Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
v t e

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.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
April 13	1	1
April 19	3	1
April 24	1	1
April 25	2
April 26	1
April 29	1
April 30	1
May 2	2
May 5	1
May 7	2
May 8	1	1
May 9	2
May 10	4
May 12	6	2
May 14	2
May 16	2
May 17	6	1
May 19	1
May 20	7	4
May 21	9	4
May 22	6	3
May 23	2	1
May 24	6	2
May 25	3
May 26	4	1
May 27	8	4
May 28	2	1
May 29	5	2
May 30	4	2
May 31	3	3
June 1	4	2
June 2	4	1
June 3	4	2
June 4	1
June 5	8	5
June 6	4
June 7	10	6
June 8	10	5
June 9	14	4
June 10	4	2
June 11	6	1
June 12	8	2
June 13	16	7
June 14	5	1
June 15	6	2
June 16	9	5
June 17	10	4
June 18	6	2
June 19	4	1
June 20	4	1
June 21	3
Total	238	87
Last updated 18:40, 21 June 2024 UTC Current time is 18:40, 21 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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:

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

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

  If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
• Save the page.
• After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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.

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

Handy copy sources:

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on April 19[edit]

Georgi Romanov

• ... that Georgi Romanov had a shootout loss in the 2022–23 KHL season even though he was credited with playing zero minutes that season?

• Reviewed:

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Blaylockjam10: I studied the source and cannot find the hook. Can you lead me to it? Bruxton (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: It’s under “Regular Season (Complete Stats)”. It looks like it may only be visible on a computer. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I need a premium membership to view. I will leave this to another reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "S TEAM LEAGUE GP GD GAA SV% GA SV SO W-L-T TOI" and "2022-23 Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg KHL 1 4 - - - - 0 0-0-1 0:00" means what I think it means, then a) you don't need a premium membership to view and b) I think the hook checks out with the source, depending on what "W-L-T" means, although I haven't yet looked at the article. I'm a bit worried about the phrases "submit stats/facts" and "edit profile" I found on the source - what makes it reliable?--Launchballer 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer I saw the same, which made me feel like it was a contributor site. Honestly I was just lost on that page. I think W is win L is loss and T is tie. It is a clever hook which drew me to the nomination, but then I found myself lost for a half hour clicking on pull down menus until I got to a paywall. @BeanieFan11: may be able to help. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the TOI part of the Elite Prospects link but based on how he played in the game that would make sense. NHL says that he was the goaltender for only the shootout portion in his only game, which would mean that he "officially" had zero minutes since the shootout isn't timed. (Also, I've come across Elite Prospects a number of times – they seem pretty reliable (don't think I've seen an incorrect stat, although I've only used them in writing ~10 hockey articles) and seem to have a staff – also cited ~20,000 times). I'd say it's good for approving as long as the article itself is fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blaylockjam10 I located the minutes played after being guided. Earwig determined that there is some minor WP:CLOP which needs to be addressed. Also probably not a DYK issue, but consider that we probably do not need a section for three words - it should be combined somewhere. Also the lead should introduce/summarize more of the article; right now it is a single sentence. The hook is interesting and the article is neutral with the correct inline citations. Created on April 19 nominated April 26 so the article is new enough and with 2344 the article is long enough. Bruxton (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blaylockjam10: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bruxton and Z1720: What do you think of the article’s quality now? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay. Earwig is at 16.7% - clop was addressed. Personal life was expanded a bit more and the lead is now two sentences. Two sentences are close to a source, but I think we have addressed enough for a pass. Might make a good This might make a good quirky hook.^(?) Bruxton (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaylockjam10 and Bruxton: As written this article would deserve {{prose}} and {{subsections}}, and single-sentence WP:PARAGRAPHs should be avoided - could this be remedied?--Launchballer 14:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not written in list format? I also don't see the need of having a bunch of subsections in this brief article and how one would appropriately do it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like one, see WP:PROSELINE.--Launchballer 15:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and BeanieFan11: I agree that the article could be improved by combining sentences and I usually push for MOS changes, but many are not required by WP:DYKCRIT. Regarding sections, we sometimes feature single paragraph articles at DYK. I will go through it and also ping AirshipJungleman29 to see if they have an opinion. Bruxton (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be free from dispute tags. If an article deserves one, it can't run per WP:DYKTAG.--Launchballer 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of {{prose}}, {{subsections}} or {{too many sections}} are listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes; I think Bruxton's alterations are sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 20:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Blaylockjam10, Bruxton, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm not quite happy with the sourcing on the hook and article here. A fair amount of this article is sourced to this non-independent source and this stat block, both of which feel very less-than-DUE. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think his statistics and how he performed with his different teams is absolutely worth being mentioned in the article – whether or not its sourced to NHL.com. If we remove everything sourced to those we'd end up with only random portions of text without an accurate summary of his career – which I don't think would make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're right that the secondary independent sources don't come near giving a cohesive picture of the subject, I would honestly question how they could confer notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a source analysis, sources 1 and 7 are non-independent, while sources 2–6 and 8 (5 is borderline) don't provide significant coverage. I've notability-tagged the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a question of notability – he's an NHL goaltender and there's a decent amount of coverage, e.g. this – what I am saying is that by using solely news sources we wouldn't get nearly as good a picture of his career as we would by also using sources such as NHL.com, which help paint the fuller picture. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but I think that we can't reasonably call this article a pass unless we use as many of the SIRS as are helpful and then use the non-independent sources to fill in the gaps where we have to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What exactly do you mean by SIRS? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • secondary, independent, reliable sources :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with this - that many readers (myself included) will not have a clue as to what a 'shootout loss' is. Is there at least somewhere on WP which can prode a useful link for this? I couldn't find one. Surely a DYK should be at least widely comprehensible as it stands.Smerus (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smerus: Glossary of hockey terms#shootout? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BeanieFan11: Thanks, that's a start, but what then is a 'shootout loss'?Smerus (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Losing the shootout? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Houcke

• ... that Sara Houcke is known as the Tiger Whisperer for her use of quiet whispered commands to her tigers in her Ringling Bros. circus acts?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Yazathingyan (14th-century minister)
• Comment: The article was moved from draftspace to mainspace with this edit.

Silverseren^C 02:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Long enough, interesting. Article is well-cited, but AGF on paywalled source. Good to go!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: FamilySearch is red here. It is only used for year of birth so it may be ok, will see if others object. Also I archived the article sources so that I could check the hook fact. Bruxton (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Silver seren, Crisco 1492, and Bruxton: Very cool biography! I've had to pull this out of prep because I don't think the hook fact passes muster. The cited Times source says The Ringling publicity machine has dubbed her the "Tiger Whisperer,", which sounds more like this is a marketing/PR term than something in actual wide usage. We could just edit the hook to match, but people tend to complain at errors when we repeat marketing terms uncritically. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough - I'm seeing to Google Searching "Tiger Whisperer" first returns a number of other people, including a woman who was ultimately mauled by her tigers. I'll review any alts. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I made some comments here before promotion but they were erased with this edit. I put them back in this nomination above your comment and formatted the indents of following comments. About the moniker, I understand the concern, but probably all showbiz nicknames have a marketing/publicity genesis, like the "Dog Whisperer" - Cesar Millan. Or the "Crocodile Hunter" - Steve Irwin. Bruxton (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

DarkZero Esports

• ... that DarkZero won the 2022 Apex Legends Global Series championship?

• ALT1: ... that when their Apex Legends roster won the 2022 ALGS champipnship, DarkZero had not yet updated their website to include player bios? Source: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2022/07/all-australian-apex-legends-team-wins-apex-legends-global-series-championships/
• Reviewed: Bill McNulty
• Comment: QPQ to come soon. QPQ is now done.

Soulbust (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Soulbust: Please provide a QPQ or this nomination may be rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: QPQ's done now. Soulbust (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I don't think either hooks are that interesting. Can you come up with something else? Perhaps you could mention that they won $500,000, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Soulbust: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BorgQueen: didn't see this notif for some reason. I personally don't find the financials/monetary aspect of these sorts of things interesting at all. I thought ALT1 was kinda conceptually funny, the fact that the team was still so freshly signed when they won the tournament that DZ hadn't even given them player bios on their website yet. Idk. I'll see what I can do, but will be adding the $500,000 win into the actual article as that info is currently not included. Soulbust (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @BorgQueen: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, are there any other aspects that you think Soulbust can create a hook from? Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: I'd like another reviewer to take a look. BorgQueen (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about

• ALT2: ... that when DarkZero contracted Xynew, his teammates highlighted his "communication skills and game brain", which they deemed unusual for a controller player?

(Hook) review still needed, I just suggested another hook. And maybe the hook could be shortened a bit. As a side note, I don't like the phrase "Covid-19 scare", as it's not clear to me that he tested positive – I read it as if there had been some sort of "panic" around him. (But maybe that's my non-native English misreading it.) –LordPeterII (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Used "scare" as it is what the Dot Esports source referred to it as. If I recall correctly, in my research of sourcing for the article, I came across an interview of the player where he mentions that he received multiple tests for it: one positive, one negative, and as a result of that had to miss playing. Soulbust (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch (song)

• Alt0 ... that after being outed by a reporter, Billie Eilish became more open about her bisexuality, even including a song about lesbian sex on her upcoming album? Source: Gay Times, The Cut
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/September 2023 New York floods
  • Comment: Open to alternatives.

‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Generally well-written, sources are okay, hook is interesting. Just a small recommendation, links to Rolling Stone and Coachella 2024 can be added. Good to go! Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks must not be likely to change, and that album's probably going to come out. (Probably.)--Launchballer 23:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's released now @Launchballer so...

• Alt1 ... that after being outed by a reporter, Billie Eilish became more open about her bisexuality, even including a song about lesbian sex on her third album?

PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 03:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.--Launchballer 06:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA, Prince of Erebor, Launchballer, Geni, Kusma, and Z1720: reopening this nom page per discussion at WT:DYK. I personally agree with the sentiment expressed there that including mention of Eilish's sexuality is not suitable for the main page, when she's explicitly said she doesn't accept the concept of outing. Suggest we go with Kusma's alt or something else. Full discussion to be copied below.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in prep 7. Hook doesn't appear to be neutral. If I'm reading the sources correctly Eilish is rejecting the term outing which the hook uses.©Geni (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the sources is that Eilish is objecting to actually being outed; if she had a problem with the term, she wouldn't have used it in the Instagram post mentioned in the Background section.--Launchballer 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read in the source [1], she said "i like boys and girls leave me alone about it please literally who cares." so I am not sure focussing on her sexuality (instead of on the song) is appropriate for the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Alt2 ... that Billie Eilish included a song about lesbian sex on her third album?"--Launchballer 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not very hooky but its really up to @User:PSA in terms of what they want to do.©Geni (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer @Kusma @Geni:

Alt3 ... that Billie Eilish included a song about lesbian sex on her third album after gradually becoming more public about her sapphism? PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Launchballer's version because it does not talk about Eilish's sexuality in the hook. —Kusma (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the gay times article "Eilish also criticised the notion that a person has to ‘come out’ as queer" I read that has Eilish rejecting the term.©Geni (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like "no one has to feel pressured to tell people theyre LGBT" to me. not necessarily a rejection of the concept PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps. In practice Z1720 aproved the hook some time ago so its all moot at this point.©Geni (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else needs to be done to this?--Launchballer 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed on the hook issue. I've just struck all the hooks that talk about outing or sapphism; there's enough disagreement about including these in the hook (which I agree with) that it isn't going to fly, much though others still want to include it. Whatever Z1720 may have approved in the past, we're clearly past that point now. The only hook left seems to be Launchballer's above, which Geni described as "not very hooky"; maybe a new hook with a different approach is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Approving Alt2. --evrik ^(talk) 22:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @PSA, Evrik, Launchballer, and Prince of Erebor: I agree with @Geni and BlueMoonset: I don't think ALT2 meets WP:DYKINT. New hook needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

• "Alt3 ... that Billie Eilish debuted Lunch during a secret DJ set?"

©Geni (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal:

• ALT4: ... that one critic compared the "provocative" nature of one Billie Eilish song to the 1969 Stonewall riots?

none of it directly mentions Eilish's sexual orientation so I hope this should be okay . PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 01:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Approving Alt 3 and Alt 4. --evrik ^(talk) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something for the promoter:

• "Alt3a ... that Billie Eilish first served Lunch during a secret DJ set?" --evrik ^(talk) 02:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how Alt3a is backed up by the Vulture source; while it talks about a "DJ set" (and do we really expect people to know what that even means? it's certainly not a commonly understood term, so it makes for a confusing hook rather than an interesting one), Vulture never uses the term "secret"—©Geni, I think this needs to be revised in the article, and evrik, I've struck both variants of this second Alt3 hook because of this problem. PSA, thanks for trying with Alt4, but I'm unconvinced by the comparison of the song to the Stonewall riots: Allison Hope makes a comparison to one prominent person at Stonewall, and it feels like the article has cherry-picked this particular bit from the CNN story for the purpose of creating a hook (and not bothered to quote "provocative" there while doing so in the hook, a no-no). I do hope something can be found; there might be something in this CNN opinion piece that can be used—perhaps the "confrontational" nature to a figure from Stonewall—but given how the piece centers on "queer-centered sexuality", that may well be too difficult to maneuver around. Maybe there's something else out there? evrik, I suggest that you bow out of reviewing any further hooks for this article, since you've approved several that have issues that should have been picked up on, not given ticks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Alt3b ... that Billie Eilish first served Lunch during a private party at Coachella?"Gonzalez, Alex. "Billie Eilish Previewed A New Song, 'Lunch,' During Coachella And Its Lyrics Are So Explicit Fans Are Having Fits Online". Uproxx. --evrik ^(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • @BlueMoonset: i'm not sure I can parse what's happening. The intention was to highlight "the 'confrontational' nature to a figure from Stonewall" as you put it, but the hook kind of already does that? I think we should just edit the hook to match that wording more:

Alt4a "that the 'confrontational' nature of one Billie Eilish song was compared to a prominent figure of the Stonewall riots?

Also, no offense, but I, as a queer person myself, do not get why we're so hung-up on absolutely not mentioning Eilish's sexual orientation when she's been open about it so many times. I must be missing something here. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 03:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a new reviewer is needed for ALT4a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer should also check ALT3b. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Hong Kong v Inter Miami

• ... that Lionel Messi has provoked geopolitical tensions across China, the United States, Argentina, Japan and Hong Kong due to his absence from a match?

• Reviewed:
• Comment: This is my first DYK nomination so please remind me if there is anything missing or should be improved. Thanks.

~~ J. Dann 15:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• What a ride that article was. QPQ not needed. Earwig has a high score for copyvio detection, but that's entirely due to Messi's paragraph-long statement in the "Departure and Japan trip" section, which has an inline citation to the flagged source. Referencing is adequate and length/newness criteria fulfilled. Hook is definitely interesting and cited in source, not cited inline as exact phrasing but separately so. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cypp0847 and Juxlos: I have tagged the article for copyediting, as there are grammar-related issues throughout the article (tenses, for instance, are very often incorrect). This needs to be resolved before a DYK run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cypp0847: any progress on addressing the prose issues? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, I'm working on a copyedit and will try to have it posted later today or tomorrow. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, finished my copyedit. I removed the flag icons per MOS:FLAG and shortened one of the really long quotations. The infobox image, while taken from a video released under CC, contains elements which are definitely under copyright. I suggest taking a low-resolution version (100k pixels) and moving it to en.wiki with a fair use rationale, and using that. Please ping me (here or elsewhere) if you have any questions regarding my edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Juxlos and AirshipJungleman29: Reidgreg has indicated above that the copyright concerns have been resolved. Can you confirm this, and give this a green tick? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clear, I addressed the copyediting concerns, not copyright. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is still uncited material, indicated by {{cn}} tags. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • this has been unimproved for a week, marking as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @AirshipJungleman29: Hi. Two marked {{cn}} tags are now resolved. Sorry for the delay as I have been extremely busy recently.~~ J. Dann 11:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 29[edit]

Meat diaper, Weight fraud

• ... that pre-moistened meat diapers in case-ready meat is a form of weight fraud?

• Reviewed:

GobsPint (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @GobsPint: - The weight fraud articles has been tagged by @Lovkal:. This needs to be resolved. --evrik ^(talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't had much luck finding articles explicitly spelling out scale weight fraud outside the US...though it evidently exits.GobsPint (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Article all looks good to me: long enough, new enough, citations look good, and no plagiarism found. However, this hook doesn't sound quite grammatically correct to me. How about: ... that putting pre-moistened meat diapers in case-ready meat is a form of weight fraud? Luiysia (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Case-ready is jargon. Can it be replaced by pre-packaged? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GobsPint: how's this nomination going? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theleekycauldron: It's ready to go. There's some concern about the {{Globalize}} tag that got added to weight fraud...I'm having trouble locating sources for a non-US section on weight fraud...though its evidently occuring.GobsPint (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1a: ... that putting pre-moistened meat diapers in pre-packaged meat is a form of weight fraud?
  • New reviewer needed to check the above hook (combining Luiysia's proposed rewrite with Femke's request as ALT1a) and to take a look at the Globalize tag in weight fraud to see whether it's an issue that needs to be addressed prior to approval. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just realized that Luiysia's review refers to "article", singular, but there are two articles in this nomination, weight fraud and meat diaper. The new reviewer should check both articles rather than just one, unless Luiysia can confirm which article was reviewed. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Meat diaper is fine, but the lead section of Weight fraud contains details not cited anywhere in the article, e.g. the sentence about self-checkout machines. Weight fraud also needs a citation for the first paragraph under "Food fraud".
• Neutral: - Globalise tag is present in Weight fraud.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @GobsPint: Checking WP:DYKTAG only dispute tags are an issue, and the globalise template does not seem to fall into this category as described by WP:DT, instead coming under Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy, so I don't think that should block the nomination, although others may disagree. Earwig is not working for me right now but spot checking sources in articles showed no concerns. Only concern is with the uncited sections of Weight fraud. CSJJ104 (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just rechecked WP:NPOV and see that the globalise tag is defininitely something which needs to be fixed. I have updated my review above. I did find some possible sources though, not sure if these are of any help in adding examples from outside the US, specifically Bangladesh and Norwegian fisheries. I will let you know of any others I may find. Again, sorry for the confusion in my review. CSJJ104 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 30[edit]

List of roles and awards of Liza Soberano

• ... that Liza Soberano (pictured) appeared in a biographical episode of Maalaala Mo Kaya playing Miss Universe 2015 winner Pia Wurtzbach?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dedie Rachim

Pseud 14 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I'd like to see a more internationally appealing hook than the current one because the hook to me isn't exactly impressive or eye-catching (it basically says that Soberano played a role, which is her job). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt1: ... that Filipino actress Liza Soberano had her Hollywood breakthrough in the 2024 comedy horror Lisa Frankenstein? [2] Pseud 14 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's okay too, but do you have any additional suggestions? Article itself seems long enough and new enough at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not from this article, no. This is in itself a hook that has "international appeal" given it's a Hollywood debut for a Filipino actress, which is a rarity. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is new enough, long enough, is free of close paraphrasing, and is adequately sources. ALT1 (the only hook under consideration) is verified in the source and mentioned in the article. A QPQ ahs been done. I'm still not 100% sure if ALT1 works out in terms of interest or if additional hooks are needed, so I'm passing judgement on ALT1 to a third-party editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that there's nothing too unusual about a Filipino actress in Hollywood; the fact that she's not American is something, but foreign actors aren't exactly, well, foreign. (signed, an Angeleno, for what it's worth) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably have passed ALT1, but after reading Liza Soberano and this, I can suggest ALT2: ... that Liza Soberano (pictured), an actress described by media publications as among the most beautiful Filipino actresses of her generation, played an unattractive exchange student in Just the Way You Are? - but you would need to add that bit from Liza Soberano.--Launchballer 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Launchballer, I am unsure if adding the latter would work because it takes context out of the main article, instead of the nominated article for DYK, and honestly, I see little value of adding that bit on her roles and awards (as those publications are mostly listicles and generally don't count as awards). Having said that, Alt2 may be another iteration of Alt0 - which is a just another role she played. Thoughts? Pseud 14 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought the juxtaposition of a beautiful actress playing an unattractive exchange student would be interesting.--Launchballer 08:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List is new, long, well sourced, neutral, and copyvio-free, as well as supported with a licensed image (which I doubt will make it to the Main Page). I concur with Narutolovehinata5 that none of the hooks is interesting; on ALT1, for instance, boldlinked article refers to the subject's acting credits, among others, yet only her so-called Hollywood breakthrough is singled out here, which makes her domestic roles inadequate in a way. This can be an interesting hook for a Lisa Frankenstein DYK, but certainly not for this one. Although QPQ has been given, another compelling hook is needed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can suggest some variant of "that Liza Soberano started her career as a teenager".--Launchballer 08:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your alt proposal, then I don't think it's gonna fly, either; it's not unusual for most (if not all) grown actors to start out at a young age. Are there any more? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt3: ... that Liza Soberano began her acting career playing third wheel characters? Pseud 14 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt4: ... that after starring in the highest-grossing film of her career, Liza Soberano was named Box Office Queen? Pseud 14 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt3 seems interesting, but could use some tweaks,

Alt3a: ... that Liza Soberano's early acting roles include playing the third wheel in romance films? Source: [3]

• If this is OK with you, just add an end-of-sentence citations on it so I can redirect this to another reviewer. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me thanks. Citation added. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3a is short enough, sourced, and interesting. Let's roll.--Launchballer 23:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for the comment given that the nomination has already been approved, but I'm not very confident about ALT3a to be honest. If you're a Filipino (Soberano is a big name over here), ALT3a might be surprising especially for people who may not have followed her career as closely as super fans. However, to me at least, ALT3a is a bit reliant on knowing how big Soberano is, and an international reader might not get that context. Honestly I do think ALT2 was actually a better option. Yes it was a role hook, a kind of hook I have mixed opinions about, but the contrast does seem to catch attention and isn't as reliant on knowing about Philippine entertainment as much. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument doesn't make sense at all. You're looking from the lens of someone who knows Soberano and not from the POV of an unfamiliar reader. If you're a Filipino (Soberano is a big name over here), ALT3a might be surprising especially for people who may not have followed her career - this is exactly what the hook is for–to peak the interest of non-familiar/somewhat familiar readers about the article. This is not to cater to someone who already knows her or to "superfans", which makes your justification completely ironic, since your comment is from the perspective of someone who knows the subject. Having said that, the article is about her "roles and awards" and I don't see the relevance of incorporating her "perceived beauty" in it, which makes Alt2 a no go for me. The hook is supposed to be about her acting career not Soberano in general (or whether she is considered desirable or her appearance in a particular role). It should be fact about something interesting that she had done as an actress and I trust that the non-Filipino reviewers who have weighed in seem to think the latter alternative works. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and Launchballer: To avoid lengthy discussions about which hooks are the most interesting, can someone indicate which hooks above are approved (ie pass the other criteria of DYK) and indicate their preference of interestingness? If there are multiple approved hooks, the promoter can decide which hook is the most interesting after reading the arguments above. If anyone has other hooks they would like to propose, they can do so below. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the only approved hook is ALT3a. I thought ALT2 was a better option, but the nominator objected to it and in any case it's not supported in the article. The issue I had with ALT3a is that it's somewhat reliant on knowing that Soberano is currently known for doing leading roles but she started out doing third-wheel roles. That might be interesting to fans of her or those familiar with Filipino entertainment, but without that particular context the post isn't as obvious or as surprising. Having said that, despite the nom's comment above I still have reservations about ALT3a and would suggest not promoting or re-approving it without alternative wordings to ALT3a and/or additional hook proposals being proposed (this includes addressing the issue with ALT2). I'm not necessarily opposed to ALT3a's hook fact but I'm not a fan of it as currently worded. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 2[edit]

Peewee Jarrett

• ... that Peewee Jarrett went from having no offers to play college football, a two-year span with no playing time, and being "set on quitting football", to signing into the National Football League?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zer0

BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• QPQ remains missing BeanieFan11. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • QPQ done. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long enough, new enough. Earwig's down, so AGFing, and QPQ done. The source says "Jarrett played seven games in an Ellsworth jersey before an injury shifted him to the bench." and Ellsworth is a college - am I missing something?--Launchballer 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I am missing something, a ping to @BeanieFan11:.--Launchballer 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I'm guessing you're referring to the part that reads having no offers to play college football? I think you're right – I had initially wrote that after reading Two words stand out on Jarrett’s recruiting profile: No interest. The 6-foot-2, 215-pound high schooler held no Division I offers, no Division II offers, no Division III offers – but I forgot that community colleges (like Ellsworth) can also offer athletic scholarships (meant by 'offers'). Maybe it could be changed to having no offers to play NCAA college football? Or something else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, but you can't have adjacent links per WP:SEAOFBLUE.--Launchballer 23:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Kokhba refuge caves

• ... that towards the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Jewish families escaping the Roman army sought shelter in refuge caves in the Judaean Desert?

• ALT1: ... that over 30 refuge caves, where Jewish families sought shelter from the Roman army during the Bar Kokhba revolt, were discovered in the Judaean Desert? Source: Eshel, Hanan; Zissu, Boaz (2019). "The Refuge Caves". The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. pp. 62–64. ISBN 978-965-217-429-1
• Reviewed:

Mariamnei (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Mariamnei you have five nominations so you will need to provide a WP:QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AirshipJungleman29, I have done it, thanks. Mariamnei (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mariamnei: Please put a link to the DYK template that you reviewed for your QPQ next to the "Reviewed" line above, or link to it below. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:, here it is: [4] Mariamnei (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked above is Template:Did you know nominations/Deir ed Darb. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 5[edit]

Adnan al-Bursh

• ... that Palestinian doctor Adnan al-Bursh, who recently died in Israeli prison, was head of orthopedics at the Gaza Strip's largest medical facility, Al-Shifa Hospital?

ALT: ...that Palestinian orthopedic surgeon Adnan al-Bursh served as an adviser to the Palestine national football team?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Great Mecca Feast

Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Makeandtoss Is the part about dying in an Israeli prison really necessary? Also, hooks are not supposed to change, so I would recommend changing recently to something else. Also, way too much focus on his death. (In the article) 48JCL ^(talk) 22:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Makeandtoss The fact that Adnan al-Bursh was head of orthopedics in a hospital is not "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Honestly, it is difficult to pass this article for DYK. I made an attempt by adding ALT hook. Any user can try to review this DYK again as new hook is proposed. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL: For someone who rose to prominency for being killed, his death is certainly central to his biography and by extension the hook, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majorit of RS reporting on him.

@BlueMoonset: Can you please elaborate what is meant with a full review? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing ALT2 which combines the original hook and ALT1: that doctor Adnan al-Bursh, who recently died in Israeli prison, had served as an adviser to the Palestine national football team? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have "recently" in a hook per WP:DYKHOOK, the hook's fact must not be likely to change. In theory, you could include "who died in April 2024" to get around this. However, I would expect a more merciless prepbuilder to take it out per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 16:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the important point; hopefully all the prepbuilders are merciful.. Amending then to ALT2a: that doctor Adnan al-Bursh, who died in Israeli prison in April 2024, had served as an adviser to the Palestine national football team? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed (which for your information is the criteria listed at WP:DYKRI).--Launchballer 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• {{DYK checklist

|newness = y |length = y |eligibilityother = |sourced = y |neutral = y |plagiarismfree = y |policyother = |hookcited = y |hookinterest = y |hookother = |picfree = NA |picused = |picclear = |qpq = y |status = ?

|comments = @Makeandtoss: The article is new enough, having been created May 5 and nominated May 9. At 5,139 characters it's long enough. Every paragraph and quotation is sourced, and I was able to verify the hook information and spot-checked throughout the article. The article is written neutrally, avoiding sensationalism and properly attributing noteworthy subjective reactions and assessments to institutions, individuals, communities, etc. as appropriate. The hook is interesting; there are plenty of doctors who advise sports teams (sports medicine, after all), even national sports teams, but I don't generally expect someone so prominent to die in prison. What brought on this circumstance, a reader is prompted to wonder—and thus was I drawn to this hook and article, and so also I expect a main page reader will be drawn.

However, before approving, there is some close paraphrasing I noticed using Earwig that I'd like to see resolved:

From the article: Al-Bursh's wife and six children also refused to move south and instead took shelter in one of the UNRWA schools in the northern Gaza Strip: This strikes me as too close of a paraphrase of His wife and six children didn't leave either, and they are currently taking shelter in one of the UNRWA schools in the north of the Gaza Strip, in The National News.

From the article: injured while at the Indonesian Hospital while he was in the operating room: This seems too close of a paraphrase of injured while we were at the Indonesian Hospital as Israeli forces surrounded us for four days, while he was in the operating room, in The National News.

If these could be rephrased or reorganized to be more distantly phrased, that would be ideal. Otherwise, I'm ready to approve the nomination.

|sign = Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: Thanks for the detailed review. I have rephrase the parts you mentioned, but self-reverted in case of 1RR situation, if you could revert me then this issue would be solved.

Also, as you said, his torture was the cause of death, and should be mentioned uncontroversially since this is what all RS had reported on. I would suggest this: ALT2b: that doctor Adnan al-Bursh, who died from torture in Israeli prison in April 2024, had served as an adviser to the Palestine national football team? I prefer ALT2b but wouldn't object to ALT2a if there is more agreement to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Thanks for the rewrite of those sentences. I performed the requested revert of your self-revert (I'll admit that this particular intersection of rules is arcane to me and I don't entirely understand). I didn't bring up torture being the cause of death, and I think putting it in the hook is to your detriment; it removes questions and curiosity by providing too many answers up front. I also think it might read better if reordered. The most surprising information is his passing in prison, but you place that before him being adviser to the national football team, making it so that rhetorically the hook seems to be trying to make the latter the 'punch' (or the surprising bit) even though it's not as surprising or interesting. I realize we've gone through a couple drafts of this hook already, but would it be possible to rewrite the hook to set up who he is first and then finish the hook with what happened? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, then ALT2c should be GTG: that orthopedic surgeon Adnan al-Bursh had also served as an advisor to the Palestine national football team before dying in Israeli prison in April 2024?Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 7[edit]

Toro de fuego

• ... that toros de fuego, bulls of fire, are used in festivals instead of real bulls?
• Alt 1a ... that bulls of fire are used in festivals instead of real bulls?
• Alt2 ... that while the people of San Sebastián use flaming bovine puppets during their great week festival, the puppets are not "great bulls of fire"?"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Daniela Solera

--evrik ^(talk) 04:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Hooks should not contain parentheses.--Launchballer 07:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. --evrik ^(talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @BlueMoonset: - I think this may be a candidate for Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know. What do you think? --evrik ^(talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• evrik, I don't think either hook is a good April Fools' candidate. I'm not sure I'd even use either as quirky. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Better. Full review needed.--Launchballer 14:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

evrik, I do not have full access to El Pais. Can you recheck the second paragraph of Background, the one on San Sebastián, to make sure that text is supported? Either way, I suggest adding more details from El Pais. The detail will help the article and provide good hooks. Sparks flying 1.5m from 30 running metal fire bulls; that's a hook. CMD (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CMD, I put the text here. The point may be moot as that section just got reorganized when I fixed the links. "Sparks flying 1.5 meters (4 ft 11 in) from 30 running metal fire bulls" - I'm thinking about it. --evrik ^(talk) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CMD, where does your review stand? FYI, evrik is a few days into a 30-day block, so I hope there aren't significant problems. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record iirc this was a response to a hook advice request at WT:DYK, but I will take on a full review soon. CMD (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Veale

• ... that Laura Veale was the first Yorkshire-born woman to be qualified as a doctor?

• Reviewed: Sonja van den Ende
• Comment: Created in userspace over some weeks from 15 March, then moved to mainspace on 6 May.

Storye book (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• The article was moved to mainspace yesterday, so is new enough. It is far more than long enough and properly uses in-line citations (perhaps even more so than necessary for some sentences). The copyvio detector doesn't find anything other than names of things and quotes that are properly used in the article. The hook is short enough, interesting, and is cited inline. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review. Looks good to go! Silverseren^C 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review, Silver seren Re the "even more so than necessary", you'll find that some experienced editors are doing that for a good reason. For example, if you have a "first" in the article, that is going to be automatically questioned and double-checked, and rightly so. Therefore, it is worth finding as many different, independent sources as possible for that "first" and including them all in the article. There is also the fact that some sources may be accessible to some readers (e.g. readers with a subscription, readers in the UK, etc.) and some source may not be accessible to all (e.g. readers outside the UK or without subscription), so it's worth giving them a few alternative sources. A third reason is that various sources give different aspects to the same fact, and some sources also include extra facts which the editor chooses not to include in the article, but which are extremely interesting. In the cast of historical articles, contemporary sources may give the historical standpoint on the matter. Extra sources containing additional facts may also allow other editors to expand the article. Nothing is wasted in this particular article, and there is a reason for everything. Storye book (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book and Silver seren: The relevant policy is WP:CLUMP, which says that "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." I'm afraid it would deserve {{clump}}, and I think your explanation on this page would constitute WP:SYNTH anyway.--Launchballer 11:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the surplus reference. I notice there are several unattributed quotes, including (but not limited to) "the first Yorkshire[-born] woman to become a doctor" and the "by all reports" sentence after it, that are not attributed in text, and I think they should be.--Launchballer 19:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. @Launchballer: (1) There are now no groups of more than three citations in the article. (2) Synth is about article content. It does not govern discussions on DYK templates, article talk pages or user talk pages. It is permissible to give one's opinion on DYK templates (how often have you seen the opinion "I don't like that hook"?) Neither is Synth about the grouping together of two or more references which support the relevant fact, and just so happen to contain extra material which may or may not also be useful where the fact is controversial. I shall look at the unattributed quotations. Storye book (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added attributions in words to all the remaining quotations, except where the quotations were just one or two words. It doesn't look right to me, because the quotations are already cited at their ends, but I have done it since you asked, to keep the peace. Storye book (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unpromoted per Special:Diff/1227320336 RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 ... that despite the contemporary misogyny of the medical profession in her home county of Yorkshire, Laura Veale was accepted for medical training at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School? (186 characters) (Source: The BMJ: "She decided) to enter the medical profession at a time when this was a particularly difficult step for women to take. In fact the medical school in Leeds shut its doors to her, and she had to go to the more liberal-minded University of London to pursue her studies, passing the London M.B. in 1904".) Note: the Royal Free Hospital Medical School was then run under the auspices of the University of London. Storye book (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that despite the misogyny of the medical profession in her home county, Laura Veale was accepted for medical training at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School?

Note: to promoter: Please use the picture or not as you wish, but I am sure that you will not discard the picture on the sole grounds of not being a pretty girl, because she had quite enough misogyny in her lifetime. Thank you.. Storye book (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Forgot that the image is not yet free. Storye book (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Storye book, do you have a source linking the misogyny of the medical profession and Veale's acceptance by the RFHMS? Otherwise ALTs 1 and 2 are probably WP:SYNTH. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the misogyny of one institution would ever be linked to the liberality of another institution? ALTs 1 and 2 actually differentiate between them. However: try these:

ALT3 ... that despite being denied medical training in her home county of Yorkshire, Laura Veale was accepted at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School? (Source as ALT1 above)

ALT4 ... that despite being denied medical training in her home county, Laura Veale was accepted at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School? (Source as ALT1 above) Storye book (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

AdventHealth North Pinellas

• ... that AdventHealth does not own AdventHealth North Pinellas, instead they lease it from the city of Tarpon Springs?

• ALT1: ...that there was a lawsuit against Tarpon Springs over fees that were due from the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation which leases Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital? Source: https://tampabay.com/archive/1995/10/21/hospital-s-foundation-goes-to-court-over-fees-avoidning-eviction/
• Reviewed:

Catfurball (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• A new hook is needed here as the current one doesn't seem to meet WP:DYKINT. It does not appear to be "hooky", or a hook that would attract attention from non-specialist audiences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I have added a seconded hook. Catfurball (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a fan of ALT1 either, but that's the least of my problems with this page, Catfurball. This article, as it is now, is the example of WP:PROSELINE that should be preserved to tell people what proseline is and how to avoid it. Every single paragraph or clause beyond the lead begins with a date—59 of them in all—making for an awfully repetitive read. You can write articles on topics like this that are not proselines; I've done TV stations (WEDU, WFTV, WTVJ just in Florida alone) that have similar long-time-series information. I'd love to assist in giving you pointers as to how to set up more natural section heading dividers and how to vary your sentence structure. Right now, I would not want Main Page viewers to see this article in its present structure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie: Since you do not like my work I withdraw my nomination. Catfurball (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Catfurball: It is not that I "do not like your work"; in fact, you've put a lot of effort in here. It is that there is a major issue with the way the page is written. You have the referencing and content, but the article prose needs to be reorganized. If you would like advice, my talk page and email are always open, and I would be open to assisting as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sammi Brie: I have done some reorganization of the article. Know for the hook that is problemly the only one that I can think of at this time, unless if you think that one of the notable patients can be used as a hook. Catfurball (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here We Go... Again

• ... that in the song "Here We Go... Again", The Weeknd claims that he can make his lover "scream like Neve Campbell"?

• Reviewed:

𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 22:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - See below

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Great work on the article, AskeeaeWiki! I do love the hook, with The Weeknd claiming that he could make his lover scream like a horror genre actress? That's wild! Anyway, there's just one issue that I have – there's a Distractify source used in the article, which is considered unreliable; I feel like there could be a more reliable source out there that verifies the fact that he "repeatedly tells his partner that he is willing to marry if she signs a prenuptial agreement, to keep his assets if they separate". Other than that, I have no other concerns, and happy to approve afterward. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tails Wx Thank you! I have to thank PSA (GA reviewer) for really helping me tone down some unreliable sources and some of the wordiness. I decided to reuse the USA today source and shortened it. Hopefully that's better. Cheers! 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 09:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do it! Great work on the article. :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 12:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that this was pulled following discussion at WT:DYK.--Launchballer 18:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a new hook. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be ready for a new reviewer until the new hook is ready. Changing symbol to reflect this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Han Bong-zin

• ... that footballer Han Bong-zin was alleged to be better than Pelé?

• ALT1: ... that footballer Han Bong-zin was alleged to "overshadow" Pelé? Source: same
• ALT2: ... that the North Korean government claimed footballer Han Bong-zin was better than Pelé? Source: same
• ALT3: ... that the North Korean state-run media claimed footballer Han Bong-zin was better than Pelé? Source: same
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Caitlyn Wurzburger
• Comment: Regarding ALT2/ALT3: the sources say that it was "Pyongyang Radio". That sounds like a government/state-run program, especially since, if I remember right, the only media in North Korea is state-owned. Let me know about your thoughts on whether it is correct to describe it as the NK government/state making the claims.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Review by Brachy08

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I highly doubt his notability based off a previous AfD discussion, but since the article expanded a lot, I think it is worth a shot. Unfortunately the source you gave is unreliable as it is a tabloid. And not that interested in "X is going to take over Y" kinds of facts. Otherwise, DYK would be filled with statements like "Did you know that Disney+ is going to take over Netflix as the top streaming service"? Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brachy0008: The prior AFD was very poor as none of the editors looked at Newspapers.com or discussed the fact that he's one of seven players whose life story is chronicled in the film The Game of Their Lives (SIGCOV) or that failing all else, this clearly passes WP:NBASIC (but features like Han Bong Jin-he dribbles like Garrincha, shoots like Charlton are clearly SIGCOV for GNG).
    As for the sources itself, being a tabloid alone is not enough to disqualify a source as far as I'm aware. Neither does the Grimsby Evening Telegraph even appear to be a tabloid(?).
    Regarding the hook, I still think it interesting as an extremely obscure player being allegedly better than possibly the greatest ever (this isn't "X is going to overtake"); that its a nation's government making the claim only adds more interest (and North Korea another added twist).
    Should I request another reviewer to analyze? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can if you like. However, even if the player is very obscure, and yeah he is, still doesn’t really spark any interest. Brachy08 _(Talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brachy0008: Thought of another one, in case the others don't work – what about:

Alt4 ... that footballer Han Bong-zin trained in the military every day for four years in preparation for the FIFA World Cup? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 can pass. Seems a lot more interesting than the rest. Also, source? Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My unsolicited comment. I think the article meets the DYK criteria, and the Alt 3, or something like that is the most interesting. --evrik ^(talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008: See Liverpool Daily Post: For the last four years of his football career Han Bong Jin — like the rest of his colleagues -- has been preparing for the 1966 World Cup. When the North Koreans reorganised their football organisation he was one of those taken from his club and added to a squad of 40 players to be employed by the Army ... who trained for football twice a day. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: unfortunately, that is a tabloid, and thus unreliable. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008: How'd you determine that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: searching it up. tabloids are usually unreliable bc they put stuff in a sensationalist light. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008: I meant, how did you determine that the Liverpool Daily Post is an unreliable tabloid? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: tabloids are usually unreliable on wikipedia standards. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but I'm not seeing that this paper specifically was a tabloid? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Liverpool Daily Post. The infobox says that it is a tabloid. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That links to the newspaper size tabloid, not necessarily that they engaged in tabloid journalism (though some do both). It doesn't seem the paper is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or has even been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll request another opinion on this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to the specific reliability and usage of Liverpool Daily Post in this instance, BeanieFan11 is correct. "Tabloid" has two different meanings, of which the infobox usage is very different than the secondary use by Brachy0008, which is shorthand for tabloid journalism, which in turn used to refer to specific tabloids with red mastheads, known as red tops. Our article on tabloid journalism makes this distinction a bit more clear: "Not all newspapers associated with tabloid journalism are tabloid size, and not all tabloid-size newspapers engage in tabloid journalism." Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My college newspaper was printed tabloid style, but we were not a "tabloid." As long as the source does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it should be okay. --evrik ^(talk) 02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brachy0008: can you address the responses? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed unless Brachy0008 returns. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• hi. sorry for the inactivity... nom would need a second opinion tho, so best get a new reviewer. thx! Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • since got now new reviewer and i have more free time now (yay), i may complete the review... will do a final check on the source before completing it.
    • done review! brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Revolutionary Communism, Vladimir Zitta, Grigorii Nikolaevich Maksimov, Evgenia Semenovskaya, Vladimir Bezel

• ... that in 1919 Vladimir Zitta, Evgenia Semenovskaya and G. N. Maksimov were expelled from the Party of Revolutionary Communism for having advocated unity with other populist sectors?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Theo Benedet, Template:Did you know nominations/Herschel the sea lion, Template:Did you know nominations/Kenji Tanigaki (2 articles), Template:Did you know nominations/Vasantha Krishna Prasad

Soman (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment ok to add Vladimir Bezel as a fifth article for this nom? (moved to mainspace today). The ALT1 hook would be "... that in 1919 Vladimir Zitta, Evgenia Semenovskaya, Vladimir Bezel and G. N. Maksimov were expelled from the Party of Revolutionary Communism for having advocated unity with oth