To discuss the content or layout of the Template:Did you know page itself, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

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	TM: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	TM: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 fact). 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 18	1
April 29	1
May 2	2
May 5	1	1
May 7	1
May 9	1
May 12	2
May 13	1
May 17	1
May 20	2
May 21	2
May 22	2
May 25	2	1
May 27	2
May 28	3	1
May 30	5	1
May 31	1
June 2	2	2
June 3	1	1
June 4	1	1
June 5	2	1
June 6	4	1
June 7	5	2
June 8	4	3
June 9	4	3
June 10	4	2
June 11	6	2
June 12	3	1
June 13	9	5
June 14	4	4
June 15	5	4
June 16	8	3
June 17	8	6
June 18	9	3
June 19	5	1
June 20	8	3
June 21	10	6
June 22	13	5
June 23	11	4
June 24	13	6
June 25	10	1
June 26	11	6
June 27	11	5
June 28	9	5
June 29	7	5
June 30	12	4
July 1	7	2
July 2	7
Total	243	101
Last updated 22:20, 2 July 2025 UTC Current time is 22:22, 2 July 2025 UTC [refresh]

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). Because of WP:DYKTIMEOUT, a nomination should be reviewed within two months since the reviewer/promoter may agree to reject and close an unpromoted hook after that time has passed.

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.

Handy copy sources:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• ... that Arthur Loveless never married?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Silent Parade

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @Generalissima: Article seems to pass all requirements, QPQ done. Hook is a so-so but considering the last name I get the hook :). Would you be okay with "... that Loveless was loveless?" or another formulated hook? Arconning (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arconning: Oh, forgot to respond; I don't know, I think that sounds too forced. I think the initial phrasing is better. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fwiw I like the original hook. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arconning: hi, is this hook approved? :) --Plifal (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops forgot to reply... yep! Arconning (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've pulled this for style reasons; we're not going to run something on the main page just to make fun of somebody's name. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith:@Generalissima: What about hooks like these? Arconning (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... that architect Arthur Loveless also collected snuff bottles?
    • ... that architect Arthur Loveless designed, resided in, and retired in the Loveless Building?
      • I like both of these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Approving. Arconning (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulled. There is no mention of a "Loveless Building" in the source, the building he retired to was called the "Studio Building". Also, the hook indicates he lived there before retiring there and the source doesn't say that, it says he managed the building in his retirement, at which time he also lived in it. Please fix the discrepancies, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gatoclass: Can't we just use the snuff bottle hook? Also, added a citation for the name. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but I can't confirm it from the provided sources. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: The nomination is already over two months old; I will be timing this out within 24 hours if the issues are not addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Fixing ping due to a typo. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Ah, true. Here's the quote from Veith in case it's hard to access He traveled extensively and became an award-winning amateur photographer as well as a sophisticated collector of textiles and Chinese snuff bottles. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veith, Thomas (2014). "Arthur L. Loveless". In Ochsner, Jeffery Karl (ed.). Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects (2nd ed.). University of Washington Press. pp. 180–185. ISBN 9780295806891.

• ... that Italian surrealist AI-generated images of creatures are popular on TikTok in Europe?

• Reviewed:

Thegoofhere (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Not a review, but I'd like to point out some things for the benefit of the first-time nominator here. The article in question is linked in bold from the hook, which I've done. Thegoofhere, there is also a failed verification tag that will need addressing before the page is passed. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The failed verification tag has been remedied, albeit with a questionable source. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done I will review this nomination. This is my second one, so I will request a second opinion. NeoGaze (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2025 (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: - ?

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article was created on 26 April, and was nominated for DYK on 3 May, which is a few hours after seven days. It is long enough with 5853 characters (896 words) of readable prose size. No copyright violations, plagiarism or close paraphrasing have been found in the article. The issue with this nomination is the provided hook, which in my opinion is not particularly interesting or intriguing, and its cited source at no point mentions this trend is particularly popular in Europe, just popular in general. Since the picture used is AI generated, it holds no copyright. It also looks good and clear at a 100px. A QPQ is not required for this nomination. I suggest the editor provides a new hook(s), if you need help or want suggestion for hooks, you can contact me in my talk page. NeoGaze (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: Hello, are you planning to continue with this nomination? NeoGaze (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uh-huh --Thegoofhere (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: You will need to propose a new hook if you want to continue pursuing this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ...that Tralalero Tralala is considered haram by Muslims? (https://screenshot-media.com/culture/internet-culture/italian-brainrot-dark-origin/)

ALT3 ...that Tung Tung Tung Sahur might become a flim? (https://www.kompas.com/hype/read/2025/05/12/104147466/viral-di-medsos-meme-tung-tung-tung-sahur-dikabarkan-akan-dibuatkan-film)

--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoGaze: @Narutolovehinata5:. --🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: The content of ALT2 doesn't appear in the article, and its source doesn't specify Tralalero Tralala as being haram, but the whole Italian brainrot trend. It is also based on the opinion of a single tiktok user, which is no person of authority in the religion. ALT3 is problematic as well because its speculative. The film has not yet been completed, and so the proyect may come to nothing. I propose the following alts as alternatives, and if you approve them then we can proceed with these. NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 ...that several Italian Brainrot characters have been used to sell toys, NFTs and Meme coins? (Zhan, Jennifer (29 May 2025). "The Italian Brain Rot Ren-AI-ssance, Explained". Vulture. Retrieved 1 June 2025.) ("Meme coin trapralaleo tralala surges 17000%, experts caution investors on volatility". CHOSUNBIZ. 2025-04-29. Retrieved 2025-04-29.)

ALT5 ...that according to Polskie Radio, Italian Brainrot is popular among Generation Alpha "because it's stupid, funny and veeeery addictive"? ("Czym jest brainrot? Trippi Troppi i Ballerina Cappuccina - tego nie ogarniają nawet zetki". Polskie Radio. Polskieradio.pl. Archived from the original on 22 May 2025. Retrieved 3 June 2025.)

ALT6 ...that some Italian Brainrot characters have been accused of being Islamophobic? (Ferraris, Matilda (2025-04-26). "From Ballerina Cappuccina to Tralalero Tralalà, we unpack the darker undertones of Italian brainrot". SCREENSHOT Media. Retrieved 28 April 2025.)

@NeoGaze:. I approve. I suggest either ALT5 or ALT6--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then I'm going to cross out the previous alts and request a second opinion, to make sure everything is okay. NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoGaze:. Hi! My opinion may not count much.... But I think ATL6 would be best suited as it does not include an "according to...".Earth605 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is already over two months old and has not been approved or promoted, so marking this for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I have approved it (I added the template to make it more clear), I just requested a second opninion since this is my second review. @Earth605: Attribution is not really an issue as long as it is properly done with reliable sources, its up to the person that promotes the hook. NeoGaze (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @NeoGaze (This is very personal opinion, and should be respected.) "According to..." is very specific, as it means it's only an opinion, or that it is reported by one source. Earth605 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Earth605: Okay, I don't really disagree with you, but I fail to see your point. Are you implying that the rest of ALTs are somehow worse? ALTs 5 and 6 are based on opinions, while 4 its a veryfiable fact not subject to dispute. Does that make it better? NeoGaze (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Earth605:In reality it's more like ATL 5 is based on opinion when ATL6 is kinda not. Well this discussion should be closed any time now really, so it doesn't even matter that much.

For what it's worth, DYKTIMEOUT also applies to nominations which have been approved but have not been promoted. I will let a promoter decided whether or not to promote or close the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the first North Carolina senator from Columbus County, James Bunbury White, was the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meg White

Aneirinn (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (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: The hook says, he was the founder of Whitesville, but the lead speaks of Whiteville. - A typo? Munfarid1 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook said Whitesville because Whiteville was originally established as Whitesville, however, the hook has now been changed to say Whiteville. Aneirinn (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up. Now the review is . Munfarid1 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn and Munfarid1: This comes nowhere close to meeting WP:DYKINT unless there's something I've missed; a new hook is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn and Munfarid1: Please address the above.--Launchballer 18:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0: ... that the memorial for James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death?

ALT1: ... that the memorial in honor of James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, and the first North Carolina Senator from Columbus County, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death?

ALT3: ... that the memorial for James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, was knocked down in a car crash in Whiteville 200 years after his death?

ALT4: ... that the memorial for James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, was knocked down in a car crash in Whiteville two hundred years after his death?

• Sources: Smith, Justin (December 20, 2019). "James B. White memorial standing again at courthouse". The News Reporter. Whiteville, North Carolina.
  "Cape Fear Pride Whiteville: Founder James B. White". WWAY3. March 5, 2009. Aneirinn (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your new ALT0 seems better to me than ALT1, as it is shorter and more precise. But which source does this refer to? Munfarid1 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added now. Aneirinn (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking ALT1, which at 211 prose characters is above the maximum allowed at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @BlueMoonset and Munfarid1: This nomination times out tomorrow. Is the sourcing issue addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be now. His memorial near the Columbus County Courthouse reads 1774–1820 but the other source mentions White died 1 October 1819 of yellow fever. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that 100 men can beat a gorilla?

• ALT1: ... that people think a single gorilla can kill 100 men? Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2025/04/30/experts-discuss-100-men-vs-gorilla/83367073007/
• Reviewed:

Thegoofhere (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• DYK is not for any random fact—it's to direct readers to relatively new articles on Wikipedia. Your hook needs to contain a link to an article that is new enough to be eligible for the "Did you know" section. See WP:DYKNEW for the eligibility requirements. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added links to the article in question nowThegoofhere (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that to defeat a gorilla, 100 men may "envelop the gorilla and create a human straightjacket"? Bremps... 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full review needed.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • As fun as the article is, I'm not sure it can survive AfD. I'll leave that to a reviewer though. Bremps... 01:01, 6 May 2025 (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: None required.

Overall: ALT2 is the only hook approved. ALT0 takes it a bit farther than the article (pretty much all statements on who wins in the article are attributed to some expert), and ALT1 doesn't really appear in the article (no info about public opinion overall). I'm not really sure where the concern for notability comes from: this is pretty far from WP:ROUTINE, and it's got plenty of secondary sources. Despite the orange tag at time of writing, all sources look fine. New reviewer. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere: ALT2 won't fly either; you've got one opinion in wikivoice. New hook needed.--Launchballer 00:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If none of the hooks will fly, this shouldn't be on the Approved page. Marking that there's an issue, and moving the nomination back to the Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that the quotes would've made it clear enough that it wasn't in wikivoice, sorry about that. ALT3: ... that according to a Zoo Miami staff member, to defeat a gorilla, 100 men may "envelop the gorilla and create a human straightjacket"? Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer needed for ALT3. @Thegoofhere: Any other hooks you would like to propose? Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4: ... that according to commentators, Jake Paul should fight a gorilla once it's retired? (Everything Goes Wrong as Jake Paul’s Attempt to Settle Gorilla Fight Debate Sends Internet Into Frenzy)

ALT5: ...that the White House stated Donald Trump can beat 142,000 illegal immigrants? (White House joins '100 men vs. gorilla' trend with Trump's immigration record: '142K illegal immigrants vs. Trump')

IDK where I should put the article link in ALT5. --🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Z1720: --🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Star Trek: Day of Blood is the first crossover event between ongoing comic books in the Star Trek franchise?

• ALT1: ... that the comic book Star Trek: Day of Blood includes a tie-in starred by Shaxs from Star Trek: Lower Decks? Source: Lovett, Jamie (September 24, 2023). "Star Trek: Lower Decks' Shaxs Has His Best Day Ever In New Preview". Comicbook.com. Retrieved 7 May 2025.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Regina George (Mean Girls)

Cambalachero (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - whoever reviews this, please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Moratorium_on_"first"_hooks?; while the project hasn't yet enacted any sort of restriction on "first" hooks, this is going to be under scrutiny so the sourcing and the evidence for the above claim will need to be strong (I haven't looked yet so I have no idea if it is or not). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Cambalachero All sources that I can find verify the hook fact. The reading order section needs to be referenced. I am not approving ALT1 as not interesting. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article right now and nothing stands out as a hook that works for non-Trekkies. If no agreement on a new hook can be made, or no new hook can be proposed, we may have to fail this one unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. As for the hook, "first work of its kind" should be interesting enough. Cambalachero (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so also. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Is the hook really all that interesting if you aren't a Trekkie? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 Is Template:Did you know nominations/The Interstellar Song Contest any different? It is in prep 6. SL93 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a different case. For one, that hook makes sense even if someone isn't a fan of Star Trek. A character going that long between appearances is at least going to raise eyebrows among an average reader. ALT0 seems to be appealing more to Trekkies: I'm not sure if a non-Trekkie would be as interested in knowing about crossovers or things like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossovers are a type of comic book publication, usually used by Marvel Comics and DC Comics. You can expect them to "raise an eyebrow" Spock-style when they notice that someone else is stealing their thunder. And, as said, first work of its kind. Cambalachero (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93:, remember to finish the review. As I pointed some time ago, the "Reading order" has been referenced. Please mark it as ready if ready, or point if there is something else that still needs to be done. Cambalachero (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready. I was waiting for the hook thing to be straightened out, which it didn't. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I still don't think it's all that interesting to anyone who isn't a fan of Star Trek. It's very interesting to Star Trek fans, definitely, but if you're not a fan of the series, then having a crossover event within that series does not seem like much of a big deal. If it was a crossover between, say, Star Wars or Star Trek, it would be a different story. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of Naturo's constant attempts to derail this nomination with non-actionable complaining. I would like someone else to provide a 4° opinion on this, or to endorse SL93's review. Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if a hook is at best marginally interesting, it is actionable by proposing a different hook (for what it's worth, I agree with SL93 that ALT1 is not interesting, so it doesn't count). If there really is nothing else in the article, I could maybe live with ALT0. I personally just don't think that the hook has much appeal outside of non-Star Trek fans, which isn't exactly the kind of broad audience that DYK is looking for in hooks. It would be like having a hook about having a Pokémon crossover between two different generations: if you're into Pokémon, you'll find it interesting, but less so if you aren't into Pokémon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request for a new reviewer, pinging uninvolved editors Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith regarding the interestingness of ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominator: pinging editors only counts as canvassing if they were pinged to lead a discussion towards a desired outcome. In this particular case, I pinged the three editors as they are active on WT:DYK and they are knowledgeable about hook interest. I do not know about their opinions at all regarding ALT0, and I do not know if they will approve or disapprove it. I pinged them for their expertise, and not because I think they have a specific viewpoint. Also, my message was neutrally worded rather than being an explicit request to reject or approve. Of course, these editors are free to not respond, and a different editor can make the final decision here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find ALT0 marginally interesting; our article describes Star Trek as "one of the most recognizable and highest-grossing media franchises of all time" and its article has averaged ~3500 views per day. However, given the above, I recommend posting at WT:DYK.--Launchballer 14:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for a second opinion at WT:DYK. If my earlier pings are considered canvassing then I apologize, as it was not my intention. I do suggest that Cambalachero assume good faith, as any impression of canvassing was entirely unintentional per my explanation above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. A user acting in good faith would have stepped aside and stayed silent when someone says that his opinions are not productive and asks for another user to take part in the discussion specifically because of it. A user acting in good faith would not ping specific editors of his own choosing who did not take part in the discussion or the writing of the article to replace him at the discussion (circumstances force me now to suspect that Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith may be friends of yours), specially when the neutral procedure (the third opinion icon) was already implemented and awaiting for results. A user acting in good faith would not remove a {{Canvass warning}} that was placed in reference to his own actions. I will politely ask you to get lost, and let me discuss with someone else other than you or your friends. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think there's any conspiracy or cabal at work. Narutolovehinata5 tends to be a nudge, but that kind of attitude is needed to move things along. I don't see anything wrong except for the use of "first", which we are trying to avoid. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will not be commenting on this nomination further, but I am disappointed at the lack of good faith shown in the above comment. As I said in my explanation, I had pinged those editors specifically because I did not know what they would think about the hook and knew, from their scrutiny of hooks on DYK, that they would be objective and unbiased (being objective means they could approve the hook and disagree with my opinion). Characterizing them as my "friends", when I explained my intentions, is not assuming good faith. I also apologized for my actions and made a neutral message at WT:DYK not targeted at any specific editor. I am fine with not participating here further, I am just very disappointed at the attitude shown to me above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the pilot to Arrested Development has been compared to Plato's Allegory of the cave?

• ALT1: ... that the pilot to Arrested Development has been described as an "early adapter to the changing economic mood [towards America] in the 2000s"? Source: https://www.pastemagazine.com/comedy/arrested-development/arrested-development-turns-20-now-the-story-of-a-wealthy-family-who-lost-everything
• Reviewed:

Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• GA status, length, hook, close paraphrasing check ok. No QPQ needed. I prefer ALT0. --Soman (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Crystal Drawers and Soman: per discussion at WT:DYK, I've pulled this one out of queue because of unresolved sourcing questions. I'll come back around in a bit to summarize where my thoughts are :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal Drawers: Thanks for waiting, and sorry for a long message in advance! So, you mentioned this draft of a possible addition to the Manual of Style – I would say that even if it were part of the MoS, it still wouldn't supersede the basic principles of what goes into an article. Neither does the fact that some or even many other articles aren't written to the same standards – lots of articles were written at a time when standards were lower or in a topic area where enforcement of policy is less rigorous, but that doesn't mean that policy shouldn't be enforced rigorously.

As to what discourages using DVD extras: I would argue that a core principle on Wikipedia is that our coverage of a topic is shaped by independent, professional sources. They're the people we trust to separate what's important and true from what isn't, and overusing self-published material gets in the way of that ideal. The guideline I'll cite here is WP:SELFSOURCE, which says that people can be reliable sources of information about themselves as long as the source does not involve claims about third parties; it also says that use of self-sourced material should be minimal; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. I do see some self-published sources being used for claims about third parties, and I wouldn't say that the use of non-independent sources in the article is minimal.

I do think that correcting the first one would go a long way towards addressing the second, so I hope I'm not pushing too much of a burden on you! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :) also, I kinda wanna get around to watching this show now. it's been on my list forever...theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: What makes citing DVD extras different to citing the episode itself, which is allowed per WP:PLOTSOURCE?--Launchballer 21:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I'd say that plot is different from real-world information. PLOTSOURCE is a specific carveout from our general policy of prioritizing secondary and independent sources, in recognition of the fact that the plot of a work is self-contained and easily accessible, so all we have to do is summarize the information the same way we would any other source. If we required a professional org to do that work first, we just wouldn't have plot sections in most book articles (even though I do like secondarily-sourced plot summaries where available). Still – we wouldn't, for example, cite a DVD extra for interpretation of the work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, @Crystal Drawers: please address the above.--Launchballer 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: @Launchballer:, I apologize for my lateness, I have a lot of testing this week so I have been studying instead of doing my usual Wikipedia editing. I will have it done by the end of the weekend Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, Crystal Drawers, best of luck on your tests!! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystal Drawers: Just following up on the above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I again apologize. My finals finish on Wednesday and I will be back to my usual Wikipedia workings by then, so expect this to be finished by the end of the week Crystal Drawers (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Big Stone County Museum preserves an historic octagonal one-room schoolhouse (pictured)?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Frink

paul2520 💬 00:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Interesting museum, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and illustrates the hook perfectly. In the article:
  1. link to the town in the first sentence
  2. for me, you could use ref 2 just once after "including", instead of having it in every line of the list.
  3. You may want to use mode=packed in the gallery to show the pics better.
  4. Next time please make section headers in sentence case - I did it for 2 here.

  Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and suggestions, I have made the changes. Myotus (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more hook question: isn't it "a historic"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the feedback & edits. Apologies for the accidental rollback—it was a slip.

Technically 'a historic' is fine, so either way. = paul2520 💬 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing looks very thin for this article, for example, none of the three sources in the "Engebrecht Peterson Log Cabin" mention the cabin by name, if at all (two of them are just photos of an unnamed cabin). Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd imagine that the cabin got a name only when installed there, - no surprise that it isn't mentioned anywhere else. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Singapore Rail Test Centre is the first exclusive train testing facility in Southeast Asia?

• ALT1: ... that the Singapore Rail Test Centre allows integrated systems testing for different trains and rail systems simultaneously, avoiding the need to conduct tests on operational lines on the MRT network? Source: https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/statistics_and_publications/Connect/singaporerailtestcentre.html
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mee siam mai hum

ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Just passed GA, so the timing checks out. It's definitely long enough, well-sourced, hook and QPQ are done, and no copyvio issues popped up. ALT0 probably reads better for general readers, but ALT1 feels more interesting to me, it's a bit less dry and sparks more curiosity. We're good to go! Mariamnei (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled. This will take essentially a complete rewrite to adequately address the sourcing problems, so calling this {{DYKno}}. See my analysis at FAC for details. RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: For further clarification, if a DYK is pulled, can I still nominate another DYK in the future? I still wish to get a Wikipedia:Four Award in the future, and the SRTC is my best chance for it.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll leave that for others to address; I'm not the gatekeeper of what's allowed or not allowed. But I will say that I'm more concerned about putting out a good product and not getting dragged to WP:ERRORS than I am about what awards you qualify for. RoySmith (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concern over errors? Exactly what errors? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ERRORS refers more to stuff that's wrong on the main page.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me then to suggest a few more alts that aren't as contentious.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2: ... that the 16.9 kilometres (10.5 mi) tracks at the Singapore Rail Test Centre is compatible with various types of signalling systems and is powered by both direct-current third rail and alternating-current overhead catenary? Source: International Railway Journal
• ALT3: ... that the Singapore Rail Test Centre incorporates energy-efficient features such as smart lighting control, solar panels and a hybrid cooling system? Source: International Railway Journal

Frankly, I see both hooks as problematic. ALT2 seems too technical or specialist, and ALT3 as currently written reads like an advertisement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: What about a simplified ALT2? Like ALT4: ...that the tracks of the Singapore Rail Test Centre are designed to work with different signalling systems and can run on both direct current and alternating current power? ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too complex. Maybe split it into separate hooks? It has two main hook facts when individually either work as hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then:

• ALT4a: ...that the tracks of the Singapore Rail Test Centre are designed to work with different signalling systems? Source: International Railway Journal
• ALT4b: ...that the tracks of the Singapore Rail Test Centre are designed to run on both direct current and alternating current power? Source: International Railway Journal

Is that better? ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Sorry, but I don't find either part of ALT4 interesting; products are always going to have specifications.--Launchballer 16:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Hmm... what about: ALT5: ...that the Singapore Rail Test Centre was built on a country club originally acquired for the Kuala Lumpur–Singapore High Speed Rail? Thanks for looking into this, btw. ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about ALT6: ... that part of Singapore Rail Test Centre was built on a reservoir?--Launchballer 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think ALT5 is a bit more interesting because it concerns a major cancelled project. And well, technically only a viaduct crosses the reservoir.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, hence 'part of'. The thing with ALT5 is that most mainpage readers would not know that the Kuala Lumpur line was a major cancelled project.--Launchballer 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then I go with your suggestion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask for another reviewer as I can't approve my own hook.--Launchballer 14:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing ALT6 per Launchballer's comment. ALT6 is cited inline, meets DYKINT, and is verified in the source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to approve the nomination, but just to make sure: @RoySmith: Have the sourcing issues you raised been solved? I took a quick look at the article, and it doesn't seem problematic to me anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but I'm going to leave that decision to somebody less involved than me. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: You were the one who raised concerns about the sourcing, and thus why the hook was pulled, so it's your call if your concerns have been addressed or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imagine you'll like my answer, but if you insist... I put a lot of effort into reviewing this the first time (and in more detail at FAC) and rejected it. That should have been the end of it. I think it is unfair to expect that I'll put that much effort again into a new review. I also don't think this should have passed GA but I don't have the energy to fight that battle. DYK needs to stop devoting so much energy to trying to rescue sub-standard nominations. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case the DYK nomination for the North Korean destroyer Choe Hyon should not have been greenlitted given arguably, South Korean sources would merely copy North Korean claims of the ship, if you believe the article still has sourcing issues as such.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay then. Pinging Epicgenius and Nick-D, who both commented on the FAC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I will also ping Starship.paint since they did the GA review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this but not sure what I can do here, I don't think I'm allowed to approve hooks since I passed the GA. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: The ping is only to see if the sourcing concerns raised in the FAC have been resolved, not for an opinion regarding the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Narutolovehinata5. I'll take a look soon. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: - in my opinion the current sources are acceptable for DYK standard, as has been from the conclusion of my GA review. Your mileage may vary. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to enquire @Narutolovehinata5:, why are we also basing the source quality on FAC standards than GA standards? From my understanding, the GA stage only requires reliable sources to be used, while the main criticisms of sourcing on the FAC were more based on their quality.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure why the sourcing was even questioned in the first place, it looked just fine to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any concerns here. The facility is notable and the sources were OK for statements of basic fact. My concerns in the FAC were around NPOV issues which aren't relevant to either of the proposed hooks. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just give this the tick since I don't really see what was wrong with the sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have pulled the hook as a WP:DYKINT fail. Suggested alt:
• ALT7: ... that Singapore rolling stock had to be tested overseas prior to the establishment of the country's Rail Test Centre?

- I don't think the fact is currently in the article, but it can be found in this source. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fact into the article.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT7 needs review. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1925, gave in 2022 a solidarity concert with Ukraine after the Russian invasion, of music by Ukrainian and Georgian composers? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed: Boulder-Deer Creek Pass, Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova

Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• I would personally trim the hook to just this:

ALT0a ... that in 2022, the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra performed a solidarity concert with Ukraine featuring music by Ukrainian and Georgian composers?

I think there is some potential in the original hook fact, it's just worded awkwardly and I don't think the founding date is important to the main hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a centenary is worth mentioning. I also would like to point at how immediately after the invasion that was - perhaps you have an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The primary hook fact is that they performed a solidarity concert following the invasion of Ukraine. Them being founded in 1925 is irrelevant to that. Again, WP:DYKTRIM applies: ...don't be afraid to trim hooks of extraneous information and clauses... In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has. If your desire is for the hook to run on the orchestra's centennial year, just it being approved and running is all that's needed. No need to mention the year since it's irrelevant to the hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0b ... that following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra performed a solidarity concert featuring music by Ukrainian and Georgian composers?

I think that our readers, who are expected not to know this orchestra even existed, get valuable extra information by telling them (in a short phrase) about the groups's long history, - a background giving the fact more depth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0c: ... that the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1925, gave a solidarity concert with Ukraine soon after the Russian invasion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I'm happy with ALT0c on an interestingness level. Do you plan on giving this a full review?--Launchballer 11:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I was not planning on giving this a full review. However, I don't think we should go with ALT0c as written because I still feel that the year is trimmable. I am open to a variant of ALT0c that omits the year, as I really don't think that the foundation year is an essential part of the main hook fact. So basically something like: ALT0d: ... that the Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra gave a solidarity concert with Ukraine soon after the Russian invasion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the centenary adds interest, but don't feel strongly enough either way. I'll let a reviewer adjudicate.--Launchballer 12:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that it might be easy to miss the centenary point, so even if that was the reason for including the year, it might take a while for the reader to register if (if they register it at all). It's also probably less relevant to the hook fact because the concert was in 2022 and not in 2025, so the year really isn't really relevant at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you "miss" the centenary point, you can see that there is a long history (to be explored when you click), vs. just some short-time action. We have different readers, and some may be interested in history and perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long enough, new enough. QPQs are done and Earwig is clean. I'm fine with ALT0c from an interest standpoint (though it might flow better if 'the' was replaced with 'a' and the commas were removed), but it's cited to AllEvents.in, which sold tickets for the event, and I think this would deserve {{independent source inline}}.--Launchballer 01:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I translated that. There is no doubt that it happened. - They also played in another one on 11 April. - I can't easily find things in Georgian, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Launchballer: Does the above satisfy your concerns? Is this approved, or are there other concerns to outline below? Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the artist Cady Noland was sued by two different collectors of her work after she "disavowed" artworks that she no longer considered genuine because they were damaged or altered?

• ALT 1 (added after discussion below): ... that the artist Cady Noland has "disavowed" several artworks that she no longer considered genuine because they were damaged or altered?
• Reviewed:
• Comment: First ever DYK nom, please advise if I mis-formatted anything. Thanks!

19h00s (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @19h00s: Hello and welcome to DYK. I don't plan on reviewing this any time soon as I have a policy of reviewing oldest first, but I can tell you the hook won't fly as it is unduly negative. Also, and these are not DYK issues, the image fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE as you can't see her properly and the sections badly want breaking up.--Launchballer 20:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, makes sense on the negativity front. I'd disagree on the image front, as detailed in the article and discussions on the talk page (long story short: she doesn't allow images of herself to be created or circulate, this image where she hides her identity has been widely discussed and is discussed in the article). Don't necessarily disagree on the breaking up of the sections, but a biography article necessarily requires a more cogent narrative structure that is extremely difficult to achieve when you spread everything out into sections that break up the chronological flow. Happy to retract this nomination or you can just fail it. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination doesn't fail just because one hook doesn't work. You could probably get away with ALT0a: ... that Cady Noland "disavowed" some of her artworks?, though I'll let a reviewer adjudicate on that.--Launchballer 20:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Learn something new about Wiki processes every day lol, just assumed this was DOA if the hook was out of bounds as written. Just added an alt version. Thanks for the tips. 19h00s (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review needed now that ALT hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive work on this article, 19h00s. You nominated the day it passed its GA review, so it counts as a new GA. Brevity is certainly not an issue. The sourcing seems impeccable and I see no obvious neutrality issues. I do agree with Launchballer that the sections desperately need subsections; section with up to 16 paragraphs, some of them very long, are difficult to navigate. This is not a DYK requirement by any means. I am not convinced that the non-free infobox photo is fair use because the subject is a living person. There are five more non-free images in the article. I am not sure whether this is a DYK concern, but it might be a GAN concern, on the basis of which this hook is nominated. I hope I can get some input from @DYK admins: . Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there's questions about the GA review, pinging Floating Orb who conducted the GA review. RoySmith (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks y'all for taking a look at this nom. First, on the image front - I welcome more thoughts on this picture, but I've been through several rounds of discussion on this and multiple admins have concluded the image is OK as used given the circumstances (she doesn't allow pictures, this image is widely discussed as an example of that, it's discussed in the article). But obviously defer to community consensus. On the GA process, I would love for a new, full GA review. I asked several times during the process for others to step in and take over from Floating Orb, but other editors were really intent on letting FO learn the GA process (at the expense of this review). If you look at the full edit history on the review it's really hard to follow. But experienced GAR editors seemed to think it was fine by the end.19h00s (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that William Salter II and James White were directors of the town of Elizabethtown, North Carolina, before the American Revolutionary War?

• ALT1: ... that William Salter II and James White represented Bladen County in the Second North Carolina Provincial Congress and the North Carolina House of Burgesses in 1775? Source: "27th House of Burgesses - 1775". Carolana."Members of the 2nd Provincial Congress". Carolana.
• ALT2: ... that James White, the sheriff of Bladen County, North Carolina, deeded land to William Salter II before they represented the county together in the North Carolina General Assembly in 1775? Source: "Bladen County Deeds, 1734–1778" (PDF). Orange County California Genealogical Society."27th House of Burgesses - 1775". Carolana."Members of the 2nd Provincial Congress". Carolana.
• ALT3: ... that Sarah "Sallie" Salter, the wife of William Salter II, spied for the Patriots before the Battle of Elizabethtown? Source: Fox, Sara (March 13, 2023). "Sallie Salters and the Battle of Elizabethtown". The Bladen Journal.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleariid/Template:Did you know nominations/Francis W. Joaque

Aneirinn (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2025 (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: I definitely prefer ALT3, as it makes readers want to find out, how she spied. The first two don't seem very interesting to me, as they mention rather mundane facts. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Munfarid1 and Aneirinn: ALT3 is not viable, as it does not focus on either of the people mentioned in the nomination; if the other hooks are uninteresting, new hook suggestions are needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a strong opinion about White, but I just looked at Salter's article and unfortunately there isn't anything that stands out as hook that is specifically about him. The hookiest part was about his wife. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn: Given the above, would you be fine with withdrawing your nomination of Salter in favor of just focusing on White? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the song "Ol' Man River" from Show Boat was originally written with the intent of having it sung by Broadway Jones?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Washington University in St. Louis, Template:Did you know nominations/Harriet (novel)
• Comment: Moved to article space on May 20, 2025

4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Article is new and long enough (created May 20), NPOV, has an interesting hook. One QPQ is done, but one additional is needed due to backlog mode being active. Article is inline and reliably sourced to a book from Oxford University Press. No image. Earwig shows 3.8% (violation unlikely). Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford I added my second QPQ above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go! Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 and Chetsford: I have pulled this per WT:DYK. I note 4meter4's comment that "Ol' Man River" is often cited as the beginning of the modern musical and I suggest adding a source to that effect (for example, that "a song often cited as the beginning of the modern musical" was written..."); otherwise, this needs a new hook.--Launchballer 14:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer That is not what I said. Show Boat as a whole is cited as the beginning of the modern musical. "Ol' Man River" is the best known song from that show. There are many sources for that, but if you look at the Musical theatre article Show Boat is the only work to get its own subsection. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I suggest "that the best known song from a musical often cited...".--Launchballer 15:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook isn’t about Ol Man River but about Broadway Jones. The point was that this very famous song was written for his voice. It’s the most interesting thing about him in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I won’t have internet access this week as I am traveling to a remote area with no cell phone reception or internet. It may be a while before I can think up something new. I will say I am a bit dismayed by the outcome here as I don’t think the song is obscure. There aren’t very many songs that have entire books written about them, and this is one of them.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a bit dismayed by the outcome here as I don’t think the song is obscure." I share your perplexity. Chetsford (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this misses the actually interesting part of the story. Lots of songs are written with particular performers in mind, but to have a song in a musical written especially for you yet turn down the part seems much more intriguing. I suggest something like "...despite the song Ol Man River from the musical Showboat having been written with him in mind, Broadway Jones did not join the cast?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that seems like a fine hook, the source only says he didn't join the original cast. Unless I'm missing something, we would need a source that established he didn't join the touring cast or any revival casts as well. I suppose we could modify it by saying "join the original cast" but that gets a little clunky. Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer pulled this per a WT:DYK discussion. @Chetsford: How does this ALT hook sound?

ALT1 ... that singer Broadway Jones got his nickname from always wearing sharp looking suits?

Note that 4meter4 will be away for a week per their comment at the WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions) 00:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems less interesting than the original one. Ol Man River is probably the most iconic song in the Great American Songbook while Broadway Jones is (I think - at least to me) relatively unknown in 2025 unless one is immersed in the history of vaudeville. But I guess it's better than nothing. Chetsford (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that even makes sense. What's the connection?----User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably from the culture of the New York theatre district at that time being connected so closely to fashion.4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a nonsequiter than something interesting. The only reason that would get me to click is to find out what it was supposed to be saying. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that if he had later joined the cast, the source would have said so. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am fine with alt1.4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm reposting this here as it might be better for this hook's context. @Launchballer and Narutolovehinata5 It was just pointed out to me that "Ol' Man River" is on the AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs list and a recording of it was inducted into the Grammy Awards' Grammy Hall of Fame in 2006. The song has apparently been recorded by major artists in Europe and India as well as by Americans like Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra. I strongly urge you based on this strong evidence to reconsider promoting the original hook as the concerns raised are not valid in light of the evidence.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't understand the attachment to the original hook, because even with all that context, those accolades do not matter if the reader or audience is not familiar with the song. I'd be open to a variant of ALT0 that mentions it being on the list, but I don't think vanilla ALT0 works even with the context. One rule of thumb for hooks I have is, "If a hook requires an explanation on the nomination page, it usually does not meet DYKINT." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the hook doesn’t require explanation. I think the point is that your lack of familiarity is not an accurate predictor of the general public’s familiarity in this case. This is a very famous song that a large percentage of readers on the English wiki will know. The accolades indicate fame and are a better predictor of that criteria than any individual wikipedian. Extrapolating your own lack of knowledge out to a wider audience is not a good way to operate in cases where there is evidence of wide fame/recognition on a given topic. At some point we all have to acknowledge that there are elements of popular culture / common knowledge that for whatever reason we as individuals may have missed but the general public overall has not. Applying specialized knowledge onto a well known topic isn’t a good idea.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that after Chinese Border Defense Police officer Yao Yuanjun was killed in action, his police dog continued to wait for him to return?

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Several comments:

1. Since the subject was in the Border Defense corps, which is part of the Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces, I'm kinda unsure what to refer to him as, since MPSASF personnel were active service members. 2. I currently also have an approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman), may I ask if this would interfere with anything 3. The 2 photos are non free fair use, so it cannot be put on the main page.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Hi Thehistorianisaac, welcome to DYK. I have formatted the original hook and removed the repeated hooks. Regarding your questions:

1. "border police officer" may be sufficient for the hook in line with the lead of the article. 2. No, you have multiple DYK nominations running in parallel. 3. Non-free images cannot be used in DYK.

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: - The reference is in Chinese. From Google translate, it seems that news agencies are saying as per the viral video, the dog is waiting for his master even after 10 years; rather than an independently verified fact that the dog is waiting. The article and the hook needs to be reworded. If my understanding is incorrect, please clarify.
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is currently at AfD. We will have to wait for the same to conclude, before approving the hook. Most of the references are Chinese news sites, private or state-owned (from Neutrality perspective). Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't really a huge problem with sources, state owned media is usually considered reliable outside of controversial usages, and different language sources are also allowed; As for the hook, from my understanding, it's similar to the Hachiko story. Additionally, the AfD likely won't go very far anyways.Thehistorianisaac Talk 23:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac and Redtigerxyz: Article's been kept, what else needs doing?--Launchballer 14:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afd has concluded as Keep. A RM is underway, however does not impact this DYK IMO.

Assuming The Paper as reliable. "From Google translate, it seems that news agencies are saying as per the viral video, the dog is waiting for his master even after 10 years; rather than an independently verified fact that the dog is waiting. The article and the hook needs to be reworded. If my understanding is incorrect, please clarify." is unaddressed. The references are just saying that there is a viral video which claims that the dog is waiting for its master.

I am okay to pass "ALT1 ... as per a viral video, the police dog of Yao Yuanjun was waiting for its master, 10 years after he was killed in action?" or similar. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: Please address the above.--Launchballer 16:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: sorry for the late response. The Paper is generally considered reliable by other people from wikiproject China; Nothing against you personally, but I would prefer this DYK Nomination be reviewed by someone who understands chinese, as I have seen cases where google translate messes up. The sources are explaining the story based on the video. I think essentially speaking, the alternate hook you propose is mostly the same, but makes it a bit overly complicated. Thehistorianisaac

As requested by Nominator, requesting a Chinese speaker for a second pair of eyes.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that within 90 years, ownership of a two-story house (pictured) changed seven times among four countries?
• Source: Various sources in the article. Pretty much the entire History section.
  • ALT1: ... that a two-story house was listed for 1.2 billion Chinese Yuan?
  • Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20050830222101/http://biz.163.com/41201/0/16GQP8LO00020QEO.html
  • ALT2: ... that occupants of a two-story house (pictured) include a British businessman, Chinese and Japanese armies, two textile companies, and a consulting firm?
  • Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20170416124048/http://www.yplib.org.cn/jdfzzdg/cfjz/33870.htm
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremiah Chamberlain

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Article is new enough and long enough. Hook fact is verified in the sources for 0 and ALT2 - rejecting ALT1 as the source reads “1.2 亿元” - 120 million; not as impressive. QPQ has been provided. No copyvio detected, as expected when all sources are in Chinese. Image is… clear enough at that size, and adequately licensed. Good to go. Strongly prefer ALT2. Juxlos (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulled. The source says ownership "changed seven times among four countries" but at least two of these were "occupations" rather than ownership. The ALT hook isn't very good either, so I have returned this one for further discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Prince Mortimer lived until 110 years old, and died in prison?

• Reviewed:

TriMuseumGeek (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Hi TriMuseumGeek, thanks for you nomination. The article was moved to main space on 22 May so is new enough and is long enough. Unfortunately the sourcing is not up to DYK standards which require a source cited inline at the end of every paragraph as a minimum. I've added the article to the hook above. We need a citation in the article for him dying at 110 in prison (we would also have to say "approximately" to match the article). There are also some grammar issues with the article and it switches between past and present tense. Let me know if you can improve this to meet the criteria and I will take another look - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TriMuseumGeek: Please address the above; I will fail this if this is not addressed in a week.--Launchballer 12:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dumelow and Launchballer. I'm still getting the hang of this, and appreciate your comments. I tried to make the corrections and additions that you asked. If it is still not meeting the guidelines, I understand. Also, if I mess up this post, I apologize. Wikicode is not my strong suit. -- TriMuseumGeek (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @TriMuseumGeek: Each "citation needed" template in the article needs to be replaced with a citation before this can be approved. Also, the article does does not give a definitive date of birth, so this hook cannot state that he lived to be 110 unless that can be verified. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Dutch team (pictured) won the women's 4 × 400 metres relay at the 2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships in a new championship record of 3:25.66 min?

• ALT1: ... that the team of the Netherlands (pictured) won the women's 4 × 400 metres relay at the 2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships seconds ahead of the other teams? Source: "1 NED - NETHERLANDS 6 0.196 3:25.66 CR" / "2 ITA - ITALY 3 0.169 3:28.61 NR" (link)
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jerzy Broszkiewicz
• Comment: A cropped version of the photo might work even better here.

Editør (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• I don't see how either hook meets WP:DYKINT. Do you have any other proposals? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've incorporated one of the quotes in ALT2. Does that work for you? Let me know if you are looking for something else/specific. – Editør (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT2: ... that Femke Bol pulled away "with a superior acceleration" during the final of the women's 4 × 400 metres relay at the 2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships (winning team pictured)? Source: Original Dutch: "Het Nederlandse kwartet liep de hele race aan de leiding. Startloper Klaver profiteerde optimaal van de gunstige buitenbaan 6 en kwam als eerste door. Saalberg en Peeters hielden de eerste positie knap vast, waarna Bol het met een superieure versnelling afmaakte." [English translation: "First runner Klaver took full advantage of the favorable outside lane 6 and came through first. Saalberg and Peeters held on to the first position, after which Bol finished it off with a superior acceleration."] (link)

    @Narutolovehinata5: ping – Editør (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to shorten the bold link? It seems to be a distraction. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I don't think so. I believe this is how titles of the form 'Championships – Event" are typically displayed when there is only one title in the hook, see for instance the DYK hook for Talk:2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 400 metres. – Editør (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if there's an alternate way to word the link. Right now it feels like a distraction to the reader.