This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Template talk:Did you know

"Did you know...?"
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

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK.


TOC:    Go to bottom     Go to top
Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 18 1
November 24 1
December 2 1
December 4 1
December 5 1
December 6 1 1
December 8 1
December 12 1
December 14 1
December 16 1
December 17 1
December 18 1
December 19 1
December 20 1
December 21 1
December 22 1
December 23 1
December 25 1
December 28 1
January 1 2
January 2 1
January 6 1
January 8 1
January 9 1
January 12 1
January 13 2
January 14 1 1
January 23 3
January 24 1
January 25 1
January 26 2
January 27 5 2
January 29 2 2
January 30 3 1
January 31 3 1
February 2 4
February 3 3 1
February 4 4 1
February 5 6 1
February 6 2
February 7 1
February 8 2 2
February 9 4 1
February 10 7 5
February 11 5 2
February 12 12 9
February 13 7 5
February 14 5 3
February 15 8 4
February 16 6 4
February 17 8 5
February 18 9 5
February 19 17 11
February 20 10 6
February 21 4 4
February 22 10 5
February 23 6 2
February 24 5 1
February 25 7 2
February 26
Total 201 87
Last updated 00:03, 26 February 2017 UTC
Current time is 01:01, 26 February 2017 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 (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.

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.

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.
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, 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 {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading—​​the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination

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

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

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


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

How to remove a rejected hook

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name


Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on November 18

3D Fold Evolution

Moved to mainspace by Jeffreyfung (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 06:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New and long enough. Insufficient in-line citations, with some paragraphs going fully without any cites. This article needs to be wikified a good deal, as it looks extremely unappealing visually due to the placement, size, and frequency of images as well as the unusual formatting for headings, etc. At parts, this reads almost like an essay, especially in the case study portion (which is likely not necessary at all). The hook appears to be accurate, but due to the writing of the article, it's hard to tell where exactly this information appears in the article. After correcting the more general issues, please direct a reviewer to the specific sentence or sentences in the article that support the hook. I have access to the source cited for the hook if anyone needs me to review it. It does seem to support the information, but I'm happy to check again. ~ Rob13Talk 07:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Deflected stream schematic.gif
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am sticking the references on, and will make the hook statement more apparent. I have rewritten the statement that supports the hook. I am also trying an image to see if it looks good at the small size. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Graeme Bartlett: This still needs substantial wikification and editing. The images (of which there are many) are huge and jut into the page awkwardly at weird sizes. Large sections are written like an essay, and there are many technical mistakes with the writing (using 2 instead of two, etc). The little things add up quickly here. Additionally, there's a clean-up tag relating to categories on the page, and we can't run any DYKs with clean-up tags. This is far closer to being a fail than a pass. I won't fail this so as to give you both a chance to fix things and a chance to get a second opinion, but these things must be fixed before putting this up for review again or I imagine the next person will fail it. ~ Rob13Talk 00:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have removed the cleanup tags, as they were useless. Anyone can add better categories if they want, but its not a problem as it stands. Also I have done wikification adding links, and appropriate bolding. I also changed 2 to two etc. I am shrinking and moving images currently. Some of these are WP:MOS complience issues, that are not actually part of WP:DYK rules. The idea is not to set the bar too high for new editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but we do need a minimum level of presentation in order to push this to the main page. ~ Rob13Talk 23:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 24

James Oakley (politician)

Created by EdChem (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting hooks, but the article has a merge tag on it. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: The shooting of Benjamin Marconi article (the proposed merge target) also has a merge tag on it, and was run at DYK a few days ago. That generate one new !vote on the merge proposal, an oppose. I think that merging a biography into an article on the shooting murder of which he only commented would be a BLP violation. I do recognise that naming Oakley in these hooks might be a problem, and so note that they could be reworded as "an American politician" or "an American County Judge" (which is his title, though it would be controversial to use as his position as County Judge is much more a political role than a judicial one). Added ALT3 in this format, supported by Huffington Post article. Note that next PEC board meeting is on 17 Jan, so more news on the topic of ALT2 and article edits will be likely in the next few days. EdChem (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This may indeed be this individual's principal claim to notoriety but doesn't it run afoul of the same BLP don't-be-negative issues as this review? — LlywelynII 13:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 2

Grand Matsu Temple

  • Reviewed: Will do Tank steering systems
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to verify the hook(s) you are most interested in. If it's ALT3, I can bring over cites from the Mazu article if necessary to support the point.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 02:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough. It does not seem to have copyright violations. It uses inline citations. I assumed good faith for the offline sources. But the "Tainan City Guide" source does not seem very reliable. According to this page, "This blog is a one-man operation done during my spare time. I have no editors or fact-checkers." The content citing the "Tainan City Guide" source needs to be removed or edited to use citations to reliable sources. The image is freely licensed. The nominator says "Will do", so the QPQ requirement will be met when they do the review. The article needs some more work to be eligible. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg With respect, you have confused WP:RS with WP:BLACKLIST. You're absolutely right that you shouldn't use a hook sourced to something that isn't up to WP:RS standards; that's part of the DYK process. All the same, we don't just blank information because the source isn't perfect. If there's any actual material you find questionable, I'm more than happy to deal with it but it's better to have some source than no source and it's better to have some information than no information.
    You're welcome to find a well-sourced hook or to hand the review off to another reviewer. — LlywelynII 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by "confused WP:RS with WP:BLACKLIST". The blacklist is a list of spammers that prevents external links from being added. While it may sometimes be acceptable to have unreliably sourced material that is not related to living persons, I don't think that is acceptable in articles for DYK. WP:DYKRULES states "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". I did not say that the material must be blanked; I said that they need to be removed or edited so that it is based on reliable sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That rule is to keep us from having nonsense articles on Trump's endorsement by the pope, not to require editors to blank perfectly valid information irrelevant to the hook to process the nomination, followed by adding it back once the process is complete. If the information being cited were germane to a hook or dubious, you'd have a point; but it's not and you really don't. That said, it's an honest mistake and you're more than welcome to stand by your guns and claim it as a QPQ. — LlywelynII 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII: After thinking about it, this is my opinion. It is OK if you don't agree. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires content to be attributable to reliable sources. Even if something is true, if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, it should not be in Wikipedia. The DYK rules force you to prove that the content really is verifiable. Blanking the content is not the only way to adhere to the rules. You can also remove the citations to unreliable sources and add citations to reliable sources. It may be true that English sources on this location are mostly informal, but per WP:NONENG, while English sources are preferred, reliable sources do not necessarily have to be in English. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I got it that it's your opinion that you look down on the source. WP:IAR trumps obnoxious rule thumping and pushes us back to thinking about why the rule exists. It's there to remove bullshit. Howevermuch you dislike the source, none of the items cited to it are actually dubious and noone (at all) is actually well-served by removing the information or cites to where it came from. If other editors come by and think that I'm wrong about that, I'll blank the material for the DYK process and add it back later. In any case, you really don't have to keep repeating yourself. It's a good-faith mistake and you're welcome to use this for QPQ purposes. — LlywelynII 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This conversation continues on my talk page. For the record, I used strongish language above but absolutely understand Gulumeemee's GOODFAITH objections. I happen to think it's not productive here (few English sources, non-dubious information, non-POVy reporting by someone who visited the temple and is presumably repeating on-site information) but am perfectly willing to remove it if editors feel GLMM's objections are well-taken in this case. The article is still long enough, removing all of the material from that source. — LlywelynII 04:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Assuming the admins don't really need me to blank three lines of text of perfectly valid info from a quasi-reliable source—which I can do to process the nomination but consider a disservice to our readers and not an improvement—this still needs a new reviewer. — LlywelynII 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This nomination has been lingering too long. I see the discussion above about the reliability of one of the sources but think the matter not a deal-breaker. I find ALT1 much the most interesting hook, and the hook facts are confirmed by other sources used in the article. The article meets the criteria of newness, length, neutrality and policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg LlywelynII, I'm really surprised by how you berated the first reviewer. I, too, would remove a wordpress source as non-RS. I added a book citation for ALT1, but I don't see anything in the article about the hanging taking place in a rear hall of the temple; you wrote that they hung themselves in the palace bedroom. Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, reread what was written and none of it is terribly surprising on either side, except for how you came to consider respecting the first reviewer's good faith objections "berating". Thanks for your own once-over and the additional citation. As the article clearly states the palace is the temple; its bedroom is its rear hall; but you're right that if that's our hook I should specifically note and source that aspect of it. On it. — LlywelynII 02:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 4

Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 04:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg These two articles are new enough and long enough. The hook facts are supported by inline citations, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. As the three ministers all resigned on the same day, there was presumably a reason for this. Why did they resign? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There were multiple reasons, but all boil down to the climate of disagreement between Bangla Congress and CPI(M). Bangla Congress had 4 ministers in the Second United Front Cabinet, including the Chief Minister. On Feb 19 these three ministers resigned, on orders from their party. A few days later the Chief Minister resigned as well, a move that brought the end of the cabinet. --Soman (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg It would be helpful to add that information to the articles. All DYK criteria met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This looks like a good candidate for a slot on February 19. @Soman: if you are able to source the part about the party ordering them to resign, and the chief minister resigning too, we could write a more interesting hook:
  • ALT1: ... that on February 19, 1970, the Bangla Congress ordered Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren, and one other minister to resign from the West Bengal cabinet, and a few days later the chief minister resigned too? Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with ALT1. --Soman (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to shorten it to under 200 char:
  • ALT1a: ... that on February 19, 1970, the Bangla Congress ordered Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren, and another minister to resign from the West Bengal cabinet, and then the chief minister resigned too? Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But you haven't added or sourced the last fact in the hook, about the chief minister resigning too. @Soman:. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 5

Han Zhuo

  • Reviewed: Will do Mapping of Venus
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to check up on the hook(s) you're most interested in seeing promoted.
    I'd kind of like the hook to obliquely note that western scholars don't really think the Xia existed in anything like the way it's presented in traditional Chinese history, but I'm open to using whichever phrasing you like best from any of the hooks.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 05:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg A QPQ review appears to be needed before this can move forward. North America1000 20:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, the review can still happen now. I'll get the QPQ in the next day or two. I had a stack to get through. Done. — LlywelynII 06:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. There is a "clarification needed" tag that you seem to have added yourself, and the single sentence lead is sure to attract a "Lead too short" tag unless you expand it. The hooks are much of a muchness; I like ALT4 and ALT5 best. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: If you were to respond to these two points, I could wind up this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Which two points? The clarification tag should stay: If I could clarify the point, I already would have but the source I found didn't use Pinyin or even provide the Chinese character. Assuming it's in Wade, "Kuei" can be either of Gui or Kui, each of which comes in four tones and several hundred separate characters. Just be thankful I was able to find the right Chinese and links for the rest of the names. I expanded the lead a bit more, but it's a few paragraphs on a legendary figure. The lead captures what we realistically do know about the guy in the sources I found.

    Between ALT4 & 5? Same basic idea but I suppose ALT4 is worded a bit more cleanly. — LlywelynII 10:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 8


Created by Abeshababe (talk) and Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 01:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is long enough and within policy. Hook is short enough. Two issues:
Article was created 10 days before nomination. Day before nom, expanded from 780 to 3160 characters / 129 words to 556 words. Neither is five fold expansion (4.05 and 4.31 respectively). Notifying @Andrew Davidson: additional expansion is needed.
Per source for the hook, this claim is from legend - two men escaped by "inventing platform shoes" and "inventing wigs". Hook should be rewritten to clarify this is folklore, not documented fact. Argento Surfer (talk)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Additionally, striking ALT0 as unsupported by its source. Even once you change the hook to fix the grammar (done) and to note that this was legend (done), there's nothing in the source mentioning age at all. — LlywelynII 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have amended LlywelynII's action as it seems better to present alternate hooks separately so that the history of proposals is clear. The issue about age not being in the source is incorrect as the comment above quotes the source directly, "Then she ordered executions, particularly, of all the short and old bald men." LlywelynII's suggested hook is shown as ALT1 and my preferred revision is ALT2 as hooks should be short and succinct. I have done some expansion of the article since the review by Argento Surfer but still have more to do; Christmas has been a distraction. I am keen that we get a result here as the article was started by a new editor during the BBC editathon and it seems good to exhibit the work from such events. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Restoring grammatical corrections. (Seriously, don't remove those.)
Striking ALT0—as amended—as a violation of DONTLIE (she's a legendary figure, not a historical one); striking ALT0, ALT1, ALT2 as still unsupported by the article or source.
I know this isn't your fault; it's mostly a result of bad policy. We should not be listing citations in the templates here at all. It confuses you as to what's actually in the article, which is the only thing that we're actually concerned with. The one you're giving here is not in the article, Wordpress blogs are not actually reliable sources, and your claim (as already discussed) is not supported by the actual source in the article. (This one.) It says she killed bald men and short men; your own source doesn't claim she killed old men who weren't bald, so I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. Drop out the "old" and move on with your life and this nomination. — LlywelynII 15:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to Mssrs Shababe, Davidson, and Igott to let me know when there's a usable hook here. — LlywelynII 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New enough (some stretching of guideline is allowable given queue length); long enough; within policy (neutral, cited, no close paraphrasing; acceptable use of cited quotations); QPQ not required for first-time editor; I have proposed two new hooks (above) which are both stated and cited. Someone else will need to re-review to confirm the new hooks. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Mary for picking this up and suggesting some new hooks. ALT3 is too stilted for my taste but ALT4 is more promising. I still reckon that the original hook is quite good though and so will continue to advocate for that. I have edited the article to ensure that there's an inline citation for it, along with the links provided above. Andrew D. (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this should not go ahead with a variation of ALT0. The main source mentions that she ordered the execution of "all the old and short bald men". It's not clear whether being old, short or bald was sufficient in itself, but if that phrase were quoted in the article and hook, it would get over the ambiguity. The other source seems less reliable (the high-heeled shoes and wigs don't impress me). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Mary Mark Ockerbloom was invoking WP:DYKSG#D9, which allows some leeway for late nominations if there isn't a major backlog in the number of hooks; in that case, three days would be allowable, and the article was 2615 prose characters at that point, well over the 1500 minimum. However, as there's been a major backlog for many months, and there were in the neighborhood of 300 active nominations back on December 18, I doubt I'd be lenient for that reason, but you could decide differently, LlywelynII. The article's size prior to Andrew Davidson's expansion, which began on December 11, was 762 prose characters according to DYKcheck, meaning that the article needs to be 3810 prose characters assuming it needs to meet the 5x expansion requirement. It's currently 2971 prose characters by DYKcheck's count, so another 839 prose characters are wanted.
I have taken the liberty of adjusting the credits: adding categories is not enough for a "make" credit, nor is adding wikilinks and a "citation needed" tag, nor supplying said citation. Since Andrew Davidson expanded the article from stub length to nearly four times its original length, I've given him a DYKmake rather than a DYKnom; he's done a great deal more work than the original creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Well, yeah, a months-long backlog so long that the newest nominations aren't even displaying is certainly no reason for a no-backlog exemption.

    It is an interesting topic and everyone appreciates the work that went into it, though, so I think a decent compromise is that if someone out of Mssrs Shababe, Gott, and Davidson (or maybe even Mr Surfer and Ms Ockerbloom) pushes this the rest of the way to a 5× by adding a few sourced paragraphs (Moonset's 837 characters) in the next week or two we do some D13 and WP:IAR handwaving and ignore the timeline. If Mr Davidson really preferred ALT0, it also gives him a chance to rephrase it to reflect the sources, as Cwm and I both proposed. (I think ALT4 is pleasantly enigmatic, myself.) — LlywelynII 02:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added about 100 words and another source: it now counts as 3480 characters (629 words). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Requiring the page to be 5x expanded as well as being new seemed like double jeopardy or a second shift but it is good that the article is still progressing. I have re-established contact with the journalist that I assisted at the editathon. I shan't involve her in this DYK nomination as it's too bureaucratic – rather like the BBC. But, as and when the item reaches the main page, I'll ping her to take a look at the outcome. As she has thousands of followers on Twitter, this may help the number of views we get. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, [snip], the entire problem was that it was not new enough. Having someone (else) bring it to 5× despite the blown deadline was a second chance. Thanks for your help, Ms Ockerbloom. — LlywelynII 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been knocking around for a long time. I propose that we accept that this article is eligible for DYK and go ahead with ALT1a. Could you give it a tick @LlywelynII:? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1a is unsatisfactory in a couple of ways. Firstly, the quote isn't the same as that provided originally above so it's not clear what is being quoted. Secondly, Furra was a Sidama queen and that people were not conquered by the Ethiopian empire until later. The main source talks about her as Sidama rather than Ethiopian. I suggest that we duck the issue of nationality as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Gimme a minute. — LlywelynII 10:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

    Symbol confirmed.svg ALT4 G2G. See above for the drama over timing but Ms Ockerbloom pitched in and we'll call it 5×; long enough (~3.5k elig. chars.); neutral, sourced, and Earwig finds minimal copyvio; ALT4 terse enough, intriguing, and sourced. ALT 1a/b are both mistaken in saying she ordered executions of some men, particularly including short and old bald ones: the sources state she specifically ordered the execution of the short and bald ones or the short and old bald ones. Both Cwm and Mr Davidson seem to have misunderstood the grammar of the second source. It's fine, though, since both ALT3 and 4 are fine. — LlywelynII 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I don't accept LlywelynII's judgment on the grammatical point. As LlywelynII proposed hooks themself and has now started making personal attacks, they seem too involved to be getting the last word on this. Can we have an independent reviewer, please. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The high-handed rudeness started on your end, but—absolutely—apologies if you take git as a strong term instead of a mild one. I even linked the article discussing its rather mild nature, but everyone's different and I certainly appreciate your work bringing new articles in, even if not the tone you took w/r/t the rest of us. I'm fine with a second reviewer if wanted, though I don't think any of the ALTs were mine and it seems superfluous.

    The grammar issues are straightforward: as already covered, neither source in the article supports the idea she executed old men who were neither bald nor short. Simply use those adjectives instead. Similarly, one source says she ordered the execution of all men who were short or bald. The other says, "Then she ordered executions, particularly, of all the short and old bald men." The second comma makes the "particularly" refer to the entire sentence and limits the executions being discussed to the sorts of men who are listed and not to any other. — LlywelynII 14:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

    As such, restriking the ALTs above (again), but open—as always—to a rephrasing supported by the sources. Don't see the problem with simply using ALT4 instead, though the 2nd reviewer may feel otherwise. — LlywelynII 14:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Calling someone a "rude git" is about a light year removed from a "mild term". Git, as you so conveniently linked, stands for "denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person" That is not a 'mild' insult, but an egregious one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Welp, reread the article, which specifically describes it as a milder term of opprobrium. Again, it may be out of date and I have apologized for it being taken any more harshly than that, despite the lack of apology on the other end. This really isn't the place for an extended discussion of British manners and diction, though. You're welcome to continue to berate me on my talk page. — LlywelynII 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 12

Student Initiative Rahel

Coffee Ceremony (7926066672).jpg

Created by Urmelbeauftragter (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough. The article has a cleanup tag on it for too many primary source citations, and the tag seems reasonable given the sources. This must be addressed before promotion. Partially as a result of the sources, the article focuses quite a bit on how the organization views itself rather than how its covered by reliable secondary sources. Lots of mission statement stuff, etc. That needs to be reduced for this to be neutral. I haven't evaluated close paraphrasing because the sources are likely to change quite a bit before this is acceptable, so it makes more sense to check that in the future. First hook doesn't have a cite after the sentence supporting it. Second hook is sourced to foreign-language sources, so I'm unable to evaluate the sourcing. I noted that the article contradicts itself on the orphan's name (Rahel vs. Rachel). This should be corrected. Still pending a QPQ as well. The image is fine from a licensing standpoint, but it doesn't appear great at a small size and its content isn't connected to any of the hooks, so it probably shouldn't be used. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, the spelling "Rachel" was wrong. Her name is Rahel. Unfortunately there are less sources which are not from current or former members of the student initiative. So it seems to me there's nothing I can do for removing the cleanup tag. Perhaps I can do something in reducing the articles length. What do you mean with "First hook doesn't have a cite after the sentence supporting it."? What is a QPQ? I could only use pictures which were already on WP Commons so I believe I could not find a better one.--Urmelbeauftragter 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not so easy to shorten the text for me. I will have a look on it in the next days.--Urmelbeauftragter 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
For DYK, the sentence supporting your hook needs to have a citation at the end of it (even if a supporting citation appears elsewhere). The sentence supporting the ALT0 hook you proposed is "It was in the context of a research project of the German Bishops' Conference (German: Deutsche Bischofskonferenz) in Adigrat in Tigray Region in northern Ethiopia.", so it needs a citation at the end. A QPQ is a quid-pro-quo; you're required to review one DYK nomination before your own is accepted. I just checked and you're exempt from that requirement because you have less than five DYK credits already, so don't worry about that for now. You don't have to use a picture either in your article or for the DYK, so I'd recommend not using one in this case. ~ Rob13Talk 06:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The same citation was for the whole paragraph. Is there one needed for every sentence. I have added it a second time for this sentence.--Urmelbeauftragter 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a rather silly rule specific to DYK; to make it easier for readers to find the reference supporting the fact appearing on our main page, we require a cite at the end of the sentence that contains the DYK hook's fact. You can remove the extra cite after this has run on the main page. Still pending some other changes, especially related to the cleanup tag. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what I can do relating to the cites. It seems to me I cannot do something relating to the cleanup tag because I cannot find more sources to this theme which are not seen as primary ones.--Urmelbeauftragter 16:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, that means we can't accept this for DYK. Notability may also be questionable if no non-primary sources exist. ~ Rob13Talk 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 14

Corruption in Ecuador

Created by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and plenty long enough. I think all the hooks are sourced inline and the hook facts backed up by the sources. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I will leave the promoter to choose which hook to use (but I would choose ALT1, ALT2 or ALT3). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article takes as its premise that Ecuador is corrupt, and goes from there. I have tagged the page for POV because no alternate opinions or rationales have been forwarded to guarantee neutrality. The article also suffers from simplistic topic sentences, like Corruption in Ecuador is a highly serious problem. and: Ecuador's police sector is awash in corruption. It would be best to quote the source when making sweeping indictments (e.g. "According to Human Rights Watch..."), in addition to citing them. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been eighteen days without a response, and the article will be ineligible for DYK so long as the POV template remains on the article. Last call for action by the nominator, whose talk page has been pinged. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry all for tardiness. I haven't been able to find the time to make major revisions in some time. I am unsure of when I will be able to do this in a timely fashion. I'll respectfully withdraw the nomination since its not fair to you all to keep you waiting, and I just don't foresee that I will finish this soon. Nonetheless, I will go through the page and make improvements at my discretion. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 16

Petra Hřebíčková

Petra Hřebíčková, Czech actress
Petra Hřebíčková, Czech actress
  • Reviewed: Mike McCray
  • Comment: All sources are in Czech. The 2008 awards were held in 2009, as is typical for acting awards.

Created by Cloudz679 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg I was able to verify the hook and some other randomly-selected elements of the article using Google translate and didn't spot anything which looked like a copyright violation. The hook is reasonably interesting, and the photo is credibly PD. As such, this is good to go - nice work with the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 17

Srikakulam peasant uprising

  • Comment: Article created on 17 December,2016

Created by Maaley (talk). Self-nominated at 02:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting article, length, date and hook checks out. No QPQ needed, new user. But article would need some copy-editing (punctuations, spacings, etc.). Moreover, I think some of the background needs to be reviewed. The AICCCR was founded in 12 Nov 1967, but the Srikakulam uprising was already in motion then. I'll try to look some sources on my side, but some additional clarification would be of interest here. --Soman (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Soman Thanks for your review.I have written as per the timeline and incidences mentioned in the following links. Hope it will help to understand how the two movements are aligned together yet independently initiated.
Yours sincerely,
Maaley (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok. In a few days, I'll regain access to some literature on this topic, I'll try to sort out some details then. --Soman (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
SomanThanks.Looking forward for your feedback. :) Maaley (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Soman, Maaley, I don't see any edits at all in 2017, and it has been nearly two months since material was posted on Maaley's talk page. The further fact that Maaley has not edited on Wikipedia since December 26 is also a major concern. Soman, unless you are prepared to update the article yourself, now that Maaley is not around, I think it's time to close this nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 18

Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee

Created/expanded by Sdee (talk). Self-nominated at 02:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment only That hook is not "interesting", as it merely states the obvious. Is there nothing better? Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I reviewed and changed. Or please give some suggestion.--TINHO (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The page history shows that Sdee started editing the article on 10 December 2016, eight days before the nomination, but the fivefold expansion seems to have begun on 16 December 2016, so it is probably acceptable. The article is long enough, neutral, and uses inline citations. It does not seem to have copyright violations. I assume good faith for the offline The Times source. The article says that the National Flag Anthem is used because of an agreement signed in 1981, and the lyrics were modified in 1981, but the sources cited seem to say 1983. The source cited does not contain some of the dates in the list of presidents. I did some copy editing and added archive URLs to dead links, but the article needs more cleanup. I am not sure what "recolonize" means. The hook is interesting, but it is a little confusing and needs to be edited. According to the QPQ check tool, the nominator has 6 DYK credits, so QPQ is needed. This will be good to go when the QPQ is done and the article is cleaned up. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Even consider the version before 10 December the prose was about 3300 bytes, and now the prose is about 7200 bytes just twofold of the older version. I don't think it meets the expansion criteria.-- (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You might be right. The version before 10 December presented the history as a list, so the tool I used didn't count the characters in the history section. Thanks for noticing that. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Lists are not counted as prose, so the pre-expansion version on November 22, 2016 was 487 characters. This is indeed a 5x expansion, and the review should continue. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears that the list was converted to prose. Gulumeemee (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Some items were removed, and some content was added. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 19

Kucheipadar tribal movement

  • Comment: Kucheipadar became famous for its tribal movement, article created on 19 dec,2016.

Created by Maaley (talk). Self-nominated at 04:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough. It is neutral and cites sources inline. However, ref #4 is not accessible to me and the sentence with the phrase "attended by 6,000 villagers from three panchayats" is not supported by ref #6. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports only one match with ref #1, which can not be considered as copyvio. Hook is interesting and its length is within limit. The phrase "environment" of original hook does not appear in the article. ALT1 is not a complete hook. I will re-review after above mentioned issues are resolved. CeeGee 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg No response in nearly twelve days, and Maaley hasn't edited on Wikipedia since December 26. If no response is forthcoming, this will have to be marked for closure soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 20

Corruption in Yemen

Created by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. I am approving ALT1, - the other hooks may be all right but I have not checked them. The article gives a depressing view of Yemen today. It is neutral and I detected no policy issues, Earwig's 17.4% being largely due to quotations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • He may be a dictator, but BLP still applies. I think ALT2 is the best hook; it is verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I agree, ALT2 is better and I have struck the other hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg@Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and DaltonCastle: (with apologies to Cwm for three pings in near as many minutes): come on, folks, this is not in a state to go on the main page. The article begins "Corruption in Yemen is a highly serious problem. Yemen is the most corrupt country in the Gulf region.", and this is sourced to a blog. Hosted on the world bank website, but still a blog. Not to mention the issues with saying "highly serious." The same blog source is used a number of times through the article. If this article wants to actually comply with NPOV, it needs to do one of two things: restrict itself to describing incidents of corruption, or alternatively incorporate sufficient heavyweight sourcing to make its analytical and comparative claims compliant with WP:DUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talkcontribs) 09:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah, DaltonCastle, and Vanamonde93: The pings did not get through, perhaps because Vanamonde failed to sign the post, so I have repinged the others. I certainly considered the World Bank to be a reliable source. It's going to be very difficult for DaltonCastle to write these articles if they are not allowed to be sourced to any commentary. Corruption is insidious and the facts are not obvious. Investigative journalists find things out and the information ends up in columns in respected newspapers, or blogs of this sort which is the online equivalent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm, yes, I guess I forgot that. My issue is not with the World Bank: my issue is with a) the single source, and b) with the fact that it is a blog, ie has little to no editorial oversight. It is the equivalent to the Op-Ed section of a newspaper: which we do not usually treat as a reliable source. Moreover, there are many kinds of commentary: saying something like "Yemen is the most corrupt country in XYZ" requires sources a lot weightier than saying, for instance, "there have been numerous publicized incidents of corruption in Yemen". Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please see my followup review on Corruption in Ecuador. This article, too, suffers from POV. It goes in with guns blazing about corruption in Yemen without giving any indication to the contrary. Yoninah (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over three weeks without a response, and the issues remain as noted above, including POV issues. Last call for action by the nominator, whose talk page has been pinged. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry all for tardiness. I haven't been able to find the time to make major revisions in some time. I am unsure of when I will be able to do this in a timely fashion. I'll respectfully withdraw the nomination since its not fair to you all to keep you waiting, and I just don't foresee that I will finish this soon. Nonetheless, I will go through the page and make improvements at my discretion. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 21

Charmian Gooch

  • Comment: Article 5X expanded by User:Sasha.sov Apologies for nominating slightly late.

5x expanded by Sasha.sov (talk). Nominated by Jaobar (talk) at 04:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Note: I have struck ALT1, since at 221 characters it was well above the 200 character maximum for a hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Response: Dear BlueMoonset, thank you for pointing this out. I have reduced the character count for the hook and created a second alternate. I hope this is acceptable. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Or consider ALT3, which is even tighter, with an important wiki link restored and the relevant countries named. —Patrug (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Patrug, thank you for providing an alternate hook. I agree that ALT3 is an improvement over ALT2. We'll see what happens! Best, --Jaobar (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT3 hook is sourced inline and the article is neutral. Earwig produced rather high percentages, but many of these were quotations and others were the names of organizations and much used phrases and I think the article passes the close paraphrasing test. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I disagree. Much has been put in quotes, but there are still instances of close paraphrasing which really can and should be rewritten in your own words:
  • Source: after lobbying G-8 members to embrace transparency
  • Article: After lobbying G8 members to embrace transparency
  • Source: Since 2010, Global Witness has worked with a coalition of NGOs lobbying political leaders in London, Brussels and Washington to force companies to identify their ultimate, or beneficial, owners.
  • Article: Beginning in 2010, Gooch and Global Witness started working with a union of non-governmental organizations aimed at lobbying political leaders in major cities such as London, Brussels, and Washington to force companies to identify their ultimate owners.
  • Source: Through tactics such as undercover investigations and high-level lobby meetings,
  • Article: Through the deployment of various tactics such as undercover investigations and high-level lobby meetings
  • Source: has run pioneering investigations and campaigns uncovering the links between natural resources, corruption and conflict.
  • Article: It has become a pioneer in investigations and campaigns related to uncovering the links between natural resources, corruption, and conflict.
  • In general, the article quotes snippets from the sources far too much; sentences should be rewritten and rephrased in your own words. Wikipedia articles are often used by college students and all these quotes are going to look strange in a term paper. The article has a strong tone of self-promotion as well. Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg There has been no response in three weeks, and close paraphrasing is a serious issue. Marking for closure, though if the issues raised are responded to here before the nomination closes and addressed on the article, the review can resume. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear BlueMoonset, Yoninah and others, thank you for your note and for your patience. Let me contact the editor and give this another try. I'll email as soon as I complete this note. Best, Jaobar (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Yoninah and BlueMoonset, all noted examples of close paraphrasing have been addressed. I will take another look through tonight and see if the quoting issues can be addressed. Thanks for your patience. --Jaobar (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 22

Yu Zigao

  • Reviewed: Will do Goofus and Gallant
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. Everything's covered but you only need to verify the hook(s) you're most interested in.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 13:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough when nominated, long enough, QPQ done.
  • Thank you for the review. Since you split up the separate issues into bullet points, I'll just reply in the same format.
  • Running Away with the Circus is published by Definitely not a reliable source.
  • It's published by Friendlysong Books (as shown in the article and verifiable at the linked work); it's sourcing minor information based on a personal visit to the site, which is fine if not scholarly; the cited information is unrelated to any of the hooks (and thus completely irrelevant to this DYK review though a very legitimate concern prior to GA status). Leaving the cite and the non-dubious information is better than removing either, but you're welcome to find a better source or note the objection on the article's talk page if you like. — LlywelynII 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SPS is part of policy. I can't even link to the page on where the book is listed because the domain is blacklisted. Now, if we can show that the author is an expert, then using a self-published book is okay, but I don't agree that leaving the cite to a self-published book in is better than removing it. I'm happy to get a third-opinion on this, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's tool shows no violations and random googling of three phrases turned up no evidence of plagiarism.
  • Can we standardize the way the subject is referred to in the article - we have Zigao, Yu, and Yu Zigao. Normally I'd have fixed this myself but I'm not sure which is the convention and/or complies with the MOS.
  • Of course not. Now that I've looked up your name, I'm pretty sure you already know this. When he's being distinguished from his father or other members of his family, you use his first name. Elsewhere in the article it's perfectly standard to alternate between using the last name by itself and the full name. See literally any biography article on this or any other encyclopedia. That said, I had forgotten to add the {{chinese name}} template, so thanks for that reminder.
  • The relevant guideline is WP:SURNAME, and I was just trying to spare you someone coming along and complaining that it's wrong for our MOS. If you prefer to not comply with the MOS, I'm certainly not going to hold up the DYK nom on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer the first hook, but it isn't clear in the article that Yu Zigao was actually in command of the forces that forced the Dutch off the islands. ALT2 is directly supported by a citation. Likewise ALT4. [—User:Ealdgyth.]
  • He was the military governor (i.e., supreme commander) for the region, he assembled the forces, and he was the one who personally forced the Dutch to remove themselves. There's a linked cite if any of that is unclear. If that doesn't meet your idea of "command", well, there are the other hooks.
    Also, kindly remember to sign your name to your posts. — LlywelynII 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the recent number of pulled hooks over similar wording issues, let's err on the safe side. Yes, normally I would assume that "commanded" fit in this situation, but you know what they say ... "assume makes an ass out of me". As for the forgetting to sign, I apologize. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 23

Monument to Women Memorial Garden

Created by FallingGravity (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Not a review of the full nomination but we cannot use the image (at least on the main page) as, being a copyrighted three-dimensional artwork, it is exempt from freedom of panorama under U.S. copyright law and thus any photograph of it is legally a derivative work. In fact, it cannot be hosted on Commons, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I've removed the photo from hook. If the image is deleted from Commons then I will remove it from the article, too. FallingGravity 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you could actually host it here under fair use; we do have a template allowing for that exemption (If you want to do this let me know; I'm very good at writing the rationale to satisfy the free-use zealots). Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. FallingGravity 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Symbol possible vote.svg New, long enough. Neutral and properly cites sources. I detected some rather close paraphrasing in my spot checking, which I did primarily on the "1933 Relief Society monument" section. A lot of the wording is directly ripped from the article being cited, with some minor wording changes. This will need to be substantially rewritten, as it currently constitutes a copyright violation. The hook is an appropriate length, interesting, and cited (AGF on offline source). After the identified close paraphrasing issue is addressed, this will need a thorough review for additional close paraphrasing issues, preferably from someone with access to the offline source. ~ Rob13Talk 11:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done some copyediting of the article. FallingGravity 18:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've altered some of the phrasing as well to avoid close paraphrasing of Susan Black's book (I was able to access the print source). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 25

Rossa Matilda Richter

The 14-year-old Richter with her cannon in 1877.
The 14-year-old Richter with her cannon in 1877.

Created by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Without the image The article is long enough, and new enough at the time of nomination. It is within policy and stable. The hook is interesting, a QPQ has been completed and spotchecks have been carried out for paraphrasing. I don't see any evidence that the image was published prior to 1923, which would be required for it to be free-use. Indeed, Getty Images apparently claim a 2009 copyright on it, so unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, we can't use it on the main page, and we might have to consider its use on the encyclopedia at all. Even fair-use is a bit iffy where Getty are involved. Harrias talk 16:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hold please - At work and can't take the time to look into this at the moment, but I'd like to open a discussion on Commons regarding copyright. No doubt they've encountered something like this before. My understanding of copyright (in the UK for this image, and US for Wikimedia), since Getty includes a creation date of January 01, 1877, it should be in the public domain. I'm not entirely certain of that, and know that creation and publication are different things. I'll open that thread later today and link it here. To the closing admin please hold off on closing this for now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I've changed the symbol above. Feel free to tag me into discussion wherever it ends up (I'm interested in the outcome as much as anything else.) Harrias talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This might be of help with the photo. We hope (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, We hope. @Rhododendrites:, if you can update the copyright information on your image, I'll be happy to pass this (not that you'll to leave your source file information the same of course.) Harrias talk 13:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @We hope and Harrias: Thanks. That Strand clipping is a nice find. Question: why tag it as a file not to be copied to Commons? The Commons Village Pump discussion was inconclusive, but the indication seems to be that if publication prior to Getty's could be established, and if the author either died before 1947 or cannot be identified, it would qualify for PD-1923 and PD-UK-Unknown. This publication in The Strand clearly satisfies the former, and we still don't know the author. I've updated the tags on the Commons file, fwiw, though. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Habit makes me cautious re: uploads of non-US material, so I always start out by uploading it here. ;) We hope (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 28

Revolutionary Communist Party of India

5x expanded by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article needs a lot of clean-up, but that doesn't disqualify it from DYK. I'm more concerned about the hook citation - it seems to be a primary source that is, at least ideologically, involved with the subject. For a statement like the hook statement, an independent source is needed. Other than that, I don't see any copyvios/close paraphrasing after running Earwig's tool, and the article was expanded within the timeframe of nomination. The content is neutral and is well-cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In what sense is it a primary source?? --Soman (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was a journal issued by CPI. --Soman (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Then it is affiliated with the subject. For a statement such as "the first," we really need some kind of outside source. It's probably true, but the organization could benefit from making claims to fame.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
How would a CPI journal be related to RCPI? --Soman (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
RCPI did break away from CPI, true, but I'm concerned about how reputable CPI is a source for historical analysis. Ideology doesn't inherently disqualify a source, but is CPI's Party Life known for presenting information from a neutral perspective, or at least one independent of the publisher? I also would be skeptical of a right-wing source, for similar reasons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, if CPI stated that RCPI predated it in Assam, wouldn't that be a reliable claim? --Soman (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That statement would be a reliable claim - but was there an organization prior to RCPI in Assam? I don't know if CPI is reliable for that claim. I don't have access to the source, so I can't look at it and consult it to get a feel for its reliability, which is why I'm unsure.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 1

Why (Taeyeon song)

Improved to Good Article status by (talk). Nominated by TerryAlex (talk) at 20:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nominator is exempt from QPQ requirements. I'm not a fan of DYKs on art consisting solely of reiterating what critics had to say about the art. For this article I'd prefer something like:

Alt 1 ... that despite reaching number 6 on the Billboard World Digital Songs chart, "Why" was Kim Tae-yeon's least successful single in her solo career?

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Hi ONUnicorn, I've modified your suggestion a little. Is this good to go? Thanks for your review.---TerryAlex (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned it's good to go; but I think a second reviewer needs to approve the alternate hook since I suggested it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg - Length, Date, and Copyvio all check. Nom is exempt from QPQ however the cited sources do not directly verify the hook. I went through and verified that this was this musician's first song not to enter the top five of the Gaon Digital Chart however to do so I had to follow the cites of every other song she has released. Further, the cites do not verify that it was her least successful song though it could be inferred from context. I've proposed ALT 2 below. If you were to copy the citations concerning the chart position on the Gaon Digital Chart from the other articles ALT2 would in my estimation be verifiable and good to go. Mifter (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alt 2 ... that despite reaching number 6 on the Billboard World Digital Songs chart, "Why" was Kim Tae-yeon's first single not to enter the top five of the Gaon Chart?

Hi Mifter, sorry for the late reply, Alt 2 is fine, please help to see if this would be good to go. Thank you.TerryAlex (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lalchand Fulamali‎

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) A QPQ review appears to be needed before this can move forward. North America1000 10:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • QPQ added. --Soman (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 2

Violin Sonata (Poulenc)

  • Reviewed: Nkosi's Haven
  • Comment: probably pointless to ask for the composer's birthday, because the prep for the day is already full ...

Created by LouisAlain (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough and I have added Gerda's name to the "make" credits. The article is neutral and the sources not available to me. I would have passed the nomination, but really the hook is too awkward, trying to include too many details. I also prefer the bit of the quotation where Poulenc states "The monster is finished". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, we had several Poulenc good pieces with wind instruments, can be short for this one:
ALT1: ... that when Francis Poulenc completed his only surviving violin sonata he commented: "The monster is finished."? Source: [5] "Le monstre de ma Sonate est au point."
While I am sure that "not bad" is a good translation of "pas mal", I am less convinced of the other one, "sonate" certainly missing, and "au point" saying more than merely "finished". What do you think, LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
C'est au point actually means: there's no more to add to it; it's just OK the way it is, don't spoil it by trying to "perfect" it. (like a dish which is perfect)
Is there a term in English? "Finished" seems to be too harmless, - leave "au point"? In German, some use the French term for steaks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How about dropping "finished" or whatever?
ALT2: ... that Francis Poulenc called his Violin Sonata a monster of a sonata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Francis Poulenc described his Violin Sonata as a monster? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Catchy, but is "described" the right term? Serious question, it may be just my lack of English, - I would expect a description then, Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)--
He apparently said "The monster is finished", and that was describing the sonata as a monster. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If that is what "describe" means, fine. The German "beschreiben" would not be used for one funny label attached to it ;) - a Beschreibung" is a lengthy detailed description. Learning --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 6

Léon Davent

Michelangelo at the Age of Twenty-Three, 1540s
Michelangelo at the Age of Twenty-Three, 1540s

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough, created within time, hook fact is cited to an offline source. I like the hook but it's a bit confusing - after reading the article I get the point, but frankly the hook just seems to be garbled on first reading. What can we reword it to that will make it clear why the print's subject is surprising? Also - the nominator hasn't indicated which QPQ was done. Earwig's tool shows no problems (the one "problem" is actually a quotation in the wikipedia article...). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't done a qpq yet. I see the hook as hooky and intriguing rather than confusing, but there is a bit to squeeze in. Ideas on how to reword it are welcome. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
QPQ now done. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't have a better suggestion on the hook, unfortunately, given the space constraints. Perhaps "... that the etchings of Léon Davent include the "somewhat, but not altogether, surprising" subject of Michelangelo at the Age of Twenty-Three (pictured) made over 40 years after Michelangelo left France?" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
He was never in France (that was Leonardo). The difficulty is that you can't, I think, use "date". Is "time" better? Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I've still got nothing better on this. I think the original hook is just too confusing for most folks to understand but cannot for the life of me think of anything better... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked at article and hook, agree with the review above, minor: in each section, his name should be repeated, it's missing in Works, style and technique, after the preceding section dealt with something else. - I also find the Michelangelo the work that would show best in small size, - tend to keep it very simple:
ALT1: ... that the etchings of Léon Davent include Michelangelo at the Age of Twenty-Three (pictured)?
The caption could be shorter than repeating the whole title, such as Etching of Michelangelo, to have a link once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 8

Tibbetts Brook

Created by Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 01:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - sufficient length, well-sourced (a few lines actually border on WP:OVERKILL), accurate hook (confirmed with a source cited within the article). The first hook is probably the best; the second hook suggest that the European name means 'smooth stones', which is false, and the third hook isn't as interesting as the first. Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kayau: Thank you for the review. In light of a new addition by Tdorante10, I would like to propose another hook based on the first hook: epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tdorante10: I'm not sure about this one, as it sounds like it's saying that its intended purpose is now carrying sewage from leaky sewers. What do you think? Kayau (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kayau: If there was a better way to write it without being too long or wordy. The sewage from Yonkers is increasingly interesting as I do more research, but I still think the first hook is better and is a more defining characteristic of the brook itself. Tdorante10 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • So I guess we should go with the original hook then. epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Alrighty, in that case, Symbol confirmed.svg per the same reasons above. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg @Epicgenius: Coming to promote this I find the hook rather unsatisfactory. Does the drinking water bit come from "the local Lenape population utilized the brook for drinking water and fishing"? And a brook flowing into a sewer doesn't strike me as very interesting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Yes. Actually, if that's unsatisfactory as well, we can merge this with Template:Did you know nominations/Van Cortlandt Park:
ALT6: ... that Van Cortlandt Park contains Tibbetts Brook, New York City's last freshwater marsh?
Pinging also Gerda Arendt. epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
We could, but I wouldn't. Catching two sets of readers at different times will create more oerall attention to the two articles, imo, If you want to merge, I'd approve, of course. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, separating the two hooks would create two different reader bases. I don't know if combining the hooks would be overall beneficial; it might save hook space, but also misses out on an opportunity to catch multiple reader bases. If not, we go with ALT3, which is not as interesting as ALT6 but separates the hook about the brook from the park's hook. epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The DYK nomination for Van Cortlandt Park seems to have run already, so forget about ALT6. In the meantime, is hook 3 okay? epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How about

Articles created/expanded on January 12

Layover (novel)

  • Reviewed: Susan Dynarski
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace on 12 January 2017; I haven't created an article for Zeidner as I'm not sure whether she meets the relevant guideline.

Moved to mainspace by Espresso Addict (talk). Self-nominated at 02:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 50.7% copyvios confidence. I would recommend cutting down a bit on the direct quotations of reviews, or use paraphrasing. The article is easily long enough and there are otherwise no problems. feminist (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like a second opinion on this. I don't feel the length of the cited quotations is either a copyright problem or a problem in terms of an article about a novel, where most of the content should be what reviewers say about it. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Stylistically, about 50% of the article consists of quotations, including multiple blockquotes, which I would say is excessive. In terms of copyright problems, for Austin Chronicle, Booklist, Publishers Weekly the quotes all exceed 10% of the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 13

Eastern Hills, Bogotá

Sué over the Eastern Hills
Sué over the Eastern Hills
  1. Julio H. Bonilla Romero, Edier H. Bustos Velazco, Jaime Duvan Reyes, 2017, Arqueoastronomía, alineaciones solares de solsticios y equinoccios en Bogotá-Bacatá - Archaeoastronomy, alignment solar from solstices and equinoxes in Bogota-Bacatá, Revista Científica, Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, volume 27, page 153
  2. Julio H. Bonilla Romero, 2011, Aproximaciones al observatorio solar de Bacatá-Bogotá-Colombia - Approaches to solar observatory Bacatá-Bogotá-Colombia, Azimut, Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, volume 3, pages 9-15

Same sources

Same sources

Same sources

  • Comment: Main hook: new article by Tisquesusa (talk), Monserrate, Guadalupe Hill (5x) and Bolívar Square (3.5x) expanded and infoboxed. Animation newly created and uploaded in English (long and short) and Spanish (short for now) to Commons.

Created/expanded by Tisquesusa (talk). Self-nominated at 03:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The main article, Eastern Hills, qualifies for DYK as a new article. The hook facts are in the article and the article is neutral. I am unable to assess whether there are any copyright issues because of lack of access to the sources and the sources being in Spanish, but that is no problem. I am approving the original hook, but not the others, because describing where the sun rises is meaningless unless you state your location. The animation is very impressive and is appropriately licensed. @Tisquesusa:, do you want to add Guadalupe to the hook as in ALT4 where I have bolded it? This article qualifies for DYK because you have expanded it more than five-fold, but Monserrate and Bolívar Square do not because they was not sufficiently expanded. Adding Guadalupe to the hook will give you DYKs for two articles, and both will be able to be submitted for points in the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Holman Rule

Source: "The Holman Rule... empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program." [7]

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Review – Note: I have done some copyedits and clean-up, and though I added the reference of exceptions from Deschler's, I do not consider myself to have done enough to be unable to evaluate this nomination.
  • Article is new enough and long enough, and cited. It does not lack neutrality, but it is incomplete.
  • I am concerned about inconsistencies in the content and between the article and the hook and the sources. The sources speak of reducing the salary of targeted employees to $1, but the articles speak of firing. Though the former may have the effect of forcing a resignation and thus have the effect of the latter, they are not the same. This needs to be clarified and resolved. The source cited above also says "any member of Congress" but the United States Congress includes the Senate and the article and other sources speak of a House of Representatives rule. It may be that the hook needs to speak of reducing salary to $1.
  • On the hook, I'm also not keen on "newly reinstated", I would say when - either January 2017 or at the start of the XXth Congress or something like that. "Propose firing" also needs clarification, because it is a proposal to the House which, if passed as part of an appropriations bill, becomes a mandate. After all, a Member of Congress can write a letter to someone's boss proposing that s/he be fired, but the boss can ignore it. We are talking here about something much more draconian, where federal employees are potentially threatened. The hook needs to be neutral, but also to accurately portray the facts.
  • Earwig raises only the quotation from Deschler's, which is appropriately identified and supported, so no copyvio issues, and no problematic paraphrasing of the sources noted. The commentary in the articles could be expanded, too, and also some recognition that the quotations from Deschler's were published in 1994, and so is the version as was eliminated in 1983... is the 2017 version the same? Certainly the sources provided do not establish that, nor does the article address the issue. Also, should the dissent from Republicans and the unanimous opposition from Democrats in passing the new rules package is due some notice. Covering these issues in a policy-compliant manner is a challenge and is not (technically) an expansion required under DYK rules. However, in presenting an article like this on the main page at a period of time when the topic of the rule and politics in general is highly contentious, I think it behoves us to avoid highlighting an article where obvious questions can be raised and yet go unaddressed.
  • QPQ done as required.
  • Symbol question.svg The inconsistencies noted need to be resolved, and a new hook wording proposed. The areas not covered should be addressed, and I hope that Antony-22 as the article creator will choose to take on that challenge. EdChem (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review. First off, upon doing the research for this article I discovered that there's nothing significant about the amount of $1; the rule allows salaries to be cut to any amount or for a position st be eliminated completely. This source says that there is no evidence that the rule has ever been historically used to cut a salary to an inappropriate level, and I haven't seen any comments from any lawmakers advocating to use it in this way. My guess is that some PR person came up with the $1 line to draw attention to it, and I think we have a responsibility on Wikipedia to avoid repeating clickbait.
Good catch on checking the new wording; it is slightly different so I have included both in the article. Also, it's specifically a House rule and so doesn't directly affect the Senate, so the source may be using the informal use of "Congresspeople" to refer only to House members. The final paragraph of the article already briefly states the Republican and Democratic viewpoints on the rule. The following hook is more specific as you requested, but the original hook is more succinct and still accurate. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Calling for a second opinion. The updated text from the 2017 version is clear on reducing salary of "any person" and reducing numbers, but not (to me) clear on the ability to fire individuals, and "proposing firing" is something anyone can do any time, and be ignored. This is including in legislation a mandate that a person's salary must be reduced, or the number of people reduced. I am not comfortable that the hook is accurate. I will post at WT:DYK for another opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The effective text is "the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States"; the "number" part is where the proposals of firing come from. It might help if it can be demonstrated that both (contemporary) liberal and conservative sources say that the rule allows firing of individuals. The Deschler's Precidents source seems to be neutral and reliable, being published long before the current controversy, and it give specific examples of amendments firing individuals in the past. Here's a more specific and wordier hook. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 05:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 23

Susanna Elm

Created by Jwslubbock (talk) and Haylesley (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs checkout. Mifter (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep. Sorry, this is not a hook. I've also written things. If you're trying to emphasize the bawdy title, please put it into a better setting. Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with Yoninah's complaint. The hook is deliberately "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in" as recommended at WP:DYKHOOK. Let's see what the reviewer Mifter says. So that we may have more choice, here's a more verbose version. My fear is that, if we make it longer like this, it will attract more nitpicking. KISS. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, you don't have to go from snappy to verbose. If you had a cite for this, you could write:
  • ALT2: ... that Susanna Elm expanded her doctoral thesis on female asceticism into the book Virgins of God? Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not unusual for a thesis to be turned into a book and so ALT2 tends to dilute the hook's impact. It also explains too much about the work and this will tend to lessen interest in clicking through. I still prefer the original which gets the reader wondering what Virgins of God is about rather than telling them at the outset. We're writing a hook here, not a summary. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree with those who've noted problems in the hooks so far. Here's another suggestion (and it's already cited):

Hervé Pierre

  • Reviewed: To come soon

Created by Iselilja (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Long enough, well-sourced, neutral and free from apparent copyvio. Hook is interesting, appropriate and the source checks out (WWD is a reputable fashion journal). Regarding newness - technically you nominated in on the 8th day - I won't fail the nomination because of this technicality, but next time please be sure to be punctual. QPQ remains to be done. HaEr48 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Adding icon to indicate that this is lacking QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Miriam T. Griffin

Created by DonPantalone (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 16:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) Sorry, a minor matter, but the article is presently ineligible because the single-sentence paragraph in the "Personal life" section of the article has no inline citations, which is required per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines. North America1000 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That section has been updated and a citation added to support it. Andrew D. (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough; the lead does not strike me as too short now given the article's overall size, and it obeys WP:LEADLENGTH. QPQ has been done. Earwig found no likely copyvio — the biggest hits it found were book title and editor listings. I have to admit that I'm not too excited by either hook: the first is "woman organizes dinner party" and the second is "scholar analyzes some historical detail that nobody cares about any more". (Actually, I think people should care about the reasons for the fall of Nero, as history tends to repeat, but that doesn't mean they do.) Also, although the article as a whole is adequately sourced, the dinner party hook is not: one source mentions her and the dinner but doesn't say she was the host, while the other is written by her rather than being about her. Some of the article also looks like filler: "The Oxford University library catalogue (SOLO) shows that she frequently donates academic books"? It's not needed as the article would be long enough and punchier without it. But that's not really a DYK rules issue. We just need a better and better-sourced hook and we can be good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The Women in Classics dinner was a big deal to the women who are trying to establish themselves in this male-dominated field and this aspect was the point of the editathon. But I grant that this will be of limited interest to others. Nero and his downfall, on the other hand, is quite topical, because Nero was a populist leader who was reviled by the patrician class. Here's a selection of headlines which demonstrate that people do still care about this historical detail:
  1. "Donald Trump: the modern-day Nero ready to burn down America" (Guardian)
  2. "To understand Trump, we should look to the tyrants of ancient Rome" (Guardian)
  3. "Donald Trump could be America's Nero — if we're lucky" (Spectator)
  4. "Trump as Nero - Europe Must Defend Itself Against A Dangerous President" (Der Speigel)
  5. "Bring Your Own Applause - What Donald Trump and Roman Emperor Nero Have in Common" (JSTOR Daily)
  6. "Caligula, Nero, Donald Trump?" (PennLive)
  7. "Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington" (Financial Times)
  8. "Dealing with Emperor Trump: Field Notes from Ancient Rome" (Common Dreams)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg So, given these parallels, please reconsider ALT1. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • A DYK hook should be attention-catching. These are not, regardless of how significant what they describe is. If you want to include Nero, can you at least briefly describe something surprising that she concluded about Nero (and include it with appropriate sourcing in the article so that we can use it as a hook)? We leave the hook and the article knowing no more about Nero than we did before. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a line of contextual information to the page to make clearer why it is not of only very minor interest or untopical why such a celebration was held - women were debarred from entering Oxford University as full entrants until 1920, and the numbers of women entrants were limited until 1957. Recognition of a change to the "male-dominated" field is therefore noteworthy in and of itself. —Claire 75(talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 24

Hari Bhimaraju

  • Reviewed: William Hoapili Kaauwai
  • Comment: I'd like to promote young females in science as they are under-represented on Wikipedia

Created by Mramoeba (talk). Self-nominated at 00:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I was going to review this hook since the subject was fascinating. Unfortunately @Mramoeba:, it is listed for Deletion. Putting the review on hold, I will pick it up if the article is kept.  MPJ-DK  01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for stopping by @MPJ-DK:. You can of course comment on the deletion if you have an opinion. Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment only Update, the discussion has ended and the (overwhelming?) decision was keep. @MPJ-DK:. As I added a photo i'm going to suggest

Mramoeba (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 25

Hail, America

*ALT1 ... that this year is the 100th anniversary of the composition of "Hail, America"?

Created/expanded by DarjeelingTea (talk). Self-nominated at 09:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg You got me interested in the topic, but before I can review, I need to understand a few things. The piece is a march, right, to be played by brass, not a song, to be sung by a human voice? Why do you use {{infobox song}}? We have {{infobox musical composition}}. I'd say it doesn't even belong in any song category. - Images: I am trained old style, no image left under a header, person should look "in", chronology, no images on both sides squeezing text. - Links: do we need US government? (especially when the ceremony should be the focus). - Refs: I don't appreciate four for one fact. Pick the most relevant 1 or 2 for it, and place the others somewhere else. - Finally: the whole story about the cat (which is hard to see on the image) belongs in an article about the cat ;) - I'd prefer a hook about the music and its use to what happened when it was not used. - What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much for this thorough review, Gerda Arendt. I think I've incorporated all your edits, as well as proposed an Alt hook, but let me know if I missed something. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for listening, - the greatest gift, as I said on my talk page ;) - The ALT is more to my liking. How about dropping the link to the year, because we don't want readers to go there and stay because it's interesting reading. I suggest plain "... that 2017 is". Now the title doesn't tell that it's more than some American patriotic song, which might leave foreigners like myself cold. Say a bit more but after the title. Use as Presidential Entrance March should somehow go to the infobox, best with years. If there's no good parameter yet, we should make one. Or how about the second (neutral) image there, with a caption that mentions the music not the man (who is not seen), but perhaps a date? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt - I think I've incorporated all these changes, but let me know if I missed something. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I made one more change to image placement, and changed a fixed image size to an upright, which reflects users' preferences. Sorry, I have another concern: "Presidential Entrance March", says the article, is the name of the ceremony. Who says so? I'd think "Presidential Entrance" might be the name of a ceremony, and the march played for it. Any source for the ceremony known as march? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, thanks very much - I've made this change. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for changing march to entrance. Now please just one source naming it so. You gave an offline one that I can't see, but if it's really known as such, there must be something online, no? Please link the ambiguous term trio and mention in the caption for the second image that only the trio (Trio?) was played then. I moved it from its position in Entrance section. Getting closer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 26


5x expanded by MWAK (talk) and Robin Liesens. Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC).

  • starting review--Kevmin § 13:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg*Article expansion new enough and long enough. hook is cited and confirmed by the source, and no policy violations or copyvio issues are seen in the article. The first paragraph of the Description section needs a citation, and i would suggest a hook based on Paludititan being considered a island dwarf (with image) as a very hooky alternative.--Kevmin § 13:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes it would be great....but Paludititan isn't mentioned in that article...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You can work this reference in to complete the island dwarfism portion. Plos 1--Kevmin § 18:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
How do you like-
ALT3: "... that Paludititan is a Romanian island dwarf?
As a catchy hook that follows the sourcing--Kevmin § 23:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Aha yes, clever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Byzantine (video game)

Created by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 27

Hanover Lodge

Hanover Lodge
Hanover Lodge

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough. Long enough. Neutral tone. Reliable citations throughout. Citations check out. Hook is interesting enough. Wish the article was written in a less list-like manner but clearly written nonetheless. GTG. Hybernator (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It also transpires that it isn't the most expensive house in the UK, per RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Herbert Reiner Jr.

Created by Fowler&fowler (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. However, several paragraphs lack at least one citation, per Rule D2. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I tweaked the hooks, and like the shorter, snappier ALT1. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gladiolus Amicitia

Source: [10]Created by PanagiotisZois (talk). Self-nominated at 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Hook is cited and very interesting. Page is new enough and long enough. One eyeball issue, that I might take a crack at myself, is that some paragraphs on the article lack inline-citations. If someone wants to address that before me, by all means do. Other than that, the article is well-written and has no policy issues. The creator has not completed a QPQ but I have a ton of those credits and am willing to do away with one on their behalf. No CopyVio issues. I guess inline citations is the only issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess I would also consider the alternate hook of "that Gladiolus was redesigned during the development of Final Fantasy XV to look more intelligent?". DaltonCastle (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. First of all, thank you :) . Second of all, maybe an alternative could be "that Final Fantasy XV party member Gladiolus was redesigned during development of the game to look more intelligent?" --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I also added an inline citation. It's not much but it's a start. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, great! Looking at the page now it looks a lot better. The one reason I have to await a more experienced editor to review is that, while I think sourcing is all good for an article about a fictional video game character, I don't know that all of it is. Hopefully somebody can clear this up. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing the fact I haven't reviewed another nomination is the reason this DYK wasn't accepted? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @PanagiotisZois: Don't worry, it can take a while to get through the process -- there's often a backlog of a month or two. You just need to be patient, and help resolve any issues that are brought up. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 30

Una Kroll

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg - Article is a very close paraphrasing of this - Earwigs doesn't pick it up because it requires registration to view the article. Please rework to avoid copyright violations. Mifter (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Romanian Senate election, 1868

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 13:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 31

Executive Order 13767

Trump signing the order.
Trump signing the order.

Created by Junosoon (talk) and Gamebuster19901 (talk). Nominated by Gamebuster19901 (talk) at 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Gamebuster19901: There are a few problems with this. Aside of the hook link not being bold (which I have fixed), the article is only 1,366 characters long and thus is below the threshold. There is also a citation needed tag which would need to be replaced with an inline source. Also, I'm not too comfortable with the tag on the white house link because it appears to imply close paraphrasing, which would need to reword certain parts of the article. Once these are fixed, ping me and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing out some of the issues with the article, I'll get them fixed asap!
However, According to section 2.b. of the eligibility criteria, public domain material is allowed in articles, it just can't be counted towards the total character count. I'll expand the sections some more to help it meet the criteria. Thanks Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: I believe the issues you have shown have been addressed as of now. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 16:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want, you can uncapitalize it, I just quoted it from the source. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 18:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Actually, that was a mistake on my part, I have corrected it. 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, good. Now then... ALT0 is untenable because it's inappropriate to state, in WP's voice, why Trump signed the thing -- there are too many other possibilities (stupidity, perfidy, racism, personal profit, and just plain meanness) that history will have to sort out. Even ALT1 uses a primary source for this key assertion of purpose, which is marginal (thought the quotations help). If you agree I suggest you strike them. Let me suggest:
ALT2:... that Donald Trump's Executive Order 13767 stated purpose is "construction of a physical wall on the southern border ... to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism (pictured)"?
EEng 18:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you're right, it's better to stick to the facts. How does this sound:
Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Ready for a review of ALT3 since all previous concerns are adressed. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't get the along the southern border of the US (pictured) bit. The picture doesn't show the southern border of the US, though it might reasonably be said to show an act of terrorism. That's why I'd suggest ALT2 over ALT3. EEng 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
When it's taken out of context like that, I could see the confusion. However, the (pictured) is applying to the whole sentence, and the caption of the image clearly states what it's showing. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How does ALT4 look? Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, now that we come down to it, I don't think the picture's worth much at all -- some guy at a desk signing something. And when you think about it, pretty much only people on Jupiter would be able to answer the question posed in all these hooks with anything other than "Of course I know!" Can't we have a hook on something actually new and interesting, like that the former commissioner says that the current system of patrol is better than a wall? EEng 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well first off, the President isn't just "some guy", secondly, If the phrase "signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration" isn't suitable for Wikipedia's voice, then there is no way that the former commissioner saying that the current system is better would be suitable either, as that's even more subjective.
Also, DYK isn't about answering the question, it's about exposing new and improved content, and to encourage more editors to edit the article. see WP:DYKAIM Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not the subjectivity, it's the voice. It would be OK for Wikipedia to report that Trump says he signed it for such-and-such a reason (as opposed to reporting that he did it for those reasons), and similarly it would be OK to report that Mr. Ex-Commissioner says that the current approach is better. My point is that the latter will be news to most readers, while the former will be news to no one. EEng 15:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg for Alt 4 or Alt 1 Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC).

Is Alt 1 or Alt 4 good for DYK, if not, how should it be improved? What are some appropriate hooks for this DYK about Executive Order 13767? 14:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ALT5 ... a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to a wall?
There are a few issues with that one, it doesn't have a way to link to the article. It's also just stating the opinion of just one person, and the article isn't specifically about that, even though it's within the scope of the article. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
EEng 14:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, the RFC was not neutral enough, sorry I have corrected it. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
ALT6 ... a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767?
EEng 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I see, I think I'm willing to go with something similar to Alt 6 if Alt 4 or Alt 1 cannot be used, though. I would also like to have a link to Gil Kerlikowske and a source if we're going that route, without making it too wordy.
perhaps ALT7 or ALT 8
ALT7 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [15]
ALT8 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [16]
Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying this just because you've warmed up to ALTs 6-8, but now that we're moving along here may I suggest you withdraw the RfC (though I don't know how that's done, actually). Do we really want to wait 30 days and have everyone and his brother chiming in on something which is typically left to the privileged few? EEng 18:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
"To end an RfC that is on the active RfC list, remove the RfC template. The RfC bot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run." WP:RFC. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 2

Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan

Nordhausen hymnal of 1695
Nordhausen hymnal of 1695
  • Reviewed: The Tank (theater)
  • Comment: The article began as an AfC by and was expanded by Mathsci. - Many sources say "deathbed", but then he recovered. - Please with image, even if it is hard to see, or we need a year in the already long hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

5x expanded by (talk) and Mathsci (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough. Neutral, cited to offline sources, AGF on close paraphrasing/copyvios since I can't access the offline sources. Hook is interesting, especially if you click through and note the recovery, and short enough. It's not quite supported by the article text. Gerda Arendt, could you double-check the source (or ask Mathsci to do so) and ensure that the "for his friend" bit is supported? If that can't specifically be verified, we could reword this along the lines of so-and-so wrote the text of blank to accompany a melody composed by so-and-so-2 on his deathbed. I'll leave the specifics of that wording to you so I'm still able to approve an alt hook, if you have to re-word. As for the image, I really can't approve it. It's so impossible to see at small sizes that it would be fairly useless on the main page. Sheet music might be a decent compromise, since the sheet music images will at least be recognizable at low resolutions. ~ Rob13Talk 00:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The source is here.[17] The authorship of the melody has been an issue since the hymn was written. Taking into account BU Rob13's comments above, perhaps the DYK hook could be changed to
"that according to a hymnal (account pictured), Samuel Rodigast wrote the text of "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" for his seriously ill friend Severus Gastorius, who after he recovered had it sung at his door each week."
Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci: I was more concerned with the "for his friend" bit. (Although authorship is also possibly an issue, now that I've seen the source.) That's attributing a reason for writing the text that isn't explicitly stated in the source. ~ Rob13Talk 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Gerda Arendt made this DYK request and devised the hook, not me. Another possibility might be ""that according to a hymnal (account pictured), Samuel Rodigast wrote the text of "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" during the serious illness of his friend Severus Gastorius, who after he recovered had it sung at his door each week." Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We could say it completely differently, because we will never be able to know reasons behind an action as a fact, ever. Fact is that the two were friends at school and university, and that Rodigast - if he was at the bed - must have traveled.
ALT2: ... that a "deathbed story" printed in 1695 (pictured) narrates the creation of the hymn "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan"?
Please, Rob, even if you don't agree with showing an image, don't change a hook. It will be up to the prep builders to use it or not. Most suggested images will not be shown. This one supports the hook. The current Gotteslob simply states below the hymn: T: Samuel Rodigast [1674/75] 1775, M: (Severus Gastorius [1675] 1679. No question about the authors, just the dates are not certain.
I don't think ALT2 is an improvement. Also I think Gerda should base what she what wants to include in the hook or her statements about the subject to what is in the article. Mathsci (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci, it doesn't have to be word by word in the article, - this a suggestion to use a summary, which doesn't distract attention by links to the authors' articles. If you don't like it, it's your turn to suggest something better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I already made two suggestions further up the page. Why not read them and then comment? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wayzata Bay Center

  • Comment: I have never nominated an article for DYK mention before, so I apologize if I make an error or mistake during this, thank you. Carbrera (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by Carbrera (talk). Self-nominated at 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC). Transcluded 21:27, 2 February 2017.

  • Comment: this nomination was not originally transcluded at time of nomination, but is being reactivated now. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This nomination was made by a first-time nominator 3 weeks after receiving a Good Article icon. However, since we are finally transcluding it 10 months later, I will IAR on this first nomination and review it for DYK. It is long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, and no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. The only issue is the hook. It seems like a pretty ordinary fact. The part about the vacancy rate going up so dramatically is more interesting – but please note that the source cited at the end of this sentence says nothing about store closures being the cause of the increased vacancy rate, so this clause needs to be sourced. The trolley is also cute. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: How about this one? I wouldn't know how to formulate the trolley fact since it uses a book source instead of a website/online publication. Carbrera (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017‎ (UTC)
  • I don't understand; you just make a hook out of what you wrote in the article. The ALT1 is okay; you don't have to say it's defunct (that will turn off readers). I suggest shortening it to:
  • ALT1a: ... that the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall was built over wetlands?
  • Here's another suggestion:
  • ALT2: ... that the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall, with 1,200 parking spaces, used to offer a shuttle service? (Note: a trolley car runs on rails; is that what the source says?) Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I was told in a previous DYK nom that the source used to verify the DYK has to be available on the internet. And since the book is not (in full) available online, I was hesitant to use the trolley factoid. But in the case I'm wrong, I strongly prefer ALT2. Carbrera (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Carbrera: that information is incorrect. You'll notice that we have 2 approval icons, one green (for online sources that the reviewer can verify personally) and one gray (for AGF, or "assume good faith") for offline sources. We AGF hooks all the time. Could you please verify the nature of the trolley, as I'd like to link it in the article to tram? Then another reviewer will have to approve the alt, since I wrote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, I no longer have the book in my possession, but it definitely wasn't on a rail. I think the author was using "trolley" for "shuttle". Regards, Carbrera (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I agree. I searched on "trolley" in the Google book source and nothing came up. I edited the article and hook. Calling on another editor to complete the review of ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Yoninah: Just wondering what the importance of that note is in ALT 2. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC).
  • @Carbrera: I asked you a question there, and you answered it below. Then I struck it out, but I left it there so the prep promoter can read through the review and see for himself/herself that any problems that were raised were resolved. (Don't worry, it's not part of the hook; any prep builder knows that the hook ends with the question mark.) The whole nomination, including strikethroughs, stands as a complete record of the review for interested prep promoters, queue promoters, and main page administrators. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer still needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Henri Beau

  • Comment: this nomination was not originally transcluded at time of nomination, but is being reactivated now. Adding a DYKmake for a subsequent editor. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Created by L. John Dory (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC). Transcluded 20:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is an orphaned nomination that was never transcluded properly. It was nominated within 7 days of creation, is long enough, neutrally written, adequately referenced, and no close paraphrasing seen. However, there are a few paragraphs which need at least one citation per Rule D2. Regarding the hook, the second part about the hook is cited to an offline source, but the first part, about him being "forgotten", needs an inline cite. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see the page creator has not edited since April 2016. I'm therefore pinging W.carter, who is listed in the DYK creation credits for the editing he did on the article, to see if he can help out here. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Yoninah, it was a while since I worked on this article, it was to help out a new user. I'll look at it more closely tomorrow and see if I can make something of it. Best, cart-Talk 20:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC) (btw, I'm a "she")
  • @Yoninah: (No problem.) I've had a look at the article and I'm sorry but I can't help you out here. I don't have access to the books and I would never submit a DYK with this many unrefed sentences. I think the only option is to decline this. Sorry. cart-Talk 14:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: thanks for your time. BTW, DYK only requires one cite per paragraph; this is not GA, which wants citations for every sentence. I'll look at this nomination again later. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, the article hasn't been edited since your own edits on February 2. Unless you plan to do more work on the article, I think it's probably time to close the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Symbol redirect vote 4.svg OK, I've filled in the missing refs. I would like to ask the next reviewer to consider the list of exhibitions and artworks which are not referenced similar to a bibliography in other articles. I would also like to propose a new hook:

Articles created/expanded on February 3

Sark during the German occupation of the Channel Islands

Aerial view of Sark
Aerial view of Sark
  • Comment: part of a series of articles about the Channel Islands during World War II
  • Comment: this nomination was not originally transcluded at time of nomination, but is being reactivated now.BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Created by Ânes-pur-sàng (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC). Transcluded at 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy. Hook's format and content are fine. No apparent close-paraphrasing. Img license is ok. QPQ not required. Thanks for noticing the snafu and getting this aerticle to the review page; better late than never. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article has acquired a template indicating that it needs more referencing, and indeed a number of paragraphs have no inline citations at all. This has been discussed on Ânes-pur-sàng's talk page, but unfortunately there hasn't yet been any work done to rectify the issue. I have pulled it from prep. I've also replaced the original image here with the one that was used on the main page, and added the "pictured" version of the hook as ALT1; I hope it can be promoted with the picture once the referencing has been improved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The Vinh wiretap

The Hughes OH-6 Cayuse was the basis for "The Quiet One".
The Hughes OH-6 Cayuse was the basis for "The Quiet One".
  • Reviewed: TBA Horse Soldiers (film)
  • Comment: Nomination for April Fool's Day. I am baffled by the process of attaching a photo. If some kind soul could attach the photo from the article, I will alter the caption to fit.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 22:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 4

John Plankinton statue, William Plankinton Mansion, William Plankinton

John Plankinton statue
John Plankinton statue

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk) and EdChem (talk). Nominated by Doug Coldwell (talk) at 15:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg All three articles new enough and long enough. Earwig and spot-checking found no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. All articles are NPOV and well-cited inline. Unsure if the image is suitably licensed for the main page, "The copyright status of the image was undeterminable by the bot, and requires human attention". The hook is interesting, but it needs an inline cite(s) at the end of the sentence in the article itself. And the source quoted above makes no mention of the "sister's ex-fiancé" bit. That source is here. QPQs awaited. Edwardx (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I will attempt to answer each concern. I show that William is the son of John Plankinton in references 2 & 3 in the William Plankinton article. In the Elizabeth Plankinton article I show she is the daughter of John Plankinton and therefore the sister of William. In the source for the hook it says, She was to have been married to Richard Hamilton Park, the British sculptor of the above, but was deserted in favor of a dancer from Minneapolis. The John Plankinton statue explains that it was make by Richard Henry Park, who was the Florentine sculptor engaged to Elizabeth.
The Flickr image has been reviewed February 5 by Administrator Mifter to have the appropriate license. Another version was previously approved February 2.
Reference #3 in the John Plankinton statue article = The statue was ordered by Mr. Wm. Plankinton (John's son) and will always occupy a place in the Plankinton rotunda.
I put this Marquette University reference at the end of the sentence of ... Park had betrayed Elizabeth Plankinton (William's sister) and married another woman in 1887, leaving her disappointed and distraught. = also put in reference of source suggested above.
I'm working on the 3 QPQs and will have them later today. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/White-browed piculet - Reviewed these 2 articles 2/5/2017.
Template:Did you know nominations/Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit - Reviewed this article 2/5/2017.

LAbyrinth (2017 film)

Johnny Depp
Johnny Depp

Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 12:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Captain Assassin!: Nominated two days after being moved to main namespace, and is about 2300 bytes, satisfying length and date criteria. The plot section is remarkably similar to a paragraph in this ref and needs to be changed, as it's essentially a copyright violation right now. The fragment " the Randall Sullivan's..." is odd; perhaps delete "the". Moreover, it also uses text similar to the source, as "bought the film rights to the Randall Sullivan's Los Angeles police corruption book LAbyrinth" in the article is quite similar to "bought the rights to Randall Sullivan’s L.A. cop corruption book LAbyrinth" in the source. The date "September 7, 2016" is the date it was reported in the media, not necessarily the date he signed a contract. (There are a number of these.) The fragment "who investigated the murders of rappers" makes it appear he only investigated such murders; perhaps insert "the" before "rappers". The "a" in "...Anderson playing a corrupt LAPD officer..." is superfluous, since we know he is playing the specific officer named. The fragment "joined the film" is overly colloquial; please change it. The second paragraph in "Production" is a bit droning and seems like filler, though I'm not sure how this can be changed given the nature of the data it presents. The article would benefit from a one or two paragraph "Background" section explaining the murders and ensuing investigation. The hook needs modification, as it is not Depp who will perform the investigation, but the character he portrays. Mindmatrix 19:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention: QPQ completed, and image is freely licenced with an associated OTRS ticket. The image is suitable at the size needed for DYK. Mindmatrix 19:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mindmatrix: Done some copy-editing on the article. No need to rewrite the hook, actually it's interesting way to attract more readers to the article. QPQ will be here soon. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg @Captain Assassin!: QPQ still required, as previous QPQ was applied to another DYK nomination. Changes appear to be OK, and I've made a phrasing tweak to the article. I'd still strongly suggest a background section briefly discussing the history of the murders, but it's not necessary for DYK. Mindmatrix 17:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

John William Kalua

[19] In support of the Government party candidates, the king made two electioneering trips to Maui and Hawaii. He was especially anxious to defeat the three leading native candidates on the Independent ticket, Joseph Nawahi, G. W. Pilipo, and J. W. Kalua; and he brought to bear upon the voters his personal influence, the weight of his high position, and other persuasive arguments. It was reliably reported that "all Gov't employes, Doctors, school teachers, etc., were warned that they must support the Govt ticket."

Created by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 22:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 5

Periclimenes rathbunae

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Hanberke (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

  • starting review--Kevmin § 17:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article new enough and long enough. Article hook is well referenced and the hook conforms to article and source. If i'm understanding the sources correctly Condylactis gigantea is the usual host, with Stichodactyla helianthus being an alternate, rather then the reverse as the article currently states. Also only the first instance of a wikilinked term needs the link the rest of the links for the anemones can be de-linked per wp:overlink.--Kevmin § 18:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hanberke and Cwmhiraeth:
@Kevmin: The pinging didn't work. The full article is available to download and states that In the Turks and Caicos Islands, Stichodactyla helianthus is the usual host, with Condylactis gigantea acceptable in the absence of the other. It might be different in other parts of its range. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I reread the sources and you are correct. now all we need to do it clear up the over-linking and I think we will be good to go.--Kevmin § 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Removed one, I think one in the lead and one in the main text is permissible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


The straw sculpture of the Lovell Telescope by Snugburys
The straw sculpture of the Lovell Telescope by Snugburys
  • Reviewed: Bowling Green massacre
  • Comment: The text at the start of the article is a bit short: most of the text has ended up being best-suited to notes in a table. I hope this isn't a problem, although I'll continue to expand the main article text in case it is.

Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Comment: DYK Check reports 1074 characters so well short of the 1500 required. Text in tables would take the total over the required 1500 characters. LoopZilla (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the prose some more, and it's now at 1564 characters, plus the text in the table. Also, I've added a few Daily Mail references while expanding the article, which has been noted in a discussion at RS/N. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that article is long enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Where in Europe Is Carmen Sandiego?

  • Reviewed: Note: I will do the QPQ asap. For now, please review the rest of the nom.

5x expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

Jessica Curry

Created/expanded by TheBigJagielka (talk) and Danno uk (talk). Nominated by Danno uk (talk) at 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Newi-ish, hook is nice and short and pretty interesting. Could say more about Jessica Curry, as in "music composer Jessica Curry" or something. You'll also want to wikilink a thing or two in the hook, like BAFTA and Poet Laureate. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Very happy to incorporate your suggestions. How about "... that composer Jessica Curry has won a BAFTA award for her video game scores, and has also worked with the Poet Laureate?"
Linking video game scores is probably sensible in case readers think that she's some kind of champion player! danno_uk 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Added danno's edit as ALT1 above. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg The article has some [citation needed] tags please either source the information or remove it. Mifter (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The sections without citations have been removed or adjusted to reflect available refs. danno_uk 21:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Partnership for Civil Justice Fund

5x expanded by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 01:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 6

Fulham Refuge

Fulham Refuge, 1858
Fulham Refuge, 1858
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk), Paul W (talk), and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Red XN - to be done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Looks like a pleasant place and so it's a shame it was closed. Thanks for getting it started. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reader Rabbit

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 7

Robert E. Finnigan

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, QPQ done, Earwig detects no copyvios. I'm having trouble verifying some of the statements from the cited sources.
  • "Finnigan Instrument Corporation's GC/MS was the technical underpining that made it possible for the EPA to carry out its regulatory efforts in the 1970s." This is a bit too much on the side of WP:SYNTHESIS, since it is implied but not explicitly stated in the source, which also mentions systems from Hewlett–Packard and others.
  • added better 1979 citation to support this. Hopefully avoids WP:SYNTHESIS. See below.
  • "In 1979, the EPA listed the Finnigan GC/MS as its standard instrument for the analysis of environmental pollutants in water and wastewater." This is cited to an alumni award biography, but it's unclear whether they were "listed" or just widely used. The other source for that citation merely mentions that EPA's standard manual was generally based on the Finnigan instrument.
  • I've rephrased to avoid the word "listing" and added a better citation from 1979, which should support ALT2 cleanly and possibly, if you feel WP:SYNTHESIS is now avoided, ALT or ALT1 as well. For the Wikipedia article's sentence "By 1979, the the Finnigan GC/MS was the standard instrument at the EPA for the analysis of environmental pollutants in water and wastewater", See this reference: Middleditch, Brian S., ed. (1979). Practical Mass Spectrometry: A Contemporary Introduction. Boston, MA: Springer US. p. 220. ISBN 978-1461329848. Retrieved 23 February 2017. It states: "The EPA has made a major commitment to GC-MS instruments... Most of the GC-MS instruments in the EPA are Finnigan quadrupoles with DEC PDP-8 minicomputer data systems... The many needs for firm qualitative organic identifications include ...{i) the causes of taste or odor in drinking water, (ii) the distribution of toxic compounds in surface or wasterwater..." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "By 1984, all public water was to be tested by using a Finnigan GC/MS or accepted equivalent." I don't see this in the referenced source.
  • Charalambous, George (1984). Analysis of foods and beverages : modern techniques. Orlando: Academic Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-12-169160-8. Retrieved 6 February 2017. "In 1971, the EPA, already concerned with this problem, selected a computerized GC/MS system as its principle tool for the analysis of drinking water and of industrial and municipal effluents that are returned to the public water supply. [Finnigan was the only system available from 1968 to 1971.] ... by mid-1984, all public water in the United States must be controlled using these or equivalent methods."
These points need clarification or revision, but once fixed this article should pass. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 9

Exercise TROPEX

A MiG 29K takes off from INS Vikramaditya during TROPEX 2017
A MiG 29K takes off from INS Vikramaditya during TROPEX 2017

Created by MBlaze Lightning (talk). Self-nominated at 05:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @MBlaze Lightning: The proposed hook is 278 characters long and needs to be reduced to below the DYK limit of 200 characters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. The hook would be better without the jargon "strategic assets" and some of the article is a little close to the sources as you can see here and here. Having said that, many of the phrases are the names of units and there is a quote on the objectives of the 2015 event which is permissible. The worst bit is:

LaMelo Ball

Created by TempleM (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Image in article is freely licensed. QPQ done. I'm confused by the sourcing for the hook, however. Is this the sentence that the hook fact rests on: In late summer of his freshman season, Ball verbally committed to play college basketball for UCLA? If so, it doesn't accord with the source, which says, It's not often that a prospect commits to a college prior to his freshman year in high school, but despite that rarity LaMelo Ball's pledge to UCLA hardly arrived as a surprise. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Planar transmission line


Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 10

Wallachian legislative election, 1857

Allegory of the United Principalities, 1857
Allegory of the United Principalities, 1857

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 11:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

Litanies à la Vierge Noire

Mary at Rocamadour
Mary at Rocamadour

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Articles is new enough, long enough, and neutrally written. No issues with copyvios that I can find. It is neutral, and well cited. The hook is interesting, the image checks out, and the hook is supported by an inline source. Minor quibble: the sentence "In 1947 Poulenc the instrumentation to string orchestra and timpani." Doesn't really mean anything: Gerda, if you will just fix that, I can pass this nomination. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, and catching that a word got lost. I hope for the image to appear, because so far it's not shown in the composer's article nor for the pilgrimage site, - it should be something new to readers. I was surprised myself, because I had expected - after reading about it - a painting, not a sculpture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 11

Souper Salad

Souper Salad restaurant in Phoenix, AZ
Souper Salad restaurant in Phoenix, AZ

5x expanded by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 06:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New and long enough, all ¶ with citations, a copyvio check reveals no problems, hook content is interesting and is verified with a citation to a reliable source in the article (source). Almost good to go; only a QPQ review remains to be performed for this to move forward. North America1000 08:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the opening double quote in the hook needs a matching closing double quote. Thanks BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Northamerica1000: QPQ now done. Also, hook has been updated with photo so please re-review the hook. MB 18:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Qandala campaign

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 09:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 12

Jesse Root Grant

Created/expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 19:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

Professional Rapid Online Chess League

Created by Chessrat (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () 14 February 2017 (UTC) at 16:43(UTC).

  • REVIEW STARTED. New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. Edwardx (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Licence laundering

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 02:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 13

John William Elliott Maikai, Francis Funk

Created/expanded by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Roger P. Minert

Created/expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 14

Avraam Zak

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Kayu ura Futurist110 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Waiting for hook to be revised, and potentntial copyright violations to be addressed. Good luck. :)--Coin945 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Two Worlds (song)

  • Reviewed: I will do my QPQ asap. In the meantime, please review the rest of my nomination.--Coin945 (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 15

1891 State Normal School at Cheney fire

Created by Jwrosenzweig (on behalf of the students/staff who worked on the recent EWU edit-a-thon) (talk). Nominated by Jwrosenzweig (talk) at 05:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutral and well-written. The hook is short and eye-catching. Article is well-cited. I think it's ready, just waiting for QPQ review? Citobun (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Angolan African dormouse

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

  • I reviewed this one. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay, 5x expansion verified by DYKcheck, and it's long enough (2300+ characters of prose), but I have some concerns about citations.  :**There aren't any citations in the lead paragraph, where a number of facts are related. And the citations in the rest of the piece all rely on a single source, and generally come at the end of a long paragraph. Can any other sources be found -- even one or two more would help. If not, how can the footnotes appear more frequently (and with more precision?) to make sure it's clear where assertions are coming from?
Thank you for reviewing this article. The MoS guidelines do not advocate having citations in the lead, because this section should be a summary of the text in the body of the article, where the information should be cited. Similarly, a citation at the end of a paragraph is meant to cover all the information before it, which in the paragraph without other sources, means the whole paragraph. There is no need for intermediate citations. I have added another source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, Cwmhiraeth -- I think I read WP:LEADCITE a little differently than you, in that I don't think "do not advocate having citations in the lead" is exactly the summary I'd give. But in looking back at it, I'll acknowledge that almost all the claims in the lead are in fact cited directly later in the article, and I'll defer to that practice as being clearly in line with LEADCITE. I would ask, though, that you provide a citation for the very last claim in the lead -- that it is "thought to be generally uncommon", since I don't see that exact claim clearly cited in the body of the article. As far as one citation per paragraph, while I'll agree that it's within the bounds of acceptability, I'm concerned that it isn't ideally conforming to WP:INTEGRITY -- someone who wanted to add material to any of those paragraphs would either have to write it totally separately, or else do a lot of work to copy your citation multiple times if they added sentences and information into the middle of paragraphs. If I look at the example at WP:CITEDENSE, I think it might be a useful guide here -- placing a citation at the end of the description paragraph covers information about coloring, hair features, and closely related species. Do you disagree? If so, is this a case where I'm expected to decide if my interpretation is right, or should we invite other folks' commentary? I'm trying to both be respectful of your own contributions as an author (and they're clearly valuable!) and of what I believe to be our standards for a DYK article. If you think I'm misreading INTEGRITY or CITEDENSE, help me understand what I'm missing. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • At times, too, there are sentences that feel excessively casual - for example, in reference to the animal's tail, one sentence reads "It is basically the same colour as the back but some white hairs are mixed with the darker ones and the tip is white." Especially the phrase "basically the same" just strikes me as a little chatty in tone, rather than being a more clinical description.
I have altered this wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome -- I'm not concerned about this at this point, thanks to your change. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • And I hate to be tough about this, but the text in this article is just much too similar to the text in another article that Cwmhiraeth has been expanding, Rock dormouse. A sentence like "The fur on the back is soft, smooth and rather long" might be accurate of both animals, which are presumably very similar, but the two physical descriptions are so similar that I think there must either be a copy-and-paste error here, or just over-reliance on a sort of "template" approach to writing these descriptions. I'm not sure how we handle this kind of challenge -- it's not the same to me as an excessively close paraphrase or borrowing of language from some other site online -- but I feel like this is something Cwmhiraeth can fix and ought to.
Rock dormouse was written within 7 days before this article, and copying some of the text of one newly expanded article into another is generally viewed as permissible. However, any copied text should not count towards the required character count for the five-fold expansion. You can ask about this on the DYK discussion page if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jwrosenzweig: Actually Rock dormouse was written after rather than before this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the clarification, but I wasn't concerned about the required character count for expansion -- I think you've clearly done enough work to warrant consideration! I just wonder if there's a way to avoid exact duplication of phrasing between articles, but maybe there are only so many ways to say this? In any case, I guess I'll go with this -- since this article was written first, if any article's wording ought to be changed to avoid precise duplication, it would be Rock dormouse, I'll withdraw this concern also. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the hook is clear, and clearly cited -- it might be of interest, but I'm just slightly hesitant, since that exact same hook could be used by any of the mammals on this list, not to mention all the non-mammalian species also listed as "data deficient". I don't necessarily see a better hook in the article, though (the beehive story is interesting but it's not cited at the end of the sentence), and I don't want to be churlish about the hook. If Cwmhiraeth can come up with another hook, though, I'd be pleased to see it.
What you say is correct. I wondered about use of the beehive, how about
I prefer this hook, and think it's what I'd recommend. I'll withdraw the hook concern as well -- thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For now, it's a Symbol possible vote.svg but I'm hoping Cwmhiraeth can pretty easily resolve the issues I've noted. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: at this point, it's a Symbol question.svg while we sort out my last remaining concern about citations. I hope you can see that I'm not at all inflexible on this (I can see, personally, that you're open to dialogue too, which I appreciate), and I'm confident we can arrive at some agreement -- and I'm also perfectly open to someone coming along and helping me see that I'm misinterpreting the documents I'm working from. Anyway, thanks for your initial responses, and I look forward to resolving these last little issues soon. My best to you, and thanks again for your work: Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added and cited mention of it being an uncommon species. As for the rest of the points you raise, I would ask @BlueMoonset: for a response. I have written and submitted to DYK large numbers of species articles of a similar type to this one, and the citing of these has generally been deemed acceptable. BlueMoonset is our expert on DYK matters and interpreting guidelines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig, Cwmhiraeth, the accepted guideline at DYK for citations is D2, which reads, in part: A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. If there's a particular fact that seems controversial or otherwise needs support, or an uncited quote, the reviewer can certainly ask for an inline source citation to be supplied. Regarding WP:CITEDENSE, it specifically states that it is the subsequent editor's job to organize the citations to make their relationship between the text and the sources clear, so that we maintain text-source integrity. In other words, it is not our concern that a text might be added to later such that new sourcing may need to be added and the original source may need to be given additional citations around it; that is the sole responsibility of the editor adding the new material. It is clear in WP:INTEGRITY that whole paragraphs may have a single citation (i.e., If a sentence or paragraph is footnoted with a source), so that should not be an issue here so long as the given source supports the paragraph in question. Finally, because DYK articles are typically new and not necessarily fully fleshed out, there can be some material that is uncited. The hook, however, must have inline source citations supporting its fact(s) placed no later than the end of the article sentence in which the fact appears. I think I've covered everything here, but if I've missed anything or am not clear, please feel free to ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jamaica–179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line), IND Queens Boulevard Line

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk), Kew Gardens 613 (talk), and Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 02:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC).

Creswell Eastman

Eastman examining Tibetan women for eye disorders in Tibet Autonomous Region May 2000
Eastman examining Tibetan women for eye disorders in Tibet Autonomous Region May 2000
  • Reviewed: This is my first DYK nomination so I am exempt from the QPQ
  • Comment: Article created in my userspace on February 2017, moved to mainspace on February 15.

Created/expanded by Harald Berents (talk). Nominated by HaraldW1954 (talk) at 05:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Just a comment Don't mean to get political here but why would you refer to post-1949 China as the Republic of China?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought all had Peoples Republic of China, but will make sure that all comments reflect this. Thanks for the comment.HaraldW1954 (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 16

Rosemary Vrablic

  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Liza Ferschtman

Ferschtman in concert, 2004
Ferschtman in concert, 2004
  • Reviewed: 1000 Second Avenue
  • Comment: I will add to the article and hook, but may not get to it today

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Meneerke bloem (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough. The first paragraph in Chamber music needs a cite, including the sentence supporting the hook. I'm a bit put off by how much cite 1 is used throughout the text. It's a clearly promotional cite from a site associated with one of her performances. Could some of this information be cited to more neutral sources to ensure a neutral article? AGF on close paraphrasing due to foreign language sources. Hook is fine, but needs the cite as mentioned above. QPQ completed. Waiting on verifiability/neutrality. ~ Rob13Talk 02:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I promised to add to article and hook, hope be able today or tomorrow, - sorry that so far I couldn't do much yet, when I translated, there was no source. Take me as an unreliable source that she is notable, I heard it/her ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I added more about her recordings, with reviews, and the concert I heard. More to come, need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 17


Licancabur is the cone slightly left of centre
Licancabur is the cone slightly left of centre

ALT1 ... that Licancabur volcano (pictured), despite being smaller than many neighbouring volcanoes, stands out among them? "This is lower than the height of many other peaks in the vicinity, yet Licancabur dominates the landscape. Its lone, perfect cone commands respect"

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 10:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC).

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The hook needs to be changed a little bit. It needs some commas added and it also needs the word "the" added before "Licancabur". The "(pictured)" also needs to be moved to after "volcano". After you make these changes, I'll give the article a full review. PhilrocMy contribs 17:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg Good to go. PhilrocMy contribs 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, @Philroc: The source text is not part of the citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry. Please keep in mind that I am a new reviewer. PhilrocMy contribs 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Not sure if this is a possibility, but since the hook was pulled at WP:ERRORS for being inaccurate (outdated information in the source) there may be two subsitute hooks:

ALT2 ... that Licancabur volcano (pictured) stands out among peaks in the vicinity? "This is lower than the height of many other peaks in the vicinity, yet Licancabur dominates the landscape. Its lone, perfect cone commands respect" ALT3 ... that Licancabur volcano (pictured) was venerated by the Atacamenos?

Mexican Federal Highway 95D

The Cuetlajuchitlán archeological site sits atop the Autopista del Sol
The Cuetlajuchitlán archeological site sits atop the Autopista del Sol

Created by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

Eileen Riley Siegel

  • Reviewed: WCHV (AM)
  • Comment: 5x expanded from redirect and sourced

Created/expanded by FrickFrack (talk). Self-nominated at 12:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 18

Julian Radcliffe

  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Loch Ewe Distillery

Loch Ewe Distillery, Drumchork

Created by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self-nominated at 09:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, QPQ, Cite, and Earwigs all checkout. Image is freely licensed. Mifter (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed from the prep, too many contentious issues, please see the discussion at DYK talkpage. Primary sources should never be used, and when claiming "biggest", "smallest" etc, always worth a check. Add to that a grammatically incorrect hook and you have a lemon. Removed from the prep set so it can be worked on in slow time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Adding necessary icon to superseded previous (and still active) tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What is that in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Next time, The Rambling Man, start your removal comment with an icon reflecting its current status. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Next time, the project shouldn't promote such error-prone articles. That you feel the need to tell me to "use the right icon" is utterly symptomatic of the complete waste of time and arcane processes used here. The hook was wrong, the article was badly written, the review was inadequate, the promotion was wrong. I don't need to "add an icon" to make it better. Sort it out, and stop asking for stupid things when actually what's required is better quality control. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine. You do whatever you want, and please stop commenting when I clean up after you. We'll all be happier. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It would better that if you didn't need to clean up at all, and got it right first time. This nomination had bad grammar, a primary source, a dubious hook, yet it made it almost to the main page. Stop blaming me for getting it away from the main page, and start looking at those who got it that far. I'll be much happier if you stop enabling this kind of garbage. Please stop commenting when we all pick up all these multiple issues with multiple hooks in multiple sets, many times a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so it's now my fault. Tell you what: you take care of what you want to take care of, and I'll take care what I want to take care of, and we'll both be happier. I've long since given up hoping that you'll actually bother to use icons or do anything involving the background processes here. Perhaps you should do the same with me, since you're busy accusing me of blaming you for getting the hook away from the main page, when nothing could be further from the truth. (Don't bother replying here; I shan't answer you further.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You've given up hoping I'll "actually bother to use icons"?!! Seriously?? I would honestly reconsider what's important here, if that ever was.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's two alts (below). Further, if I recall correctly if we don't put some sort of problem symbol after an approval one, the bot will automatically move the page back to the approved queue once it sees it.
Both these books from 2012 mention it as the smallest and as there is conflicting information afterwords backing the claim to its opening helps side-step the issue as we are not sure if it is still the smallest in Scotland. Alternatively we could use the second book and just mention it sidestepping a very old law (still hooky in my estimate). We still have to add these book cites to the article and update the info but here is a start. Mifter (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Kick Your Game

Created by Beyoncetan (talk). Self-nominated at 07:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

Star Wars: Droid Works

  • Reviewed: I will do my QPQ asap. In the meantime please review the rest of the nom.--Coin945 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Coin945: Date and length fine, however the Aftermath section has a citation tag in it. I would just like to ask what makes the source used for the hook an RS? QPQ needed as nominator pointed out. No close paraphrasing noticed. Once the issues have been sorted, i'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on February 19

Norma McCorvey

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Kurtis (talk) and Bluesphere (talk). Nominated by Bluesphere (talk) at 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Akatombo, Miki Rofū

Miki Rofū Monument to the song "Akatombo"
Monument to the song "Akatombo"
  • Reviewed: I only have 3 DYK credits.
  • Comment: There is also an image for (the monument to) "Akatombo" if that is preferable. I've added it here for comparison.

Created/expanded by Softlavender (talk), Sam Sailor (talk), and Mortee (talk). Nominated by Softlavender (talk) at 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Love it. Article on a song with a history, and the collaboration! Good sources, Japanese sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - Minor questions to the hook: "nostalgic" carries negative connotations, do we need that? Ma hook would be much shorter, - don't tell it all:
ALT1: ... that the song "Akatombo" ("Red Dragonfly") is one of the most-loved Japanese songs?
Minor questions to the article: sometimes you have several refs to a fact, - they should be ascending in number. The lead should be a summary of sourced info from the body, - it doesn't need refs, they should all go below. "infant over a sister's shoulder" - not clear at first reading that the infant is carried by the sister. Think about nostalgic, or explain that I misunderstand it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. "Nostalgic" is in no way negative (and it is actually the reason why adults like this song as much or more than children do). ALT1 is incomplete and does not mention Miki Rofū, which is an important new article that is part of this nomination. I realize that sometimes shorter is sweeter, but in this case poet and composer and date need to be in the hook. I've now removed superfluous cites from the lede, leaving the cites for the substantive qualitative material. I've added to the lede to clarify that the infant is being carried. I personally prefer the way the lede gives basic info about the title, and the section immediately following elaborates with personal material. In terms of cite order, most all of them are in ascending order; if a bot wants to re-order a couple of others that's fine but there's actually no rule about it. Softlavender (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, - sorry that I was blind for seeing that there's a second bolded article, - something I always avoid, - I'd rather write a new hook about him, but as you like it. - Do you realize that the DYK makes say "subpage=Akatombo, Miki Rofū" which is one article? Please find someone to sort that out, - I can't. At present, credits go to three people who wrote that article ;) - I will review the author, but not right now. - Thanks for the lesson about "nostalgic", - in German, "nostalgisch" comes with a notion of clinging to the past too much, also a Kitsch connotation. - There's no DYK rule about ascending refs, and I will still approve it if not, but GA reviewers look for it. - Lovely, the phrase "if a bot wants" ;) - Will return after a few things I promised in the morning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note on DYK creation credits: Because of the way this template was created, the creation credits were in error. I adjusted them to reflect the fact that: (1) Softlavender, Sam Sailor, and Mortee created Akatombo, and Softlavender and Mortee created Miki Rofū. Please confirm that this is correct. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
More precisely: Softlavender and Sam Sailor expanded Akatombo (none of us created it, and the article creator made a thorough botch of his half-assed attempt at creating it, which I why I'm not listing his name). Mortee created (and should get full credit for) Miki Rofū. Can you change accordingly? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Creation and expansion are the same in DYK's eyes. So it's creation credits on Akatombo for Softlavender and Sam Sailor, and a creation credit on Miki Rofū for Mortee. I corrected the credit lines accordingly. Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

INSV Tarini

INSV Tarini
INSV Tarini

Created by MBlaze Lightning (talk). Self-nominated at 12:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Wayne Shaw (footballer)

Created by Мне отмщение, и аз воздам (talk), The C of E (talk), and Sussexpeople (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 09:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Subramanian Kalyanaraman

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 12:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment

  • Comment: It's a pretty giant article. I've been working on it for years. I figure the player strike is probably the most interesting part of the article though.

Created by Torsodog (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 20

Islamophobia in Canada

5x expanded by Vice regent (talk). Self-nominated at 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Private Practice (season 1)

KaDee Strickland
KaDee Strickland
  • Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Billy Douglas (One Life to Live)
  • Comment: Image can be changed/removed if either ALT1 or ALT2 is preferred over my original proposal. I am open for comments as I would like to feature this on DYK, but I had trouble finding a strong hook for this list.

Created/expanded by Aoba47 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Weixin Shengjiao

Weixin Shengjiao headquarters at Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan
Weixin Shengjiao headquarters at Hsien Fo Temple, Taiwan

Created by Aidayoung (talk). Nominated by Fences and windows (talk) at 21:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

Printer's Devilry

Created by Smurrayinchester (talk). Self-nominated at 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 21

Articles created/expanded on February 22


5x expanded by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Abu Omar al-Turkistani

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Nuggehalli Raghuveer Moudgal

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 06:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Greifenstein Castle

5x expanded by Tobyc75 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion confirmed. This will be the user's third DYK so QPQ review is not required, though encouraged. As far as the hook is concerned, the source nor the article text mention Rudolf von Greifenstein being the "first owner" of the castle, but it does support the rest of the hook. Can you propose a change to the hook that matches the source? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Modified to "first recorded"Tobyc75 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Light That Failed

First edition of The Light That Failed
First edition of The Light That Failed
  • Comment: This is my 2nd DYK nomination. I've expanded the novel 5x times its previous size (initially created in my userspace sandbox on 18 February 2017).

5x expanded by Ciridae (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 23

Paul D'Ortona

Created by Coemgenus (talk). Self-nominated at 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Zygogramma suturalis

Created by Zakhx150 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Perdur Radhakantha Adiga

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Tomahawk chop, Foam tomahawk

A foam tomahawk used for the tomahawk chop
A foam tomahawk used for the tomahawk chop

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 24

Fitzsimons station

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 01:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New and long enough, all ¶ with citations, copyvio check reveals no problems. Hook is 200 characters long, so just at the upper limit on hook length. Hook is interesting and is verified with citations (one verifies the request and reason, another verifies the location was then changed) to reliable sources in the article. Article still had STUB template which would have disqualified, but I removed that since the article had been expanded beyond stub. Could not verify QPQ, I can't find Old Bob in DYK nominations - please clarify. MB 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pärnu (river)

Pärnu River
Pärnu River

5x expanded by Yakikaki (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Erythranthe peregrina

Erythranthe peregrina
Erythranthe peregrina

Created by HalfGig (talk), Sminthopsis84 (talk), and Peter coxhead (talk). Nominated by HalfGig (talk) at 02:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 25

Mary Hogarth

Portrait of Mary Hogarth aged 16
Portrait of Mary Hogarth aged 16
  • Reviewed: To be done
  • Comment: Partially translated from French article, but still eligible for DYK under 1f of the eligibility criteria

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

The U.D.I. Song

Rhodesian flag
Rhodesian flag

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Clapton Court

Clapton Court
Clapton Court

Created by Rodw (talk). Self-nominated at 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Waymon Alridge

Created by BU Rob13 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Abraham Lincoln's hearse

Abraham Lincoln's hearse drives through New York
Abraham Lincoln's hearse drives through New York

Created/expanded by DarjeelingTea (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, having been created yesterday. Long enough, all ¶ with citations. Unable to perform copyvio check as most sources offline, but appears to be unlikely from the number of sources compared with the size of the article, assuming good faith. QPQ review done. I find the hook problematic:
  • the part that says the hearse was "immense" is not cited to "Twenty Days" - it is in a different paragraph. Is that from one of the sources in the prior paragraph?
  • the hearse was a horse-drawn carriage, so it did not "drive" thorough NYC - it was pulled through. this may seem a little too literal, but encyclopedic prose should be accurate and factual. I recommend changing the article also on this point.
  • the rest of the hook says "paralyzed all beholders". Since it is in quotes, it is clearly not meant to be taken literally. But I still find it too strong. The article tempers this with "According to one source..." which gives context.
  • the image is used in the article and is public domain, but the caption has the same "drives through" language. More importantly, at 100x100 it is unclear and I don't think it will work for DYK. At the size in the infobox of the article, I am barely able to make it out.
In summary, I think it needs a new hook addressing the above issues. MB 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 26

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 nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.