Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"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. Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.


Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 1 1 1
August 13 1 1
August 14 1 1
August 15 1 1
August 18 1
August 20 1 1
August 21 2 1
August 22 3 2
August 23 3 1
August 24 1 1
August 25 2 2
August 26 3 2
August 28 1 1
August 29 3 1
August 30 2 1
August 31 1 1
September 1 4 3
September 2 3 2
September 3 3 3
September 4 12 12
September 5 9 9
September 6 5 5
September 7 4 4
September 8 8 7
September 9 10 10
September 10 12 9
September 11 11 11
September 12 5 5
September 13 6 6
September 14 12 11
September 15 8 8
September 16 6 5
September 17 8 7
September 18 3 2
September 19 8 5
September 20 7 6
September 21 4 4
September 22 2
Total 177 152
Last updated 05:45, 22 September 2017 UTC
Current time is 07:01, 22 September 2017 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]


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?[edit]

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[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue[edit]

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
    • View the edit history for that page
    • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
    • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
  • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
  • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name[edit]

  • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on August 22[edit]

The Rolling Stones

Improved to Good Article status by TheSandDoctor (talk). Self-nominated at 03:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg GA, new enough, neutral, sourced, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Struck some hooks that seem less interesting, sources check out for the others. I like ALT0 (removed the parenthetical) and ALT4 in particular. Lead picture from the article is pretty good, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The Rolling Stones
The Rolling Stones
@Usernameunique: I didn't think of adding the image, while it does not pertain to that specific gig, I definitely think that it is a good photo. Of the two hooks you prefer, I like them both, ALT0 I find the most interesting and ALT4 the funniest of the two. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled back from prep due to the discrepancies between the article and the promoted hook (ALT0); the "solution" proposed at WT:DYK of modifying the hook in prep resulted in a less accurate hook, so I think it's best that the details are ironed out here, along with appropriate adjustments to the article, which should be made before this is approved again. The "World War III" period, according to the various sources (different ones are used in each of the three uses in the article), was 1985 to 1989, so that's not "mid-1980s" (which is about 1983 or 1984 to 1986, but the replacement of "mid-1980s feud" with "various feuds" is also not accurate, because the sourcing has Richards referring only to this one period. I'd like to suggest that perhaps all three uses of "World War III" are not necessary; the one in the Legacy section seems least accurate, because the phrase has been co-opted to support multiple feuds, and it comes only two paragraphs after the previous use near the end of Musical development (and, reading that penultimate paragraph of Musical development, it isn't talking about musical development at all; if it's retained, I suggest adding that the World War III period was actually in the second half of the 1980s, so it's clear that the paragraph is talking about a period of well over a decade). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have removed the third WWIII reference from the article, which referred to their feuds in general, not just their 1980s feud. Besides that, the first use is dated within the article to 1986 or slightly after, and the second use doesn't really have a date; it describes the genesis of Richards-Jagger animosity, and then says that it culminated in "the period which Richards has referred to as 'World War III'", which essentially refers back to the first in-article use of WWIII, dated to ~1986.
ALT12: ... that Keith Richards described his 1980s feud with fellow The Rolling Stones founding member Mick Jagger as "World War III"?
ALT13: ... that Keith Richards described his late-80s feud with fellow The Rolling Stones founding member Mick Jagger as "World War III"?
ALT14: ... that Keith Richards described a years-long feud with fellow The Rolling Stones founding member Mick Jagger as "World War III"?
ALT15: ... that after coming off of heroin, Keith Richards had a feud with fellow The Rolling Stones founding member Mick Jagger that he described as "World War III"? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
ALT15 seems to not meet criteria 4a "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.", and while I think even casual Stones fans know Keith has tried smack more than a few times, it's still not the sort of thing you want on the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 23[edit]

Reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi

Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough (created 21 August, nominated 23 August) long enough and sufficiently sourced, without copy-and-paste. But, it is not written in proper English ("Some signs that the Sunni and Shia are of the same mind upon them, Muhammad al-Mahdi is a descendent of Muhammad prophet and has same as him"; "Muhammad al-Mahdi will establish just Islamic state all over the world to bring justice and peace as rightful of caliphs and spherical leaderships") and, most of all, it reads like a profession of faith, not like an encyclopaedic article. We are currently in the middle of a worldwide confrontation between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and this article reads like a sincere but misplaced effort at dawah. It should be rewritten in order not to offend or shock non-believers or believer in others faiths. Edelseider (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention, but i can't found what is the problem. According to sources that i used, this is the beliefs or exact tradition between shia and some sunni Muslim and formed the Mahdiism theory. Please trust me that i never write any sentence from myself or I try to create propaganda about shia Islam. I can change the article's name to 'reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi in shia Islam' or adding the article ideas of other Islamic or non-Islamic sects. Saff V. (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be restructured to read as a non-bias article, no matter what the title may be. I agree with the original reviewer. It does feel like a misplaced preaching attempt. Yes, you get the information from the sources, However, try restructuring it to fit a neutral window... Gvstaylor1 (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This article had been edited by copy editor recently. In other hand I wonder what the exact problem is or actually what should I do. Could you explain the problem clearly, Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Start by addressing the tag "clarification needed", please. And do consider that for non-believers, sentences like "He had been titled as Imam-i ’Asr (the Imam of the "Period") and Sahib al-Zaman (the Lord of the Age), has the name same as Muhammad prophet." make little sense. What "Age"? What "Period"? Who is "Muhammad prophet", do you mean Muhammad, whom Muslims call "the prophet" (non-Muslims don't do). Et cetera. Edelseider (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) I'm the one who brushed the article up some (but I am not a "copy editor"). There's still some awkward English phrasing going on here that I didn't fix, but I'd argue that the biggest problem is that the article doesn't really justify itself much; there isn't enough real content. It could be summarized in two sentences right now: "Shias believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi will return and it will be awesome. He will establish peace and justice and fix everything, and there will be big mystical signs this is happening." There needs to be some more detail that isn't just background here for there to be enough "meat" to qualify as a good article, in my opinion. But... that needs to be really well-sourced, not just to "somebody thinks this." As a side comment, I'm sure it was in good faith, but some of the sources you were using before are probably not the best sources to cite for Islamic eschatology; stuff like "Islam - the Cloak of Antichrist" is a book about how Muslims are totally evil from a certain kind of Christian perspective, and while it does accurately convey certain aspects of Islamic theology, it's probably not what you want to rely on... (I already removed it, to be clear.) SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg On the basis of everything that has been stated above and the fact that the author of the article hasn't done anything about it in a full week of seven days but left it to others to address the problems he created – it's a collaborative project but come on, you've got to be involved a bit more with your own stuff – this article is ineligible for DYK. Edelseider (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was very busy with my exams. I will deal with the raised issues by Wednesday. Saff V. (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for delay, I'm completely snowed under with my exams, But today I try to remove the problem that @Edelseider: nominated them. @SnowFire: Thanks for your good intent, However I can't get to do. As you know, the reappearance of twelfth shia Imam had can be discussed in many aspects, but I thinks that this material is enough. Also I found this book. I appreciate that You make clear the problem of this article. Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

Created/expanded by Gvstaylor1 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

  • Seems like a solid DYK but the "(or is a fan of)" could be removed based on the fact it suggests it is not sure about it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fixed that. Anything else? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Every paragraph needs at least one citation, yet there are whole sections with no citations at all. See "Birth of the KSWA 2000-2005," "Modern Era 2005-Current," "Fan Fest," and "Millvale Days." A cursory glance also shows that there are many quotations which are not cited. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I am still working on it, most of it is recorded by my father who is the "Ring Announcer/Writer" currently. So I am trying to write it in such a way that it is not seen as a advertisement but more of the encyclopedia history. He has been adding things as well. Citations will be added.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Citations added, article is now ready for a full review. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Substantial updates have been made, but there are still some sections that require sources. The "Roster" section is entirely unsourced. Each row within "Joe Abby Memorial Tournament" needs a source. Same goes for "Mario Ferraro Sr. Memorial Tournament", "KSWA Hall of Fame", and "Championships" (current and former). I noticed that the paragraphs before the boxes have a source, but I clicked the source to see if the information below was cited and it wasn't. In addition, there is 85.8% copyright violation in this article. Please make sure to paraphrase sources/write stuff in your own words. Please fix this as soon as you can. Other things check out: new, long enough, no QPQ (editor's first DYK), neutral, and reliable sources used. Cheers, MX () 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How can you copy-write violate something that the same person wrote it? You don't. And how is it violated? It's being entirely rewritten for the most part.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gvstaylor1: Hi, I don't think I understand what you are trying to tell me. Are you telling me you wrote the source? According to Eargwig, a tool we use to see if the article's text matches the sources cited, there seems to be a lot of similarity between the article's text and this source here. Please go here to see what I'm referring to. There are two paragraphs that seem problematic. In order for this to pass, you or someone else would have to paraphrase the source's text. Let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance. I apologize in advance is there is any misunderstanding. Cheers, MX () 02:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Thanks for your work on this MX and Gvstaylor1. Just changing the review tag. The orange x means the article is an almost certain no (and closes the nomination after a few days), while this one just indicates that there are some problems to be worked out before approval, which seems more appropriate here. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Gvstaylor1 - Thank you for reaching out at my talkpage. I'm still getting an 84% plagiarism rate on our copyright detector. Are you able to view the page? The left side is the article's prose; the red marks are phrases that match the right part, the sources you used. It is OK when certain phrases match (i.e. names and dates), but we cannot have whole paragraphs match. You need to rewrite these entirely. MX () 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@MX: I cannot see the pageGvstaylor1 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gvstaylor1: Hmmm, try accessing here with another engine (Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc.) and adding the title of the article in "Page title". Then click submit. Let me know. MX () 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Gvstaylor1, any progress in rewording the copied content? Sourcing looks pretty good: just missing sources for the winners of the Mario Ferraro Sr. Memorial Tournament. Also, you have two paragraphs (about the “Best Place To Stand Around With A PBR”) that say the same thing. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I'm currently away from home for a week or 2. Sorry, emergency personal issesGvstaylor1 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 8[edit]

Battle of Emmendingen

  • ... that both sides lost their commanding general? Wilhelm von Wartensleben's arm was shattered by a musket ball and he died several months later in Vienna; Michel de Beaupuy was hit and killed by a cannon ball? Source: Constant von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaisertums Österreich 53. Wien 1886, S. 111 and Paul Huot, Des Vosges au Rhin, excursions et causeries alsaciennes, Veuve Berger-Levrault & Fils, Paris, 1868, p. 284–287.

Improved to Good Article status by Auntieruth55 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article looks good at first sight, but before a full review, could you please make sure that the rules listed at WP:DYKHOOK are properly followed? Otherwise this cannot be approved. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that both sides in the Battle of Emmendingen lost their commanding general, one to a musket ball, the other to a cannon ball? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That looks great to me. What does Auntieruth55 think? Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Auntieruth55 GA, in time, long enough, sourced. Couple issues:

  1. QPQ needed (7th DYK) I don't know what this is. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. A few phrases are too close to the source compass directions and troop numbers. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Wilhelm von Wartensleben should have at least one source to be linked from the front page I don't know what this means either...front page of???? auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. I can't approve my own hook. Surtsicna, would you mind verifying that the hook is appropriate (particularly that it has inline citations that check out or are offline and accepted as good faith? The relevant section is here: Battle of Emmendingen#Aftermath)?

Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 10[edit]

Serene Velocity

  • ... that Serene Velocity, a film of a basement hallway, was inducted into the U.S. National Film Registry? Source: "In 2001, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film 'culturally significant' and named it to the National Film Registry." ([15])

5x expanded by Hinnk (talk). Self-nominated at 04:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline – however, I think you have a better hook here:
  • ALT1: ... that after viewing footage from his 1970 film Serene Velocity, director Ernie Gehr felt nauseous?
  • The paragraph under Description needs at least one cite, per Rule D2. Since the nominator has many DYK credits, a QPQ is needed here. Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hinnk, added a citation needed tag. Once you provide a citation and QPQ, you're good to go. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Delaware Railroad

  • Reviewed: TBD

Created by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 01:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg MB New, in time, long enough, mostly sourced, hook citation checks out (added inline). Issues:
  1. QPQ needed.
  2. Last paragraph in "Later 19th century" needs a citation.
  3. I realize it's not in the source, but can you find the actual legal case? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
MB, citation is now in the article, so all you need for the nomination to be approved is a QPQ. (Actual legal case would be nice, but is not required.) --Usernameunique (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Usernameunique, I know. Busy with real life, probably won't get to it until this weekend. MB 02:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nagapattinam by-election, 1979, S.G. Murugaiyan, Nagapattinam (Lok Sabha constituency)

  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 00:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (S.G. Murugaiyan & by-election) or expanded 5x (Nagapattinam), in time (16th, 10th, 16th), long enough (by-election, the shortest, has about 1,670 characters of prose), sourced, inline hook citations check out. Soman, three QPQs are needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 14[edit]

Jinping Mountains

  • Reviewed: Exempt

Created by NoGhost (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 15[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 16[edit]

Pietà (Titian)

  • ... that Titian intended his painting of the Pietà to hang over his grave, but it never did? A somewhat complicated story - no one quote
  • Reviewed: coming

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 04:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 17[edit]

Vine Colby

Vine Colby in 1912
Vine Colby in 1912

Created by Elisa.rolle (talk). Self-nominated at 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article doesn't look finished yet. There are also citations missing from paragraphs. I placed a notice on your talk page. Yoninah (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg revereted the changes made by mistake, changed the layout of the article to avoid confusion and all paragraphs have sources (24 of them).Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still find the page confusing. Why are you writing biographies of her sister and aunt in the middle of her biography? It seems like you should title this page Vine Colby and write sections on all the Vine Colbys out there. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah, there is a logic in the article. Vine Colby bears the name of her aunt who was a pioneer women in her field, medicine, and who herself beared the name of two other women who were friend with her mother, of which a bio has been written in recent time (2006). These are background info that are helpful to understand in which environment Vine Colby was brought up. I do not want to make an article out of those, cause there is not enough information to support an article, but they are important background information to this article. What you are expressing is an opinion and mine is an opinion as well. The info I provided are correct and had no copyright issue, therefore I kindly ask you to highlight if there are issue with the hook. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Elisa.rolle it's not an opinion; please read WP:OFFTOPIC. You have 2 other women being talked about, and you're putting the main subject under a sub-subhead in her own article! If you need to say how these other women influenced the subject's life, then please don't use sub-subheads; it's too confusing. Say how certain women influenced the subject's life, and please don't write a biography about each of these other women.
  • Under Career, the second paragraph is completely superfluous and non-notable the way it's written; it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I added a notability tag at the top because I really question why the subject is notable, based on the information you've provided in the article. Winning prizes and acting in high school is not notable. Writing a play is not notable. It appears she is only notable as a member of The Potters, and she's already listed in that article. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yoninah i put that section since you told you were confused. But if you do not need them i will remove them and rewrote the section in a different wayElisa.rolle (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg changed as per request Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Elisa.rolle: thank you for your changes. I did a little more copy editing, added links, and added an infobox. Do you know where she was born? The article would benefit from a few topic sentences. For example, I added the topic sentence While at college, Colby performed in various dramas. to start the paragraph about her performances. In the first paragraph under Artistic career, I added that she contributed her art and poetry to the Potter's Wheel; if this isn't correct, please change it. In the third paragraph under Artistic career, she's suddenly writing plays. An overall introductory topic sentence would greatly help the reader follow this whole section. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah:: Copied the sentence "After the Potters disbanded, she became a journalist and writer." and after that there are the comedy and poetry part. Moved up in early life the themed breakfast info to make the reading flow more in line with sections. Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 18[edit]

Winfield Hancock presidential campaign, 1880

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernice C. Downing. Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Futurist110 Please revise the hook; at 219 characters, it's 19 over the maximum of 200. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Done; indeed, it should be good enough now. Futurist110 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The new hook lacks enough context to make it understandable, especially for non-US readers. In particular, "the election": what election? May I suggest a small rewording:
David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent advice! Indeed, let's use your re-worded hook here, shall we? Futurist110 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It could be shortened further. I suggest the following. Full review upcoming. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg @Futurist110: New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig detects no copyvios. The entire article is based on a single source (plus a results map), which is probably accurate, but it's unclear what kind of editorial control they use. I'd like to see more reliable sources used to write the article.
Also, the hook fact doesn't check out. The source says "The fake letter... may have undermined support for Garfield in the Far West. He lost California and Nevada by slim margins and narrowly won Oregon." This is weaker than saying that the results were because of the fake letter.
This is a great topic, but it will need some rewriting from additional reliable sources before it can go on the Main Page. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I have now added more sources to this article. Also, here is an alternate hook for this article:
ALT 2: ... that the forged Morey letter helped 1880 U.S. Presidential candidate Winfield S. Hancock win California & Nevada? (source: http://elections.harpweek.com/1880/Overview-1880-3.htm )
Anyway, please let me know what you think. Futurist110 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 19[edit]

Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC).

S. Sashikanth

Created/expanded by Editor 2050 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article has not been expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days.  FITINDIA  11:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Fitindia - Ah, I see. How about purely S. Sashikanth? Editor 2050 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Editor 2050 I dont think you should have moved Template:Did you know nominations/Y NOT Studios to Template:Did you know nominations/S. Sashikanth as it could be a bit confusing, You could re-nominate S. Sashikanth.  FITINDIA  12:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Fitindia. Silly me - should have thought it through. I am now understandably unable to create a fresh DYK page for S. Sashikanth. How should I proceed? Editor 2050 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have just fixed the template so it can serve as a nomination for S. Sashikanth alone. It won't be necessary to renominate S. Sashikanth, and actually wouldn't have been before; we could have handled it by simply removing Y NOT Studios from the official nomination while leaving the nomination page where it was—you can always ask for help at WT:DYK. Please don't ever move nomination templates in the future. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique it was expanded but not close to 5x. I would like to recuse my self from this review, Please free to take it forward. Thank you.  FITINDIA  01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, what makes you say so? On the 13th it had 1833 characters (not counting the characters in the table per Rule 1c). At the time of your review it had 9627. That's good enough for a 5.25x expansion. I'm restoring the bold to the hook. Both articles now need to be reviewed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I'm doing some copyediting on Sashikanth's article at the moment, but most of it checks out good by DYK standards. I will accept the DYK if Y NOT Studios is removed from it (hence its name cannot be in bold in the hook). ViperSnake151  Talk  03:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake151, what's the problem with Y NOT Studios in bold? Per discussion above, it was 5x expanded in time. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, DYKCheck said "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (984 days)" ViperSnake151  Talk  05:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Cross County Mall (Illinois)

Created by TenPoundHammer (talk). Self-nominated at 15:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New article, plenty long, and looks to be appropriate quality. Hook is cited in the article to a paywalled source. (I highly recommend tagging paywalled sources with |subscription=yes |via=Newspapers.com in the citation tags.) The hook is 191 characters, barely within the guidelines. I'm willing to pass as is if you're particularly attached to this hook, but I think a shorter hook that either leaves out the quote or the store names - and probably leaves out the town name as well - may be better. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 20[edit]

Brockton (MBTA station)

Postcard view of the former Brockton station
Postcard view of the former Brockton station
  • Reviewed: Cross County Mall (Illinois)
  • Comment: My expansion of this article took some time to complete, but was all one connected group of edits and was completed two days ago.

5x expanded by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 21[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 22[edit]

State censuses in the United States of America

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC).

This is my QPQ for this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Border Police of Georgia. Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area[edit]

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.