either of them (due to its long history since 1961 and sought after top sports award). Is your advice that I should stop bringing them to DYK? Roller26 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Roller26: First of all, you're not just writing for an Indian audience, but for an international readership. Secondly, you can write about any award as long as you word the hook in a "hooky" way so readers will be motivated to click on the bolded link and learn more. If you'd like a hook suggestion for this nomination, I could think of one. Yoninah (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I definitely appreciate the international readership. As per this [34], Indian audience accounts for about 8-9% of English Wiki's audience. I am not sure of naming being hooky enough for broad audience, however if you feel that its interesting enough I can have that as the hook for the main article Arjuna Award as it will make more sense there then any of the decade wise awardees list. I also welcome any suggestion from you, you had helped with Tenzing Norgay National Adventure Award hook too and reviewed my first DYK List of Indian chess players. Roller26 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Anna Tifu

• Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Aeroflot Flight 6709

• ... that all three engines on Aeroflot Flight 6709 stopped after the flight engineer accidentally turned off the fuel pump? Source: "...flight engineer accidentally disconnected the automatic transferring of fuel" 1
• ALT1:... that all three engines on Aeroflot Flight 6709 stopped after a pilot accidentally turned off the fuel pump? Source: "...flight engineer accidentally disconnected the automatic transferring of fuel" 1

Created by AviationFreak (talk). Self-nominated at 12:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC).

• #### St. Gallus, Flörsheim

Organ of St. Gallus
• Reviewed: to come

Created/expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 09:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Baptist Hoffmann

Baptist Hoffmann as the Holländer
• Reviewed: to come

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Büşra Kuru

• ... that German-born Turkish international Büşra Kuru began playing football at age six encouraged by her footballer brother, who took her to the sports field every day? Source: "Unsere 'Neuen' - Büsra Kuru 21.06.2019 11:27 - Seit 13 Jahren spielt sie nun schon Fußball - ihr Bruder, der ebenfalls Fussball spielte, hat sie dazu bewegt, da sie durch ihn tagtäglich auf dem Sportplatz war." (in German) [38]

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 11:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Fred Bang, Betsy Bang

• ... that Fred and Betsy Bang (pictured) were introduced by a 700-pound (320 kg) gorilla called Marmaduke?
• Reviewed: Three Warfares; Timothy S. Matthews
• Comment: The articles were created some time ago but have lately been expanded. Fred has certainly been expanded x5 and Betsy is getting there. They make a natural pair and the story of their first meeting can be read at The Conversation.

5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC).

• Fred Bang: Article length is 2,232 chars, but assessed as stub. Needs re-assesing at lest as start. It was expanded at least five-fold, was nominated on due time, and is neutral. It cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities for four sources. They can be easily reworded. the fact "introduced by a 700-pound gorilla called Marmaduke" is not contained in the article. Betsy Bang: Article's expansion began at 952 chars on 17 Speptember, one week before the DYK nomination. It was 2,886 chars long at the nomination date, which does not meet the five-fold condition. It is assesed as stub, which is not any more. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities for four sources. They can be easily reworded. The hook fact is cited offline, for which I AGF. It is interesting. Its length is within limit. The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. It is contained in both articles. QPQ was done. CeeGee 11:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Ganni

• ... that Ganni was founded in 2000, as a cashmere brand, but almost 20 years later it resurfaced and gained popularity as a contemporary designer label? Source: Harper's Bazaar
• Reviewed: coming soon (at this time, there are all but none to review!)
• Comment: the bit about not raising their prices is too confusing for a hook, sadly

Moved to mainspace by Laurenschneider210 (talk) and Trillfendi (talk). Nominated by Trillfendi (talk) at 01:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

• I am afraid this is only a 2x expansion. (this was moved, missed it - so data/size are fine). A second problem is the usage of designer label here, which is not supported by anything in text. Finally, as a layman in fashion, I have no idea what a cashmere brand is, this term should be at list hyperlinked in the article, and preferably explained. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In simple English, they sold cashmere wool items like scarves and what not; when the new ownership took over they started selling high-end dresses and shoes. The article as it stands doesn’t outright say designer, true (that’s kind of vague), it’s more specific about what type of market of the fashion business it is in because that’s what the sources do. If these were cars, imagine a Lexus rather than a Ferrari. Trillfendi (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

1898 photo of Tibetan with yak and a sheep carrying a bag of salt

Created by Evrik with the help of User:Cwmhiraeth). Self-nominated at 17:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

1898 photo of Tibetan with yak and a sheep carrying a bag of salt
• Comment: I was thinking of reviewing this, but ended up expanding the article instead! I would like to suggest ALT1
• Providing a cropped image, if anyone is interested. — Maile (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Alt1 is okay with me. --evrik (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Vaxholm Church

Advent Sunday celebrated in the Vaxholm Church
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Akira Fudo
• Comment: I would like to hold this for November 29, and have the photo used (Advent Sunday). Apologies, but this got moved out of draft space three weeks earlier than I had planned.

Created/expanded by Evrik (talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

## Current nominations

### Articles created/expanded on September 23

#### Mount Melbourne

Mount Melbourne viewed from the Ross Sea
• Comment: QPQ upon review, if I may.

5x expanded by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 20:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

• This is what DYK should do. You ask did I known that there were mosses and volcanic activity in the Antarctic, and I reply genuinely, "Nope, didn't know that ... interesting." Anyways, the article meets newness and size requirements with > 5x expansion from 9/22 to 9/29. Article is also well written and makes appropriate use of citations. Earwig (here) indicated some potential (46.5%) of copyvio, but it doesn't look problematic to me, mostly just long citations and scientific nomenclature stuff. The hook is interesting, short enough, neutral, and supported by in-line citations. Just needs the QPQ. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Clathria aceratoobtusa

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Berivan İçen

• ... that recent Turkey women's national footballer Berivan İçen scored 11 goals in a Girls U-13 League match that ended 15-0 for her team? Source:"Minik Kızlar ligi 7. hafta A.Grubu karşılaşmasında Galatasaray A.Ş. İle Sefaköyspor, Beyoğlu stadında karşılaştı.", "... Galatasaray A.Ş. rakibini 15-0 gibi farklı skorla yenerek liderliğini korudu. Berivan'ın yıldızlaştığı maçta Sarı-Kırmızılı takıma galibiyeti getiren golleri 5,10,12,15,17,21,22,27,30,33,38 dakikalarda Berivanİçen, .." (in Turkish) [41]
• Reviewed: Bangs
• Comment: QPQ is the second part of a hook with two articles

Created/expanded by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 10:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

#### What the Future Holds (album)

5x expanded by Calvin999 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

• The article was expanded enough and is long enough with no copryight violations. However, a QPQ is still needed and neither hook is interesting. Many things were delayed because of the pandemic. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'll do a QPQ even though I've reviewed more than I've nominated over 8 years. Just because you don't find it interesting, doesn't mean others won't or that it's not interesting for this topic.  — Calvin999 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Use one you've already done and haven't used before. --evrik (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I wouldn't click. Can you say something about what makes this album special? ... instead of what it shares with many? Have the bolded article at the beginning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• ALT2:... that the name of the album What the Future Holds is a reflection of how the Steps "feel now as a group and how far they've come"? --evrik (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Well, that's arguably not interesting as presumably each recording act thinks they've progressed from album to album. For this to work it would need to reflect their going forward too? Blending nostalgia with the future? They referenced that the title has nothing to do with COVID and that it is coincidental, that they are not seeking to profit from relating in a pandemic.  — Calvin999 19:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• ALT3:... that the name, sound and concept of the album What the Future Holds by Steps derives purely from the lyrics of the title track?  — Calvin999 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I would be glad to approve ALT3 once a QPQ is used, which can be from an old review that hasn't been posted yet as one. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• There's nothing interesting to me about the target article, and its delay because of CoVid is just one of many thousands of things which have suffered the same fate. But I find the title ironically amusing (in that it didn't predict its own fate). Bazza (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Calvin999, Gerda Arendt, Evrik, SL93, and Bazza 7: Would the following work as hooks?
ALT4 ... that the reveal of the upcoming album What the Future Holds by the band Steps was teased by social media posts showing imagery of a crystal ball? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT4a ... that the reveal of Steps's upcoming album What the Future Holds was teased by social media posts showing imagery of a crystal ball? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who's never heard of the group before (although given I don't live in the UK, I'm not sure of their international popularity), the original COVID hooks mean nothing to me, but I think there's potential in a hook about how the album was revealed. ALT3 has some potential but I don't think album titles and themes being based on title tracks is an uncommon practice in music. If there's no other suitable alternative then ALT3 would be the best option here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
So far ALT3 is best but not great. The crystal ball image is also rather common and nothing specific to this music (which I still miss). ALT5 perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Alt3 is already approved ... I think what is lacking is a QPQ. --evrik (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
That's true. I personally think we should go with the best one out of what we have so far. SL93 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
How's the QPQ moving along? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and SL93: I found an old unused QPQ --evrik (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
By "approved" I mean a tick icon and the others struck, not only agreement. I still hope for something better, but have other jobs than finding one, like rescuing articles from draft space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame The Sun is banned because they did an interview with their Bizarre column with so much info, but can't be used. I need to sit and do a QPQ, it's been a while since I've done one. There is info in the article which is more about the song, so that can't be used and I am saving that stuff for a title track page expansion. I agree that the title of the album is ironic, hence why I wanted to do a Covid related hook as they said last week that it is purely coincidental that they named the album What the Future Holds when we live in such an uncertain time.  — Calvin999 11:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You can always ask at WP:RSN if you can request for an WP:IAR exemption to use The Sun for the article while stating the circumstances. After all, The Sun isn't really banned, it's deprecated (meaning its use is heavily discouraged, but may still be used in limited circumstances). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I will, because it was a direct interview, it was all quoted. Shame to not be able to use a whole interview with so much info because of what it was printed in.  — Calvin999 19:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Put it in External links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Aplysina aerophoba  — Calvin999 19:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• save your QPQ. We found one of your prviois reviews not used before. --evrik (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Find the Sun

Moved to mainspace by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

### Articles created/expanded on September 24

#### A Night to Remember (Kraft Television Theatre)

Steerage passnegers left behind on the Titanic
• ... that A Night to Remember (pictured), a live broadcast about the Titanic's final night, featured 107 actors and 31 sets and proved that "TV occasionally can rise to great heights"? Source: "'Night To Remeber' Is A TV Show to Remember", NY Daily News, 3/30/56
• 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 Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Timothy S. Matthews

• ... that Rear Admiral Timothy S. Matthews (pictured) received an award from the Association of Old Crows? Source: "Matthews’ awards include the Legion of Merit (2), Meritorious Service Medal (4), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (4), the Virgil Lemmon Award for Maintenance Excellence, and the Association of Old Crows’ Maintenance Award." ([42])
• 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 Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

Review General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: N - The article seems to be mostly a paraphrase of the USN biography. Earwig scores it as over 40% which is too high in my opinion.
• Other problems: N - I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. They would pass WP:SOLDIER by dint of being a Rear-Admiral but such ex officio status does not sufficient for DYK, in my opinion. As we only have their service record to go by, we're not getting an independent, rounded view of the subject.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: N - The Old Crows organisation has an interesting name but this doesn't make me want to read the subject's page
 QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article needs work because, I'm just seeing a series of job titles which don't explain what the subject actually did. The USN bio says that they were an Acquisition Professional and so I suppose that they worked in the procurement bureaucracy as a desk jockey. As that bureaucracy is huge, they got to be an admiral per Parkinson's Law and Sir Joseph Porter but it doesn't appear that they saw action or did anything noteworthy. And now they are going round the revolving door. But that's cited to their LinkedIn page! Surely we need more than this? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Earwig figure of 40% is mainly due to nouns that are repeated. Not only does this not amount to a copyvio problem, but since the source in question is PD, it could have been copied verbatim without paraphrasing.
• It is not unusual for a DYK article to be small. The one I reviewed (Error has no rights) barely scratches the surface of the subject. However, I have doubled the size of the article, providing more details about his reforms at the Fleet Readiness Centerss, his role in the 2013 sequestration crisis, and his ongoing role at Lockheed Martin, where he is in charge of a program worth \$1 trillion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• The interesting name should be more than sufficient to attract 1,000 page views.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Copying PD material may be adequate to avoid deletion but is insufficient for WP:DYK which states, "text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles". Anyway, if further work has been done, I'll take another look. More anon... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

### Articles created/expanded on September 25

#### Jürg Conzett

Created by Hportfacts5 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

### Articles created/expanded on September 26

#### No Time for Sergeants (United States Steel Hour)

Andy Griffith and Harry Clark in No Time for Sergeants
• ... that The New York Times' review of No Time for Sergeants (1956) (pictured) questioned whether Andy Griffith was "versatile enough to qualify for other important roles"? Source: [43]: "Andy Griffith was ideally cast. He has not been seen on television before and it cannot be said at this point whether he is versatile enough for other important roles." For those not from the US, the "hookiness" comes from the fact that Griffith went on to become one of the greatest stars in the history of American television.
• 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 Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Issy Wong

• ... that cricketer Issy Wong can solve a Rubik's Cube in seconds? Source: [44] "Issy Wong doesn't just make solving a Rubik's Cube in a matter of seconds look easy, she makes it sound like the simplest thing in the world too."

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: N - Not done
Overall: main hook preferred Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

#### All Gas No Brakes

• Reviewed: TBD
• Comment: Decided to test out the DYK Helper tool, but failed on me twice while I was trying to create this, so I ended up doing it manually. It's late for me and now my head hurts as a result, so please let me know if there are any errors.

Moved to mainspace by PrairieKid (talk), Sheila1988 (talk), and Bait30 (talk). Nominated by Bait30 (talk) at 08:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Bob Hindmarch

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 00:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Heji Shin

• ... that photographer Heji Shin created Big Cocks, a series of portraits of roosters that she admired for their "angry cock energy"? Source: "Two prints from the series, titled “Big Cocks,” recently appeared in a group show at Galerie Buchholz in Berlin. Roosters have long been associated with masculinity (though, in fact, they don’t have penises, Shin informs me); in an era in which violence tends to be systemic or “tactical,” she writes to me later, “the short-lived outbursts of angry cock energy look Hellenistic and virile.”" ([49])
• 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)
• Reviewed: My Lonesome Cowboy and Hiropon (sculpture)

Created by Gamaliel (talk). Self-nominated at 22:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

 QPQ: Done.

Overall: First of all, Big Cocks: great. Lots of Wikipedians are gonna love to see Big Cocks, and want to hear more about Big Cocks. And everyone is gonna love "angry cock energy". I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I see Big Cocks, I'm immediately interested. Earwig's tool gives a low score of 39.8%, and basically all of that is sourced quotations from the NYT article. I'm a little disappointed in there not being a picture of Big Cocks, although it might be difficult to come up with a freely licensed photo of Big Cocks. Another thing that seemed weird to me is that the whole article is under the "Early Life" section. Huh? I sure hope Big Cocks weren't part of her early life! It could do with a bit more breaking out into sections. There could also be some more cool stuff in the infobox (like what type of art she does, what she's best known for -- there's so much more to her, even though we might only be there for Big Cocks). But I love this article, I love this hook, I love Big Cocks, and I definitely look forward to seeing Big Cocks on the main page. jp×g 03:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to print out this review and frame it. I took care of the header issue. Gamaliel (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

#### 2020 European Masters (2)

Expanded by Lee Vilenski (talk). Self-nominated at 15:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

MrLinkinPark333 This just needs to be an expansion of 5x within the last 7 days though. Not sure why we would use the one on the 23rd - we have an edition from 20th which has 930 characters (152 words), which today's version is a 5x expansion. I didn't think it had to be just me making the expansions... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Based on this RFC, I'm pretty sure the 5x expansion applies only to the nominator, not anyone else. Specifically "the day before the expander began substantive work on it". Therefore, the target number would be 5x times the last day's edit before you expanded it. The last edit before yours was on the 25th where it was at 1517 bytes. You started expanding it on the 26th. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh MrLinkinPark333 - I hadn't seen the RfC, but what exactly does "the day before" mean in this context? In my timezone, the day before would be this edit, so it would now meet the 5x expansion criteria?
It does feel a bit odd, because I could just claim another user as a co-nominator and have no issues? I thought the point of DYK was for articles improved significantly, not that specific editors attempts at promotion. Not that it matters, as the event ends this evening, and I'll be expanding it further once it's over irregardless but I suggest this needs a check to make sure this is the correct interpretation of this rule. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind a second review by another editor to help figure this out. I think "the day before" is referring to the last edit from the day prior to your expansion. The last edit before yours was at 18:04, September 25, 2020‎ (my time UTC-4), making it 23:04 for you still on September 25. Meaning that any edits from September 26th onwards would be in the 7 day window for you. Your first edit was 07:45, September 26, 2020‎ (my time UTC-4), which this would have been September 26th 12:45. Even with the time zone difference, only your edits from September 26th onwards would count as the substantial expander. With your edits today, you're short still of the 5x expansion (6302 bytes in comparison to 7585). For the next reviewer: Could someone help explain the RFC change in terms of "the day before the expander began substantive work on it" part? How would this apply to this nomination? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I'd still like it clarified, it's worth noting MrLinkinPark333 that the article is now above the 7585 character limit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, it was precisely for situations like this that the RfC's original close was modified, which you don't seem to have noticed; you can see the final version at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#RfC on the Fivefold expansion rule. There was further discussion the following month: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#Further discussion/Fivefold expansion definition. Unfortunately, it didn't come to a final wording, but the clear intent was to have situations where the nominator was not the first person starting the expansion be counted from the very beginning of the expansion (but not exceeding seven days), and that should be the standard applied for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I did not see that link as that revision from July 6th is linked at WP:DYKRULES next to the word Fivefold. Since that's not the latest revision, the link you provided from July 10th should be that included instead in DYK Rules. Also, I believe there should be clarification to include that the nominator of the DYK does not have to be the only person who expanded the article within 7 days to qualify for a 5x expansion. Therefore, other users like me would not be confused. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the issue of fivefold expansion has been addressed per above, I'll resume this review:

Policy compliance:

 QPQ: Done.

Overall: Bit of close paraphrasing/copying. I think "while Michael White came into contact with Wells" would need a slight reword to pass limited wording. My main issue is that "offered any person returning it a new cue made as a reward" looks similar to the Twitter source and would need rewording. For neutrality, I suggest dropping "however" from "Hill, however, won the next two frames" and "However, Davis' cue was returned before the end of the tournament". Rest of the article sounds fine with Words to watch as part of Neutrality. I think if these two issues are corrected, then this can be passed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

### Articles created/expanded on September 27

#### Wesley O. Smith

Oregon House District 21, 1905-1921
• ... that state legislator Wesley O. Smith represented what are now six large counties in central Oregon (pictured)?
Source: During his two terms in the Oregon legislature, Smith represented four counties … Crook, Grant, Klamath, and Lake. Jefferson and Deschutes counties had not been separated from Crook County at that time. Deschutes and Jefferson counties are shown as part of District 21 in the 1919 legislative guide … see District 21 counties represented by Smith’s successor, Denton Burdick.

Created by Orygun (talk). Self-nominated at 01:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Ledlenser

LedLenser's T7M Tactical Flashlight
• ... that Ledlenser developed the first commercially available LED flashlight? Source: "Fineartmultiple Art Magazine - Why Has a Pack of Wolves Descended on Berlin?". fineartmultiple.com. "The artist behind the project, Rainer Opolka, was a highly successful inventor who alongside his twin brother made a fortune from developing power saving technologies such as the first commercially available LED torch"
• ALT1:... that Ledlenser are an official partner with Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) in 2020? Source: Hardisty, Carin., Ledlenser helps Doctors without Borders, Sports Trader, March 31, 2020.

Created by Arthur Sparknottle (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

• A brand-new article from a brand-new editor, who, despite his “newness”, and his rather narrow focus, knew just how to submit this. Qwirkle (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Concurred with Qwirkle. The article doesn't meet WP:NPOV, and hooks are of dubious verifiability in their own right. Hportfacts5 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Who did invent the first LED flashlight then, clever clogs? That's an interesting fact people should know. Why are you trying to hide it? You need to read WP:ABF too. What sources are unreliable? Why isn't the German verson tagged with NPOV if your claim is true? [50] It's almost exactly the same! Are there actually any English speaking editors out there that make good faith edits or explain anything clearly? I despair! This place is disgraceful. An enyclcopedia nasty! Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

### Articles created/expanded on September 28

#### Albert Heschong

• ... that production designer Albert Heschong, who won an Emmy Award for Requiem for a Heavyweight, worked on over 2,500 productions? Source: Variety: "Albert 'Hesch' Heschong, production designer of hundreds of theater, television and film productions — more than 2,500 in all ... In 1957, Heschong won an Emmy as art director for the TV production 'Requiem for a Heavyweight.'"
• 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)

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Anton Ausserer

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Carnival of the Animals (ballet)

• ... that actor John Lithgow appeared in the ballet Carnival of the Animals as an elephant? Source: "Lithgow himself narrates, and also dances — nimbly — in that gray chiffon number, impersonating a female elephant in one of the ballet’s most delightful sequences." ([51])
• ALT1:... that actor and author John Lithgow wrote the narrations for the in the ballet Carnival of the Animals? Source: "His new ballet, a collaboration with the actor John Lithgow, who appears onstage to read his own narration and even dance in a special way, takes a typically original approach to the music." ([52])
• ALT2:... that the 2003 ballet Carnival of the Animals is set in the American Museum of Natural History? Source: "The ballet, set in the American Museum of Natural History (which Mr. Wheeldon frequents for its amazing mix of the grotesque and the wonderful) ([53])

5x expanded by Corachow (talk). Self-nominated at 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

#### (523764) 2014 WC510

Artist's impression of the 2014 WC510 binary system occulting a distant star

Created/expanded by Nrco0e (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 01:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Dolores Cabrera y Heredia

Dolores Cabrera y Heredia

Created by Nick Number (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 02:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

• You said that, the text was "not verified by sources" and that there were "source-to-text integrity issues". Care to elaborate? please take note. Also, I am posting this at GOCE. --evrik (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• I will try flagging them tomorrow while on a long drive home, but be forewarned ... typing on iPad from hotspot in car = many typos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• With a quick look only ... What happened here seems to be a mixing up of sources between the original Spanish version and the translated English version, such that text is not found in the cited sources, but is found in other sources by tracing back to the Spanish version. The hook is not found in the cited source, nor is the year of her marriage, although that info is found in other sources cited as in the Spanish version. I have not yet found where she followed her husband to three locations named, but the hook is not correctly cited and all of this needs sorting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• The evocative power of violets comes from this source: [54] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That source is cited after "She identifies that love with the flowers that give the work its title". If you think it's unclear, a second named ref could go after "whose aroma transported her to her childhood". Nick Number (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The hook should be explicitly cited in DYKs, so that should be switched out, or both added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• This source does NOT say she married in 1856;[55] it says she returned to Madrid in 1856, and there she married ... but this source says she married in 1856.[56].
Footnote 1 (cellit.es) supports that she returned to Madrid and married, and footnote 3 (ramhg.es) references the entire paragraph, including the marriage year. My thinking was that this was close enough in the text per WP:CITEFOOT, and that these facts aren't particularly contentious, but if you think it's unclear, a second named ref for ramhg.es could go after the first sentence. Things moved a little from the Spanish original because it didn't list her husband's death year, and its paragraph ends with "Este matrimonio fue apadrinado por los reyes", which is an expression I wasn't entirely clear on and omitted. Nick Number (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The "apadrinado" means that the royals were godparents at their wedding ... godfathers in Spanish for a wedding is something similar to best man and maid of honor-- it would be interesting information to include, but I can understand leaving it out if we have to fudge to explain it. Another oddity is that one of those two sources says her date of death is not established, and yet it seems that it is. Yes, it is better to attach the specific citation to each piece cited, as I was initially doing a copyvio/close paraphrasing check, so getting to the exact citation is helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That is two mixed up sources, and I haven’t yet found the travel with her husband. That is all I have time for. The good news is I have not found copyvio or too close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The travel with her husband appears to have originally come from here (though it is not cited at that point in the Spanish original). I was leery of referencing a Wordpress post, even though this one does appear to be well written. It draws on the biography from El Correo de la Moda, but pages 261 and 262 of that, covering her life after 1850, are unfortunately missing from the online copy at BNE. Nick Number (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
With DYKs, the main issue is that the hook be cited, so Evrik should be sure to fix that piece as I noted above. Unless you can cite the business that she moved around with her husband, it would be best left off. I am unsure if you are saying there is a non-wordpress source that cites it, and I'm out of time on this particular review. Nice work, though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you please adjust the citations in the article? --evrik (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Nick Number, one thing you may find useful is to make use of the quote= paramater in the citation templates (along with the trans-title parameter for translation of titles) to single out the piece of the text from the source you are citing, to make it easier for WP:NONENG verification and copyvio check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The Mellow Pad, a 1945–1951 painting by Stuart Davis
• Reviewed: This is my 3rd DYK. I'll try to do QPQ, but right now I don't have time.

Created by GeneralPoxter (talk). Self-nominated at 03:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

### Articles created/expanded on September 29

#### Division of Global Migration and Quarantine

• Reviewed: Step aerobics
• Comment: I have a COI on this article, since this division and NIOSH are both part of CDC, so I request an experienced reviewer to check the article for neutrality. I discovered this article in draft space while researching another topic, and improved the article with independent sources.

Moved to mainspace by Peachtree24 (talk) and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Nominated by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) at 00:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival

• ... that the Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival is one of the largest LGBTQ events in South Africa? Source: "The wedding was part of the 16th annual Knysna Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival - one of SA’s biggest gay pride events - and was held at Villa Castollini guesthouse and venue, which is located between Knysna and Brenton-on-Sea.” ([58])

Created by Gleeanon409 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

• )

#### Denys Page

• ... that the English classicist Denys Page was denied the vice-chancellorship of Cambridge University because of his conservative opposition to the Garden House riot? Source: "Page's efficient conduct of business was evident [...] and many believed that he would make an admirable Vice-Chancellor. [...] [T]he safe men who sat on University Committees, who had then embarked on the policy of appeasing revolting student that was to find its natural consequence in the riot at the Garden House Hotel, decided against this. [They were] doubtless shocked by Page's forthright expression of conservative opinions ..." Lloyd-Jones 1981, pp. 767-8
• Reviewed: None required, this is my third DYK nomination.
• Comment: The source for the hook corresponds to footnote 11 in the article.

Improved to Good Article status by Modussiccandi (talk). Self-nominated at 17:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Yaen

• ... that the Japanese pop group Yaen was composed of two comedians and nine staff members from their television variety series? Source: 1
• ALT1:... that the Japanese pop group Yaen, originally formed to perform a parody song on a television variety series, went on to produce three top ten albums? Source: 1
• Reviewed: KCIT-TV (Kansas City)
• Comment: A novelty group that ended up finding considerable success as legitimate pop stars, so there's plenty of material to mine for potential hooks.

Converted from a redirect by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire

• ... that Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire convinced several Iroquois tribes to ally with the French against the English in 1711 through song? "This was strikingly demonstrated in August 1711. New France was being threatened with an English attack and Vaudreuil had summoned 800 Indians from a dozen different tribes to Montreal to renew the alliance with them. The crucial moment came during a banquet on 7 August when these allies were asked to declare themselves against the English. It was then that Joncaire and Michel Maray de La Chauvignerie, who served Longueuil as interpreter among the Onondagas, stood up before the assembly, brandished hatchets, and broke into the war song. Soon all the Indians joined in, thus asserting their solidarity with the French." from Zoltvany, Yves F. (1969). "Chabert de Joncaire, Louis-Thomas". Encyclopedia of Canadian Biography. 2.
• ALT1:... that Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire established Fort Niagara in 1720 by telling Iroquois chiefs that he wanted a house so he could visit them more often? "Early in 1720, Joncaire presented himself at their settlements and convened an assembly of the chiefs. When they had gathered he informed them that he had always derived much pleasure from his visits among them. In fact, he went on, he would come even more frequently if he had a house of his own to which he could withdraw. The chiefs replied that as one of their sons he was free to build a house for himself wherever he chose. [...] He hurried to Fort Frontenac, chose eight soldiers, and proceeded directly to Niagara." from the same source
• ALT2:... that Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire used his fluent command of the Seneca language to negotiate the Great Peace of Montreal and established Fort Niagara?"Joncaire, on the other, mastered [the Seneca] language and acquired a complete understanding of their mentality [...] Joncaire played a significant role in the discussions that led to the peace treaty of 1701" and ALT0 quote, from the same source
• Reviewed: Pending QPQ

Created by MarkH21 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

#### Josette Elayi

Moved to mainspace by Elie plus (talk). Self-nominated at 10:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: N - Not done
Overall: great work on this article. You only need to provide a QPQ review before I can approve it. I think the original hook is better compared to ALT1. epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

#### Marygate

Marygate, York

Created by Warofdreams (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 16:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

## Special occasion holding area

The holding area has moved to its new location at the bottom of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [59]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [60].
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.