For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
April 9 1
July 7 1
July 22 1
July 23 1
July 27 1
August 3 1
August 4 1
August 5 2
August 6 1
August 7 2 1
August 8 1
August 11 2 1
August 12 4 2
August 13 2
August 14 1
August 15
August 17 3
August 18 1
August 19 2 1
August 21 2
August 22 2 1
August 23 2 1
August 24 2 1
August 25 2 2
August 26 9 6
August 27 5 4
August 28 8 6
August 29 8 7
August 30 7 5
August 31 9 6
September 1 11 7
September 2 9 6
September 3 9 6
September 4 14 7
September 5 12 6
September 6 9 6
September 7 8 2
September 8 6 4
September 9 8 5
September 10 5 4
September 11 7 6
September 12 5 3
September 13 7 3
September 14 11 5
September 15 11 5
September 16 10 3
September 17 11 1
September 18 10 5
September 19 7 4
September 20 7 3
September 21 6 1
September 22 9 4
September 23 4
September 24 4 3
September 25 1
Total 285 143
Last updated 14:19, 25 September 2018 UTC
Current time is 14:21, 25 September 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

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

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

To nominate an article

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

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions

    Backlogged?

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

    Where is my hook?

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

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

    Search archived DYK nomination discussions

    Instructions for other editors

    How to promote an accepted hook

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

    How to remove a rejected hook

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

    How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

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

      Nominations

      Older nominations

      Articles created/expanded on July 7

      Feng Timo

      • ... that Feng Timo is a network hostess who has over 11 million fans on Douyu app and over 7 million fans on Sina Weibo?
      • ... that Feng Timo's song 《佛系少女》 has been so popular that it had been the Top 20 Hottest songs?

      Created by Omega68537 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC).

      • Hostesses, plural.Moriori (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol possible vote.svg This nomination has several issues that need to be addressed if this is to be approved. First, the article is only 1032 characters long, which is far below the 1500 character requirement. Second, the article has several unsourced statements. Finally, both hooks are too vague or common to be hooky or interesting to a broad audience. I will give the nominator time to work on the issues, but if they are not resolved within a reasonable amount of time, this nomination will be failed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Narutolovehinata5: the page creator has added content, but much of it is in pidgin English. I suggest they apply at WP:GOCE for help with English grammar and spelling. Yoninah (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I've requested a copy-edit of the article over at WP:GOCE/R. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg I hope the editor that made this article will stay with Wikipedia and keep improving but I don't think this article can be promoted right now. It's still quite hard to read in English and I don't understand either of the proposed hooks (what's a "network hostess"? what does it mean to have "been the Top 20 Hottest songs"?). I would love to see the article improved and will help if I can, but this is not ready for DYK at this time, six weeks after originally being nominated. › Mortee talk 02:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol question.svg @Mortee: The copyedit I requested has been completed, have your concerns been addressed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      Hmm. Narutolovehinata5 it's certainly a lot smoother now, so I feel a bit bad for having brought out the 'nope' cross. I see it's tagged as reading like a résumé, which I'm not sure is fair. The article's still quite thin, but if someone wants to review this and press ahead with a DYK, I won't stand in the way. › Mortee talk 23:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Noted. I can do a partial review at the very least: new and long enough, the nominator is QPQ-exempt, adequately sourced and Chinese references accepted AGF, no close paraphrasing found, and so on. I'll leave the hook and article prose issues to another reviewer, but I would suggest that the hooks be rephrased (which isn't really that hard to do to be honest). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg New reviewer here. I copyedited the article to remove the resume tag. Honestly, there's not much here. Does the fact that she sang a few songs make her notable? As I'm unable to read the Chinese sources, I am unable to verify her notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Neither of the two proposed hooks are in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment: The nominator has not edited in the past 10 days. They have also posted similar articles (see Shuang Sheng) with similar notability and grammatical issues. I'm inclined to take this to AFD if the nominator doesn't respond soon. Yoninah (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Yoninah: Considering it's been over two weeks since the nominator last edited, perhaps it's time to send this to AfD? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      Symbol redirect vote 4.svg AFD closed as "Keep" — Maile (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      @Yoninah and Mortee: Now that the AfD has been closed as Keep, is this ready to be approved? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971

        • ... that oppositionist delegates of the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 were among the first to be arrested when Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law in the Philippines? "The meticulous planning and flawless execution of martial rule emphasized the brilliance and thoroughness of Marcos. Congress was padlocked and its most eloquent members detained. The constitutional convention was purged of its anti-Marcos members...." - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 157

        "The delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were deemed anti-marcos like Napoleon Rama, Voltaire Garcia, Teofisto Guingona, Jose Nolado, Bren Guiao, and Jose Concepcion were also detained." Duka (2008) Struggle for Freedom p. 307

        • ALT1: ... that the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 was rocked in May 1972 when a delegate exposed a bribery scheme in First Lady Imelda Marcos was implicated, alongside 13 others? "In May 1972, before all the assembled members of the Convention, Quintero unexpectedly made a public disclosure that the media called a 'bombshell'. He had been receiving, he said, money in envelops, amounting to over P11,000 which almost certainly came from Marcos' wife. He set all the envelops aside, waiting for the right time for him to speak out. 'I want to do the correct thing,' he said." - http://www.bantayog.org/quintero-eduardo-t/

        "On that day, delegate Eduardo Quintero of Leyte ... revealed that he and a number of fellow delegates had been receiving money from Marcos.... By his account, Quintero received envelopes containing money that were supposed to have come from the First Lady." - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 133

        • ALT2: ... that oppositionist delegates in the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 tried several times to add provisions disallowing Ferdinand or Imelda Marcos from staying in power after 1973? "Even as the law calling fro elections for the convention was being deliberated in Congress, anti-Marcos politicians tried to incorporate a 'Ban the Marcoses' provision.... Thereafter, anti-Marcos delegates to the convention tried to build the 'Ban Marcos' provision into the charter they were drafting." (The next two paragraphs detail the Rama resolution and the Manglapus committee resolution.) - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 132
        • Reviewed: Chang and Eng Bunker, Nominated on July 18
        • Comment: DYK Check shows 11707 characters; Created 4 days ago; Made this myself, but also made sure Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows copyvio problems are "unlikely". I even tried to paginate the references I used for the specific facts. This is my first DYK nom, so I shouldn't need to QPQ review, but I reviewed Chang and Eng Bunker anyway. :D

        Created by Alternativity (talk). Self-nominated at 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

        Hi. I'll take a look at the unsourced statements as soon as I can - that's probably just a sentence layout oversight on my part, in most cases. I'm not sure how to address redundancies, though. Would you mind pointing me in a more specific direction, redundancies-wise? Thanks again for the review.- Alternativity (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

        Hi Narutolovehinata5. Well, I've shortened the lede section where I suppose there might have been some redundancy, although I've tried to make sure it still serves as a summary of the rest of the article's outline. I've added a more definitive references for the arrested delegates and the rushing of the approval. I've tried to figure out which facts don't have citations yet, but mostly they're covered by the citation at the end of each paragraph, and I didn't want to overcite unnecessarily. If you have any more specfic suggestions, I think I can quickly make specific changes, but I think I covered it all already... I hope? - Alternativity (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        @Alternativity: Unless the information in the lede isn't repeated in the article body, I'd suggest that you remove the references from the lede as redundant; just keep them in the article text. In addition, I'd suggest that you'd link to either Martial law in the Philippines or to Proclamation No. 1081 during the first mention of "Martial Law". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        @Narutolovehinata5: Will do when I get to work in a few hours. Although I thought a big part of the point of the lede section was to provide a brief outline the contents of the rest of the article, including major themes/issues? Hehe. Maybe I've been writing ledes wrong all this time. - Alternativity (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        I meant the lede looks fine to me as it is right now, what I meant to say that the citations in the lede are unnecessary unless the information isn't anywhere else in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        @Narutolovehinata5: Oh! Okay. Anyway. I did what I could to shorten it, and also linked the first mention of Martial Law to Implementation of Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos, which is the most specific article for the topic in question. I've moved references to outside of the lede section. Personally I'm scared that's going to leave the lede section vulnerable to POV pushing, but maybe I should trust the process a bit more. hehe. Anyway. Cleanup done, as far as I can tell. :D Do tell me if there's anything more I should try. - Alternativity (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        I suppose this is too late to request for 21 September? :S
        Right now September 21 is already on queue. I suppose I can give a quick review now and then post at WT:DYK if this can still go up for tomorrow. If not, an alternative date could be September 23, which is the date Martial Law was actually announced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

        General eligiblity:

        • New Enough: Green tickY
        • Long Enough: Green tickY
        • Other problems: Red XN - Despite the title of the article, it seems the article was more about the circumstances surrounding the convention than the convention itself. The convention section only discusses membership but does not go into details on how members were elected, where it took place, and other important details As such, before this is approved, the sections specifically about the convention need to be expanded.

        Hook eligiblity:

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

        Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Alternativity: Due to the pressing concern, I'm in doubt that this can make it to tomorrow or even on September 23, unless the requested changes are made immediately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

        Hm. Yes, I agree it won't make it to Sept 23, not just because of time, but because the offline references are a bit hard to access, and they don't all necessarily contain the information you described. (Will start looking more closely at what's in Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970, though. Huh. This might take a while. :S = Alternativity (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


        Articles created/expanded on July 23

        Spyridon Louis

        Spyridon Louis in 1896
        Spyridon Louis in 1896
        • ... that after winning the inaugural modern Olympic men's marathon, Spyridon Louis (pictured) turned down all gifts except a horse and a carriage?
          • ALT1:... that the winner of the inaugural modern Olympic men's marathon in 1896, Spyridon Louis was arrested and later acquitted of falsifying military documents?
          • ALT2: ... that Greek Spyridon Louis became a national hero as a result of winning the inaugural modern Olympic men's marathon?

        Improved to Good Article status by DatGuy (talk). Self-nominated at 10:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC).

        Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. - The image is licensed and a good illustration. I am not sure if the first hook matches the article, and think the second lets us think for moment that he was guilty. How about just saying that he was a national hero by ..., or that a stadion is named for him? - Article suggestions: write a lead that is a summary, amd move the water selling detail to the body ;) - Write a caption in the infobox, like the one here? The refs could be in numerical order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
        Added alt two, might need a bit of rewording. What do you mean by "The refs could be in numerical order"? Also, do you believe I should make a new (short) section for his early life? The water selling stuff doesn't seem to fit well anywhere else. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
        I think they mean instead of having, say ref 20 and ref 3 (like this: [20][3]), have ref 3 and then ref 20. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2, with thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol possible vote.svg I've pulled this from prep not only because of the template added by Yoninah about the lead, which does not properly summarize the article and contains significant information about Louis's youth that is not in the body of the article (a violation of MOS:LEAD, which should be followed per the GA criteria), but because of what appears to be some fairly extensive copyvio of the olympics.com source (per Earwig's report), which appears not to have been mentioned as an issue during the GA review. However, I can't be sure about this last, since the material has been in the article here, initially unsourced, since it was created by Jeronimo on June 9, 2004 (Jeronimo hasn't edited on Wikipedia for twelve years), and it is always possible that the article at olympics.com was written later and the writer used some bits from Wikipedia. I am pinging Diannaa‎, who is well versed in copyright issues, to please take a look at the article and determine what needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Sorry but I am unable to give a definitive answer as to who copied from who, as the oldest version of the source webpage saved by the Wayback Machine is dated 2016. One solution in cases like this is to presumptively remove or paraphrase the overlapping material just to be sure. Sorry I couldn't be more help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on July 27

        Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz

        Gärtnerplatztheater in 2018
        Gärtnerplatztheater in 2018

        5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 10:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC).

        • Symbol question.svg written neutrally, properly expanded, has referencing, QPQ done...ummm...I can't see anything about recent refurbishment in the article...and it'd be better to have dates of restoration than just "recently". How about a hook about some of the performances that have been there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Gerda Arendt: I agree with Casliber that the hook's interest is somewhat questionable, as old buildings being restored is not exactly quirky. How about a hook focusing on how it used to be a Nazi State Theatre (i.e. a hook about this sentence "The reopening of the only state operetta house in Germany on 20 November 1937 presented Die Fledermaus by Johann Strauss, with Adolf Hitler in the audience")? In addition, some sentences (such as "Eine Fahrt ins Blaue, a Lustspieloperette composed by Bernhard Stimmler..." and "The world premiere of Burkhard's Das Feuerwerk...") lack footnotes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        It doesn't have to be quirky. I don't want to reduce a long history to Nazi only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        @Gerda Arendt: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. Unfortunately, I don't think the hook right now meets this criterion. Not all hooks need to be a concise summary of the whole article, if anything, hooks focusing on only one aspect are sometime encouraged, as long as it's interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        Thank you for the education. What in "I don't want to reduce it to Nazi alone" did you not understand? In a bio, I won't mention only one negative aspect, even if catchy. (Actually I would mention no negative aspect.) - I will have time for this next week, Debussy's birthday is over, but Bernstein 25 and Vaughan Williams 26 still need work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        If you don't like my Nazi theatre suggestion, Casliber above said that a possible alternate hook could involve some of the works that have been performed there. And what I meant when I quoted that rule was your comment "It doesn't have to be quirky", as the hook as it stands is quite bland (it focuses on the restoration part, which isn't exactly that hooky). In addition, the DYK rules don't prohibit negative hooks, unless BLPs are involved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        Repeating: I will have time for this next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        "recently restored for several years" is not idiomatic - change to "recently restored over several years" or rephrase eg as "in restoration for several years", Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
        It has been a week when two more people tried whom I tried to get to recent death, on top of normal work. - The answer is yes, but today is another day with little time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Here is another suggestion:

        ALT1: ... that the Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz (pictured) in Munich, a royal theatre in the 19th century, became the only state operetta theatre in Germany when the Nazi regime cited operettas as particularly suited to connecting people with the theatre arts? Jmar67 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

        Sorry, I don't want to give so much prominence to Nazi ideology. Will look now - finally - at article and hook, sorry for the delay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
        Some refs and external links added. Combining performances, we could say:
        ALT2: * ... that the Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz (pictured), built in Munich as a royal theatre for operettas, played Die lustige Witwe as a Nazi State Theatre, and for the reopening after five years of restoration in 2017?
        Casliber, do you remember this was open? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
        Symbol question.svg You need to add its staging in Nazi era to the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        Sorry, I knew but forgot. Done now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry, but I don't really find the new hook interesting either. The hook being proposed right now goes along the likes of "a theater played opera X in the past and performed it again recently", which isn't really hooky to a broad audience (as it stands, the hook really only appeals to opera fans, but not necessarily general readers). A new hook needs to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        No hook is promoted right now. ALT2 was suggested. The house has a history of 150 years, and I think it should show a bit, hooky or not. Casliber is the reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        Yeah I'm sorry about that word, it was a typo that's now been fixed. As for the showing part, that's good to know, but that's what the article is for, a hook should instead emphasize something interesting, fascinating, or quirky about a subject. Yes the building may be 150 years old, but many opera houses are even older than that, so it's not really unusual in the grand scale of things. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        Can you please strike, rather than making my comment look silly ;) - Casliber is the reviewer. (How I love it, after more than 1000 DYK, to be told what a hook should do.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        DYKs can have more than one reviewer, though, particularly if consensus cannot initially be reached with one. With that said, I'm also interested in what Casliber thinks of ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        I thought it was interesting enough that it was performed in the nazi era and then now. Not earth-shattering but hooky enough to pique interest....happy to get more opinions without prejudice...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on August 4

        Jose Yao Campos

        • ... that businessman Jose Yao Campos admitted in 1986 to having organized 40 different shell companies through which Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos could hide his wealth? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/03/30/the-philippines-anatomy-of-a-looting/620251dc-cffe-46f3-be40-a248f501882c/?utm_term=.d70cfe4777d5 Rusakoff 1986: “Campos, who made a fortune in the Philippine pharmaceutical industry with the help of decrees by Marcos, recently confided in a statement to the new Manila government that he organized 40 shell companies to hide Marcos' wealth.”
          • ALT1:... that Jose Yao Campos made a 1986 deal with the Philippines’ Presidential Commission on Good Government to return PhP 2.5 Billion in real estate which he held on behalf of Ferdinand Marcos? https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/123667-marcos-cronies-compromise Lustre 2016: A friend of the dictator, Campos surrendered to the PCGG the 197 titles representing pieces of real estate property in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bataan and Baguio City, and P250 million ($5.3 million) in cash. The pieces of real estate property have a combined value of over P2.5 billion ($52.5 million).
          • ALT2:... that in 1986, businessman Jose Yao Campos was the first of the Cronies of Ferdinand Marcos to return what he said were Marcos-owned assets to the Philippines, in return for immunity? https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/123667-marcos-cronies-compromise Lustre 2016: “Months after its creation in 1986, the Presidential Commission Good Government (PCGG) saw tangible results of its quest for the return of the illegal assets of the Marcoses and cronies. It negotiated the first compromise deal with crony Jose Yao Campos, a Chinese Filipino entrepreneur who owned the controlling interest of United Laboratories Inc., a major drug firm, for the return of the Marcos assets listed under his name. Campos, low key and unassuming, was probably the most cooperative among the known Marcos cronies. Unlike other cronies who chose to slug it out with the post-Marcos government, Campos cooperated fully in surrendering the Marcos assets under his name. Marcos used him mainly as caretaker of those illegal assets.”
        • Reviewed: This is only my third nomination for DYK. So I'm still excempted, although I've reviewed 2 DYKs already (Chang and Eng Bunker and Aya Hirano)
        • Comment: This would be ideal for publication on September 11, the date of birth of former Philippine Dictator Ferdiand Marcos (b, 1917).

        Created by Alternativity (talk). Self-nominated at 06:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

        • Mein Gott, wie schön ist deine Welt

          Cover of Kirchenlied
          Cover of Kirchenlied

          Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 14:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC).

          Hook eligiblity:

          • Cited: Green tickY
          • Interesting: Red XN - ?
          QPQ: Done.

          Overall: Symbol question.svg The article is a good one, as Gerda's always are. Clean, well-written, sourced and admirable. I wouldn't expect the image to be chosen for the DYK lead. My only question is on the interesting-ness of the hook. Gerda Arendt, I respect you hugely, but I'm not sure there's a really "hooky" line to be pulled out of this. There doesn't seem to be much unusual about the hymn. Might this be a case where it's better to let the article attract its own admirers, without DYK involved? Of course if others see this as more intriguing than I do, or if there's a more arresting hook option, I'll gladly retract my quibble. › Mortee talk 00:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

          It's not hooky but to write that song in Nazi Germany is unusual. Also, why not interest general readers in something they'd not normally read? Finally: I believe that we can't repeat the line often enough how beautiful our world is. I wrote the article after singing it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          If the unusual-ness comes partly from it being written under Nazism, could the hook be altered to point that out more clearly? The dates are mentioned but I didn't make the connection myself. Perhaps other readers won't either. › Mortee talk 10:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          My point: the people who care about such things will make the connection. - I know that mentioning Nazi in a hook gives you 1000 extra clicks, but somehow don't want to do them the honour. Suggestions? Perhaps read Kirchenlied? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          That's a very fair thought, but I think the hooks do need something extra before they'll be broadly appealing. I'll try to think of an alternative. (And if another reviewer would like to comment on the interestingness of ALT0 and ALT1, please do). Thanks for pointing out Kirchenlied. I see it was featured at DYK already, mentioning the Nazis, so that's another good reason not to mention them here. It would be very close to a rerun. › Mortee talk 12:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I've continued thinking and the best came up with is below. It's extra hard because the title and translation necessarily use so many characters. (I was trying to write one about thankfulness for the Creation, but couldn't get it to fit). I hope this is an improvement and welcome all feedback.
          ALT2: ... that the 1936 German hymn Mein Gott, wie schön ist deine Welt (My God, how beautiful is your world) takes its title fromis reminiscent of a line inan entry in poet Joseph von Eichendorff's diary?
          Symbol redirect vote 4.svg new reviewer needed to decide if this or the original hooks are broadly interesting. › Mortee talk 19:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          Do you think more readers know Eichendorff than Kirchenlied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          No, but I think basing a hymn on a diary entry is more interesting than the name of the book the hymn was published in. › Mortee talk 22:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          Only that it's not just a name but a program, while I'm not sure that the similarity between incipit and diary note is more than incidental. Both exist, and are similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          Ah... if it's just a similarity, and it's not known that the hymn is based on the entry, then my ALT2 is no good at all. I got that from the article, which says "The beginning of the song uses an entry of ...". If it might be coincidental, perhaps I should strike ALT2 and the article could be clearer on that point? › Mortee talk 22:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          Not after midnight ;) - I didn't even remember the word "coincidental", struggling with subleties of the English language. Could we say "is reminiscent of the diary entry ..."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          Haha, fair enough. "Reminiscent" sounds like it would be accurate. It'd be nice to have something more direct to say. I won't stop thinking, but I think another opinion would help here. › Mortee talk 22:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          I meant for the article, - off to bed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          Absolutely, I understood. Goodnight Gerda! › Mortee talk 22:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

          New day. Ideas: we could link the years to something for background. It's kind of a protest song. Even without a background, exclaiming that line again and again is unusual. - This conversation is already longer than the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

          History of the Jews in Alaska

          • ... that ...in 1906 and during the early 1940s, Alaska was strongly considered as a potential Jewish settlement for jewish people escaping persecution in Europe/Russia? Source: Anchorage Daily News (in article)], Jewish Social Studies. Indiana University Press (in article)]
          • ... that in 1906 and during the early 1940s, Alaska was considered as a potential refuge for Jews escaping pogroms and the Holocaust? Source: Anchorage Daily News (in article)], Jewish Social Studies. Indiana University Press (in article)] Source: Anchorage Daily News (in article)], Jewish Social Studies. Indiana University Press (in article)]

          Created/expanded by Zchai72 (talk). Nominated by JC7V7DC5768 (talk) at 22:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC). ALT1:


          Hook eligiblity:

          • Cited: Green tickY
          • Interesting: Green tickY
          • Other problems: Red XN - Typos, article not linked
          QPQ: None required.

          Overall: Catrìona (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

          Hey thanks for the suggestion. I've added the ALT1, and I will soon fix the other issues. JC7V-constructive zone 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

          And I now fixed the rest, thanks for the help. JC7V-constructive zone 18:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

          I added what you suggested as an 'alt 1', I would like to use that as the hook. JC7V-constructive zone 20:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Comment the article is DYK appropriate but needs copyediting for Flow. Szzuk (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

          @Szzuk: Hi Szzuk, thank you for commenting. Do you mean the article itself needs copyediting for flow or that this DYK statement itself needs copyediting for flow? If it's this DYK itself that needs those improvements, I just insterted Catriona's suggested wording of the DYK (after I first read your comment). He/she suggested it to me as a ALT 1 but it seems better than any wording that I can come up with. JC7V-constructive zone 20:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

          I meant the article could do with a copyedit for flow, it is really just about how one sentence leads to the next, the content itself is fine. I would have a go at doing this myself but it is one of my own weak areas, does someone else here know how to request this copyedit? Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

          @Szzuk: Hi, I tried to fix up some parts of the article myself. If you can point me to specific paragraphs and the sort which need to be fixed in the article, I can further fix them or I can get my mentor AE (who is part of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to fix them too. Thank you. JC7V-constructive zone 22:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

          Articles created/expanded on August 7

          Women in Iceland

          Created/expanded by Yellow.Umbrella (talk), Ipigott (talk), and Frayae (talk). Nominated by Frayae (talk) at 22:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC).

          • Hello, Frayae. Thanks for the nomination; the article is very interesting. It needs some attention for MOS:WTW; while I don't think it's non-neutral for Wikipedia's voice to imply that gender equality is good, as this reflects the balance of sources, we probably shouldn't say that a politician's lectures are amusing, even if a source does. The article uses very extensive quotes, and some fairly close paraphrases, and the English is clear but sometimes slightly non-colloquial. I've been copy-editing it and will do some more. There are a few confusing points.
          Some information that is not there and would really improve it (see other "Women in... articles and redirects). It would be entirely acceptable to quote Icelandic-language sources, ideally with the quote added to the citation to make it easier to check.
          While it misleadingly fails the automated DYK check, it was moved out of draftspace on the seventh, and so qualifies.
          I think the fascinating part of this article is the equal-pay action, which also deserves its own article. I'd suggest a hook that brings it in, such as
          • ALT1:... that women in Iceland walk off the job en masse after a calculated proportion of the workday?
          • ALT2:... that the first woman voted in as head of state says she wouldn't have got her job if

            Working Definition of Antisemitism

            • ... that the inter-governmental Working Definition of Antisemitism has generated controversy over its inclusion of examples of criticism of Israel? Source: Kenneth L. Marcus (17 July 2015). The Definition of Anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 978-0-19-937565-3. At the same time, the Working Definition has had its share of critics, as should be expected of any serious intergovernmental effort to address this difficult subject. In 2011, the United Kingdom's University and College Union (UCU), a trade union of English university professors, considered a motion to disassociate itself from the EUMC definition... based on a belief that it "confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism"... This triggered a lively controversy that engulfed not only the English academic and Jewish communities, but also Jewish, human rights, and higher education groups throughout Europe and Worldwide. In the United States, the meaning and application of the Working Definition have been contested even among those who support it. In 2011, Kenneth Stern, who was then the top anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee, drew intense criticism when he... argued that the Working Definition was being invoked by complainants in federal civil rights cases before the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to censor speech that is critical of Israel. 

            Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 11:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

            QPQ: Done.

            Overall: Symbol question.svg Created 8 August from redirect. Other creator not mentioned in the nom: Jonney2000. If/when this is promoted, I recommend page protection as this is a controversial topic. I cannot find NPOV in the article, though. Catrìona (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

            Hi @Catrìona: thanks for your review. I have now added the inline citations for the direct quotations. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Comment - the hook is not neutral. The IHRA's definition is generally accepted by most in the field. What has generated controversy is UK's Labour fiddling with the examples provided by the IHRA for antisemitism. The controversy is Labour - as might be seen in Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party‎. Some of Labour's supporters have been critics of some points in IHRA - but that has been following the controversy. The citation used to support the hook is used out of context - it refers to a controversy involving the UCU, long accused of antisemitism, which attempted to change the definition of antisemitism (in relation the IHRA definition). The controversies here, if at all, are around groups accused of antisemitism who attempt to change the definitions used.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
            The citation refers to the 2011 UCU controversy in the UK and the 2011 AAUP-AJC controversy in the US.[3] You have kindly mentioned the 2018 Labour Party controversy in the UK. I could also add the 2016-18 controversy in congress regarding the proposed Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.[4] That’s already four separate controversies in two countries. The article contains further examples, and more could be added as necessary. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
            Here are two further sources: Professor David Feldman, Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, 1 January 2015, page 4: "However, the definition itself rapidly became a topic of controversy rather than consensus. The points at issue included what the status of a 'working definition' actually was, whether the working definition was an effective and coherent definition at all, and, finally, controversy dogged the application of the working definition to debate on the State of Israel and its policies. The criticisms have been damaging and the EUMC working definition largely has fallen out of favour."; and The Times of Israel, [5] "Koren’s statement came as confirmation to reports, including by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, that Russia was the only country blocking the adoption of the definition, which is controversial because it lists some forms of hate speech on Israel as an example of anti-Semitism."
            Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Looking at the article again, I notice that it has a "Criticism" section but not a section for its supporters. For such a controversial topic, we should avoid even the appearance of partiality. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to determine if the hook and/or the article are impartial, so I'm requesting a second opinion on NPOV. Catrìona (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            @Catrìona: FYI at Talk:Antisemitism#RFC: Should Wikipedia adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism?, the user above (Icewhiz) made the same argument re his view that there is no controversy, which was his rationale here for asserting that the hook is not neutral. That RFC is benefitting from wide participaion, so once it has finished it should be possible to assess consensus not just on the RFC question but also on how many other editors share Icewhiz's view that there is no controversy. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
            That RfC is a borderline NOTAFORUM violation that didn't suggest an particular content to the article in question.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
            The RFC is now closed.

            Cruz Pérez Cuéllar

            5x expanded by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 00:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC).

            • Symbol possible vote.svg Duarte has not been tried in court, and therefore the hook is a BLP violation. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
            • @Yoninah: Alright, good to know. Would this still be the case even if this piece of evidence came up during the trial of one of Duarte's associates? (Source) In any event, I'll suggest an ALT1: Raymie (tc) 15:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
            ALT1: ... that Cruz Pérez Cuéllar promoted participatory budgeting and a statewide network of child-care centers when he ran for Governor of Chihuahua in 2016?
            @Raymie: unless Duarte is convicted in court, I don't think we can mention his alleged crimes. Thank you for the hook, but the hooky part of that sentence in the article is:
            • ALT2: ... that

              Mein ganzes Herz erhebet dich

              Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 13:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC).

              • Style ☑Y, length ☑Y, timescale ☑Y.
              • Hook:
              • I can verify from ref 1 that the hymn may be used to open a Roman Catholic service, but I can't find any source for its derivation from a "French paraphrase" of Psalm 138 in the Genevan Psalter. Can you point me in the right direction?
              • The word "also" in the hook seems redundant
              • Referencing.
              • I've beefed up the referencing a bit and am happy it generally supports the article.
              • Do we mean the 1551 (not 1543) edition of the Genevan Psalter? That appears to be the version at reference 1. Bermicourt (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
              • Symbol question.svg Bermicourt, Gerda Arendt, where does this nomination stand? The last edits were over a week ago, shortly after the above was posted. Have the issues been addressed, and what else might be needed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
              Looking again, I can't find an exact date for this Psalm paraphrase to enter the Genevan psalter. 1551 is the melody. Commented out the year. This has also no specific dates, just that by 1562, all 150 psalms were complete in the Genevan Psalter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
              "also" seems not redundant, looking at the origin in the Huegenots, who were prosecuted by the Catholic Church. Perhaps "now also"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
              I know this may sound picky but, to me, the "also" appears redundant because the sentence doesn't mention what it also serves as. I wonder if auch in German can imply something else which is unsaid, whereas in English it implies something we have mentioned earlier. The nearest we have in English is the wordy "amongst other things" or the obscure inter alia. Why not change "serves also for" to "may be used as", which gets round the problem? Bermicourt (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
              It doesn't say that it is in the official German Catholic hymnal, - about anything "may be used" in services these days ;) - Trying harder:
              ALT1: * ... that the hymn "Mein ganzes Herz erhebet dich", a paraphrase of Psalm 138 based on the Huguenot Psalter, is part of the 2013 Catholic German hymnal? - One of these days I need to improve the hymnal article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

              ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ALT2: "... that the hymn "Mein ganzes Herz erhebet dich", a paraphrase of Psalm 138 based on the Protestant Genevan Psalter, is also sung by Catholics in Germany?

              Jmar67 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
              Do you mean "in Catholic masses" (because any Catholic can sing it anywhere anyway), and do you want to say "in Germany, Austria and Switzerland"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
              Did not know that GL also used in AT and CH. "in Catholic masses" or maybe "by German-speaking Catholics". I just wanted to get away from the hymnal discussion, which is not germane (!) to the hook. The point is that it is also a Catholic hymn. Trying to help. Jmar67 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

              George FitzGeorge Hamilton

              George FitzGeorge Hamilton
              George FitzGeorge Hamilton

              Moved to mainspace by West Virginian (talk). Self-nominated at 15:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC).

              • Symbol confirmed.svg Nice work! Everything checks out. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg@Editorofthewiki: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. An optional Reviewer's Template is located above the edit window. IMO the hook is not hooky enough. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Yoninah, how about ALT1? I crafted this hook from my mobile phone, so I will add the necessary sources here when I have access to my laptop. ALT1 is a bit long at 199 characters, but it draws in significant facts from the article prose. Please let me know if you have any recommendations for how to improve upon this! Thanks again for taking the time to improve this hook. — West Virginian (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Thank you for the alt hook, West Virginian. I think you should zero in on the hooky part rather than synopsizing the article:
              • ALT2: ... that according to family lore, George FitzGeorge Hamilton (pictured), a godson of George V, was killed in a World War I bombing raid while retrieving his leave pass? Yoninah (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Yoninah, this works perfectly! Thank you for your suggested ALT hook! I made one minor adjustment, and that was to change great-grandson to godson. FitzGeorge Hamilton was the great-grandson of Prince George, Duke of Cambridge. I prefer George V for the hook since he has a more succinct title! Thank you again for improving this hook! — West Virginian (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review is still needed covering the DYK criteria, and also of ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Note: Cwmhiraeth, I have reverted your promotion of this to prep because the ALT2 hook was never reviewed, and indeed a full review was never done, as noted by Yoninah above. Please only promote nominations where a tick is the most recent icon showing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

              Articles created/expanded on August 13

              Matt Mobley

              Created by Editorofthewiki (talk). Self-nominated at 15:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

              • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Who is this Rene Castro? Not sure that earned Second-team All-Northeast Conference honors. is supported by the source. He finished fourth in the conference in scoring with 18.5 points per game while leading all of Division 1 in minutes per game with 38.3. may be too close to the source text. Not sure that source #6 supports Prior to the 2018 NBA draft, Mobley worked out with NBA teams Brooklyn Nets, Charlotte Hornets, Los Angeles Lakers, Utah Jazz, Sacramento Kings and Philadelphia 76ers. What's the source for his size and weight? Hook reasomably sourced, not particularly interesting though unless you know about American sports. No copyvio or plagiarism although some close paraphrasing concerns. OK QPQ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
              Just a suggestion that the sport should be named in the hook and Three-point field goal should be linked. Otherwise it is pretty meaningless to those that don't know basketball - Dumelow (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
              Rene Castro was one of his teammates in high school, it's not that important. The second team honors is supported in the source, check again. Added "basketball" to the hook. Let me know of close paraphrasing and I will fix it. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
              It's only the sentence I quoted which has close paraphrasing problems, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
              @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are there any more issues or can this be promoted. I rephrased the sentence. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
              I think that reordering the "worked out with" sentence is necessary. As it is it is a close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
              Done. ~

              Langer's Deli

              Exterior of Langer's Deli
              Exterior of Langer's Deli
              • ... that Nora Ephron once claimed that the pastrami sandwich at Langer's Deli in Los Angeles was the best in the world? Source: "The hot pastrami sandwich served at Langer's Delicatessen in downtown Los Angeles is the finest hot pastrami sandwich in the world", The New Yorker

              Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self-nominated at 18:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC).

              • Symbol question.svg size and age ok, written neutrally, hook cited and faithful to source, free of copyvio, awaiting QPQ and we're good to go. First hook is bestCas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Apologies for taking a while in doing the QPQ -- work took much of my time! I did finish that now though. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

              Articles created/expanded on August 15

              Articles created/expanded on August 17

              Josette Frank

              Created by Etzedek24 (talk) and Argento Surfer (talk). Nominated by Argento Surfer (talk) at 14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

              Symbol voting keep.svg Interesting life, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I struck the original because yes it's unusual, but not specific for her. I think children's literature has to be there. - Suggestions for the article: shorter headers, and say "They had two children". Why no image here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
              Symbol possible vote.svg Due apologies, but I am not satisfied with the hook, and have pulled this from the prep area. I do not see how the text in the article supports the hook as written. Vanamonde (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
              I assume the issue is with the second half of the hook? The article clearly references the 1954 Senate hearings investigating a link between comic books and juvenile delinquency, but I have added a broader claim about public opinion with two additional sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

              Quantic Dream

              Improved to Good Article status by Cognissonance (talk). Self-nominated at 21:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

              • Good to go Symbol confirmed.svg
              Article promoted to GA on 17th, nominated on 17th
              Well over the size minimum
              Passes Earwig's Copyvio Detector (8.3% hit is a cited direct quote)
              Hook is short and sourced "To tell the truth, without tax breaks I’m pretty certain we’d be in Canada right now."
              QPQ provided
              The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

              Symbol possible vote.svg an issue was raised with the hook at WP:ERRORS2 (permalink). It looks like the wording of the hook, which implies the company would up and leave immediately if the tax breaks were removed, does not match the tongue in cheek nature of the conversation from the source. Cage also says in the same interview that "If there were no tax breaks… well the project would probably still go ahead, but a lot less money would be spent on it", which suggests maybe he wouldn't take the Canadian route. Needs some rewording or perhaps an alt hook I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

              @Amakuru: There was no tongue-in-cheek. "the project" that would "probably" still go ahead is Heavy Rain. Only after this does he talk about the company as a whole: "To tell the truth, without tax breaks I’m pretty certain we’d be in Canada right now". "now" is referring to 2011, a year after Heavy Rain was published. The interviewer asks "Seriously?" Cage answers "Seriously." Also hard to believe he's being unserious when he goes on to describe the benefits of Canadian tax breaks. I want this hook repromoted. Cognissonance (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
              No, it can't be stated as a fact. It might not move. Other things may happen. The best you could hope for would be to say that they said they'd move, not that they would. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
              @The Rambling Man: You're moving the goalpost. You were wrong and are now looking for more reasons to disregard my hook. There is nothing wrong with the word "would". It represents a desire to do something. Cage stated his desire to move the company in factual terms. Cognissonance (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
              No, I'm not. Would does not represent a desire to do something. It means it "would" happen. And that's not guaranteed at all. I'm done here, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
              Yes, the way the hook is phrased, it sounds like we're saying in Wikipedia's voice that the move to Canada would follow the removal of tax breaks, as surely as night follows day. That is emphatically not what the source says. Cage is simply making a point about the relative advantage that he sees his Canadian competitor enjoying, and how he would seriously consider upping sticks if the French tax breaks disappeared. That's as far as it goes, but we don't know if he would really move under those circumstances. All manner of eventualities and compromises might emerge. So to suggest anything more than that is WP:CRYSTALBALL. I suggest rewording the hook to make it clear that this is something that Cage has said, rather than it being an objective fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
              "I would do that" is not the same as saying "I will do that". The first is a statement of possibility, the second is one of certainty. "...according to the founder of the French video game developer Quantic Dream, the company..." defeats the purpose of having a hook. Ruins the flow. Cognissonance (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

              Georg Cantor's first set theory article

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

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

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

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

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

              @Michael Hardy: No, it is not. As I said above, the article needs to have references for all the proofs, to comply with our policy on verifiability. Once the required references have been added, I will place this in a queue. Vanamonde (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
              @Vanamonde93:I have supplied the references for the proofs. Because Cantor was writing a research article for researchers, he left out simple proofs. To handle this, I did the same as I had done earlier on the proof of his uncountability theorem. I point out that he did not supply a proof and then provided a proof for Wikipedia readers. Of course, I do supply a reference to where he states the result that he does not bother proving. --RJGray (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
              @RJGray: Okay, I've looked at your changes. They are an improvement, but they do not entirely address my concern. My point is fairly simple; Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication. We collate information; we do not provide new information. As such, if we are presenting a proof, it must be based on a proof published in a reliable source elsewhere. We cannot publish our own proofs, even if the editor writing said proof is quite capable of doing so without error. It is possible that Wikiproject Mathematics sees this differently, in which case I'd like to see a link to that, but I cannot see how WP:V can be satisfied any other way. Please don't take this personally; this sort of mixup often occurs when content written and reviewed by editors familiar with a specific topic is brought to wider scrutiny. If you disagree with this, please feel free to request further feedback at WT:DYK. Also, since Michael Hardy has been blocked indefinitely, I'm afraid this falls entirely on your shoulders at the moment. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
              @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your feedback. Don't worry about me taking it personally. I like to get things right and I don't mind differences of opinion—I've handled them before. In fact, one of the pleasurable things about Wikipedia is that differences of opinion are handled with respect. Unfortunately, there are too many websites where this isn't true.
              I hope you are not in a rush to settle this issue. Thanks for mentioning the Wikiproject Mathematics site. I plan to bring up the issue there after researching it a bit. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time last week to devote to studying the relevant Wikipedia policies.
              This issue is important for me to because I suspect it will occur in the future. I tend to work in history of mathematics and may be faced again with the fact that research mathematicians tend to leave out simple derivations or proofs when communicating with their fellow research mathematicians via articles and letters. The only reason that I provided my own simple derivations was because Cantor left out two: one in his article and the other in a letter to Dedekind. I could follow Cantor and skip the derivations. However, because Wikipedia appeals to a wide audience, I wanted to make sure readers had a complete proof rather than expecting them to finish it. --RJGray (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
              @RJGray: I am not in a hurry, though we should try to keep it to a reasonable schedule to be fair to the DYK process. Thanks for not taking it personally. Your position about wanting readers to have a complete proof is quite reasonable, and I'm certainly not suggesting that your derivation is wrong, only that it wouldn't be acceptable on its own even if it were entirely correct, without backing from a reliable source. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
              @Vanamonde93: If I compute 5283 × 6117 and get 32,316,111, it may be that no "reliable source" can be cited for the value of the product of those two numbers. But the technique is taught in elementary school. Something similar applies in many cases to routine algebraic derivations in Wikipedia articles. The is then the question of where to draw the line between that sort of thing and original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
              @Michael Hardy: I would not ask for a source for routine arithmetic, per WP:CALC. However, I would draw the line for requiring reliable sources somewhere between a single-step computation that anyone with access to the internet is capable of performing on their device, and Georg Cantor's theorems. I firmly believe those require a source, and that presenting an editor's own derivation isn't enough. If you disagree, I suggest you invite comments from other editors at WT:DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


              Articles created/expanded on August 18

              Dàin do Eimhir

              • Reviewed: Luis Posada Carriles
              • Comment: Some text has been copied from Sorley MacLean, but all of it was written in the last 7 days. I'd rather not nominate the latter article right now, because I am planning to do a GA on it, and there's a lot to say about him not related to this.

              Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC).