This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.
Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.
When will my nomination be reviewed?
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, 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 below).
Where is my hook?
If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.
If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.
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:
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.
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.
Advanced procedures
How to promote an accepted hook
At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area
Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
Hook should make sense grammatically.
Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)
For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
Check that there's a bold link to the article.
If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
At the upper left
Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
Change |passed= to |passed=yes
At the bottom
Just above the line containing
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.
How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue
Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
View the edit history for that page
Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.
How to move a nomination subpage to a new name
Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.
Nominations
Older nominations
Latest comment: 3 hours ago124 comments27 people in discussion
... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 was one of the earliest train wrecks ever photographed? Source: Reed, Robert (1968). Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line. Seattle: Superior Pub. Co. pp. 20–21. Also verified by Heppner, Frank H. (2012). Railroads of Rhode Island: shaping the Ocean State's railways. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press. p. 78
Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have access to Train Wrecks right now as I'm in the middle of a move. Heppner says "This was the first train wreck ever to be photographed and printed in a newspaper". I have added an inline cite at the end of the sentence. This is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - if we try and run the hook as stated in the sources and article, it will almost certainly be challenged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My usual litmus test for "first" hooks is whether there's a finite set of things, making it possible to definitively order them and see which was first. For example, we can be pretty sure George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States; even the most skeptical of us should be willing to accept that there wasn't one before him that we just somehow haven't found yet in a google search. In this case, photography had only existed for about 20 years when this crash happened. The window of when an earlier photo might have been taken is thus limited, so at least this seems likely to be true. On general principles, however, I think we should say "believed to be" or something like that. FWIW, I found mention of this in the George Eastman House 2008 Annual Report which says "[Train wreck on the Providence Worcester Railroad near to Pawtucket], August 12, 1853. Attributed to L. Wright. Daguerreotype. so there may be some uncertainty about the photographer's identity. RoySmith(talk)15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I generally interpret the phrase "attributed to" to indicate a degree of uncertainty. Thus Read my lips: no new taxes says, "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that he said it. Millions of people watched him say it live on TV and we've got it on videotape to go back and verify. But Gospel of Matthew says The gospel is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew because we're not 100% sure. I think the same thing is going on here; the Eastman folks believe Wright took the image, but they apparently have enough uncertainty about it that they felt the needs to hedge in their statement. RoySmith(talk)19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand now. So what we know without a doubt is this collision happened and it was photographed. Photography was very much an emerging technology at this point so I think this is almost certainly one of the first train collisions ever photographed, if not the first. Railroads as we know them only really emerged around 1830 with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Daguerreotype was invented in 1839. It's difficult to definitively prove this was the first photo, but it was almost certainly one of the earliest. The question is how do we word this in the article and in the hook. An ALT1 about the emergence of a very early form of a coordinated time/time zone in the aftermath of this wreck is also possible, as that is somewhat easier to verify. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trainsandotherthings: As this is your nomination, you will know the contents of this article better than a reviewer. I suggest that you propose an ALT1 along with what you suggest above, or several ALTs, so the reviewer can determine the most interesting ones. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
ALT1: ...that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 led to the creation of the first time zone in the United States? Source: America's First Time Zone, the Harvard Gazette "That first voluntary time agreement among the railroads became mandatory a few years later, after an 1853 wreck occurred outside Pawtucket, R.I., on a blind curve known as the Boston Switch...After that, railroad time was mandated along the region’s tracks...The result of all this, said Galison and Schechner, was America’s first time zone" Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given the brouhaha about "first" hooks, we will need a much stronger source for the "first time zone" option, or perhaps a revised version that isn't as strong about it being a "first". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The issue is really how to present the hook. We've had issues over "first" hooks for a long while, so if it really is the first we have to be sure that it's right. Otherwise, finding a compromise wording is tricky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most certainly not, Trainsandotherthings. Some articles just don't fit DYK, whether they're on CTOPs or, like this, contain details which have too high a risk of getting pulled up on at WP:ERRORS, or they're on BLPs about whom all coverage is negative, or... you get the picture. If this nom has to be rejected—well, it has a lot of company, so please don't feel singled out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is not a BLP. This is not a contentious topic. This is simply arcane DYK rules at work, and a perfect example of why I've largely stopped participating in DYK. It's fine, though, bad actors like Coldwell can get through DYK 500 times in a row. I am well aware that some article are not good fits for DYK because I have had the self-awareness to not nominate a good number of articles that were in theory DYK eligible based on newness and length. However, this nomination has been me trying to come up with ideas and everyone else (besides Bremps) shooting them down. Meanwhile people spend months workshopping the most boring articles laying out 20 alts just to get them past the finish line. Tell me, is this article really unfit for DYK, or are there simply too many arbitrary rules, written and unwritten, that act like invisible tripwires? I could write a hook about the collision being caused by the conductor's watch being off by two minutes right? Or is that violating some other unwritten rule? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probably the safest option so far. It still says a time zone was created without directly claiming it to be the first time zone in the US. The nuance is lost of course, but given the brouhaha over "first" hooks it's probably for the best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article was recently recreated from a redirect so if tools say this is an old article then that is inaccurate. Thus the article is technically eligible. There are however multiple major issues with the nomination right now. The first is that the article is in need of a copyedit, and second, the hook is too vague and broad to meet WP:DYKINT. It lacks context (it doesn't make it unambiguously clear that the subject is a song), and the "#1 on the popularity charts" claim also lacks context. I should also note that the article isn't more specific about which charts are being referred to here either, so that is also an issue with the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If that's the case then that hook can't run as it won't pass scrutiny on either WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. A new hook will need to be proposed here, but if one can't, then the nom will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The context of that hook is a bit unclear. Did you mean the song was covered by Kumar and Rafi with the help of AI? Given this is a music-related hook, maybe Launchballer can come up with a clearer and more grammatically-correct wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just noting that the tools are saying this is an old article because it used to be one; the article was deleted at AfD in 2012. I think the AI stuff takes it over the line in terms of notability.--Launchballer13:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand that ToI has a yellow rating at WP:RSP, but the hook's claim seems uncontroversial and not something they likely made up. If there are no other sources that cover that information I don't think it should be an issue to use ToI in this particular case (unless this is one of their paid articles), but to be on the safe side maybe another source should be added to strengthen the claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I apologise if my original post was not clear. The two Times of India pieces are currently used to back up a claim of plagiarism and the winning of an award, which I regard as needing stronger sourcing. I have no objection with the Hindustan Times being used for the hook.--Launchballer07:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No further objections from me, although for a low-profile individual like that fan, you probably shouldn't be including their name per WP:BLPNAME. I've removed this for you, and made a few other edits while at it. Also, without evidence that the 'popularity charts' are anything other than Hindustan Times' own chart, that had to come out per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Passing you back to @Narutolovehinata5:.--Launchballer08:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apologies, I was under the impression that the above included a review. This is long enough, new enough, copyvio free and QPQ exempt. I don't see any reason why this might deserve a maintenance template. This still needs someone else to approve ALT2.--Launchballer19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's work with ALT2Reply
ALT1: ... that after former Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay's plane launched from Lahug Airport, he had a plane crash which ultimately ended his life? Source: [2]
Interesting: - Neither hook is particularly interesting to a broad audience. The papal mass at the airport sounds far more interesting.
QPQ: - Still needed. Overall: Went ahead and copyedited the article, but it seems to have brought it below the length requirement after removing some filler. SounderBruce01:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SounderBruce: I reviewed a DYK nom for QPQ, and I fixed the longevity problem, for another alt, I suggest:
"PacificWrecks.com" does not exactly scream "reliable". The CDN piece seems to be an opinion/contributor reflection rather than a proper news article. I imagine a papal mass would have plenty of coverage, no? SounderBruce02:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SounderBruce: PacificWrecks seems pretty popular and reliable, but in case, I found this website, which seems like a copy of a book? And the other statement about the CDN piece, yes, It seems like that, but they would not change the facts, since they are one of the most reliable sources in Cebu City. And the 3rd and last statement, yes, It feels like that, but it was pretty old, so im not sure about the last one. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗04:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TheNuggeteer: SounderBruce hasn't responded to this in over a week, so I'll take over from here. I took out one sentence per WP:SUMMARY, and was about to move the 1966 closure to the end of the paragraph beginning "On August", but the cited source doesn't mention the date. Could one be added?--Launchballer12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's better, although I just noticed a bunch of stuff in the infobox that isn't sourced. For DYK purposes you can just add cites to the infobox but I think the article would be better if it was added to the body.--Launchballer12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Airport codes, opening date, timezone, elevation, and the runway stuff. I think you can get away with just linking Bureau of Aeronautics to Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines.--Launchballer12:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I was planning on reviewing this anyway. (I keep finding more and more stuff to say about Eliza Legzdina.) This is long enough and new enough. I don't see why you'd say 'close to 100 takes' when the quote in the source says "I did 45 or 50 takes one day and [then t]he next morning [...] I had to do another 70 takes"; come again with "more than 100". I would have raised my hackles at Missmalini.com, but it's been discussed at RSN and found to be fine so I'll take it. QPQ unnecessary. There's a fair amount of close paraphrasing throughout the article and this should be remedied before this can be ticked off.--Launchballer07:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Screw it, it's been a month and no one's been able to come up with anything better than that. Someone drag me to a noticeboard if they care, but I'm willing to WP:IAR approve ALT1. IAR on newness (slightly over seven days), long enough, sourced, neutral, interesting, and plagiarism-free. Hook is cited and interesting, no image provided, no QPQ necessary. Good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Isaidnoway and Theleekycauldron: I was thinking of promoting this but unless I'm missing something neither hook is actually cited in the article, either that the four in the first hook are all siblings or that those listed in Alt1 are prime ministers. I would actually say the entire lead needs cited, including the footnotes, unless there is a guideline I am missing? Happy to be corrected if I've missed something.
The Encyclopedia of Popular Music p.1564; Peter Michael McCartney, 7 January 1944, Liverpool, England. The younger brother of the Beatles Paul McCartney.
I've added a bunch of references to this myself; didn't think the Argentine first lady was quite as noteworthy as the US and UK heads of state, feel free to reinstate with a reference @Isaidnoway:. (I tried adding them to the note, but it gave me an error message.)--Launchballer07:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for adding those refs, I appreciate it. The article uses the list-defined reference format, so if you could move the ones you added to the reflist, that would be great, if you don't want to, that is fine as well, and I will take care of moving the refs and the note issue later when I get back from my cardiologist and ophthalmologist appointments today. AirshipJungleman29, if you are referring to the refs I listed up above, they are already in the article, if you are referring to different citations, please let me know, so I can address those concerns. And I should also note, that my preference is the original hook, not the ALT1 hook about the prime ministers. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk)07:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
... that Belgian hardcore DJ Liza 'N' Eliaz(pictured) was named a "spiritual leader" in France's free party movement? Source: "...who had carved out her name as a hard trance and techno champion. Such was the regard held for her that she was considered one of the spiritual leaders of the free party movement in France, even though she was Belgian."James, Martin (2022-06-15). French Connections: Daft Punk, Air, Super Discount & the Birth of French Touch. Velocity Press. ISBN 978-1-913231-30-9.
The article was nominated within 7 days of creation. It passes the length requirement and is complete as well. I see no neutrality issues. I ran checks on four of the cited sources and found no copyright issues. Agreed with Schwede66 regarding the photo swap. She looks somewhat like a matronly school teacher in the photo, which makes for a wonderful contrast with the "Belgian hardcore DJ" label, and I hope that the closer runs the photo too. Thank you, Lajmmoore. Surtsicna (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The third paragraph under Career needs a citation at the end. The LinkedIn source can only be used if it specifically references who referred to him as playing the saxophone within the article. However, that is clunky, and I recommend removing the source entirely. Why do you need four references for that one fact? It can be knocked down to one source. Otherwise, the article is long enough, new enough, and neutral with no copyright violations. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the third paragraph under Career, I relied on sources within the linked articles, i.e. match reports for the matches Chilowicz refereed. His name appears in the linked articles next to a "Report" link that I figure to be the sources for these statements. I suppose I can just use those same sources in this article, but I thought that would likely be superfluous. US Referee (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
US Referee It looks good except for one issue. The source does not say that he "refereed his first competitive match between senior national teams". If that cannot be sourced, it can also be removed from the article and then I can approve it. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
SL93 I thought this could be inferred by the fact that Chilowicz's international experience was strictly with CONCACAF and there is no counter-example, but I understand your point. Chilowicz's page at Soccerway (heretofore linked in External links) does indicate that this was his first and only such match. I've added it as a reference after that sentence. US Referee (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Overall: no concerns; it's a new GA. prefer ALT1 as clearer and hook-ier to a general audience. good work! ... sawyer * he/they * talk01:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think all the hooks are misleading, even ALT0. There are many systems of rounding in apportionment. All must produce rounding errors, in the sense that rounded numbers rather than exact numbers are a necessary outcome of the process. Therefore, rounding errors are not a cause of anything. Different apportionment procedures have different priorities and it is an inappropriate editorialization to call one of them correct and others incorrect. Congress did not legislate the result of rounding a particular number; they legislated a rounding procedure that applies to a system of numbers (rather than a single number at a time) that happens to have this result, because it prioritized something else and did not prioritize getting within one of the unrounded value. As a simple example (different from what actually happened) this could easily happen in a system that prioritized relative error rather than absolute error. The nominator appears to have an agenda for promoting certain electoral methods and for putting down certain other ones, rather than treating them all equally and neutrally; we should not further this agenda. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi David, do you think ALT0A is acceptable? I agree different rounding procedures are inevitable, and all of them will have various quirks and paradoxes. I'm just highlighting this as an interesting example of such a paradox. (Though I'd note that rounding 40.5 up to 42 is a difference of 1.5, making this an unusually severe violation of the quota rule, which is why it's notable/surprising.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Therefore, rounding errors are not a cause of anything." If the results of an election would have been different with a different rounding algorithm, and also would have been correct if no rounding algorithm was used, I think it's fair to say the election results were caused by round-off errors. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
You keep saying "correct". Stop. That is the problem. An imputation that some procedures are correct and others are not is what is causing this issue. If what you really mean is that, for one particular election, one rounding method caused the results to agree with direct democracy and a different rounding method caused a different result, then say so, but for any rounding method one can find scenarios where it will differ from direct democracy and others will not. This is not an argument for one being correct and another not.
As for ALT0a: No. It did not have that effect. It had the effect that rounding a system of numbers caused one of the numbers to be rounded from 40.5 to 42, but that is not interesting, cause for alarm, or problematic. To spell out a simple example: suppose we are trying to round numbers to achieve minimum relative error, that the total number of seats is 48, and that the numbers we are trying to round are (1.25,1.25,1.25,1.25,1.25,1.25,40.5). Then the obvious way to round it is (1,1,1,1,1,1,42). Anything else would assign one of the small numbers a number of seats far out of proportion. Your hook describes political grandstanding from the time but by cherry-picking a detail from the rounding is misleading about the actual effect of the bill.
You might just as well say that the current US electoral college rounds 0.9 to 3 (the proportional fraction of electoral college seats that should be held by Wyoming vs the seats it gets). Is that cause for alarm? Is that cause for saying that the highest averages method used in part to allocate these seats is incorrect? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dr. Eppstein: If the problem is the word "correct", I've removed the it from ALT1a. I agree it was sloppy phrasing on my part in the DYK, which I only included because I did not expect that hook to be used, and definitely not that it would be used without first being workshopped a bit. (This is my first DYK, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with the procedure.) However, I don't see the relevance of any of this to the newest version of the hook, given I've removed the word "correct" from it. Otherwise, when I say "correct", I'm only defining this to mean the results with the idealized procedure, using fractional apportionments, which does not introduce any rounding errors.
Direct democracy is wholly unrelated to this topic, and I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. If you mean a direct popular vote, then no, I'm not talking about the popular vote. My point is that A) who won the election depended on the specific rounding rule for the House (which is interesting); and B) all the rounding rules well-regarded by experts for this purpose (Webster, Huntington-Hill, some for Hamilton) produce the same winner, and this winner disagrees with the actual results of the election. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Each state has a certain number of votes. Those votes go to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state (in this election, all states used a winner-take-all rule for choosing electors). In a House of size , that number of votes is equal to , where the brackets denote rounding by whatever apportionment method. I am saying that if you dropped the brackets, i.e. if every state's electoral college apportionment was equal to two senators plus its exactentitlement in the house, the result would be different. In addition, if the entitlement had been done using any common rounding procedure (Webster, Huntington-Hill, Hamilton), the election results would have been different. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
And I am saying that dropping the rounding and determining the result of an election by the exact unrounded vote tally is exactly the definition of direct democracy. Whether you divide all vote counts by the same quota (without rounding) or whether you leave them as integer numbers of voters, the result is identical. What about this is difficult to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would not use ALT1a at all, because it is misleading. All (unfixed) elections are decided by the choices of the voters and the voting system used for the election. All representative systems round, and all rounding systems produce rounding errors. ALT1a suggests to the reader, incorrectly, that the result of the 1876 election was somehow the wrong result, and that if only people had known how to perform arithmetic correctly then the outcome would have been different. It was the correct result, for the voting system chosen for that election, and the arithmetic was performed correctly. Get off this hobbyhorse of correctness and error. Leave 1876 politics behind. Find a different and unrelated hook for this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The nominator brought this up in the WP Discord asking for input. For what it's worth, David Eppstein's commentary is accurate. It is not acceptable in Wikivoice to say that these were "rounding errors" (ALT1A) or that it was not "correct" (ALT1), and ALT0/0A are deeply misleading. A new hook should be offered. This was an unavoidable quirk of the system chosen, but as already stated, there is inherently going to be drift in any system attempting to lodge fractional pegs into integer holes. That's exactly the problem being solved. Any alternative system could have other "haha look this number rounded to this wrong number" issues as well. SnowFire (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quick edit to ward off an objection: there's two sense of "error". Of course there were rounding errors in the mathematical sense of the distance from the real number to the result, but there's also errors in the sense of "being wrong", which is how a standard reader will read hook 1A. But as discussed, no such error in that sense of the word was made. SnowFire (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's reasonable! I have no objections to tidying up the phrasing, and I can see how someone might misunderstand what I meant by "rounding errors". Do you have any suggestions for how to rephrase this more clearly? Do you think ALT1c looks good? Thanks! —Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
This was an unavoidable quirk of the system chosen, but as already stated, there is inherently going to be drift in any system attempting to lodge fractional pegs into integer holes.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here, though. Yes, there is unavoidable drift (although I'd note the largest remainder methods don't violate quota rule) and in this case, the method used by Congress had an unusual/unavoidable quirk (which eventually led them to reject it). This quirk is interesting, which is why I think it makes a good DYK. —Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's better, but TSventon's concern remains. The 1876 election is just an unusually weird example to pick - sure, the apportionment system mattered, but so did the decision for electoral votes to include Senators (i.e. Nevada having 3 votes rather than 1 vote). So did voter suppression in the South (this & many elections until the 1960s, alas). So did the Compromise of 1877. You've picked an election which was so close that just about everything could be said to have affected the result. Moreover, it's not even clear that this was the fault of the "algorithm used to decide rounding" - it depends on what exactly was going on with the "supplemental apportionment" that the Balinksi & Young source describes.
Are there any non-1876 election related hooks to be had? If you really want to do one there, then I think we need some deep, ironclad sourcing from someone who both knows the politics AND the math behind it. So more than just passing mention or the half-page in Balinkski & Young. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a more detailed account of the 1876 allocation on pages 71 and 72 of a US Government report here. But I am still not keen on an 1876 hook. TSventon (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree an 1876 source is not ideal. That said, if the supplemental apportionment was a true "fudge", then that wasn't the fault of any rounding method, that was just an exercise in raw power politics, which is a little off-topic from the article and thus not a great hook for a different reason. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
... that Kavita Seth became so popular with the 2009 Hindi-language song "Iktara" that audiences wanted her to sing the song whenever she went for live concerts?
I've removed the points I'd consider to be minor nitpicks and left a couple I do think should be addressed as they concern the factuality of the article. Apologies for going overboard. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Getting the nomination started while it's timely. The proposed hook is short as the subject's name is quite intriguing to start with and so it's best not to bury it in detail.
Created by Andrew Davidson (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 128 past nominations.
I am taking this on because I love the quirkiness of the hook. The article is long enough and was nominated in time to count as new. I do have some issue with sourcing and possibly neutrality, however. One of the sources is a self-published genealogy website, while another mentions slave ownership not found in the article. Also, it is claimed in this book, apparently by the man who had Quigley's journal published, that Quigley was a state senator. If true, this would be a major omission. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Surtsicna: Thanks for the review. Regarding your points:
The Kentucky Kindred site seems reasonably reliable as it provides copious evidence such as newspaper cuttings. Perhaps they can be cited directly. I'll take another look.
The slave ownership detail seems to arise from the census returns. It didn't seem interesting but I can add more detail of his household if you like.
I saw that state senator point and used it initially but it didn't check out. His obituary in the Paducah Evening Sun says that "He was the first city attorney ... This was the only public office he ever held." I didn't find any other reference to him as a state senator and suppose he would have left more trace if he was one.
I'll make another pass through the article and then ping for a check. More anon.
You may be right about the census returns data not being necessarily relevant. That would then apply to everything from it, however. I would suggest citing the newspapers instead of the genealogy site. I too could not find anything about his supposed senatorship but the fact that the publisher of his journal mentioned it threw me off. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Surtsicna: I've updated the article to address these points.
The Kentucky Kindred source is still used as it's a good general reference but it is not cited alone for anything and the citations related to the hook are now to the specific newspapers.
The slave holdings recorded in the census are included
The NHRP nomination has been added as a source as it contains lots of good detail. Note that it states In time he was to become a highly successful attorney, "eschewing politics and all other interests which would detract from his success as an attorney" (Levin, p. 407). There were two exceptions, however. He did accept the office of trustee of the town of Paducah and later served as city attorney. This cites Levin, H. (1897), The Lawyers and Lawmakers of Kentucky, Chicago: Lewis Publishing, pp. 407–408, 421–422. I've not looked at that yet and so may do more but wanted to keep the nomination moving, ok?
... that petite soprano Grace Panvini stood 4 foot 11 3/4 inches tall; a height which one reviewer described as an asset for appearing youthful on stage?
For the review calling her short stature an asset for appearing youthful: Alice Eversman (August 12, 1942). "Rigoletto Brings Singers to Water Gate". Washington Evening Star. p. 45.
ALT2: ... that David Gillespie was the chief surveyor under Andrew Ellicott on the commission to determine the thirty-first parallel? Source: Holmes, Jack D. L. (April 1966). "The Southern Boundary Commission, the Chattahoochee River, and the Florida Seminoles, 1799". The Florida Historical Quarterly. 44 (4): 312–337. JSTOR30147229.
Reviewed:
Created by Aneirinn (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
: Article is new enough, and long enough, and predominantly soured with public domain content so no apparent copyright issues. However, I find none of the hooks interesting to a wide audience (an increasingly common issue with DYK). And despite the article title, no reliable sources seem to use the middle initial "B.": where does this come from? And spot checking sources, Battle 1890 does not seem to have a page 170, nor mention David Gillespie anywhere. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I originally used the wrong book as the source. The source I was using had combined the two books in one pdf and I had missed that. Also, concerning his middle name, I suppose you are saying that "Death at Red Springs". The Weekly Star. Vol. XXIX. Wilmington, North Carolina: North Carolina Newspapers, Digital North Carolina. June 10, 1898. p. 1. is not a reliable source for this? If so, could you please clarify if that is correct? Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dr. David B. Gillespie (February 24, 1815–January 2, 1905), who attended the Medical College of South Carolina, [Source:Catalogue of the Students Attending Lectures in the Medical College of the State of South Carolina, Session 1837–'38. Charleston: James S. Burges, 85 East-Bay. 1838. p. 6 – via Medical University of South Carolina, Waring Historical Library.] was a son of Major David B. Gillespie. [Source:"Descendants of David Gillespie"(PDF). NCGenWeb.] I think it is likely that the writer of the twice-published obituary wrote 'Major' David B. Gillespie for a reason, and that Dr. David B Gillespie is named after his father, which would have them both with middle names that start with the letter 'B'. This point of contention is not really an issue; however, I find it hard to believe that people would find the initial proposal or ALT1 dull or uninteresting. It is significant and interesting that, according to Kemp P. Battle, David B. Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States. This would also make David B. Gillespie the first person in the United States to receive a document in the form of a diploma from a public university. If more alternative hooks are necessary, I'm willing to provide additional options. Aneirinn (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Greetings Launchballer, thank you for your response to this and my apologies for abandoning my nomination for Red Brown (politician). I had not realized that only prose characters are counted for the 5x expansion requirement. To answer your question, it seems as if the primordial reviewer has abandoned this nomination. I should also note that an additional source for the initial of the subject's middle name has been added to the article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Whatever source you were using for his middle name, you weren't citing it, so I've taken it out. I am happy to take over this review, except I don't find any of the hooks interesting either (ALTs 3 and 4 are bloated versions of ALTs 0 and 1 and ALT2 is just confusing).--Launchballer06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Citations for this in the lead are unnecessary per MOS:LEAD. Two sources cited in the body of the article mention the initial of his middle name. One even has it written in its title. Saying it "fails verification" is a bit outside of the box here, so I have returned it. I changed one word on ALT2, hopefully it is an improvement at the very least. Aneirinn (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am entirely at odds with the previous sentence. MOS:NAME says "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information. Inclusion of middle names or initials... can be a useful form of disambiguation if there is more than one person known by that name." Which is the case here. MOS:LEAD supports the status quo. Would you please quote how WP:V supports that? It also mentions, "A source 'directly supports' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of WP:NOR. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material." Aneirinn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Aneirinn: Launchballer is correct that the material needs to be either cited in the lead or mentioned and cited in the body. The paragraph of WP:V says only that there might exist a source that directly supports the material, which isn't relevant here. For DYK purpose, the material does need to be verifiable to its source in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
... that Motibai Kapadia is credited as the first Indian female physician in Western medicine to have trained alongside men in India?
Source: "Motibai was the first native woman doctor to be trained on parallel lines to native men doctors" [4]..."The first indigenous woman physician to get training alongside male physicians was Moti Bai"[5]
ALT1: ... that the Indian female physician Motibai Kapadia was in charge of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital in Ahmedabad for 36 years from 1889? Source: "after returning from Britain, Kapadia was appointed in charge of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital for women, and remained there for 36 years."[6].
The problem with "the first Indian female physician in Western medicine to have trained alongside men in India" is that's an open-ended set. Nowhere do we have an authoritative list of every physician who ever trained in India. I'd be less concerned about something based on "Grant Medical College's first female graduate" because at least there, somebody could enumerate every person who has graduated from that school and look at each one. I assume that's what Kavitha Rao did, or at least she based her statement on somebody who did. RoySmith(talk)13:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
... that following her death in 2019, Huang Wenxiu was elevated into a national model by the Chinese Communist Party in recognition of her work as a party secretary of a village in rural China?
Good except for some minor issues. Long enough, new enough at the time of nomination, Earwig detects no copyvios. Aside from the one failed verification I tagged, all the English-language sources seem OK. It might be good to wikilink the names of the news sources if they have Wikipedia articles, just to make it totally clear what their relation to the CCP is, but the page text handles the English-language CCP media outlets appropriately.
Minor grammar issues: I would expect "killed by a flash flood" rather than "killed by flash flood". This could be a variety of English thing, though. I'd also expect "Title of" instead of just "Title".
@Apocheir: I have wikilinked the news sources which have articles in Wikipedia and also corrected the minor grammar issues which you stated. Let me know if the hook is now good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Page looks fine now, just marking as AGF because I can't read hanzi. For the hook, this is going to get tweaked by the people who do the DYK process anyways, but how about:
ALT1: ... that a 1954 fire in Busan, South Korea, caused the loss of more than 3,400 historic relics, including historic portraits of kings of the Joseon dynasty? Source: caused the loss of around 3,400 historic relics, including historic portraits of kings of the Joseon dynasty
Helping out with a ref for both hooks [7] (also in the article). Quotes in orig. Korean with my translation: "위 기사에서도 볼 수 있듯, 4천여 점에 이르는 유물 가운데 자그마치 3천4백 점이 잿더미가 되는 대참사가 일어나죠... 이 가운데는 48점이나 되는 조선 역대 임금의 초상화도 들어 있었습니다. 그나마 불에 타고 남은 조각이라도 건진 것은 다 합쳐서 18점. 나머지 30점은 화마(火魔)에 흔적도 없이 사라지고 말았습니다." -> "As you can see in the article above, a disaster occurred in which 3,400 of 4,000 relics were reduced to ashes in an instant... Among these were 48 portraits of past kings of the Joseon Dynasty. 18 items among these were salvaged, with the remaining 30 being completely lost." 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Much thanks for the review! I think it'll be fine to leave the hook for now as some of the sources ([8]) also cite "around 3400" (3400여 점) relics. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@00101984hjw: The very source you just cited translates "...1981년에 9만여 점으로 확대되어" (국문요약, page 165) to "...became more than 90,000 in 1981" (See the English abstract, page 203), not "around" 90,000. BorgQueen (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
... that the Durrës Expedition in 1376 saw Louis of Évreux successfully recapture Durrës from Karl Thopia, only for Thopia to reclaim the city in 1383?
Source: J. M. Hussey. The Cambridge medieval history. Volume IV. Part I, The Byzantine empire. Byzantium and its neighbours. University Press. p. 419. ISBN 978-0-5210-4535-3. "...The Navarrese Company succeeded in occupying Durazzo, apparently in the midsummer of 1376..."
John V. A. Fine (jr.), John Van Antwerp Fine. The Late Medieval Balkans A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. University of Michigan Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-0-4720-8260-5. "...The Angevins retained Durazzo for a time, for in 1379 Joanna's new husband, Robert of Artois, is found issuing to Dubrovnik a charter pertaining to Durazzo. Karlo Thopia, who held the territory both north and south of the city, soon, probably in 1383, regained possession of Durazzo..."
Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Arberian2444 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
@Arberian2444, Z1720, and Theleekycauldron: The source was removed but the sentence remains intact. However, it appears the sentence's content is not unverified. The cited page of the other ref (the book is on JSTOR) only shows a family tree and I couldn't find any info on Albanian history in the page's immediate vicinity. This should probably be addressed first. IceWelder [✉] 09:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, might be a month or more before this appears on the Main Page, and who knows what might have happened by then. Might be best to change to "became" or "became on [date]" or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I removed this claim that Samsung was sued, because the lawsuit was over union-busting and not directly related to body snatching. I expanded from two different sources, about the context of suicide and body snatching by police. I will see if there are more sources, and a potential hook from that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.
Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The article was recently recreated from a redirect so if tools say this is an old article then that is inaccurate. Thus the article is technically eligible. There are however multiple major issues with the nomination right now. The first is that the article is in need of a copyedit, and second, the hook is too vague and broad to meet WP:DYKINT. It lacks context (it doesn't make it unambiguously clear that the subject is a song), and the "#1 on the popularity charts" claim also lacks context. I should also note that the article isn't more specific about which charts are being referred to here either, so that is also an issue with the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Then another reviewer needs to tick it off.--Launchballer 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- After copyediting, it does not meet the 1,500-character threshold.
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Page looks fine now, just marking as AGF because I can't read hanzi. For the hook, this is going to get tweaked by the people who do the DYK process anyways, but how about: