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
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

TOC:    Go to bottom     Go to top
Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
February 23 1
March 9 1
March 10 1
March 19 1
March 21 1
March 26 1
April 1 1
April 2 1 1
April 3 2
April 4 1
April 5 2
April 7 1
April 8 2 1
April 9 1
April 10 1
April 12 1
April 14 2 1
April 15 1
April 17 1
April 18 1
April 19 1
April 20 1
April 21 1
April 22 2
April 23 3
April 24 2 1
April 25 4 2
April 26 2 1
April 27 7
April 28 2 1
April 29 2 1
April 30 1
May 1 5 2
May 2 4 2
May 3 4
May 4 4
May 5 1
May 6 2
May 7 3 1
May 8 2 1
May 9 5 4
May 10 3 1
May 11 4 4
May 12 8 5
May 13 8 6
May 14 5 4
May 15 9 6
May 16 7 7
May 17 5 2
May 18 7 2
May 19 6 2
May 20 9 2
May 21 13 6
May 22 7 3
May 23 10 5
May 24 4 1
May 25 5
May 26 1
May 27 8 2
May 28 4
Total 205 77
Last updated 20:27, 28 May 2017 UTC
Current time is 21:01, 28 May 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.

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, 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

Backlogged?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions

Instructions for other editors

How to promote an accepted hook

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

Nominations

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on February 23

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).

  • Symbol question.svg Both new enough. Both long enough. Double QPQ done. NPOV. The article can't decide if it is Tomahawk Chop or tomahawk chop. The latter strikes me as better. I'm also sceptical about the concept of it being "invented". Perhaps devised or created would make more sense. Earwig and spot checking found no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism in either article. ALT1 does not tally with the source, " Call them the Atlanta Negroes, Atlanta Klansmen or Atlanta Nazis, said Clyde Bellecourt, the protest organizer and national director of the American Indian Movement." I will add an ALT2. Otherwise, both articles are well-cited, and ALT0 tallies with the sources. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT2:... that the Atlanta Braves' adoption of the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), led to them being called "Negroes", "Klansmen" and "Nazis" by Clyde Bellecourt, national director of the American Indian Movement?
  • Thanks, but you need to adjust the article itself so that it properly reflects ALT2. I will strike ALT1 just to avoid an incorrect promotion later on in the process. Edwardx (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Striking ALT2, which at 214 characters even excluding "foam tomahawks (pictured)" from the count, is far too long for DYK. Having read the original quote, it's also misleading to take the words out of the context of a team name, i.e., "Atlanta Klansmen", and thus probably a BLP violation with regard to Bellecourt as well; I've modified that sentence in the article. I suggest you stick with the original hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that Native Americans asked the Kansas City Chiefs to stop performing the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured)?
  • ALT4: ... that the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), was banned in 2009 by Massachusetts schools who said that it was "offensive and discriminatory"?
  • ALT5: ... that fans of the Atlanta Braves were asked to stop doing the tomahawk chop with foam tomahawks (pictured) as it was viewed as a mockery of Native Americans?
I think the "complemented with" is an awkward wording (it dates from the original hook), which I hope can be modified if either are used. Note that while it seems unlikely that the merger discussion will be completed in time for this to run on March 31, if the hook still does involve the Atlanta Braves, their home opener is on April 14. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Edwardx: Could you please give the above suggestions a review and restore the tick? Furthermore, there is no merge discussion, there is a suggestion but not a formal move discussion where there is nothing in the DYK rules saying it can't rule while there is a suggested move discussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, the merge discussion was initiated yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Edwardx:, @BlueMoonset: The merge discussion has closed after 7 days, could you please restore the tick so we can use this on 11 April? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The C of E, I certainly wouldn't care to do so, given that the closure appears to be by one of the involved parties (yourself). If The Rambling Man is okay with the closure, though, I think this could proceed, but the most recent ALT hooks would need to be reviewed, since they've haven't yet been. (Per an earlier comment, I'd recommend replacing "doing" in ALT5 with "performing".) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg All three ALTs are interesting and all check out with the cited sources. Edwardx (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Reinstating the appropriate icon for an ongoing merge discussion, since it has been reopened. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: Since I could see this would be stuck in limbo forever, I have decided to reluctantly bite the bullet and merge the two together against my preference. Therefore could I ask if you could make the review as you kindly did before? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 9

Hallelujah Chorus

Speaker iconHallelujah Chorus
  • Reviewed: Jean-Nicolas Corvisart
  • Comment: for 16 April (Easter Day) and I'd like to request we use the sound.

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check for both hooks. Mifter Public (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm afraid the edits to the article have done nothing to address my objections, and if it weren't well past my bedtime I'd replace both templates right now; you're still misrepresenting the Ross source, and the sentence about oratorio and chorus still does not make sense. You also haven't addressed whether christianity.com is a RS. If you make further edits, I'll certainly look at them, but I won't be returning for many hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If we have to have yet another fork of Messiah (Handel) (main article --> Messiah Part II --> H.Chorus), can we at least try to make the newest one line up with the featured article at the top of the tree? To quote that: "The custom of standing for the "Hallelujah" chorus originates from a belief that, at the London premiere, King George II did so, which would have obliged all to stand. There is no convincing evidence that the king was present, or that he attended any subsequent performance of Messiah; the first reference to the practice of standing appears in a letter dated 1756, three years prior to Handel's death.[52][53]" I'm tempted to slap a {{merge}} template on this article, because there's nothing useful in it that couldn't be added to one of the other articles about the Messiah, or (indeed) isn't already said there in better ways. BencherliteTalk 10:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge template now added. A lot of the material currently in the article was just copied word-for-word, or paraphrased, from other Messiah-related articles anyway. BencherliteTalk 11:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, The C of E, but there is no chance that this will be able to run for Easter. Even aside from the merge discussion, Duplication Detector shows 1170 prose characters copied from Messiah Part II, which would require a minimum of 5850 prose characters for this article, well more than the 4305 it currently contains. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This is not an expansion nomination, this is a creation from redirect nomination therefore the 5x rule does not apply here. All that applies here is that the part from Messiah is discounted in the character count, which will still take it over the 1,500 threshold. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, read WP:DYKSG#A5, which is quite clear: you have copied material from a pre-existing Wikipedia article into this one, and it therefore must be 5x expanded. You should also read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, because you failed to acknowledge the copying when creating the article, which is a violation of Wikipedia's rules about attribution, something you need to fix. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bluemoonset: Very well, I have now brought it up and over that character count so it can now be promoted back now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, this nomination isn't going anywhere until the merge discussion has concluded (which will require a closure by someone uninvolved in the discussion). As I said earlier, I don't see any possibility of this happening prior to Easter: seven days from the opening, the absolute minimum for a discussion like this, is April 17, the day after Easter. I BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 10

Articles created/expanded on March 19

What To Do About Them

Created by Morganfitzp (talk). Self-nominated at 02:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Much of the article is unreferenced - the first paragraph of Content, the entire Other Versions section, the entire track listing section, the entire Personnel section, as well as the entire Singles section. Fair use images are also not permitted in DYK. SL93 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed the non-free image here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Added references upon request. Ready for re-review. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Reference 4 says nothing about a DJ John McGhee or Fort Apache Studios, Reference 5 says nothing about a 4-track cassette recorder, the lo-fi track "Cousteau" sentence is unreferenced, and reference 8 says nothing about Ron Regé. Jr or an ostrich. SL93 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Morganfitzp. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm on it. Give me a couple days. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The reference says, "Recorded with Tim O’Heir at Ft. Apache." Adding another to cite John McGee ("McGhee" was a typo). Morganfitzp (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg It's been 18 days with no work done on the article despite the nominator editing up until April 13. SL93 (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominator got busy with offline life. What to do about him? Morganfitzp (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You were editing and it takes only a few seconds to say that you're busy. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg You know what? I'm just going to release this to another reviewer. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SL93! Morganfitzp (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Review in progress. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Almost everything is OK, but I still share SL93's concern about sources. Some of the information is still unsourced (I think only the last sentence of the Content section), not in the given citations (the ostrich is only mentioned as the band's mascot, none of other the information in the article about it is in either source; the citation on the "other versions" does not mention the song "Her Life of Artistic Freedom"), or based on interpretation of primary sources (the guitar tuning). Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg There is no good reason to keep this open anymore. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 1

Lazy Afternoon (Barbra Streisand album)

Expanded by Carbrera (talk). Self-nominated at 1:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Just a question – how can the liner notes verify that this was her first album with handwritten notes? I understand that you may be able to use them as a primary source for the fact that the notes are handwritten, but unless the notes say that this is her first album to do so, it probably qualifies as WP:OR. 97198 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @97198: She states in the notes, "While I usually let the vinyl speak for itself, I really had fun making this record, and I thought it might interest you to know something about each song. After all, I wouldn't want to be a chef who doesn't share her secrets!" Maybe this helps. Carbrera (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC).
  • I don't think that verifies the hook as written, but if you disagree you can add a "new review" symbol below so you can get a second opinion. 97198 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Second opinion here. I'm afraid this is rather clearly OR - the source only says that she "usually let the vinyl speak for itself", which implies that she sometimes did not (i.e. in previous albums). It doesn't say that this is the first time she had written notes, so I don't see how it can be used to make a statement to that effect. A new hook is needed (and I'd recommend changing that statement in the article given the OR problem). Prioryman (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Striking hook per original and second opinion. Carbrera, please provide a new hook. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that, after listening to Rupert Holmes's album Widescreen, Barbra Streisand contacted him to collaborate on Lazy Afternoon? Source: The Quietus
  • On it. — LlywelynII 21:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

    Symbol possible vote.svg Timely; article long enough (~10.5k elig. chars.) and hook terse enough; grammar mistakes in hook fixed; article sourced but completely omits hook in its entirety let alone a source for it. Once that's fixed, Earwig finds copyvio but it's only from pulled quotes and is actually fine. — LlywelynII 21:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • LlywelynII – Do you think you could help me in developing a better hook? I seem to be having some trouble with this. Carbrera (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC).


Articles created/expanded on April 3

Operation Candid

Created by JeanPassepartout (talk). Self-nominated at 07:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough, no copyright problems, and this is the creator's first DYK nomination, so QPQ not necessary yet. Hook is interesting - I'd never heard of the name and only vaguely of the operation (I might be getting confused with something else) My concern is that some of the facts in the article do not appear to be in the sources given; for example the article mentions Balmoral Castle with a citation to the Daily Telegraph piece, but the castle is not mentioned in the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Added more references. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think Medium is a reliable source - anyone can write anything about anyone on there. The National Archives source is okay as although it's hard to access if you're not near Kew, that doesn't deter the busloads of OAPs who turn up every Saturday to check the war records of their long lost relatives. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg No response after over a month and a half and talk-page pings. Have made one more talk-page ping in the hopes that this can finally be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 5

MBT-80

  • Comment: This will be my fourth DYK credit, if approved.

5x expanded by Ceannlann gorm (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Much of the article is sourced to two unreliable sources. This source is a forum post and this source is a blog. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi SL93. TankNutDave is closely associated with the Bovington Tank Museum, so can be considered to be a RS. In a similar vein, the Secret Projects Forum among other things is well known for as acting as a sort of clearing house and information exchange for Military historians, Aerospace researchers, etc. from various countries. As such, it has been used as an RS for a fair few articles in different subject matters across Wikipedia over the years, being considered generally more reliable than your average internet forum. This is especially the case where the linked SPF post or topic in turn links to, or otherwise directly references, other reliable sources such as academic/reference works or contemporary official documentation for the information shown. If you are still worried, I could try and break out some of the RSs mentioned in the relevant linked topic and add them directly to the article as additional references? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm still not too sure of the blog being considered reliable. The other one is still an internet forum and what stops someone from registering and misinterpreting the sourced content or even just flat out lying? Some more content needs cites too - The end of the Armament section, the end of the Protection section, most of the Sensors section, and the entire Versions and Variants section. I will start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about the two sources. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. I'll have to head away now, so any more inline citations will have to wait until tomorrow at the earliest, assuming other things don't get in the way (it's been one of those weeks). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Came here after seeing SL93's post at WTDYK. I'm afraid I have to agree with their conclusions; these sources do not appear to be reliable. This does not mean that the information provided by them is false, necessarily; but it does mean that we cannot rely upon them. One of the crucial criteria for reliability is editorial oversight, and accountability. A news organization has editors, who are in turn accountable to the owner. A blog is accountable to nobody. An internet forum even less so. As far as I could tell, I could get onto this forum tomorrow, and say plausible-sounding but incorrect stuff, and unless somebody noticed, there would be no consequences. Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ceannlann gorm: It's been quite a while since these issues were raised, and you have been active during this period. If you want to make improvements to it, you should do so quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Vanamonde. I've already added more inline citations to the article as requested. I was just waiting for more comments here, and/or the aforementioned (apparently now archived for lack of contributions) discussion over in WT:DYK to progress, before coming back to this. Have to head away now unfortunately (your notification just caught me) so I'll make a more detailed response to the remaining outstanding issue, of whether or not the two queried sources are Reliable Sources, tomorrow. Thanks! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello again. Now, as I already mentioned before, TankNutDave has a close relationship with the Bovington Tank Museum, to the point where the company routinely holds PR and educational outreach events at the museum (see linked youtube video for a quick example from a couple of years ago). In addition, it has a direct association with the Sveriges Försvarsfordonsmuseum Arsenalen located in Strängnäs, Sweden. TND, as it's also known, also routinely acts as an armoured vehicle consultancy, historical & otherwise, to organisations ranging from the BBC to Obsidian Entertainment (TND is actually part of the development team for Armored Warfare) to BAE Land Systems of all things. Not to mention that at least four of the senior staff can actually be considered to be qualified AFV instructors in their own right. TND also works with another company you may have heard of (especially if you are or have been a Top Gear fan) Tanks A Lot. With all of the above and the fact that it is a blog (somewhat ironically started as a modeling blog sideline of the company back in 2007) of a reputable & fairly widely known company rather than a personal blog it's not surprising that TankNutDave has already been used as a RS on a number of Tank/AFV articles throughout Wikipedia for at least a couple of years now. In a similar vein, the Secret Projects Forum since it's foundation back in 2006 or thereabouts, has gained a reputation both online and off as a very good resource for reasonably reliable (and even more importantly clearly sourced) information on various maritime, aviation, space, and defence subjects, with various well known historians and writers such as Chris Gibson and Bill Sweetman routinely contributing often well sourced historical data (including contemporary photographs, artist drawings, official documentation, etc.) alongside anonymous but knowledgeable posters from around the world. Any informed speculation or unclearly sourced information is normally clearly defined, or otherwise quickly flagged as such. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Apollo Gauntlet, Hot Streets (TV series)

Created by 23W (talk). Self-nominated at 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 7

R v Jordan (2016)

Created by Valmi (talk). Self-nominated at 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. According to QPQ Check, this is their first DYK, so no QPQ needed. I'm no lawyer, but "ruled" might work better than "judged" in the hook. Several paragraphs need citations. The hook fact is not cited. The lead mentions "a fixed maximum delay of 18 months from charges to trial, applicable to most cases", so it is not clear that the hook can be correct if there can be exceptions. Edwardx (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added references to all paragraphs--not new references though, just placing the existing ones in all places where I've used them. Is this a correct way to do things? I've taken the opportunity to extend the introduction. I think you are right that "ruled" is better. I could propose the following updated hook:
ALT1 ... that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?
Valmi 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1, at 141 characters, is stated in the article, and referenced at the end of the sentence where it is mentioned. Striking original hook. As noted above, all paragraphs now have at least one in-line citations. Earwig's tool shows a high rate, only because it sees the block quote as a copy; so, no issues with copyvio. This one is good to go with ALT1.— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Returning to Nominations page for the consideration of a new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 8

How I Met Your Music

Created by HeyJude70 (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Self-nominated at 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Timely nominated. This article is a new track list, with virtually no content. Length in total bytes may comply with minimal requirements, but it is woefully devoid of content. If you excise the track list, we're talking 348 characters of countable text. No WP:QPQ alleged. I reformatted hook to put the track list in bold. I assume that is what the nominator is proposing. OTOH, hooks are is reliably sourced, neutral, and interesting. 7&6=thirteen () 16:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User talk:7&6=thirteen Added QPQ, however I completely ignored the lack of content in my own article. That's my mistake, my apologies. (Sorry for not pinging you, the template would not recognise your username)
QPQ confirmed. (Not yet promoted; not a requirement.) If you type {{User:7&6=thirteen}} it works. I added a little text, a block quote, and two sources. 926 characters, including the block quote (not sure if that even counts) (excluding the track list). Still thin gruel. 7&6=thirteen () 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
As to the track list contents, it is verbatim lift from the ITunes website (absent the price of each download). I assume that is alright, as there is nothing that can be done about the song titles and artists names. But is deserves mention as a possible copyvio, even though it is typical of record track listing articles. 7&6=thirteen () 00:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
As to both hooks ALT1, the sources show it was originally released only through ITunes. But an online search shows it is now available from Amazon.com so the ALT1 both hooks is are misleading. I sua sponte added the word "originally" to ALT1 both hooks. 7&6=thirteen () 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I added two paragraphs and a reference lifted (and credited) from How I met your mother. One of them needs a citation. Added another reference. This is still pretty short on content. Added content suggestions (including expanding article to directly cover the "Deluxe" version) on the article talk page. This might necessitate a rename of the article. 7&6=thirteen () 01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not reviewing, but I wanted to note this article still needs a lot of work. I've corrected some of the grammar and formatting but there are still problems in that regard. Most of the section "The series" has nothing to do with the album, and several critical opinions are presented as facts. This album appears to contain only original music from the show but the article is bloated with information (which reads like pieces of trivia) about the show's general use of music. 97198 (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have just updated this page to reflect the article move. 7&6=thirteen, are you planning to address the issues raised by 97198? It's been over four weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset The rename of the article (which is new and 14,610 15,199 bytes currently, far in excess of the DYK threshold) should answer all the concerns. I expanded the article and the lead.
The two albums are inextricably intertwined with the show's soundtrack.
I have diligently tried to find on line reviews of the album. No luck. Maybe somebody with HighBeam access can find them? Or access to Newspapers.com?
There is a lot of content. We could even add the playlist for the second album. But other than that, I am out of sources.
I think we are well in excess of the standard for DYK. A review is needed. If that isn't good enough then fail it. 7&6=thirteen () 11:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment If you count the lead paragraph and the album section, we are well over 1700 characters. ("Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.) The number of characters may be measured using this script (most accurate) or this one or this tool.) And that does not count the infobox, playlist, reference, or all of the text about the series. There is enough there that it would qualify for DYK (1500 characters) just based on those portions alone. 7&6=thirteen () 19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
So just to clarify, since you didn't answer BlueMoonset's question above, you are not planning to fix the issues I mentioned above? 97198 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
97198 To clarify, I think I both addressed and fixed the issues above. Article has been renamed, reformatted, and expanded. Hope that assuages your concerns. 7&6=thirteen () 10:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell each of the issues I raised still stand:
  1. "I've corrected some of the grammar and formatting but there are still problems in that regard."
  2. "Most of the section "The series" has nothing to do with the album, and several critical opinions are presented as facts."
  3. "This album appears to contain only original music from the show but the article is bloated with information (which reads like pieces of trivia) about the show's general use of music."
You seem to do a produce of good work here so I guess I'm just surprised that you think an article like this is ready to appear on the main page. 97198 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The show's use of music is covered by the article renaming. In any event, it is the context in which the album arises, and better informs the readers. I added as a topic sentence to one paragraph: "Critics have been effusive in their praise of the show's music." Moved the section you deem "trivia" to the end of the article; the violation of copyright is important. This is a case where relevance is in the eye of the beholder. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen () 10:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Edited out the "trivia" per your suggestion. 7&6=thirteen () 10:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's looking slightly better now, and I trimmed a bit more. I still don't see why, in an article which begins with the bolded title How I Met Your Music (Original Songs from the Hit Series "How I Met Your Mother"), all of the detail about other music used in the show is relevant. Or how statements such as "The albums mirror the show's iconic prescient and well-placed choice of music" or "there are a great many impressive musical moments" are NPOV. Anyway, I'll step aside at this point since we seem unable to see eye-to-eye. 97198 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your POV and have tried to address your criticism. Thanks for the copy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 11:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 10

Babe Smith

Created by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 12

Henry Wade (surgeon)

He operated in the Boer war, Gallipoli and Palestine
He operated in the Boer war, Gallipoli and Palestine

Created by Iainmacintyre (talk) and Axxter99 (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 19:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Andrew Davidson, Iainmacintyre, and Axxter99: New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig detects no copyvios (but all of the sources are offline). I'm concerned that 8 of the 13 references are papers by Wade himself, which runs afoul of point 5 of WP:SELFPUB; there need to be more third-party sources. The "Urological surgeon", "Marriage", and "Death" sections lack references. Also, is it reasonable to call him a "pioneer cancer researcher" when his theory about cancer was incorrect? I think it's a good job at writing an article about an interesting subject, but it needs a wider variety of sources. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Points well taken. I have added citations , mainly from BMJ Obituary available online. He is not remembered for his erroneous cancer theory so that has been deleted. Thanks Papamac (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, Iainmacintyre, and Axxter99: I'd still like to see at least one secondary source per paragraph. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 14

Biswa Ranjan Nag

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 15:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 17

Mel Morris (businessman)

Created by QatarStarsLeague (talk). Self-nominated at 19:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg DYK articles need to have a minimum length of 1500 characters in prose – this article is at 1286 characters by my count, so it needs some expansion to be eligible. The fact in the hook also requires an inline citation at the end of the sentence in the article if this is to go ahead. 97198 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Article remains too short at 1274 characters of prose according to DYKcheck, and there has been no response in over a month despite a talk page notification. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 18

Anti-Terror Units

Anti-Terror Units (YAT) fighters.
Anti-Terror Units (YAT) fighters.

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg (In the article) "YAT members were simply the most brave and devoted fighters", "but not true special or elite forces". "Brave", "devoted", "true"—these labels need attribution. I would rephrase the sentence as follows: "Initially, YAT members were chosen by the YPG and YPJ as simply the most brave and devoted fighters within those units, but not as true special or elite forces." Aside from this non-neutral bit, the article meets length and newness requirements and is very interesting. Nice work. 23W 00:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the review and the suggestion. I have changed the sentence accordingly; now it is much better. Applodion (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on April 19

Syed Aminul Hasan Jafri

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry, some issues here. The prose in this article has some problems: "foreign", for instance, assumes an Indian perspective for the reader, and there are many grammatical errors, and a reference error. More importantly, I'm not sure the cited source is enough for the statement in question. "reported for" could mean he was a correspondent on a special report, or even that they featured one of his stories after it was published elsewhere. Also rediff is not known to be the best of sources. There are also numerous statements that are problematic vis a vis sourcing. this does not support the entire statement it is used for; this contradicts the lede, which says he was elected in 2011. The article is also barely over the threshold of 1500 prose characters, and it is clear that the prose has been stretched a bit. If I were to copy-edit this and remove repetition and puffery, it would not clear the 1500 bar. And while he clears WP:NPOL, I'm not a fan of featuring obscure politicians at DYK; we had a string of Mexican politicians, too, for whom finding a hooky hook is quite impossible. Vanamonde (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There are also reference errors that need to be fixed. 7&6=thirteen () 12:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Royroydeb: It has been ten days without a response from you. Do you wish to see this through? Vanamonde (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm sorry, I do not have the time at the moment to go into this in detail. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 20

Josie Sadler

Josie Sadler in 1914 film "Josie's Declaration of Independence"
Josie Sadler in 1914 film "Josie's Declaration of Independence"

Created by 78.26 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, no copyio obvious. - I'd prefer a hook about her main career, not the electrical research. - The image is licensed and gives a good idea about the period. - Article: "Sadler retired from show business in 1918 in order to run her husband's (at this point no longer Mr. Lennox, but a Mr. Geddes) electrical research business, subsequent to his death.", - I confess to find it too complicated, and would prefer a simple "after his death". How is this:
ALT2: ... that Josie Sadler (pictured) recorded her biggest Broadway hit but it was never released? - I am open to others, such as mentioning the German accent specialty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that "Dutch" comic Josie Sadler (pictured) recorded her biggest Broadway hit for Victor, but it was never released?
78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 22

Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Muscle Dysmorphia
  • Comment: Mcfliz is a new editor, having only edited draft and article space to create this new article plus commons edits for new diagrams associated with it. It was created by Mcfliz through the AfC process, moved to mainspace by Graeme Bartlett on 22 April, then there was a cut-and-paste moved by Smokefoot which Graeme repaired. This nomination is a little beyond the 7 day mark, but the work is an impressive new article (3720 characters of readable prose, 520 words, 7 images, 24 references) so I want to encourage McFliz with some main page attention. I need to do some work on the article (hopefully within 24 hours) to support ALT1 and ALT2, there are ample sources available. Now done. EdChem (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • References:

Moved to mainspace by Mcfliz (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 23:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg New and long enough, within policy, Earwig detects to copyvios, QPQ done. Scheme 13 of doi:10.3390/molecules17055893 uses a different synthetic route to anhydrovinblastine than doi:10.1021/ol025560c, which doesn't use the Nugent-RajanBabu reagent. Technically the hooks are still correct since it "can be" synthesized that way, but it would be better to show that the reagent is routinely used in that synthesis, especially commercially. Alternatively, is is possible to make a hook more accessible to laymen? How would you describe what reactions this reagent can do that can be done no other way? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mcfliz and EdChem: Pinging. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 09:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahmed bin Abdullah Balala

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 17:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

  • This is not a full review, but that hook likely runs afoul of our BLP-related criteria: it focuses on a negative aspect of a living person. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: New hook added. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 23

A Star Is Born (2018 film)

  • Reviewed: Soon.

Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC).

  • (made a minor modification to the ALT1)IB [ Poke ] 05:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg - The article was in draft space for awhile but was only recently put into mainspace so no issue there. It is long enough and adequately sourced. As for the hook, I recommend the original: it is sourced and interesting. Captain Assassin! just complete your QPQ and post it here so I may pass this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) A QPQ review appears to be needed before this can move forward. North America1000 23:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg It has been over four weeks since this was reviewed, and no QPQ has been provided. That's more than enough time. Marking for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Soul Rocker

Created by MPJ-DK (talk). Self-nominated at 15:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg size and age ok, written neutrally. QPQ done. Regarding the KISS hook, offline source I guess I will take in good faith. I can't see it in the other hook. I guess from images they do look a bit like KISS...I think the KISS hook is more interesting than the other one, but will leave that ultimately to the promoter. However, I can't see in this source where it says that the two Tito Santanas are unrelated. Sorry, missed t he comment above. We will need a source saying they are not the same. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Where in the U.S.A. Is Carmen Sandiego? (1986)

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 25

Cognitive slippage

5x expanded by Comahgoodness (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svgThank you for expanding this article! I hope you got double duty out of some of your writing :-). DYKcheck says the article was expanded 5x, so it's long enough and new enough. I didn't have time to check each source, but I spot-checked a few and they supported the statements they referenced. My main problem is that the reference for the hook doesn't contain the information in the hook. The article only defines cognitive slippage as "mild associative loosening." The hook should reflect the information in the source. A different hook would be fine too.
  • This isn't required for DYK, but in general the lead ought to summarize everything in the article. The information currently in the lead section explains what cognitive slippage is, and should be its own section. A page like panic attack has a separate section defining what it is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26

George H. Brimhall

5x expanded by Phelps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. I think the original hook is more interesting to a general audience and suggest ALT2 as being better worded. The article is neutral and I detected no copivios. In the article it states that the "Y" is painted, but elsewhere it mentions that it is made of concrete. Could you clarify this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 27

Helmut Franz

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article created on 27 April and DYK nominated on 4 May. So falls within 7 day range. QPQ is done. Hook length is within 200 characters. Hook reference mentioned here and in the article is a dead link. That needs to be replaced before it can be verified. Rest 3 sources support their claim. Also, 1880 B (309 words) "readable prose size" with German text of 312 characters, which, in my opinion, is not required as its an English Wikipedia. Without that as well, article length would be more than 1500 characters. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am shocked to see that the link to five detailed pages of choir history are gone, and asked the publisher for help. For now, it's like an offline source, sorry. I am not sure what you mean about the German text. A translation never covers the original, so people reading German are better served by the original quote (unfortunately from the same history). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I found several new sources for support. The sound engineer remembers that Franz's recording was taken for the film, but as it is published in a "Forum" I used it as external link. Interesting reading! Lux aeterna seems to hae been written for the SWR Vokalensemble. I couldn't find exactly that the NDR sang the premiere, so dropped that claim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Baigongguan and Zhazidong

  • Comment: I am fully aware of the flaws here. If you think this cannot be salvaged, that's fine. I cannot tell if Dante2326 is going to be willing or capable to work on it now the semester is over. I can help too, but I think I've done enough for this article, so no hard feelings if it's an instant fail--it's a shame, because it's a good topic. For that reason I'm not doing a QPQ yet. Thanks!

Created by Dante2326 (talk). Nominated by Dr Aaij (talk) at 01:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Yes, I'm afraid this has to be an outright fail. The English is so substandard that parts of it are very hard to understand, including the lead, which has a repetitive yet very confused narrative (the Republic of China was still fighting the Japanese in 1949? etc). The article seems to use "concentration camp" and "prison" interchangeably, but to Western readers at least the two terms mean different things in size and scope and purpose. The sourcing is substandard – the Hunter Gordon and Watson work seems to be a travel book and the Button work seems to be literary criticism. While both may be trying to be historically accurate, any treatment of a subject like this, which is inevitably tied up in national and historical passions and inadequate contemporary documentation, needs to make use of the best available scholarship (unfortunately I don't know what the best studies are regarding this topic). Another problem is the proposed hook, which implies direct U.S. involvement in concentration camp activities, which the Hunter Gordon and Watson source given does not support. The Kush work, which the article mentions but does not cite inline, gives a much more nuanced view of the U.S. role during the war and how the Chinese Communists used that role for propaganda purposes when the massacres took place several years after the U.S. had left. I agree that this is an important topic, but this article is not the basis for something that can go up on the main page. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Shasanka Mohan Roy

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 14:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

John Salmon (advertising executive)

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 22:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Nominated within 2 days of creation, therefore new enough. Prose side is 2100+ B, exceeding the 1500B requirement. Article is written in a neutral tone, and each paragraph has inline citations. Earwig's tool only detected a direct quote, and I have found no further evidence of any copyvio problems. The hook is formatted correctly, and is highly interesting to a general audience. It is not in regards to a living person, and neither is it unduly negative. No image to check against. That leaves two issues. 1. There is no citation directly after the sentence within the article that matches the hook. I presume its the Campaign article, but the citation should be right after that sentence. 2. QPQ not yet completed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Gudjonsson suggestibility scale

5x expanded by CSD96 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Happy with hook. Article has met requirement for 5x expansion, is long enough, well sourced and free of copyright violations as per Earwig's. Article does not have an image and requires no QPQ as nominator has 0 DYK credits. However, the lede of the article should be expanded before nomination is passed. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mutual exclusivity (psychology)

5x expanded by Thefreshtrumpet (talk). Self-nominated at 14:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Much of the article is unreferenced, including almost entire sections. There needs to be an inline citation after every paragraph at minimum. The hook is at the very least cited. All of the sources are referenced as if they are offline, but I managed to quickly find an online reference for the 12th reference. It seems highly likely that more of these sources are available online. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that Thefreshtrumpet hasn't edited since making this nomination (which I believe was part of a university assignment). 97198 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 28

Lady Hambro

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 22:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) A QPQ review appears to be needed before this can move forward. North America1000 22:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is long enough, new enough, and neutral with no copyright violations - I assume good faith on the subscription required sources. The first hook and ALT3 are directly cited, but ALT1 and ALT2 are not. It's been 27 days since this was nominated and a QPQ is still needed. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 30

George O. Abell

George O. Abell teaching at the Summer Science Program at the Thacher School in Ojai, California
George O. Abell teaching at the Summer Science Program at the Thacher School in Ojai, California

5x expanded by Shortsword (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new. Its length was improved from 2,641 chars on February 8, 2017 to 8,405 readable chars of prose on May 2i, 2017 making only a 3.18-fold expansion. Thus, it is less than the required 5x-expansion. Article needs to be expanded with additional text of at least 4,800 chars of readable prose. It is neutral and cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports matches with proper nouns only, no copyvio issues detected. Hook format corrected by me. It is interesting and its length is under limit. The hook facts are cited inline. Hook image is ©-free. QPQ was done. Failed to go. Needs above mentined expansion for approval. CeeGee 17:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @CeeGee: Well then, I guess that I should have saved myself the trouble of entering the nomination and saved you the trouble of reviewing it. I have no more material on George Abell with which to further expand the article. So, I guess that it is no go on this one. Thank you for your effort in the review. Shortsword (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Shortsword: Do not give up so early. DYK-check excludes following portions from the readable prose: (Career#Palomar sky survey): min. 591 chars, (Career#Teaching): min. 206 chars, (Career#Skeptism): min. 649 chars, (Astronical namesakes): min. 211 chars, (Affiliations): min. 783 chars. In total min. 2,440 chars. If it is possible to rewrite the structured text in prose, maybe you can save your DYK-nom. The artcile deserves to appear on the main page.Good luck. CeeGee 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 1

Richard Painter

5x expanded by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Edwardx: Date and expansion fine. However I have a problem with the hook as I believe it is a BLP violation. Alleging that President Trump violating the constitution is not what one would consider suitable for the main page, not to mention it could be seen as POV pushing. Would need to be changed completely. Also a QPQ is needed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • QPQ now done. Looking into other issues! Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you The C of E for your review. I don't see it as a BLP violation as such, but one might argue against it on non-NPOV grounds, although I don't think there is a strong enough argument. For example, we had Template:Did you know nominations/Dissent Channel in February. We have a well-sourced article on CREW v. Trump, which I've now linked to from Painter's article. The most interesting thing for a hook is that Painter was W's chief ethics lawyer, and is now is now a prominent Trump sceptic. Edwardx (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1827 North Carolina hurricane

Created by TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC).

Mike Enoch

Created by The Wordsmith (talk). Self-nominated at 23:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 2

Warkworth's Chronicle

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 03:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC).

For now, just bold subject, - do we really need all these apostrophes? - May review when I need a qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's explained in the article. It's not by Warkworth, but "Warkworth" is the traditional name. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw the explanation, - question is, though, do we need it in the hook? It made me stumble over the name, - you can actually drop the rest of the hook, because I clicked there, to find out. Now if you have no interest in readers (like me) getting the rest of the hook, keep it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Next step. Detailed article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. We need more refs, please, duplication to the facts in the hook, and duplication to all quotations in quotation marks. (I don't think "confused" needs quotation marks. My version of the hook would be:
ALT1: ... that the English Warkworth's Chronicle covers the years 1461 to 1474, reporting the double bleeding of Henry VI and a headless man who cries "Bowes, bowes, bowes"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Devin Smeltzer

  • Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, having been created on 1 May, and is sufficiently long enough. The page is well written, correctly sourced and has no neutrality or copyvio issues. The hook is interesting, a sportsman overcoming a life threatening disease to make it to the pro ranks, and is supported by a reliable source. On hold until user supplies required QPQ review. Kosack (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 3

Blackchin shiner

5x expanded by Nrdyn8rlvr (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg File:Notropis heterodon.jpg is a non-free file which means that it is only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9; therefore, I have WP:HIDDEN so that it is not displayed in this template. I am not sure how this affects the over DYK nomination of the article, but Wikipedia's non-free use policy is quite clear that this kind of use is not acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah my bad. hadn't realized. We can lose the image no problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Melanerpes, Yellow-fronted woodpecker, White-fronted woodpecker, Golden-naped woodpecker, Yellow-tufted woodpecker

Yellow-fronted woodpecker
Yellow-fronted woodpecker

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I'm new to reviewing these, but this hook seems really wordy and abstract, and sorta pedantic. I guess that sounds harsh, but it's simply a long list of species from a genus, followed by a common trait of that genus. Are we even allowed to make a whole list of bolded articles like that? Shouldn't only the main wikilink be bold? How about something like "...that the common trait of all melanerpes woodpeckers is black, white, and yellow plumage?" Just listing a bunch of species in the genus feels like boring filler. — Kaz (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kazvorpal: Thank you for reviewing the article. The reason that all those species are mentioned is because I expanded five articles so it is a five article hook. That means five times as much for you to review, so move on to some other nomination if you wish! If you stick with it, you should look at each article in turn and see if they meet the DYK criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't need to look at each article, because my objection centers around "Content: interesting to a broad audience". A laundry list of species names is not going to interest many people at all. I suggest something more like "...that the common trait of all melanerpes woodpeckers is black, white, and yellow plumage?" — Kaz (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that might be a more interesting hook, but it hasn't got the necessary link to each of the five articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • But isn't the whole point for it to be interesting? It's not purely to promote a whole laundry list of articles generically. Or is that a part of the policy that I'm simply unaware of? — Kaz (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as possible, hooks should be interesting to a general audience, but when you have multiple article hooks like this, the "interestingness" criterion may have to be forgotten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Where is that, in the guidelines? As far as I know, it's the opposite of how DYK is prioritized. I've seen plenty of DYK with multiple hooks, but each hook has a separate function that is interesting, and usually one hook is primary. — Kaz (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 4

Walter Sydney Lazarus-Barlow

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 23:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, well referenced, and free from copvio from the sources I can access. All of the hooks are supported by inline citations; personally I think the original hook is the most interesting (I added "postmortem" lest one get the impression that he contracted a serious infection while writing an exam). Ping me when you've done a QPQ review and this will be good to go. 97198 (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Narada sting operation

Created by Forceradical (talk). Self-nominated at 07:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Comment: Per the article history, this page seems rather unstable. Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah It would be appreciated if you could be a bit more specific.I see no edit wars going on a ,slight problem regarding the merging the article was resolved in the Talk page and is currently stale by more than 7 days.The removal of names of politicians is a part of my laPSE .I forgot to remove it after the AFC review.FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 10:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'll look into this more and do a review later today. Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This page was created on May 4 and nominated on May 27 by a new DYK nominator. I will IAR and accept it despite the 3-week time lag. Long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. No QPQ needed for first-time nominator. However, there are several outstanding issues which must be addressed before this can proceed to the main page:
  • Writing style: The article is written in newspaper fashion, with short, one-line/one-paragraph updates of each stage of the fallout and investigation. IMO it needs to be fleshed out and rewritten as an encyclopedic piece, with a proper lead summarizing the subject. (This means adding more to the lead about the aftermath/fallout/investigations.) Even if the investigations are ongoing, this should not look like a work in progress. You should add some explanation of why the sting was conducted by the newspaper. There are also too many subsections and sub-subsections here; please combine the information in longer paragraphs and fewer sub-sections.
  • Abbreviations: I spelled out some of the abbreviations for political parties, but there are other abbreviations (PIL, FIR) that I have no idea what they mean. In fact, the lines in which these abbreviations appear are lifted straight from the titles of the source articles, a violation of WP:COPYVIO:
  • Source: 3 PIL filed in Calcutta High Court, ED to begin probe
  • Article: three PILs from the Indian Congress party and BJP were filed in Calcutta High Court
  • Source: "CBI files FIR against 12 Trinamool leaders for 'criminal conspiracy'
  • Article: CBI filed a FIR against 12 Trinamool leaders for "criminal conspiracy".
  • Source: "State took action against SMH Meerza"
  • Article: the state initiated disciplinary proceedings against SMH Meerza
  • Citations: I added numerous tags to the article asking for clarification of who or what is being talked about.
  • Hook: The suggested hook is factual, not hooky. Perhaps there is an unusual or surprising fact in the article that you can fashion a hook around?
  • Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 5

Dimitri Navachine

Created by TheGracefulSlick (talk). Self-nominated at 16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but without context or any date indication, the first hook is just... meh! Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 7

The Darkest Minds (film)

  • Reviewed: Soon.

Created by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg This article is new enough (though it is listed on the wrong part of this page) but it is much too short. It needs to have at least 1500 bytes of prose, and it cannot be a stub. Perhaps it could be renominated if new information allows a five-fold expansion? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It will be above 1500 bytes within 24 hours. So the review should be n hold until that. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

QPQ: ????
Overall:  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The article was expanded on 8 May 2017‎, and is at 2137 B as of this post. North America1000 22:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Emma Nāwahī

Created by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 23:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg - Length, Date, QPQ, and Earwigs check. However, from one of the sources, the newspaper is described as "accommodated to annexation" which is not clear considering the article and hook state that the paper was opposed to the overthrow of the former Kingdom which from my understanding was done to help facilitate annexation. Also, the image has no information about its date of publication or author. Being that this individual lived past 1923 (died in 1935) it is entirely possible that the image was published after 1923 and that the photographer lived beyond 1947 which means that the image might still be covered by copyright. Mifter Public (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove image from hook. I believe the photograph dates to the early 1900s or the 19th century given the age of Nāwahī in the photograph compared to her photograph in the 1890s group photograph and it is in the same style as the one made of her husband also from the Hawaii State Archives who died in 1896. I will look into it a bit more.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mifter Public: Add some sources and tweaked the sentence a bit. The date was also wrong in retrospect. I believe the "accommodated to annexation" refers to the newspaper's stance post 1898, but it was founded to promote Hawaiian independence and protest annexations since that was the overarching political stance of the Republic of Hawaii government. Also it is written that way because of the way the opposition article is titled. I suggest ALT1.

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 9

Sumitra Bhave–Sunil Sukthankar, Doghi, Vastupurush, Devrai, Samhita (film), Astu, Kaasav, National Film Award for Best Feature Film, National Film Award for Best Screenplay, National Film Award for Best Film on Other Social Issues, National Film Award for Best Film on Environment Conservation/Preservation

Created/expanded by Vivvt (talk) and Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Nominated by Vivvt (talk) at 12:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 10

Dianthus plumarius

Dianthus plumarius, garden pink
Dianthus plumarius, garden pink
  • Reviewed Melanerpes
  • Comment: I'm actually torn on whether to rename the article Garden pink, as per Wikipedia:Article titles advice on using the common, expected name over the formal one. Also, are we supposed to include an alt hook at the start? Or is alt1 really just for review suggestion based on reviews? Also, I see conflicting source formats, is there one that's the preferred way? Is the source following the hook just for the reviewer, or will it be used in the accepted hook, somehow? Should it be quoting the article to prove the hook is used in it, or should it be showing the citation used to footnote the fact in question?

Created by Kazvorpal (talk). Self-nominated at 02:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article created on 11 May and DYK nominated on 12 May. So fits within 7 day range. Both the hooks are within 200 character limit. QPQ done. 1582 B (253 words) "readable prose size" which is just above 1500 character limit. Reference 3 is a Bare URL so needs cleaning and it does not mention what article claims. Reference 4 is another encyclopedia so not sure if its allowed to cite. Reference 5 is a dead link. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The fifth link works fine, I just checked it. As far as I know, the fourth link is considered acceptable, but I can change it if necessary. Link 3 is fixed. — Kaz (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg The referecnes used do not support the hook statement, they refer to the genus as a whole, and not this one species.--Kevmin § 19:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, if you read that entire reference, it includes this: "In the 16th Century, the Dianthus Plumarius was commonly referred to as a pink", that is the specific species in this article. It was in the 16th century, within 20 years of Dianthus Plumarius becoming documented as the flower called "pink", that the color becomes documented as being called pink. — Kaz (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ajnad al-Kavkaz

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 12

Maria Friesenhausen

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

Deepak Kumar (physicist)

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 18:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 13

Viola Sonata (Waterhouse)

  • Reviewed: Pillar of Gor
  • Comment: I thought about the word play of the sonata name and recording name, also about the catchy review title translating to "The viola in Jewish lament", but it came out too complicated.

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 12:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Hoplocampa testudinea, Lathrolestes ensator

[en.wikipedia.org]

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Hanberke (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 06:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

  • I think the term that should be used is parasitoid wasp, not parasitic; true parasites do not kill their hosts, whereas parasitoids do. [Note: this isn't part of a review - I'm too busy today to attempt my first one of those - but I noticed this when it was added]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@PaleCloudedWhite: I used the term "parasitic" rather than "parasitoid" because the first is more widely understood by the general reader. Parasitoidy is a form of parasitism so I think that both are correct. Our article on Parasitoid states "There is no clear separation between conventional parasitism and parasitoidy". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand your rationale and it seems you are correct w.r.t the definition - the OED defines a parasitoid as a type of parasite. I remember reading somewhere of a distinction being drawn between parasitic wasp and parasitoid wasp, though of course this might have been a distinction of specificity rather than mutual incompatibility. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reviewing--Kevmin § 00:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs a different reviewer, I ended up adding to both articles.--Kevmin § 03:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, only one of them actually. I have added you to the credits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 15

Muthusamy Lakshmanan

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 19:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

Witness (Katy Perry album)

  • Reviewed: Cult of Chucky
  • Comment: Trying not to have a promotional-sounding hook

Created by SNUGGUMS (talk). Moved to mainspace by IndianBio (talk). Nominated by Feminist (talk) at 15:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

  • I personally don't think that's a particularly interesting hook compared to something like this: "Did you know that copies of Katy Perry's album Witness will be distributed with tickets for its accompanying tour?" (see [9]). Also, while I am the original article creator, IndianBio is the one who moved it to mainspace. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've thought of using something like this, but such a hook may sound promotional to some editors (promotes the tour), and DYK in general is quite strict with such hooks. I'll leave this up to the reviewer to decide. Also, I think DYK credits the editor who did the most work, even though you technically didn't move this to mainspace. feminist 15:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the ALT1 suggested by Snuggums really works. The original hook is pretty basic as its the same kind of schtick all pop stars say. —IB [ Poke ] 16:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Typhoon Cary (1987)

Created by Yellow Evan (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 16

Articles created/expanded on May 17

Noor ur Rahman Barkati

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

N. V. Madhusudana

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC).

Alabang–Zapote Road

Alabang Zapote Road
Alabang Zapote Road

5x expanded by TagaSanPedroAko (talk). Self-nominated at 19:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 18

Phalacrocorax punctatus

Spotted shag, Auckland Zoo
Spotted shag, Auckland Zoo
  • Reviewed: TBA

5x expanded by Casliber (talk), Xiaolizhou (talk), and Veravanengeland (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Typhoon Abby (1986)

Created by Yellow Evan (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC).

Platypus cylindrus

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC).

My Family's Slave

  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Tataral (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Macrolibramiento Palmillas-Apaseo el Grande

Created by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 02:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 19

Margit Neubauer

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

Bodog F. Beck

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 10:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

Jeong Duwon

  • Reviewed: Will do "Lofty" Chiltern
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to review the hook(s) most interesting to you.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 06:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

A Year of Lesser, The Time in Between, The Retreat (David Bergen novel)

Created/expanded by Vivvt (talk). Self-nominated at 09:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 20

Riwŏn

  • Reviewed: Will do Eva Randová
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to review the hook(s) most interesting to you.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 06:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Wolf W. Zuelzer

Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Poerbatjaraka

5x expanded by HaEr48 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

Pichu Pichu

Pichu-Pichu from Arequipa
Pichu-Pichu from Arequipa

5x expanded by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 18:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This fact is certainly interesting and probably would make a good DYK. However, there are a few wording issues with the article, although I fixed some of the ones in the mummy paragraph. The fact about 3 mummies is sourced, but source 16 does not mention Pichu Pichu as far as I could tell (there may be something I missed). The image needs to be cropped to 100x100 pixels. I also think the wording of the hook could be improved, and I suggest the following alternate:

Hotelito Desconocido

Moved to mainspace by ComputerJA (talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Deepak Dhar

Created by Tachs (talk). Self-nominated at 07:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on May 21

Full Fact

Full Fact editathon on the UK's EU Referendum in 2016
Full Fact editathon on the UK's EU Referendum in 2016

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 19:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Dream Mine

The entrance of the Dream Mine
The entrance of the Dream Mine

Created by FallingGravity (talk). Self-nominated at 21:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Ed Forchion

  • Reviewed: to follow

Created by Djflem (talk). Self-nominated at 10:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, sources check out fine, copyvio brings up only a quote, hook is interesting/cited, looks good to go. Just waiting for the QPQ. Zappa24Mati 00:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @ZappaOMati: and @Djflem: This needs additional work. There are a few citation request tags that I added because of stand-alone sentences/paragraphs. There is also a few instances of WP:CITEKILL. In addition, a lot of the references are incomplete and/or unreliable (i.e. lack publisher, dates when they were published, author/writer, are bare URLs, or are from the subject matter's website). The "Arrests and trials" section needs to be re-written as well. It has a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs. ComputerJA () 15:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Pratkanis

Anthony Pratkanis Altercasting as a Social Influence Tactic CSICon 2016
Anthony Pratkanis Altercasting as a Social Influence Tactic CSICon 2016
  • Comment: First hook relates to the trial of Vance/Belknap -v- Judas Priest where Judas Priest were accused of leaving subliminal messages in their music that caused 2 teenaged boys to commit suicide.

5x expanded by User:Boneso (talk). Nominated by Boneso (talk) at 23:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC). Error in nomination corrected from Timothy E Moore to Boneso 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice TonyBallioni I was unaware that the expansion was not long enough. I guess the nomination does not comply. How do I withdraw? 8==8 Boneso (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that I've marked it as not meeting the criteria and you've responded to it, someone will come along and close the nomination. You don't have to do anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Church of Reinhardtsgrimma

Church of Reinhardtsgrimma
Church of Reinhardtsgrimma

Created/expanded by NearEMPTiness (talk) and Altkatholik62 (talk). Nominated by NearEMPTiness (talk) at 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Comment: I bolded the subject, twice. I think the name Silbermann should be mentioned, which might be more interesting than details about tuning, or some year. I would picture the organ, not the church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Silbermann organ
Silbermann organ

Hughes Dynamics

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 10:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Velipadinte Pusthakam

Created by Jupitus Smart (talk). Self-nominated at 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 22

Flood of Fire

5x expanded by Vivvt (talk). Self-nominated at 10:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer

  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination. ALT1 is slightly more precise, but less accessible to a general audience.

Created by Seppi333 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard

Improved to Good Article status by Cognissonance (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Article passed GA review and DYK nominated on the same day. QPQ is not needed as its 2nd DYK nom by the editor. Can we have some alternative hook as the current hook is not so impressive? - Vivvt (Talk) 07:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ping me, I went two days without knowing there was something here. Cognissonance (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory eight count

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 07:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

  • The article was created within last 7 days:Green tickY
  • The article is long enough: Green tickY
  • The hook is interesting: Green tickY
  • The hook is referenced: Not sure
  • The hook is below 200 characters: Green tickY
  • No copyvio found with Earwig's tool: Green tickY
  • The article follows most other important policies: Green tickY
  • QPQ: Green tickY
  • Symbol question.svg Whilst the hook is valid, and supports the article, I have struggled slightly with the cited source (Hudson p127) as this does not explicitly state that the mandatory count of eight was introduced to protect fighters from unnecessary damage, yet this is obviously precisly what it was intended to do. Is there an additional source that could be added to support this? It is unclear to me whether this rule was introduced only to American boxing, or world-wide (I couldn't find this in the cited source, or follow its footnote 54 to check). I suggest that the hook could be made more explicit if it were along these lines, and would welcome comments:
I have also spotted the date of 1953 is given by the NY Association and that this followed the death of Davey Moore; however Moore died in 1963, not 1953, so some work still needs doing on the text to which the hook refers before it's up to DYK standard, I feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 23

Diprion similis

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Hanberke (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 17:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Fred Gildersleeve

Created by TheGracefulSlick (talk). Self-nominated at 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The hook is good and sourced, but can we avoid having lynching twice. Article: "The individuals, some adolescents," - not sure what that refers to. "--" is no proper way for a clause, but don't ask me which dash is it ;) I don't think we need "unpleasant" for his divorce. - Please find categories and projects on the talk. How do you feel about an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt I made improvements that I believe address your points. I also inserted an image uploaded to Commons.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I like the image. Please add the full caption (self-portrait), please also add a category to the file. How about using it here? This sentence, "The individuals gathered around Washington to collect souvenirs from his body, making no attempts to hide their identities." is no sentence. I guess it refers to the people whose photographies were taken at the site? - The "dashes" still look the same ;) - "killing" and "lynching" are not quite the same. What do you think of (and please word an ALT next time instead of changing the hook, or the discussion makes no sense):
ALT1: ... that the photographer Fred Gildersleeve captured depictions of a lynching in progress?
I guess some readers will remember the lynching which caused discussion when it was TFA. - In his case, I'd mention the profession, or they might be snapshots by someone in the crowd. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sun Yuanhua

Sun Yuanhua's 1632 diagrams illustrating simple star fort designs
Sun Yuanhua's 1632 diagrams illustrating simple star fort designs
  • Reviewed: Will do Lazy Afternoon
  • Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to review the hook(s) most interesting to you.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 04:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Operation Temperer

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self-nominated at 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough. Long enough. Can't see where the specific hook fact is cited at the end of a a sentence in the article. The article is mostly about other troop deployments in the UK and other countries, and needs more specific content. Earwig returns " Violation Suspected 86.1%". For example, the source has "Operation Temperer is a plan to deploy troops to support police officers in key locations following a major terrorist attack. It was put into effect for the first time following the Manchester Arena bombing." and the article, "Operation Temperer is a British government plan to deploy troops to support police officers in key locations following a major terrorist attack. It was put into effect for the first time on 23 May 2017 following the Manchester Arena bombing." This represents a serious copyright violation, and it is not the only copyvio issue. Also, the QPQ review does not address all the required criteria. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The specific hook fact is cited in the very first reference in the article [15]. There is a copyvio issue, but not in the direction that you apparently think. The author of this external article has plagiarised large chunks of it from the Wikipedia article that I wrote. Look at the dates: the Wikipedia article was published and nominated on 23 May while the external article was published on 24 May. Chunks of it appear to also have been plagiarised from 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. You need to bear in mind that Earwig will only show you that content has been duplicated - it will not show you in which direction the duplication has taken place. Also, what is missing from the QPQ review? Prioryman (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oops. Very sorry, Prioryman. Will look into this again and report back soon! Edwardx (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Roy Ananny

Created by BU Rob13 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 24

George Baldanzi

Created by JoeyJets (talk) and TonyBallioni (talk). Nominated by TonyBallioni (talk) at 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC).

999 phone charging myth

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC).

Fugitive peasants

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 25

List of awards and nominations received by Sarah Lancashire

British actress Sarah Lancashire
British actress Sarah Lancashire

Created by Eshlare (talk). Self-nominated at 09:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand

  • Reviewed: This is my first DYK nomination
  • Comment: For some reason the DYK wasn't working, but this article was expanded five-fold.

5x expanded by Katelyn Sun (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 20:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Desideria Quintanar de Yáñez

  • Reviewed: Cognitive slippage
  • Comment: the article was moved to the main article space on May 25th, 2017.

Created by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Modern Gothic cabinet (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Modern Gothic exhibition cabinet
Modern Gothic exhibition cabinet

Created/expanded by BoringHistoryGuy (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk) at 13:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

@Yoninah: Can you properly add this picture to the hook - the nominator would like it added. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk)
I formatted the image and also adjusted the page link and DYK credits, since the page has been moved to Modern Gothic cabinet. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 RFU Championship

  • Reviewed: Typhoon Kelly (1987)
  • Comment: Maybe for one of the Lions tests (24 June, 1 July, 8 July)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 26

Hālaliʻi Lake, Halulu Lake

  • Reviewed: Quintus Publilius Philo; Theoris of Lemnos
  • Comment: I am also down to just promoting as separate hooks (ALT1 and ALT2). Feel free to suggest others. There are also some common text between articles, just notify me what your final count of qualify characters are for each and I will add the remaining extra needed if it is not sufficient

Created by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 05:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 27

Helen Sandoz

Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Pioneer Square station

A cable car flywheel at Pioneer Square station
A cable car flywheel at Pioneer Square station
A light rail train at Pioneer Square station
A light rail train at Pioneer Square station

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Empty Orchestra

  • Comment: I have gone with Deaf rather than deaf as this is how Howlett self-identifies in the blogpost. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Henry W. Sawyer

Created by Coemgenus (talk). Self-nominated at 21:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Porco (caldera)

Silver mined at Porco
Silver mined at Porco

Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 12:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Albert H. Densmore

Created by Orygun (talk). Self-nominated at 02:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 28

Sopa de fideo

Sopa de fideo
Sopa de fideo

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Walnut soup

Walnut soup with bread
Walnut soup with bread
  • Reviewed: Violet Lake
  • Comment: I prefer the first hook over ALT1. If ALT1 is used, this image can be used.

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Soo Yeon Lee, SPiN

Soo Yeon Lee at video shoot
Soo Yeon Lee at video shoot

Created by IronGargoyle (talk). Self-nominated at 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Batman and Harley Quinn

Converted from a redirect by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Special occasion holding area

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

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles 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.