Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section 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 top. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination.
Please use one of the strings below to post your DYK nomination, using the "author" and "nominator" fields to identify the users who should receive credit for their contributions if the hook is featured on the main page.
Nom without image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= }}
Nom with image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= | image= | caption= }}
To include more than one new or expanded article in a single hook:|article2=|article3=|article4= | (etc)
To include more than one author:|author2=|author3= | (etc)
To include alternate hooks:|ALT1=|ALT2= | (etc)
To add a comment:|comment=
To add the article you reviewed:|reviewed=
Do not wikilink the article title, or the author username field; the template will wikilink them automatically. Do wikilink the article title in the hook field, however. Do not add a section heading if you are using the template; the template will add one for you. Do not include a signature (~~~~) after the template. Do not use non-free images in your hook suggestion.
An example of how to use the template is given below. Full details are at {{NewDYKnom}}:
{{subst:NewDYKnom
| article = Example
| status = new<!--(or) expanded-->
| hook = ... that this [[article]] is an '''[[example]]''' ''(pictured)''?
| author = User
| nominator =
| image = Example.png
| rollover = An example image
| comment =
}}
Note that you should only use one of the above templates for the original hook. If you want to suggest a second, alternative hook for the same article submission, just type it in manually. The above templates output useful code for each submission and if you employ them for alternative hooks, you will mess up the page formatting.
When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|December 18}} Thanks, ~~~~
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, or may suggest new hooks.
If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or note that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
Symbol
Code
DYK Ready?
Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}
Yes
No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}
Yes
Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}}
Query
DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}}
Maybe
DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYKno}}
No
Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible
Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page, in case they do not notice that there is an issue.
Backlogged?
This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.
Where is my hook?
If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.
If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.
... that Emma Nutt became the world's first female telephone operator on 1st September 1878 when she started working for the Boston Telephone Despatch company.
ALT1:... that 1st September is celebrated as Emma Nutt day in honour of the world's first female telephone operator who started work in 1878.
ALT2:... that today is celebrated as Emma Nutt day in honour of the world's first female telephone operator who started work in 1878 in Boston. ..... if it makes DYK on Sept 1st.... which may require some nice editors to add a few more facts, birth, death, marriage, children, descendents, nobel nominations, Autodidactyl (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original hook uses wrong dating format for an American subject. And why is the exact date necessary at all? I suggest
Duplication of info from the article Rizal Park and therefore doesn't qualify as new content. This article should be either merged or redirected to the Rizal Park article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy Dough
... that two German girls thought about creating edible dough?
ALT1:... that two German girls thought about creating edible dough after tasting ordinary dough and finding it horrible?
ALT2:... that Yummy Dough is the first commercially distributed dough that has been designed to be eaten as well as played with?
Comment: Previously incorrectly deleted at AFD (one of too many examples where WP:BEFORE was ignored). Recreated and expanded with multiple reliable sources. SoWhy10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First two suggested hooks make no sense as all dough is edible, so I've struck them. Third one is okay, and in regards to the former AFD, the article appears to have sufficient sourcing to justify its existence now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Savior sibling
... that a savior sibling is a child that has gone through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in order to match as a stem cell donor to a previously born sibling with a genetic disorder?
... that when the narrow Rock Creek Canyon Bridge(pictured) in British Columbia was widened and strengthened in 1992, the works were carried out while keeping one lane open to traffic?
... that Basil "The Owl" Banghart (1900–1982), an American criminal, burglar and prison escape artist, acquired his criminal nickname because of his abnormally large eyes?
Of course, the first hook is nigh-impossible to verify with a single citation, but is still easily verifiable by the available references. decltype (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with that, date and size ok. I like both hooks; the first is actually quite amusing, but the second one could draw a bigger international crowd. Lampman (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to [1] a DYK article must be at least 1500 characters. Yes the article is a 5x (meaning it counts as a new article) but it is still less than 1500 characters of prose. Francium12 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that Eileen McKenney, who was the inspiration for the title character in My Sister Eileen, was killed in an automobile accident four days before the play opened on Broadway?
Heh, nice hook idea. I have to give this a though, due to the "history" section having no citations; can you add some? Thanks and cheers, —Ed(Talk • Contribs)14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
: - There are numerous doubts if these foreign and kinda pro-Turkish sources are really considered wp:rs. However, it would be ok if some rewording job could be done in order to secure neutrality. My main objections are focused on the phrases:
"Turkey's military intervention to protect Turkish Cypriots" (see: Turkish occupation of Cyprus, seems the real reasons are a bit more complicated),
Comment: What are the rules on Wiktionary links in the hook? Clod is not really worthy of an encyclopaedic article, but at the same time it might be too archaic a term for many to understand.
The hook looks ok, Ryan, and not too long, though you should try to provide additional links for reader interest, such as friendly fire and Falklands War. At the moment, the article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it; I realise you were involved with the article HMS Cardiff, so perhaps there is a possibility for a link from that article, and probably others? I'm not reviewing this officially, just giving some advice, :-). Maedin\talk15:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent advice, I didn't realise I was allowed to add more wiki-links and I'm just in the process of de-orphaning it, thanks again. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Date, length, hook fact and cite all check out - and very well done on the lengthy and (IMO) well written article! --Saalstin (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Eyser
... that in 1904, gymnast George Eyser won six Olympic medals, including gold in the vault(example pictured), although he had a wooden prosthesis for a leg?
Comment: I think it's a bit confusing that the picture is of another athlete, and from a different Olympic Game. If no photo can be found of Eyser, then this probably shouldn't run with a picture. Lampman (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hook confirmed via online refs. Expansion is okay: from 125 words to 634 words. I changed '6' to 'six' in the hook, per WP:MOS. Image, if accepted as appropriate, is okay because of its age. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. No paper newspaper does to my knowledge. I don't even search online after www.sesam.no was discontinued 1-2 weeks ago. Geschichte (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the programme, Chantelle gained "celebrity status" from Big Brother by passing her task and she has since become a celebrity in her own right. And "celebrity" really is subjective; she'd modelled for Page 3 before going onto the programme. DJ12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak to the hook's grammar and capitalization: ALT1: ... that the Palaeozic monoplacophoranPilina unguis(pictured) was twice as large as any known living monoplacophoran?
I've changed the ALT1 hook to make more sense. The article is fine to go except for a large chunk of latin text that seems pretty redundant. If that is dealt with then it is good to go. Smartse (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that Robin Hoare received the Albert Medal for removing depth charges from HM Motor Launch 356 after its engine room exploded, despite the flames, thus preventing a further explosion?
Sorry, I don't see anything unusual or interesting about this, since mayoral appointments usually follow a similar format. Does the appointment give any unusual or interesting rights or duties? That might be better-qualified for DYK. Rodhullandemu00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article you can see this is a new thing as the Mayor had to be appointed from within Parliament. I hope this helps... Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk01:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles created/expanded on August 21
Fuzhou Tanka (ethnic group)
... that Fuzhou Tanka people (pictured) in Fujian lived on boats most of their lives?
Note: the article was moved from my userspace without clearing the page history before. There are entries for March 2009 with no connection to this article. Ty. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve: nice work. I'm going to give this a provisional for now, at least until the {{expand section}} tags can be removed. There also seems to be unfinished thoughts in the article, like "Long distance bus lines start at the central bus station (German: Zentraler Omnibusbahnhof Hamburg)." Well, where do they go? etc etc. Cheers, —Ed(Talk • Contribs)14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Stephan. Ed: I expanded the sentence about the bus station a little bit, but I really don't see why the {{expand section}} tags are not wanted? For me, it is a hint, that there is more and the article lacks some elements (like a section for bicycles totally, public bus transport, general freight data for the rail way, or a sentence more about the Elbe river). This is not a GA review, but thanks for your review and opinion. Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment concerns the finding that those with Asperger Syndrome lack a cortisol awakening response. The single bullet line of "Those with Asperger syndrome do not have a normal cortisol awakening response" in which this was observed in the article is now removed to remove any issue of inappropriateness. The reference was to research upon 20 individual's with Aspergers syndrome and so not a small sample. It was in a respected science journal, "Absence of a normal Cortisol Awakening Response (CAR) in adolescent males with Asperger Syndrome (AS)". Brosnan M, Turner-Cobb J, Munro-Naan Z, Jessop D. Psychoneuroendocrinology (2009) 34, 1095—1100 doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.02.011. The cortisol awakening response article is not a medical but a physiological one. WP:MEDRS is mainly concerned to stop statements about fringe medical treatments and concerns "ideal sources".--LittleHow (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator has said this one questionable fact in the article has been removed. The hook checks out fine and the article passes DYKcheck. Smartse (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article length, creation date, hook length, and inline citation for at least ALT 1 do check out. But I think the article is a bit unfocussed, as it gives way more attention to the game than it does to the documentary. There are a lot more sources out there, which this article could use to improve its coverage of the documentary itself. Still, the DYK nomination is unlikely to be impeded by this objection. I suppose I'm not prepared to give this thing a tick mark yet because I'm really not crazy about either hook. Both are quite indirect. How about:
I edited three of these four hooks to change the wording from "is considered the most famous..." (or just "is the most famous...") to "has been called the most famous..." There's a huge difference... --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I am quite pleased with both ALT 2 and ALT 3. Thank you all for your input and sugestions. And yes, I will continue tweaking the article to expand on the documentary. There's always room for improvement. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures made the article hard to read and cluttered it up so I put them in a gallery. Otherwise, it looks good so far but the sentence containing the "utopia" fact used in the hook needs to have a reference directly at its end. Regards SoWhy11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mise of Amiens, Mise of Lewes
... that the 13th-century settlements known as the Mise of Amiens and the Mise of Lewes are the only two such "mises" in English history?
There is an immediate grammatical problem in the first article, with the first sentence stating that The Mise[a] of Amiens was a settlement given by King Louis IX of France on 23 January 1264 between King Henry III of England and his rebellious barons. You give something to a party or parties, you don't give something between parties. As a result, the intro is quite difficult to understand. I think you need to restate this to make it more clear what you are trying to say. Gatoclass (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to hold this one up any longer. I still think the current phrasing is not ideal, but it's probably good enough and I just don't have time at the moment to come up an alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Harbor Light
... that the Rock Harbor Light(pictured), built in 1855 and still standing, was used for only a total of eight years before being permanently decommissioned?
Terry Pepper says that the lighthouse was finished in 1856, but your other sources (such as United States Coastguard) say it was first established the year before (the article history section and infobox currently conflict due to this). I'm inclined to believe the other sources over Terry. - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point. I'm inclined to believe Terry because of the additional information and exact dates he provides. I suspect other sources conflate the year construction began (1855, everyone agrees) with the year the light was first lit (1856, according to Terry, but 1855 according to the USCG). Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest dropping the year of final decommissioning, so it reads "... that the Rock Harbor Light(pictured), built in 1855 and still standing, was used for only a total of eight years before being permanently decommissioned?". Otherwise u force many readers to compute and compare 1855 + 8 vs. 1879, unnecessarily. I think shorter is better and the distinction between being unlit vs. permanently decommissioned is not important. doncram (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 implies that the gay community believed so. "…and those who watch it in heavy rotation on cable's Country Music Videos [sic] channel may see it differently than do some folks at bars and clubs frequented mostly by gay men and lesbians." Is that enough to change it to "believed by the gay community"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could change the hook to "believed by some" and then footnote the claim in the article to be clear about who "some" are. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the hook to "believed by the gay community" per the citation; the article now says the gay community believed so. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)13:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments. Article moved to "Rijksmonument (Netherlands)", expanded to over 1500 chars, and Belgian equivalent mentioned by See also links, no longer marked as stub. I don't understand what is meant by "we need a quote in the original Dutch and an English translation" though: in the article? Here? doncram (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in the source is "Nederland telt ongeveer 55.000 rijksmonumenten. Al deze rijksmonumenten staan in het monumentenregister." I think that roughly translates as "Netherlands has over 55,000 rijksmonuments. All these stand in the register of them." doncram (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple contributors (people, not wikiprojects) can get credit for a DYK. Just create additional instances of the DYKmake template (above) and list their names. However, before anybody can get credit for this article as a DYK, it will need to be expanded to at least 1500 characters of prose (DYKcheck counts just 1358 characters). --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is DYKcheck an available tool? I am not familiar with it. When counting over 1500 chars in Word, I was excluding pics and other non-text material, but including characters in names and sentence fragments in list of selected Rijksmonuments. Do only complete sentences count? doncram (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found it very easy to apply wp:DYKcheck in its javascript version to apply to one page. Revised article to list the selected monuments in text, rather than as a list per se, now DYKcheck reports 1880 characters. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lengths and dates check out OK now (congrats on getting DYKcheck to work for you, Doncram). However, odd as it may seem, I can't find an inline citation or a source for the part of the hook that says "a Rijksmonument is a national monument of the Netherlands". The source that is cited for (and supports) the statement that there are 55,000 monuments says they are "at least 50 years old", are "of national importance", and are "protected by the government," but it doesn't say that they are "national monuments." Please make sure the article cites a source for this part of hook fact. "Rijksmonument" is Dutch for "national monument", so this part of the hook is just a nominal translation, and it shouldn't be hard to source it... Also, due to the new unwritten DYK rule of "at least one inline citation per paragraph," please cite a source for the paragraph that lists "Some notable Rijksmonuments." --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this ref which mentions, among other things, that "Rijksmonument .. moet.. van nationaal belang.. bezitten" (should be of national importance). The definitions are somewhat loose, even at government sites, and strictly speaking do not say "is a national monument of the Netherlands", but they may be interpreted that way (one trick could be that "Rijksmonument" literally means state monument or national monument, and thus nobody bothers to translate Dutch to Dutch :-). I hesitate to rewrite the hook and article and leave this with the authors and Orlady. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess i meant it first of all as the translation. Rijk = state and Monument = monument, and the state involved is the nation. Rijkmonument = national monument. The citation given for the 55,000 also states, under the topic of what is a Rijksmonument that "Een rijksmonument is minstens 50 jaar oud en is door de cultuurhistorische waarde, schoonheid of wetenschappelijke betekenis van nationaal belang." I am guessing that means a Rijksmonument is at least 50 years old and is of cultural or other national importance. So I think the term "national monument" is well enough supported, and I can't see what more I could do here. The same source gives links to pages on "Provinciaal monument", which are obviously monuments designated by provinces. Materialscientist or Mjroots, if you can tighten it up somehow by editing the article or the hook phrase, please do so.
I am also a bit hard pressed to find specific support that the selected Rijksmonuments are listed on a register. There is Nederlands language article [2] which I think documents some of them (and others supported there could be switched in), but its source link doesn't work for me. I'm out of my depth here, language-wise. doncram (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The monument is at least 50 years old and by the cultural and historical value, beauty or scientific significance of national importance" is google translation of "Een rijksmonument is minstens 50 jaar oud en is door de cultuurhistorische waarde, schoonheid of wetenschappelijke betekenis van nationaal belang." Lvklock (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... This discussion indicates to me that it's not clear that "monument" has the same meaning in Dutch as it does in English. As a result, I think it would be best for the hook to avoid that word. Here's one attempt to do that:
ALT2 ... that the Rijksmonument designation is applied to about 55,000 sites in the Netherlands that are over 50 years old and have national significance?
However, that would require revision to the article, which currently does not explain the significance of designation. (It says only: "To be designated, a place must be over 50 years old and meet additional criteria.") --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request approval now Rijksmonument article has been edited, to include documentation of 3 mills being Rijksmonuments and giving their numbers. DYKcheck now reports size = 1803 characters. It is clear to me and in the article that Rijksmonuments are monuments and that they are national monuments. The meaning of national monuments in the Netherlands is indeed different than the meaning of National Monuments in the United States, which are declared by the U.S. President. Of course they are different, as they are national monuments of a different nation. The current hook "... that a Rijksmonument is a national monument of the Netherlands, and there are 55,000 of them?" is supported and I believe the article meets all DYK criteria to be approved now. Thanks! doncram (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
, source, date, length verified. Thank you for creating the fascinating article. I think anything related its color (e.g. blue latex) is more interesting to me than the fact that the mushroom in being sold in China. Could you give alternative hooks? --Caspian blue21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've been reviewing two DYK hooks related to something blue yesterday and today! I think the alt is strong and nice. So yes, it is now good to go. --Caspian blue22:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is not immediately cited (citation comes at end of paragraph). Citations are not reliable (one citation is a blog, not allowed under WP:RS and the other citation does not verify the fact that there are, indeed, 49 eunuchs buried at the site. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!16:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will remove the blog reference and modify the hook. I verified the fact of 49 tombs by personal visit to the monument. Since only blog reference makes a mention of this number, I will change it and also remove text taken from the blog by end of the day.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes carried out as above deleting the blog references and connected text, since I could not locate any acceptable references (other than the blogs) giving the number of tombs. Alt Hook suggested below. I hope it meets the reviewer's observations. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? There was no content in the previous page, how is this not enough? No prose expansion? It had a small intro and skeleton content before, I don't see how this isn't enough....The Flash{talk}16:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, checked and unfortunately you're right. Sucks, too, because I didn't even know someone had created the page when I wrote it '__' The Flash{talk}16:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that ex-professional tennis player, Claire Curran, competed for both Ireland and Great Britain in the Fed Cup and accumulated a win–loss record of 20–7 in Fed Cup matches over the course of her career?
... that Giveamanakick's live performances involved gas masks and streamers and one of their albums was said to be "something akin to being battered round the head with a plank of wood for half an hour"?
... that 99 Fables, a posthumously published collection by William March, "emphasizes the platitudes of life by the platitudinous nature of his fables?"
Date, length, refs seem Ok, but the hook is incorrect, and "cause" should be "increase the number of" (reminds me cartoon Ice Age, when the proto-squirrel had "caused" split up of continents :-)) Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently too short at 1278 characters, the minimum is 1500. Block quotes are not included for prose size, so the citation text is not being included in this count. orangefreak3318:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose length only 632 characters, much too short. Bulleted text does not count for prose length as we consider it, so de-bulleting will absolutely push this over the 1500 character minumum. orangefreak3317:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on your talk page, your edit has been reverted, and other editors of the page have objected to the debulleting. I suggest attempting to reach a consensus on the talk page. orangefreak3315:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor that objected to the debulleting can I ask that you link to the policy/guideline on this as I occasionaly submit DYK noms myself. The article could be debulleted to get it through DYK with the formatting reinstated later but I think that would be condidered 'gaming the system'. I should note that this article is a recent copy/paste WP:SPLIT from Supermarine Spitfire and very little new text has been added. Notwithstanding, I would like to see it make DYK using WP:COMMONSENSE. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boga (fish)
... that the Boga is also known as the Snit in Jamaica and as the Bonnetmouth in the Bahamas?
DYKcheck says that it is not long enough yet. It's currently at 1487 so 13 characters would do it - rules are stupid! The hook checks out fine though so if it is expanded a tiny bit it will pass. Smartse (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that Alfred Proksch won two gold medals at the 2009 World's Masters Championships because he was the only competitor in the 100+ age bracket for discus and shot put?
Date, length, facts, refs Ok. Suggest borrowing a table of his results from the German page - interesting progression. There could be many alternatives for the hook. For example ALT1 ... that Alfred Proksch is winning international athletics competitions for 83 years? (maybe not winning but alike) Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) DYKcheck is accurate on a single page, but often fails on the article history. I apply it to individual pages before and after expansion and divide myself. (ii) The old text was bulleted (and sourced to non-RS) and I suppose shouldn't count. (iii) Expanding I can, but. I tried to keep only reliable info on the subject. Too much hype about him. Materialscientist (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Must be an issue with reverts or something, but checking different revision sizes gives 5945/829 = 7.2x expansion since the August 11th version. Refs also check out, nice expansion on the different strikes! orangefreak3322:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that Chisho Itoh, the winner of the 1988 Yokohama Film Festival Best New Director Award, went on to a stellar career as the hardcore Japanese adult video director Tohjiro?
... that the Soviet cruiser Kaganovich was renamed Petropavlovsk on 3 August 1957 after Lazar Kaganovich was purged from the government after an unsuccessful coup against Nikita Khrushchev that same year?
It says "was awarded the freedom of Athens by". How does one award a city's freedom to someone? Is something missing from the hook? Never mind: I'm not familiar with that kind of terminology. I took the liberty of adapting the hook to lose the "Athens" repetition. Dahn (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Fort
... that, though ostensibly built to defend the city, the citizens of Cork pulled down Elizabeth Fort within two years of its first construction – for fear that it would be used against them by James I?
The article says "Some believe Sabalan is supposed to be Zebulun, the son of Jacob, while others claim he was a da'is ("missionary") who joined the Druze religion". To me this is not a DYK fact. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Ernest Hemingway short story The Killers was a continuation of a short story which Hemingway published in his high school literary magazine?
Can you give the hook some kind of real-world connection? Otherwise it's just "DYK that (this one fiction) connects to (this other fiction)" - and such details in fiction are typically the result of arbitrary whim. DS (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
, the size is only 1227 bytes, please keep typing. And would you fix the reference template to show the source is written in German? If there is any available photo, that would be great.--Caspian blue18:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The size, date, length and source are confirmed. I tuned up the hook a little, since the place could be unfamiliar to many people, and the hook needs to be more descriptive. Would you also add the information on the color in the intro?--Caspian blue13:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean adding it to the lead of the article? Can be done, though I am not sure what you mean by the hook needing to be more descriptive. The hook as you changed it looks fine to me. Sandstein 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Ah, that comment regarding the hook needs to be descriptive was just my explanation for altering your hook because some people do not like fiddling their submitted hook without notification. So well, anyway, it is good to go now, so .--Caspian blue22:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing hook, but one issue: the Jackson quote at the end of the "Content" section does not appear to be in the cited Rolling Stone reference. --Bruce1eetalk06:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. Correct reference was there, but using the refname of a previous ref, meaning the previous one was showing instead. Length, date, and cite all seem fine. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes to accomodate that they have been given that nickname twice, plus adding another one below
ALT2... that at the 1963 and 1968 East African Safari Rally, only 8% (which is the lowest ever rate) of those who started made it to the finish line, and were awarded the nickname Unsinkable Seven? Created by Donnie Park (talk). Self nom
"Joginder Singh and Nick Nowicki was". Among other changes, I would normally change "was" to "were" without comment in both versions, but someone made the opposite change. Art LaPella (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised the referencing in most of the sections to link points to specific sources, in particular the section on construction. I've added a few more examples and references in the Modern use section. Harry W1234 (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was originally trying to stress in the hook, before editing it for length, was the unique nature of the instrument, it's construction in male/female pairs, and also its historical significance in the history of Colombian music -- as a specifically indigenous element, since fused with European and African influences, creating distinctive modern Colombian music. Maybe far too much for a hook, but playful wasn't the tone I intended.Harry W1234 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Flute, as the species of woodwind instrument, should remain so that the hook indicates the broad subject area(s) to readers and the article meets those expectations.Harry W1234 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One key expectation I think a reader might have would be illustrations of construction and use, both traditional and modern. However, given the intricacies of a hook, I don't want to risk compromising the article without being sure where images from the source material might be used fairly and in line with wiki-policies. The wiki-guidelines are mammoth.Harry W1234 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my point is that, IMO, a hook doesn't always need to indicate the broad subject area to readers. That's the job of the lead section of the article. The hook is there to entice readers to visit the article. Melchoir (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This unusual DYK aims for two articles at once, and although the hook applies equally to both articles, the one on Galipeault is not eligible for DYK. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source in the whole article is a primary one (the Pulitzer homepage). There should really be some secondary sources. Regards SoWhy07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate very much the links you provide...I guess I've been away too long to understand exactly what needs to be done with it. The particular book you pointed out definitely notes the existence of His Family, but its description seems very short--it calls the novel simply "an immigrant's story" (which, incidentally, it isn't...don't know who they asked, but they didn't read the book, which is the story of a New York family whose patriarch is descended from multiple generations of New Englanders). Is it customary to quote an excerpt of such a source in the article? I've added two quotations from articles written at the time of the book's publication--one from the Oakland Tribune in their actual review, and one from the NYT in their December round-up of the year's notable fiction. I'll look for more in the morning, and I'll try to find a secondary source (though probably not the one you provided--I don't mean to be ungrateful at all, but as noted, their description of the novel isn't accurate) as you've suggested. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I added that particular source to replace the primary source about winning the Pulitzer, not for the content. Accepting the offline refs AGF, everything else is fine. I also rewrote the hook slightly (advise using ALT1). Regards SoWhy09:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help--it's very much appreciated. I'll keep trying to improve the article regardless. The offline refs are through a password database I had access to but couldn't post a link to--if I can find them via Google's archive I'll change them to provide a link--thanks for the AGF! And I like the new hook--the only reason I was hesitant to put Ernest in the hook is that his article is a little basic right now: couldn't remember if that was a DYK concern. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Don't hesitate to ask me directly if I can be of further assistance. As for the hook, the state of other articles is irrelevant to DYK. The DYK article needs to meet the requirements, not all linked from the hook. But if you are interested in the subject, you could consider expanding that article next for DYK. :-) Regards SoWhy09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that in 2009, a British rower attempting to break the record for the quickest solo crossing of the Atlantic Ocean abandoned his boat due to the approach of Hurricane Bill?
Actually this storm is an unlikely ITN candidate. Storms usually make ITN due to significant numbers of deaths or wide scale property damage. Current forecasts[3] suggest Bermuda will only see tropical storm force winds and land fall not occurring till the Canadian Maritimes as the storm is weakening to below hurricane force. With this forecasts there appears to be a low probability of enough disruption to justify an ITN entry. --Allen3talk19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that a British rower attempting to break the record for the quickest solo crossing of the Atlantic Ocean abandoned his boat due to the approach of Hurricane Bill (2009)?
But a similar argument could be made in favor of any hook to which rule F2 applies. So that is an argument for eliminating F2 for everyone, not for making an exception. Art LaPella (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the original author is included then I submitted the article to DYK too late. August 14 was below the fold when I came here with the nomination. :( The original text was 1226 bytes while the current text is 4402, only 3.59x expansion. I'll see if I can bring more text to the page and make this a valid entry. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dickerman Park
... that since being dedicated for "park and parkway" purposes in 1909, Dickerman Park in Saint Paul, Minnesota, has been primarily used for parking lots and front yards of businesses?
The article was nominated a bit fast - still work in progress. There is a huge variety of English pies, some with a shell and no top crust, some with no shell but a top crust as in the picture to the right, and some completely enclosed, such as the classic pork pie. The game pie has evolved from a stew baked in a coffin with a lid, with the tough pastry usually discarded, to a hot pie in an edible shell with a lid, to a cold game-in-aspic pie, to the modern game pie typically served hot with no shell but a lid. The article will illustrate this. Again - work in progress. The connection between wheat shortage and pies with no lids is completely authentic, described in the life of Beau Brummel. See [4]: "The scarcity two years after Brummel's retirement, viz in 1800, was so great that consumption of flour for pastry was forbidden in the Royal Household, rice being used instead. The distillers left off malting ... and Wedgwood made dishes to represent piecrust."
Think I will leave it. A lot could be added, particularly on other countries and cooking methods, but this version seems reasonably coherent. A rich subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that the practice of stacking dead bodies and covering them with soil instead of digging graves has left Postman's Park, a former burial ground in the City of London, elevated above street level?
"instead of digging graves" and "former graveyard" don't match. If no graves have been dug, it's not a graveyard. Suggest "former burial grounds" or sth like that. --76.64.78.148 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call it "burial ground" if you prefer - in this context (pre-Burials Act 1851 England) the two are synonymous, but if it makes things clearer to the reader it's not a problem. – iridescent00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an even more little-known fact about the Park, read the entry for the Minotaur in Philip Ward-Jackson's Public sculpture of the city of London (ISBN 9780853239772), where you'll find the fact that the statue was intended to be surrounded by a maze, in turf, which never actually materialized. You'll also find some more precise dates there. If you are really good, you'll find the two January 1973 pencil drawings of the nonexistent turf maze, done by Ayrton, in the collection of the Corporation of London. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware - Ward-Jackson was the source I was using here - but I don't think the maze is significant enough to warrant mentioning. As I read Ward-Jackson, the only source for the "maze" story is a note in the Bruton Gallery's catalogue at the time of the statue's sale - the only thing mentioned in the planning application itself was "to purchase and install the Minotaur sculpture", with no mention of any maze. Given the cramped nature of the park, I can't believe the maze idea was ever seriously considered, and I suspect it's a misunderstanding on the gallery's part. – iridescent13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether others considered it or not, Ayrton produced drawings for it. One of the reasons that nothing never materialized was that Ayrton fell ill with diabetes that year and couldn't work. See pages 18 and 289 of ISBN 9780814330029. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it if the most that we can say is "it seems so, but we can't be sure"? Less than a month ago, my creation Dunns Pond Mound was approved with the hook of "that the Dunns Pond Mound in Ohio may have been used for Native American burials for nine centuries?" I would advise a change of "extramarital" to "illegitimate" to fit the link. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Battle for Lake Tanganyika(Lake Tanganyika pictured) involved an expedition dragging motor boats through Africa, led by a man "court-martialled for wrecking his own ships, an inveterate liar and a wearer of skirts"?
I've fiddled the punctuation slightly, otherwise fine. Alternatively, you could do something about the African Queen in the hook... Shimgray | talk | 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have put in refs for the other two species now. I do recall having a photo somewhere on my computer. if the worst comes to the worst, there are loads of photos of Gardenia jasminoides everywhere, but I should have one of fitzalanii somewhere...many refs are still to their old genus name of RandiaCasliber (talk·contribs) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Mill
... that oats have been ground at a watermill on the site of Barry Mill, in Scotland, since 1539?
Refs, size and date are fine. The hook is a bit "mill" heavy with "milled...watermill...Barry Mill", perhaps "ground" rather than "milled"? Long Shrift (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date's fine. Length > 1500 chars. Hook is 139 chars. Hook is inline referenced, and the specific point is addressed by the source. But the source for the hook is another database like Wikipedia, and the database entry is itself unsourced. Thus, I think the policy WP:SOURCEStrumps any DYK guideline, and makes the hook wholly ineligible for DYK. As all the sources for the article are unsourced database entries, there's nothing in the article which can be used for DYK. I also think WP:SPS likely applies as the editors of the database are also the publishers. Additionally, this fails B1, in that the article, by virtue of its inadequate sourcing, is not a "qualifying article"; D11, in that I see no good cause to allow this article to get by on just one source; and WP:NOTADVERTISING, slightly, by including the hours of operation of the facility.
In short, this is likely an unsalvageable nomination unless the nominator (or others) are prepared to exert considerable effort to make it eligible. Still, that exact circumstance is described next to the big, orange "X" template, so the big, orange "X" is what it gets. Hopefully, though, by giving an unambiguous "no" this early in the DYK nom process, the nominator will have enough time to try to turn the "No" into a "Yes". We need more Dutch subjects in DYK. CzechOut☎ | ✍08:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used are the Dutch Molendatabase website and the De Hollandsche Molen website, both of which I believe meet WP:RS. User:Drmies had no problem with the source in an earlier DYK (Jantina Hellingmolen). The mill has an article on the Dutch Wikipedia, thus pre-establishing its notability. WP:MILLS members would also support the article in any AfD discussion. When I expanded the article I did not take the text of the Dutch article and translate it, I wrote the article in my own words using the quoted sources. The public access section is similar to many other articles on museums, tourist attractions etc. If a reader comes across an article, then decides to visit the attraction as a result that can't be a bad thing. It could result in the reader then returning and improving the article by adding photos for example. That editor may then decide to stay around and further improve Wikipedia, which can't be a bad thing, can it. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem, honestly. The mill is a Rijksmonument which, I believe, makes it automatically notable, just like the "historical landmark" status does for US buildings. That something has an article on the Dutch pedia does not impress me very much, but this one is notable enough in its own right. That there isn't much coverage to be found in Google (I checked Books, News, and 'regular') isn't very relevant; the Dutch may be progressive in many ways but digitizing isn't one of them--I have no doubt that the local Emmen paper would have reported on them. That's neither here nor there, though, since we have at least one reliable source: De Hollandsche Molen, which has been active since the 1920s, is the premier Dutch organization dedicated to windmills. The editors might also be the publishers, but I don't see how that matters, since this is a not for profit organization with national renown: if you want to know something about Dutch windmills, that's where you go. (BTW, someone needs to write an article on them.) They could not have achieved such status without editorial oversight. They also publish a number of (well-respected) books, and that should also be an indication that the site is reliable enough. If the opening hours are a problem, cut it--I don't think it's a big deal. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mill has an article on the Dutch Wikipedia, thus pre-establishing its notability. — Wrong. It has no effect on whether something is notable. WP:MILLS members would also support the article in any AfD discussion. — which would be simple ballot stuffing, and wouldn't sway argument unless they could actually provide a policy-based rationale.
Mjroots, instead of making bogus arguments about notability that aren't based upon the actual concept of notability, or trying to argue that because something is a Rijksmonument it satisfies the sourcing requirements of DYK, I suggest that you address the sourcing issue, as Drmies is. Start with finding a copy of Gerding's Encyclopedie van Drenthe and reading its entry for Heidebloem. Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, perhaps you misunderstood my comment. If any mill article gets nominated at AfD, I would merely notify the WP via the talk page that it had been nominated. I wouldn't canvas members to vote in the discussion because I believe that there would be no need to do so. Re sources, I can only work with the sources I have. As I stated above, I believe both sources I used meet WP:RS. As for the notability of individual windmills, I've created a lot of articles on individual windmills in the UK, and none of those has ever been deemed to be non-notable. It would seem that consensus is that windmills are notable in their own right. You can't say that one country's windmills are notable and that another country's windmills aren't. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots, the argument that "if structures of type x are notable in one country they are neccessarily notable in another" is spurious. Notability doesn't respect such international egalitarian arguments. The question is "is the thing actually being noted in an of itself?". Besides which it depends a bit on rarity, there are millions of Christian churches in the US, but (AFAIK) none in Tibet. If one opened in Tibet it would probably be notable - that would not make a new church in the US automatically notable. Holland has a lot of operational mills, the UK has very few.--Scott Mac (Doc)07:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that individual windmills are on a notability level with ships, i.e inherently notable. A windmill was a very significant investment for the original owner, costing many times more than a house would have done to build. (by extension this applies to watermills too). The vast majority of windmills that are still standing today should have enough sources available to establish that notability. A good percentage of windmills standing into the C20th should also have enough sources available to establish that notability. Failing that, all verifiable windmills that have existed should at least be mentioned in the relevant "List of windmills in ....". Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a little odd that so much of this discussion so far has been utterly wasted on notability arguments. Nowhere in my objection do I even mention the subject's notability as an issue for the DYK. I mentioned as a query on the nominator's talk page, but I deliberately didn't put it here. I figured that by getting more sources any of my private concerns about notability would've naturally been assuaged. However, since the topic has been broached in this discussion, and particularly because the nominator has asserted that there are no better sources available, I'll just point out that WP:FAILN does say "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." It really might be better to merge all Dutch mills of this type into a single article, get reliable secondary sources to describe the characteristics and importance of the form, and then use this other tertiary source to provide some of the details about particular mills.
But, for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the nominator is unlikely to take such a radical step, and return to the focus on sourcesfor this article as it stands. Of course WP:SPS is of concern here. A self-published source isn't just one written by a party connected with the subject of the article in question. "Self-published", according to the actual policy language, is just anyone creating a website or paying to have a book published and thereby lays claim to being an expert in a certain field. The website from which you derived the substance of the hook does just this. The editors of that site are also its publishers. And it's edited much like Wikipedia — although to be fair it isn't an open wiki, I don't suppose. There's nothing in the language that describes the site on the home page which suggests any sort of division between "managing" and "contributing" editors. It just asserts that the contributors are "professionals". What does that mean exactly? What's a professional mill spotter? I think I have a right to ask for a bit more clarification that just "Oh, yes, it's a proper resource; these guys have been doing it for years." As far as I can see, this is an "invitation-only" wiki, published by the guys who write it. That's a little better than a Wikia wiki, but not enough to remove the stench of WP:SPS. Please provide genuine evidence of some kind of editorial review process for this source. To me, it just reeks of one of those smaller Wikia wikis where two or three admin are left as the only active contributors.
The other problem is that the information on this little wiki-like thing is in no way sourced itself. There's absolutely no way to independently verify the claims of the "wiki". Again, this article is based on tertiary sources. That's a real problem. We don't actually know the source for the hook. "This high quality database." Yes, but where did they get their information? I just don't see how we can, in good conscience, pass a hook that hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source. We're already kinda "good faith"-ing the fact it's in Dutch. Should we also "good faith" these "professional mill spotters"? On a point of historical fact? No, we shouldn't. Surely a local university should be able to point you (or another member of WP:MILLS, in the right direction. Surely an email to the operators of this "wiki" will yield results. They have to know where they got their information, even if they don't feel obliged to list those sources on their site. I just cannot accept that the only record of this historical fact is a self-published, Dutch-language database. If, as the nominator has just posted, "The vast majority of windmills that are still standing today should have enough sources available ..." then where the heck are the reliable, secondary sources for this one? CzechOut☎ | ✍08:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that there are no better sources available. I meant that I personally have no better sources. The most reliable sources in this case are likely to be Dutch language books on "Molens in Drenthe". Unfortunately, my small library of Dutch language books doesn't possess one on Drenthe. Therefore I'm forced to rely on what I can find on t'internet. Re the "Wiki" problem. Yes, there is a form for a reader to submit further text on an individual mill. That said, the websites aim is to document all windmills in Belgium and the Netherlands. It would not be in their interest to deliberately include false information about a mill. In other words, it is highly likely that the site is moderated to prevent vandalism occuring in the first place, rather than allowing in and removing it later. Comments on both sources would be appreciated at WP:RSN where I have raised the issue for discussion by the community. Vereniging De Hollandshe Molens is probably the oldest of all mill-related groups. In the UK the equivalent is the Mills Section of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the reliability of sources on this article. However, the notion that windmills can escape the need for reliable sources that confer notability because they are "inherently notable" is wrong. Something is notable if it is being noted in reliable verifiable sources.--Scott Mac (Doc)09:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, you misunderstand me. Inherent notability means that the subject is automatically notable enough to have its own article. That said, WP:V and WP:RS still apply. If all that can be found on a particular windmill will fit entirely into the infobox, then it's probably best not to create an individual article, but mention the mill in a list. What we have here is a dispute over whether the De Hollandsche Molens and Molendatabase websites meet WP:RS. I'm of the opinion that they are (and others agree with me on this), while CzechOut is of the opinion that they are not. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is NOT automatically notable enough to have its own article. If there is sufficient verifiable material to justify one, fine - but it is not automatic, notability requires to be established here as elsewhere. Indeed notability is probably a red-herring anyway. All we should ask, is do we have verifiable material? If so, how do we organise it best?--Scott Mac (Doc)09:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made exactly the same point, in just 1 sentence, above. I then went on further to point to a source. So far, Mjroots has made no apparent effort to do as I suggested, and is still even now making yet more fallacious arguments about notability. Mjroots, it's your DYK nomination that is timing out here whilst you continue to not follow good suggestions and waste time with bogus notability arguments. You've already wasted 24 hours of the time allotted with bogus arguments instead of following up on a source that you were pointed to. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that consensus is that windmills are notable in their own right. — Wrong. That people have not paid attention until now doesn't mean that you're doing things correctly. And I reiterate my suggestion to stop making entirely fallacious notability arguments as you are doing and address the sourcing issue. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to check the article, you will see that I have used the source you mentioned to reference parts of the article. The article now has references from five different sources instead of two. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm talking about the entry for Heidebloem in Michiel Alexander Wilhelm Gerding's Encyclopedie van Drenthe, ISBN 9789023239321. Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're kinda getting somewhere. This asset actually is online as well, although I can't find an entry which supports the hook, and it's still a tertiary source. But at least it's something with clear editorial oversight. Here's a little something on this specific mill. Unlike any other source currently cited by the Wiki article, though, this encyclopedia does actually give a source for the information: Anton Bicker Caarten's 1979 edition of Molens in Drenthe. ISBN 907007253X (Zwolle/Meppel). CzechOut☎ | ✍20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of this document I now remove my objection to the source, De Holladsche Molen. However, that document also gives detailed information as to where the source material for that database is housed, and I would encourage the nominator or future editors of the article to try to gain access to the paper hard copies, most of which have not been digitized. According to the website, these are open to public inspection on most days from 10h-15h. The website also suggests they may take queries by email, so perhaps you don't even have to go there to strike a rich vein of new sources.
This does not mean that my "no" vote has suddenly changed to a "yes". Unfortunately, the source of the hook is still questionable. The Molendatabase, per discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#De Hollandsche Molen and Molendatabase websites, does not have editorial oversight, and is non-professional is still under review (please do click on the link to find out current status of that review). Though hopefully that discussion is far from over, Molendatabase is still a bit short of WP:SOURCES, and seems, at this stage, to also offend WP:SELFPUB. It might be helpful to simply remove that hook line from the article altogether. It's the only thing being attributed to that source. This will remove the offending element from the article, and allow the nominator to choose a new hook from the other sourced statements. Also, since this discussion began, the nominator has added more sources. One of them (currently listed as number 6, xs4all) is completely inappropriate. as it's taken from an individual's personal website.
I still bemoan the lack of secondary sources here, though, and would ask other editors besides myself and the nominator to comment upon this question: Is it acceptable for the source of a DYK hook to be from a tertiary source? Though I'm satisfied that the De Hollandsche Molen and Encyclopedia Drenthe online sources have adequate editorial oversight, it would seem that the article practically screams for {{refimprove}} dispute tag on the article, because it falls foul of WP:PSTS. CzechOut☎ | ✍21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you and I are on the same wavelength on this new alt. I don't really like your alt cause it's a little indirect and because, grammatically, the miller isn't pictured. But I've been translating some of the sources we're starting to agree are reasonably good tertiary sources, and I've found what is (to me, at least) an interesting fact that's not in the article. The source which supports the ALT HOOK you've just laid down, as well as this source given in the article (click on Geschiedenis to view), both suggest that the mill is now an instructional mill for millers-in-training. So, provided we can get the question answered of whether tertiary sources are good enough for a hook, what about this:
To simply quote WP:RS, tertiary sources "should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Not many online secondary sources seem to be there, so I think it would be ok for simple facts like these. But let's see what others think. ≈ Chamaltalk¤10:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lengths and date verified. However, the mentioned hook seems to be an original generalization - according to both the article and the supporting source, Paul only spoke about 3 particular opponents (Quayle, Bush, and Dukakis). It's also a rather boring hook based on a very generic statement. Maybe something can be made of the handcuffs story?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be unusual, it needs to be interesting. I think the first hook is the best on here. "Mundane" is a poor description of the hook(s) and this is coming from somebody who is not new to DYK. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the very first hook is not fully supported by the sources. But moreover, I agree with Headbomb. A hook should be "hooky", i.e. it should draw people in. A fairly generic campaign statement fails to do that at least for me. Libertarians are, in general, fairly colorful, so I think we should be able to find a real eye-catcher. My own suggestion (ALT2) is a bit too long and convoluted to make me happy, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are all making too much of this. Bush and Dukakis were his opponents, so I'm not understanding your statement that it is not supported by the sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bush, Dukakis (and Quayle, the third listed in the source) are neither an exhaustive list of Paul's opponents nor primarily known as Paul's opponents. His statement does not cover Russell Means, or Lenora Fulani, while your version does. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russell Means was the opponent for the nomination, Fulani was not a serious candidate. A DYK is not supposed to go into any great detail, but just show an interesting fact, such as an ironic statement. Were Bush and Dukakis not "his opponents"? I still don't completely understand your objection . --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is that (according to the source) Paul made a very specific statement about three of his opponents, but your hook represents him as making a sweeping statement about opponents in general. Maybe I'm anal - I welcome other opinions on the various suggestions. There is not question that the article meets the requirements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Character length>1500. Expanded 5x, in appropriate date range. But I don't like the hook at all. It's trying too hard, and actually combining two facts. The entire sentence therefore has no inline citation in the article. (How could such a convoluted since have attribution?) The hook should be about something notable to Al Purvis, not to Canada's Olympic Men's Ice Hockey Team. Also, article, generally, is backed by only two sources, one of them being just an encyclopedia. There's gotta be more out there about this guy. And surely there's something in the as-yet-unfound references that'll really give us something interesting to say about Al Purvis. (Not sure btw, that there's that much in graf 5 that's at all useful to this biographical article. If you could find references for what Purvis did for his team during the 1952 Olympics, that'd be sweet, but just a summary of the games doesn't really belong in an Al Purvis article. Also, article currently doesn't agree with itself as far as the date of his death. Is it the 12th, the 14th or as this really crappy source suggests the 13th of August? The man literally just died and we've got three different dates bouncing around!
So, a handful of of goals here then. 1) find more sources, 2) reorient the article so that it's about Al Purvis, not the fate of Canadian Olympic Hockey and 4) make the hook only about Al Purvis. CzechOut☎ | ✍20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that although John Fortescue listed ten Inns of Chancery, only nine are known? fivefold expansion - previous prose was 1807, requiring 9035 for a fivefold. I count 9114 characters give or take a few [1] reftags, which should be fine. 5x expanded by Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that a 1999 excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority inside a sewer pipe in the depopulated Arab village of Bashshit revealed ceramic remains dating back to the Early Islamic period?
Problematic sourcing. As noted by the author of the book that reprinted the statement used as the source of this claim, "It has been claimed that the statements were published in the newspapers for their political effect on the presidential campaign of 1856."[5] This makes the claim questionable until a secondary source can be produced showing the claim has been evaluated and found to be trustworthy. As per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, the article can note that this statement exists and what it claims but the article can not use the claims as unchallenged truth without appropriate secondary or tertiary sourcing. --Allen3talk22:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zoeth Skinner Eldredge, the author of the 1912 book The Beginnings of San Francisco, is indeed the tertiary source we all like to have. The author looked at the secondary sources (newspaper articles) and evaluated them against each other and against primary sources (interviews), and came to the conclusion that the attempt to sway the 1856 campaign "cannot in any way alter the facts." Eldredge then continues to give the straightest available version of the facts. The book's pages 406–408 contain the relevant passages, exactly as seen at the SF History URL http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hbbegd.htm ... Besides which, the facts I used in the hook are facts which were not challenged by anybody at the time. All the parties agree that Kit Carson and two other men shot and killed the de Haro twins and the 61-year-old Berreyesa. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the hook is sources to a tertiary source, much of the article is Original research in the form of [[extrapolation from primary sources. Examples of this is the use of deposition transcripts (as opposed to a court's findings of fact) as a truthful source and unquestioned use of a statement that according to the book where it is reprinted was originally published in an effort to sway an election. --Allen3talk23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it, and after checking sources I still don't know it, because it's not actually true. The Ofcom statement on the matter, to be found here says explicitly that it no longer has any power under the Communications Act 2003 to enforce a set number of hours of childrens' programming, since childrens' programming is a "tier 3" class of programming which is self-regulated by broadcasters. So it's not "forcing" anything here. The amount of childrens' programming shown in 2007 was, moreover, four hours per week, not eight, which the broadcaster wanted to reduce further to two hours per week for 2008. You may have noticed that it is now 2009.
I suggest getting a hook and an article that are actually accurate. For starters, note that you are working from 2007 sources. Uncle G (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much wrong with this one. Article character count ~ 2000. Expansion is from about 300-char revision, so almost 7x. Hook's the right length, and directly sourced in the article. I don't really like that the nominator has changed every reference to "University of North Carolina" to "North Carolina", which may be confusing to global readers, not to mention some Americans with only a passing familiarity with college sports. It's important that at least one reference to "North Carolina" be to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I'd recommend changing the "college" line in the infobox to reflect this fact, as the infobox isn't asking for a team, but an institution.
But I digress. As far as the DYK nom, the only problem is that the source doesn't quite support the sentence in the article on which the hook is based. In the article, the "hook line" says that Dan Campbell threw his helmet, but the source says Campbell drop-kicked the helmet. BIg difference as to what happened, and the peril in which Monk might've found himself. That's why the reporter actually uses the language Monk was "nearly decapitated". You're not really in serious danger from someone throwing a helmet unless you're at point-blank range. But kicking it? That's a much bigger threat for a much greater distance. So the article needs revision as to this point, and such revision would allow for a literally punchier hook.
Comment: Ref for hook is offline, but I have provided two snippet, online pieces on the talk page for help in verifying. 2,913 characters, 27x expansion. Deliberately avoided mentioning that it's an ant; people will have to click to find out, ;-)
1014 characters of prose. There's some odd formatting in the background section that's lowering your prose count. Also, you might want to make the "notable cases" section paragraphs instead of bullets. Shubinator (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is currently festooned with cleanup templates, mostly questioning the sourcing. Reliable sources exist, at least for the variant "What goes on tour, stays on tour" (see The Times and The Daily Mail, to name two), so it ought to be possible to craft an article that does not rely on non-RS sources. --Orlady (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought some more respectable sources to the article, and taken out some blogs that were clearly not notable. Other blogs such as the advice column "Ask Sam" by Samantha Bret I'm not so certain about, so there is still improvement to be made. Again, the ALT1 hook is good to go, with a robust Times Online reference written by Matt Syed. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Well, things look good. Article > 1500 chars, Inline citation of hook. Timing of nomination good. All the basics. I just really dislike the hook. It buries its lead and features a picture that in no way represents the topic of the article (the Spider-Man pilot). The whole point of the casting is that it's the voice of Freddie Kruger, and a modern-day amateur snap of Robert Englund isn't something that most readers will associate with animated Spider-Man. Another way of looking at it is that, for me, it fails rule 2 and 4 of WP:DYK#Images. A current pic of Robert Englund is not suitable, attractive or interesting, nor is it directly relevant to the article.
So, I propose the same basic hook, but with the article as the subject and the removal of the picture of Englund. Note that this hook uses pretty much the exact wording of one sentence in the source (that is, the source alleges it's Freddy providing the voice, as well).
Hook fact does not have a citation. Also, the article has a lot of single or two lined paragraphs. It would be better if some of those relevant ones were combined, since it gives too much of an incomplete appearance. ≈ Chamaltalk¤08:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr al-Hassan's age could have been 83 or 84, so we should avoid stating it explicitly. I also provided a link for the Justice minister of Iraq. Alt 1 is good to go; references and article are good. Maedin\talk12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... that Mao Amin (b. 1962), known by the "honorific title" of Dajieda ("Big Sister"), "was one of China's most famous and senior female pop stars" by "the mid-1990s."?
This article apparently has already been on the Main page:
A fact from Mao Amin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 August 2009. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know ... that in 2001, Chinese pop star Mao Amin appeared along with 35 other Chinese athletes and entertainers on a series of postage "stamps in support of Beijing's bid for hosting the 2008 Olympic Games"?
Well, that's today, and it's not currently on the main page, in the queues, or in the archives, so I'd say that's wrong. The article needs a serious copy-edit, though, the quoting is ridiculous. orangefreak3316:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can do. I checked it before I submited, it should have been above the count, but I guess I was wrong.--WillC04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Île de Noirmoutier does produce the world's most expensive potatoes if "Jeremy" of the most-expensive.net blog is to be believed, but he doesn't say they are produced in the commune of Noirmoutier-en-l'Île specifically; they may be produced in the southern two-thirds of the island. As Jeremy and the potato-growers' co-op disagree on other matters concerning the potato, I'd be inclined not to put too much faith in him anyway. Long Shrift (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have concerns about content sourced to someone only identified as "jeremy". I've been unable to find any reliable sources to corroborate a general "most expensive" claim, merely a specific claim relating to one auction one time, and that price was in Francs, not Euros (as "jeremy" has it). And Long Shrift's point about the difference between Île de Noirmoutier and Noirmoutier-en-l'Île is a good one, too. See sources such as these articles in Libération (source, source) and Le Nouvel Observateur (source). Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of Googling and I think the following sources are sufficiently reliable for citing these potato claims:
They don't back up either the claims here or in the article. According to the first one, the Île de Noirmoutier produces the world's most expensive potato (although the citation from that article to "Wacky Archives" doesn't inspire confidence), but it doesn't say anything about the commune being the site of potato farming on the island. The second link is to the potato-growers' co-op which, as I previously mentioned, disagrees with several of the claims made in the article by "Jeremy". Even if "La Bonnotte" can be reliably established as the most expensive potato, the hook doesn't make sense: "the French commune of Noirmoutier-en-l'Île and Île de Noirmoutier" are treated as if they are two different locations, when the commune is actually on the island. This is akin to stating "French people come from the city of Paris and France". Unless the potato farming on the island can be placed in the commune the hook would have to read "... that Île de Noirmoutier is home to the world's most expensive potatoes?" which would omit the DYK article. Long Shrift (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special occasion holding area
Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated within five days of creation or expansion as usual (with the exception of April Fools'). Also, articles should be nominated at least five days before the occasion to give reviewers time to check the nomination.
Thanks. I think people fish for spousal abuse, which is there and perhaps to some people more interesting. I prefer the wide-ranging campaign (that was diametrically(sp?) opposed to a more youthful candidate who proposed using insider strategy and the Internet). Make sense? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original hook uses wrong dating format for an American subject. And why is the exact date necessary at all? I suggest
Duplication of info from the article Rizal Park and therefore doesn't qualify as new content. This article should be either merged or redirected to the Rizal Park article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
First two suggested hooks make no sense as all dough is edible, so I've struck them. Third one is okay, and in regards to the former AFD, the article appears to have sufficient sourcing to justify its existence now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Russian source accepted for hook. 5x verified. decltype (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
According to [1] a DYK article must be at least 1500 characters. Yes the article is a 5x (meaning it counts as a new article) but it is still less than 1500 characters of prose. Francium12 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Too short. Article marked as a stub. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Passes all criteria. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done! See below:
