This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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
June 13	1
June 14	1
June 15	1
June 17	1
June 21	1
June 22	2
June 23	2
June 24	2
June 25	1
June 26	4	2
June 28	3	1
June 30	1
July 1	4	1
July 2	1
July 3	3	2
July 4	4	1
July 5	4
July 6	3	3
July 7	4	1
July 8	4	2
July 9	4	2
July 10	6	5
July 11	1	1
July 12	5	4
July 13	6	2
July 14	6	3
July 15	6	3
July 16	8	7
July 17	7	2
July 18	5	3
July 19	13	10
July 20	4	4
July 21	10	6
July 22	7	5
July 23	9	7
July 24	9	2
July 25	17	3
July 26	7	3
July 27	10	5
July 28	20	8
July 29	11	3
July 30	7	4
July 31	8	6
August 1	9	3
August 2	6	4
August 3	9	2
August 4	6	4
August 5	9	1
August 6	7	3
August 7	5
August 8	2
Total	286	128
Last updated 23:23, 8 August 2024 UTC Current time is 00:08, 9 August 2024 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).

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 post enforcement of Women's Reservation Bill in India in the next few years, 33% of women MPs will be required although new Lok Sabha has only 14%?

ALT: ... that according to the Indian Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, 33% of women MPs will be required although Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?

ALT1: ... that post enforcement of Women's Reservation Bill in India in the next few years, 33% of MPs will be required to be women although the new Lok Sabha has only 14%?

ALT2: ... that according to the Indian Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, 33% of MPs will be required to be women although the Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sydnie Christmas

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC). General eligibility:[reply]

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

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

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approved only for ALT hook proposed by me. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dharmadhyaksha and Mehedi Abedin: The article has a citation needed tag and needs copyediting for sentences such as "Parents of Choudhary and Sarojs have been MPs/MLAs and of Jatav have been deputy sarpanch", "The 14% strength of women in Lok Sabha is considerably short", etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @AirshipJungleman29: The tag wasn’t' there when I was inspecting the article as a reviewer. Also the article was good to me in that time and it was edited many times by many users and ip after review. Mehedi Abedin 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CN tag is sorted by some editor. @AirshipJungleman29: What do you want those two sentences to be written as? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this needs to be rephrased. '33% of MPs will be required to be women although new Lok Sabha has only 14%?' It's 33 percent of MPs are mandated to be women, not 33 percent of women MPs; there is a fundamental difference. Will Thorpe (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Willthorpe:! ALT1 & 2 have suggested now. @AirshipJungleman29:, your response is also awaited. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Dharmadhyaksha, glad to help! Will Thorpe (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This hook feels really wordy, which is why I think it hasn't been promoted yet. Is there any way to trim it a bit? What about this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 ... that although the Indian Constitution has required 33% of MPs to be women since 2023, the Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?

@Premeditated Chaos: Well, ALT3 will be factually incorrect as the Reservation Bill is not really implemented yet. It was passed in 2023 and the date of implementation is yet to be decided as there will be delimitation of constituencies after the next Census is completed. Both these major steps (census & then delimitation) are still pending. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, basically the hook is that the percentage of female MPs is less than what's mandated by a law that isn't even in force yet? I'm not sure I find that particularly surprising or intriguing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... its way less that what would be required by maybe next elections. I understand the hook is becoming un-interesting as we are being factually correct. Hence i was using "will be required" and skipping the part of "when will it be required". If you have any other suggestions, we can think of those too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha and Premeditated Chaos: how's an ALT4: ... that India will need to more than double its current number of women in Parliament under a new law? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. In fact, much better than what i had framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha "The 14% strength of women in Lok Sabha is considerably short than the 33% which will be required after the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 is enforced after the delimitation of constituencies happens post this 2024 elections." That sentence doesn't make much sense without context. Consider rewording it to flow better like the original proposed hooks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimalMustelid: Sentence has been reworded. Please check and if such minor edits are required, request you to use your discretion under WP:BOLD and do it yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Have your concerns been resolved? @Mehedi Abedin: as the original reviewer can you ensure that this article is approved again, or post below what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Looks like there is no issue now. The new hook is okay. Mehedi Abedin 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged one section as needing copyediting; I'll try to remember to get around to doing it myself tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs copyediting, let's not give it a tick yet. Noting that Mehedi Abedin used a non-standard non-substituted tick icon that the bot doesn't understand; please use the standard icon codes located above the edit window in order to properly approve a nomination. Many thanks. Also pinging AirshipJungleman29, in case they want to add that approval icon after the copyedit is completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the completion of copyedit. After that I will give tick. Mehedi Abedin 03:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for almost two months. The copyedit was in July and hasn't happened yet. Just foreshadowing that I'm about to close this nomination as unsuccessful. Schwede66 22:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting tag was placed on last day of July!! Its been only 5 days since then. And why do we have so many bosses at DYK these days who are actually not helping the nomination in any way? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have too many nominations and try to get rid of stuff that's stale. This is the oldest open nomination. If you get on with it, then all's good. Schwede66 06:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League ordered a 55-pound (25 kg) cake on Bangladeshi president Sheikh Mujibur's 55th birthday?

• ALT1: ... that the birthday of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was declared a public holiday in Bangladesh in 1972 to commemorate a visit from Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi? Source: https://www.kalbela.com/ajkerpatrika/joto-mot-toto-path/73707
• ALT2: ... that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founder and first president of Bangladesh, had to experience his birthday in jail eight times? Source: https://www.banglatribune.com/national/840278/%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9F%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%8B-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%99%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent
• Comment: If you can please do copy edit for the article. I already requested in WP:GOCE but they take longer time to respond.

Mehedi Abedin (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I have done some copyediting of the hooks. I will also give the article a basic copyedit. Therefore, I will leave the reviewing to someone else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi Abedin and Trainsandotherthings: Much to whinge about here I'm afraid. Only ALT2 passes WP:DYKINT and it would need an end-of-sentence citation in any event. This could still do with a robust copyedit, which I see it's been waiting for. (I tried, but I physically can't read WP:PARAGRAPHs of that length.) Also, big dislike on using a two year old QPQ when we have a heavy backlog, but WP:QPQ specifically states that QPQs do not expire, so I'll take it. This is also long enough, new enough, copyvio-free, and the image is Creative Commons. I think the first two things you need to do are a) give ALT2 an end-of-sentence citation, and b) break up the paragraphs into smaller chunks.--Launchballer 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find Alt1 to be the most interesting. I find Alt2 to be confusing. What does Indira Gandhi have to do with the birthday of Rahman? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Done. Please check the article now. I made the paragraphs smaller except "Bangabandhu's perspective" and "Observances" sections because they are already small. Added end-of-sentence citations for all hook. Let me know if there is anything left to do. Mehedi Abedin 14:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the History section a trim mostly for concision, but this should be good to go.--Launchballer 12:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a copyedit for poor grammar. The "Observances" section is not supported by the source, which states what happened in 2019, not what must happen every year. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I edited the observances section a little bit because the source talk about the day's observances in 2019. But the source also says that it is an public holiday so I kept that part without editing. If you could say in which parts I need copyedit then it will help me. Mehedi Abedin 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bangabandhu's perspective" subsection needs copyediting; I am not sure if it is even WP:DUE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Ok, give me some day, I will do it. Mehedi Abedin 16:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Done. Is it okay now? Or if you can confirm that the subsection is not WP:DUE then I would erase the section and copy some of it to the History subsection for the proposed hook. Mehedi Abedin 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be best Mehedi Abedin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Done. Mehedi Abedin 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Mohan Charan Majhi of Bharatiya Janata Party formed the Odisha state government by winning the elections ending the 24-year long Biju Janata Dal rule?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Way Less Sad and Template:Did you know nominations/Gloria Dickie

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Dharmadhyaksha: Articles are long enough and were created/expanded within 7 days of submission. Articles are presentable, sourced, and copy-vio free, though I think the election article could use copyediting to make it more readable (missing punctuation, rephrasing to sound more natural, etc.}. Additionally, the hook's claim that Majhi "formed" a state government isn't stated in the source nor in either article. These things would need to be addressed before approval. Kimikel (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimikel: Some minor copyediting done. Unfortunately i could not fina any glaring copy editing requirements. But you can help, if you think some sentences need tweeking.
When a Chief Minister takes oath they form the government. Statesman says the new government is formed and that Majhi is the new CM. I don't see what the confusion here is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting a second opinion, as I obviously lack knowledge on the workings of Indian politics. Hopefully someone more acquainted with the subject can review this. Kimikel (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - WP:DYKCOMPLETE

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 have copyedited Mohan Charan Majhi, but 2024 Odisha Legislative Assembly election is very poorly-written and needs an extensive copyedit to meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE; if the article updaters are unable, I would recommend nominating it at WP:GOCE, but that may take too long. There is also the problem of the hook not being very interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting Majhi. I have copyedited the election article now. You can check it and do minor ce if needed. In a democratic country with regular elections, am not sure how many years of incumbency needs to be turned over to make it "very interesting" for DYK. Do we have a DYK guideline for that somewhere? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Have your concerns been resolved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination still needs an interesting hook—one which doesn't describe a basic feature of politics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24 years of overturning a govt is not "basic" in a democratic country. @AirshipJungleman29: there are no specific guidelines for "interestingness". Few days back we had a lead hook about a swimmer swimming at the Olympics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's very common; we just had an election here the UK and many such events occurred—Worthing West (UK Parliament constituency) is an example. We do have a guideline for "interestingness"—see WP:DYKINT. I would not have promoted that swimming hook on those grounds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single constituency (of 76k electorates) retaining its member for multiple elections is way different than a complete state of 147 constituencies (of 33200k electorates) doing it. If you wanna cite an example, cite one of equal magnitude. You may not be finding it interesting since you have wrong knowledge of elections in India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is required to be unusual or intriguing for readers with no special knowledge or interest. If the hook is only interesting to those with good knowledge of Indian elections, it does not satisfy the DYK guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "interestingness" is subjective and we cant follow your POV on it. We will wait for others to chime in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the second-oldest open nomination is yours as well. Rest assured this isn't about you. It's us trying to cope with the onslaught of too many nominations. Schwede66 06:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty complicated to normal readers.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that a hook about a basic feature of politics is not interesting. I'd suggest something like "that Mohan Charan Majhi went from being suspended from the Odisha Legislative Assembly for throwing dal at the speaker's podium to becoming its Chief Minister in less than a year", but a) I'm not sure the sourcing's strong enough, and b) I suspect the DYKHOOKBLP police might snort.--Launchballer 12:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 was one of the earliest train wrecks ever photographed? Source: Reed, Robert (1968). Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line. Seattle: Superior Pub. Co. pp. 20–21. Also verified by Heppner, Frank H. (2012). Railroads of Rhode Island: shaping the Ocean State's railways. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press. p. 78
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joel Ross (vibraphonist)
  • Comment: Due to the recent controversy over "first" or "earliest" hooks, I have adopted the wording "one of the earliest".

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have access to Train Wrecks right now as I'm in the middle of a move. Heppner says "This was the first train wreck ever to be photographed and printed in a newspaper". I have added an inline cite at the end of the sentence. This is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - if we try and run the hook as stated in the sources and article, it will almost certainly be challenged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances of the nomination I'm pinging some of the commentors in the recent "first" hooks discussion such as @RoySmith, SL93, and Schwede66: for advice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My usual litmus test for "first" hooks is whether there's a finite set of things, making it possible to definitively order them and see which was first. For example, we can be pretty sure George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States; even the most skeptical of us should be willing to accept that there wasn't one before him that we just somehow haven't found yet in a google search. In this case, photography had only existed for about 20 years when this crash happened. The window of when an earlier photo might have been taken is thus limited, so at least this seems likely to be true. On general principles, however, I think we should say "believed to be" or something like that. FWIW, I found mention of this in the George Eastman House 2008 Annual Report which says "[Train wreck on the Providence Worcester Railroad near to Pawtucket], August 12, 1853. Attributed to L. Wright. Daguerreotype. so there may be some uncertainty about the photographer's identity. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the last point. Both the link and the source I use in the article attribute the photograph to L. Wright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally interpret the phrase "attributed to" to indicate a degree of uncertainty. Thus Read my lips: no new taxes says, "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that he said it. Millions of people watched him say it live on TV and we've got it on videotape to go back and verify. But Gospel of Matthew says The gospel is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew because we're not 100% sure. I think the same thing is going on here; the Eastman folks believe Wright took the image, but they apparently have enough uncertainty about it that they felt the needs to hedge in their statement. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. So what we know without a doubt is this collision happened and it was photographed. Photography was very much an emerging technology at this point so I think this is almost certainly one of the first train collisions ever photographed, if not the first. Railroads as we know them only really emerged around 1830 with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Daguerreotype was invented in 1839. It's difficult to definitively prove this was the first photo, but it was almost certainly one of the earliest. The question is how do we word this in the article and in the hook. An ALT1 about the emergence of a very early form of a coordinated time/time zone in the aftermath of this wreck is also possible, as that is somewhat easier to verify. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: As this is your nomination, you will know the contents of this article better than a reviewer. I suggest that you propose an ALT1 along with what you suggest above, or several ALTs, so the reviewer can determine the most interesting ones. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ...that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 led to the creation of the first time zone in the United States? Source: America's First Time Zone, the Harvard Gazette "That first voluntary time agreement among the railroads became mandatory a few years later, after an 1853 wreck occurred outside Pawtucket, R.I., on a blind curve known as the Boston Switch...After that, railroad time was mandated along the region’s tracks...The result of all this, said Galison and Schechner, was America’s first time zone" Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the brouhaha about "first" hooks, we will need a much stronger source for the "first time zone" option, or perhaps a revised version that isn't as strong about it being a "first". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still interesting if we drop "first". Bremps... 03:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is really how to present the hook. We've had issues over "first" hooks for a long while, so if it really is the first we have to be sure that it's right. Otherwise, finding a compromise wording is tricky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. It feels like no matter what I try it always gets shot down. Am I supposed to make the article worse to get a hook through DYK? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that "Chand Sifarish" peaked at #1 on the popularity charts?

• Reviewed:

KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• The article was recently recreated from a redirect so if tools say this is an old article then that is inaccurate. Thus the article is technically eligible. There are however multiple major issues with the nomination right now. The first is that the article is in need of a copyedit, and second, the hook is too vague and broad to meet WP:DYKINT. It lacks context (it doesn't make it unambiguously clear that the subject is a song), and the "#1 on the popularity charts" claim also lacks context. I should also note that the article isn't more specific about which charts are being referred to here either, so that is also an issue with the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any information about those popularity charts. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then that hook can't run as it won't pass scrutiny on either WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. A new hook will need to be proposed here, but if one can't, then the nom will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New hook: ALT1 ... that the song "Chand Sifarish" was produced in the voice of Kishore Kumar and Mohammed Rafi, with the help of Artificial intelligence. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context of that hook is a bit unclear. Did you mean the song was covered by Kumar and Rafi with the help of AI? Given this is a music-related hook, maybe Launchballer can come up with a clearer and more grammatically-correct wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the hook is telling me what I think it's trying to tell me, then I would suggest words to the effect of ALT1a: ... that an AI-generated cover of Shaan and Kailash Kher's "Chand Sifarish" became popular on social media? Also, what makes The Times of India reliable?--Launchballer 13:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the tools are saying this is an old article because it used to be one; the article was deleted at AfD in 2012. I think the AI stuff takes it over the line in terms of notability.--Launchballer 13:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that ToI has a yellow rating at WP:RSP, but the hook's claim seems uncontroversial and not something they likely made up. If there are no other sources that cover that information I don't think it should be an issue to use ToI in this particular case (unless this is one of their paid articles), but to be on the safe side maybe another source should be added to strengthen the claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook belongs to Hindustan Times. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Have your concerns been resolved? If not, what else needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issue still needs to be addressed and Launchballer's objection be lifted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KunalAggarwal95: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source is reliable. https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/what-if-kishore-kumar-and-rafi-sang-chand-sifarish-ai-made-video-impresses-people-101705313694145.html KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my original post was not clear. The two Times of India pieces are currently used to back up a claim of plagiarism and the winning of an award, which I regard as needing stronger sourcing. I have no objection with the Hindustan Times being used for the hook.--Launchballer 07:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source for winning award. No other source found for plagiarism. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you take that bit out and put something else in to take this back above 1500 characters.--Launchballer 17:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No further objections from me, although for a low-profile individual like that fan, you probably shouldn't be including their name per WP:BLPNAME. I've removed this for you, and made a few other edits while at it. Also, without evidence that the 'popularity charts' are anything other than Hindustan Times' own chart, that had to come out per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Passing you back to @Narutolovehinata5:.--Launchballer 08:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we definitely can't run with ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that when Anshuman Sharma uploaded an AI-generated cover of Shaan and Kailash Kher's "Chand Sifarish" to Instagram, his post scored nearly five million views in two days?--Launchballer 13:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 seems good. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then another reviewer needs to tick it off.--Launchballer 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was under the impression that the above included a review. This is long enough, new enough, copyvio free and QPQ exempt. I don't see any reason why this might deserve a maintenance template. This still needs someone else to approve ALT2.--Launchballer 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that an EastEnders storyline depicting Keegan Baker and Shakil Kazemi being stabbed was considered "one of the most important the show has ever embarked on" by executive consultant John Yorke?

• ALT1: ... that the wedding between EastEnders characters Keegan Baker and Tiffany Butcher was confirmed after actors Zack Morris and Maisie Smith were seen filming it on-location? Source: Dainty, Sophie (24 September 2019). "EastEnders films a surprise wedding that nobody saw coming". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 4 November 2021. Retrieved 21 June 2024.
• Reviewed:

FishLoveHam (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @FishLoveHam: As written, this would deserve {{long plot}} and {{over-quotation}}. Ping me when you've fixed these and I will give this a proper review.--Launchballer 17:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the DI MA-1 Mk. III rifle was made in Myanmar without license despite claims that it was made entirely in Myanmar?

• • ALT1: ... that Chinese media criticized Myanmar for making the DI MA-1 Mk. III rifle without permission from China? Source: https://kienthuc.net.vn/quan-su/trum-dao-nhai-vu-khi-trung-quoc-to-cao-myanmar-sao-chep-sung-qbz-97-1452588.html (check specifically at https://kienthuc.net.vn/quan-su/trum-dao-nhai-vu-khi-trung-quoc-to-cao-myanmar-sao-chep-sung-qbz-97-1452588.html#p-5#p-5)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gmac Cash
  • Comment: Not sure if the hook ideas are fine. Had to rely on mostly Chinese (and one Vietnamese) source.

Ominae (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - Debatable. I don't see a single source that actually agrees that the rifle is actually indigenous, as the Myanma claim. At the same time, I don't see a single Myanma source. I suspect these two issues are related. I understand Myanmar does not have a great media compared to the US and China, but not a single source? Even a government press release? How did the Chinese and English language sources get the information that Myanmar claims the rifle is indigenous?
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - See below.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: * The words "despite" both in hook 1 and in the article seems misplaced. Was made in Myanmar despite claims of being made in Myanmar? Despite claims it was indigenous it was made without license? I think what you're trying to say is something like "is an unlicensed clone despite claims of being made indigenously", which is what Military Today says.

• For hook 2, I worry about a Vietnamese source citing Chinese media about a Myanma rifle (for an English language article!). I don't see an article about kienthuc.net.vn, but looking at the site, it seems to have Very Intrusive ads, which at least in the US is usually a sign of low quality. Is it really a high quality source? Any chance we can find the actual Chinese media source they're talking about?

Then there are other issues; you don't technically have to fix all of these, but addressing some might be good.

• Lowercase "bullpup" in lede
• "The MA designation on the weapon means Myanmar Army"
  • Why is Myanmar Army bolded?
  • What does DI mean?
• Link Tatmadaw (History) and QBZ-97 (Lede)
• History: Can you explain that the EMER-K1 was also a QBZ-97 clone? You sort of hint at this but don't say it outright.
• " they were reported to be suitable for the Tatmadaw in jungle operations and for use by an average Myanma soldier." Er - what is the difference between the Tatmadaw and an average Myanma soldier? Aren't the Tatmadaw the majority of Myanma armed forces?
• "ergonic"? GRuban (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban:: I did most of the editing based on your suggestions. I removed the "despite" part from the article and switched it to another word. And yeah, I'm trying to use something like that based on the MT article. For any Myanma-based article, I could only find those written/uploaded on reddit, facebook or Youtube, either by the pro-Tatamadaw/PDF crowd, which aren't a good source. In addition, the Myanmar Directorate of Defence Industries doesn't put up a website (likely) as part of an effort to mask their production/related info. Some of the info done is based on research done by those who use open source information. While the DDI debuted with new brochures and all in Thailand in 2019, they didn't show brochures for the MA-1 Mk III.

For Chinese articles, I'll try and see if there's anything worthwhile to add. It's the only area that's worth going on. It wouldn't surprise me if it's mostly because the Tatmadaw went behind China's back to clone the QBZ-97 without at least notifying Beijing. It's also likely the only place to go to. Ominae (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I also made minor changes to the article, and it's mostly OK. However, the key point for DYK is the hook, and I worry about both the "claims" and "criticised" lines of the suggested hooks. Do you have another idea? How about something as straightforward as "...was made in Myanmar as a reverse engineered copy of the Chinese ...?" --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: That can work. Have no problem changing the hook. Ominae (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominae: So spell out the hook, with a specific supporting source, a good one; if I write it, I can't also approve it. --GRuban (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Cebu IT Park was originally where Lahug Airport was?

• ALT1: ... that after former Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay's plane launched from Lahug Airport, he had a plane crash which ultimately ended his life? Source: [2]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Accessibility of transport in London

TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough: - After copyediting, it does not meet the 1,500-character threshold.

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Needs better sources to back claims.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Neither hook is particularly interesting to a broad audience. The papal mass at the airport sounds far more interesting.

QPQ: - Still needed.
Overall: Went ahead and copyedited the article, but it seems to have brought it below the length requirement after removing some filler. SounderBruce 01:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SounderBruce: I reviewed a DYK nom for QPQ, and I fixed the longevity problem, for another alt, I suggest:
• ALT2 ... that the first papal mass in Cebu was held at Lahug Airport? Source: [3]
  Anyway, can you tell me which sources aren't reliable? TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"PacificWrecks.com" does not exactly scream "reliable". The CDN piece seems to be an opinion/contributor reflection rather than a proper news article. I imagine a papal mass would have plenty of coverage, no? SounderBruce 02:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: PacificWrecks seems pretty popular and reliable, but in case, I found this website, which seems like a copy of a book? And the other statement about the CDN piece, yes, It seems like that, but they would not change the facts, since they are one of the most reliable sources in Cebu City. And the 3rd and last statement, yes, It feels like that, but it was pretty old, so im not sure about the last one.
Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There still isn't sufficient citations; coverage of the papal mass from beyond the one author (Oaminal) would be ideal. SounderBruce 01:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce:Found six citations, SunStar, Augnet, The Vatican, CDN (another), Inquirer, and a Reuters video (which stated that there were a million people, which probably can be included in the hook.) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, what else needs to happen to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed unless SounderBruce returns. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Those citations need to be added to the article (and could help expand it a bit more). SounderBruce 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, just needs checking. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: SounderBruce hasn't responded to this in over a week, so I'll take over from here. I took out one sentence per WP:SUMMARY, and was about to move the 1966 closure to the end of the paragraph beginning "On August", but the cited source doesn't mention the date. Could one be added?--Launchballer 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that a diplomat at the Philippine Embassy in Amman was accused of running a sexual exploitation ring?

• Reviewed: Bengisu Avcı

Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Sky Harbor: A QPQ has yet to be provided despite it being over a week since the nomination. Please provide a QPQ as soon as possible, or else the nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't edited since July 1st and has not provided a QPQ. Marking for closure as abandoned, without prejudice against it continuing if the nominator returns or another editor adopts this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Narutolovehinata5. If you're wondering why I've not been able to work on this nomination, it's because I am currently in Turkey for work-related travel. I will work on the QPQ within the next 1-2 days, and thank you for your patience. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ review done, Narutolovehinata5. Thank you again for your patience. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for a QPQ, this still needs a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to review this? If you aren't, can I review this? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't planning to give this a review, so someone else will need to do it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 20 July 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: Good to go! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled and reopened per query at WT:DYK, this is a fairly unambiguous violation of WP:DYKBLP, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided". Not quite sure why this was approved and promoted. A new hook will be needed, and more generally I wonder if the article itself is compliant with WP:BLPCRIME. The embassy official isn't named, but as a non-public figure we shouldn't have accusations if a conviction wasn't secured. The article doesn't seem to say what the conclusion of this saga was, it's sort of left hanging currently. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've solved the problem by removing the entire paragraph from the article. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a good hook in the article, it describes an ordinary embassy doing ordinary embassy things. It may be possible to do something with "A Filipina private secretary to Queen Alia, Ms. Elnora Agulto, was also part of the King's delegation" if added into the article, although hooks that come to mind are about Jordan-Philippine relations rather than this embassy. CMD (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: At WT:DYK, I suggested "that although diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Jordan were established in 1976, the Philippines would not open an embassy there until 1980?", which RoySmith was "fine with running", however you said you didn't think it was "that unusual". What hook would you suggest?--Launchballer 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with that one. Yeah it's perhaps not the most unusual thing, but this is an embassy - it's hardly going to have anything of earth-shattering about it, other than the BLPCRIME issue already mentioned and which I don't regard as suitable. I'd replace would not open... with did not open... myself, but otherwise fine with LB's suggestion.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that it's not a particularly exciting hook, but at least it's not categorically unsuitable as the first one was :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing else I can see in the article that stands out other than maybe it also being in charge of Filipinos in Palestinian territories, or maybe the showing of Filipino films. Maybe the article just isn't a good fit for DYK after all, although given how my comment appears to go against consensus there's not much I can do. I do think that this "we can use relatively uninteresting hooks if there are no other options" thing needs to at best be used sparingly. A bad hook is sometimes worse than not running the article at all, and we have to be more willing to reject nominations that are just bad fits. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Filipino, but the one used for its films has the phrase "Women's Film Week" in its title. Jordan is not a country known for gender equality. What's in that source?--Launchballer 14:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing interesting to write a hook about, then by all means reject it. RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I'm a bit perplexed here as I don't understand how the article as it was originally written violates WP:BLPCRIME, especially given that first, the article isn't about a specific living person (the normal scope of BLP-related policy), and second, the incident in question caused quite a response in the Philippine media and by politicians in the Philippines. Given that worse things have happened, such as a similar incident at the Philippine Embassy in Damascus (which, by the way, made it to DYK with a hook pointing out that incident), I don't understand how this is suddenly seen as being non-compliant when the other one was. I am all for finding alternative hooks where they can be found, but excising the information from the article given that it is relevant to the history of the mission itself boggles me.

I should also note that while not included in the original version of the paragraph "excised" by RoySmith, the diplomat himself has been named in the press – as seen here in an article in the Pilipino Star Ngayon (in Tagalog/Filipino) – and more information about the conclusion of the probe can be included in the article as opposed to removing it entirely. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of WP:SUSPECT is editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some additional digging, RoySmith, the diplomat in question was suspended, and was also not given a new foreign assignment. Given this new information I'll proceed with restoring the information you removed from the article, adding the new information found here, and hopefully this is sufficient to proceed with the DYK for this article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that, of course. I don't think it's a good idea, but I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what's a good idea or not. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, my objection with the 1980 hook proposal is like this. First, establishing diplomatic relations does not necessarily mean the opening of an embassy. Indeed, the Philippines has relations with almost every nation on Earth, but it doesn't mean that it has an embassy in all of them. In fact, there are other countries that the Philippines has long had relations with but has yet to establish an embassy there. And a gap of four years isn't really that impressive: longer gaps are not unheard of even for other countries. In any case, if a new hook cannot be proposed then unfortunately the nomination will probably have to be marked as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the objection to the original hook has been addressed in the article (there was a finality to the case which has since been added), Narutolovehinata5, would it be better to rewrite ALT0 as follows (as ALT2)?

“

...that while a diplomat at the Philippine Embassy in Amman was implicated in a sexual exploitation scandal, he was ultimately suspended on unrelated charges?

”

This may be a bit longer than the hook length requirement but I'm open to any revisions that can be made to reduce the length. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to ask the other editors who objected to that angle on BLP grounds if the article changes are sufficient to address their concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also looks good, but I feel like the hook does not follow WP:SUSPECT per RoySmith. Anyway, the hook is okay. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think Narutolovehinata5's DYKINT objection to ALT1 is valid and various editors' objections to ALT0 and ALT2 on DYKHOOKBLP grounds are valid and none of those hooks should run. I would suggest a hook along the lines of "that in March 2023, the Philippines' embassy in Jordan participated in a "Women's Film Week"?".--Launchballer 11:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, I should note that those objections were raised before the relevant edits were made and that neither Amakuru nor RoySmith (other than saying "sure, I can restore the paragraph with more information but I don't think it's a good idea, but who am I to judge?") have raised these objections after the fact. If there are still continuing objections despite the improved treatment of the situation in question, then I'd be open to entertaining a less "exciting" hook. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edits to the article didn't have much bearing on the original decision to pull the hook. Focusing on the sexual exploitation scandal relating to an employee of the embassy, or indeed focusing on that employee being suspended for "other reasons" is not due weight for a hook summarising the embassy as a whole, and is not compliant with DYKHOOKBLP. I'd tend to agree with RoySmith thar it's not even appropriate to discuss this in the article, given the need to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME and should be not be highlighting this in the absence of a conviction. My principal concern here is about what we put on the main page though, and ALT0/ALT2 are not appropriate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have struck both ALT0 and ALT2.--Launchballer 15:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that case I have no objections to ALT1. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is a rather bland option so I don't think running that is a good idea either. I'll be frank: ALT3 (the Women's Film Week hook) doesn't excite me either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the 2005 song "Dus Bahane" wasn't supposed to be shot, but the director Anubhav Sinha insisted Abhishek Bachchan and Zayed Khan?

• Reviewed:

KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @KunalAggarwal95: Not a review, but the hook is nonsensical, and the Times of India is yellow on WP:RSP.--Launchballer 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a deprecated source. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that it isn't deprecated. It matters that its reliability has been questioned, and I'm looking for a strong rationale as to why it is being used.--Launchballer 22:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as no other sources provide information. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let a reviewer adjudicate on it then. My gut says that it isn't strong enough for the claims it's making. You do still need a grammatically correct hook.--Launchballer 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New hook: ALT1 ... that the 2005 Hindi-language song "Dus Bahane" wasn't supposed to be shot, but was shot in 10 hours and became the most played song of 2005?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KunalAggarwal95 (talk • contribs)

Better, although MOS:CONTRACTIONS forbids words like 'wasn't', and I'd also trim it at 'shot' per WP:DYKTRIM, like so: ALT1a: ... that the 2005 Hindi-language song "Dus Bahane" was not supposed to be shot?. I note that the source says 'shot' as well, so AGF that this is acceptable in Indian English and call for another reviewer.--Launchballer 07:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KunalAggarwal95: Was going to review this as this is the oldest fully unreviewed nom, however the first thing that hits me is the fact that there are two inline cleanup tags in the article, and these need to be remedied before this can go anywhere. Also, how long are you willing to wait for this? ALT2: ... that Dus Bahane was not supposed to be shot? would make an excellent April Fool's hook.--Launchballer 09:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator hasn't edited in over two weeks. If there is no movement on this in a week I'm closing this.--Launchballer 11:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Removed the tags. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I no longer need a QPQ, so let's see if anyone else wants this before I next need one.--Launchballer 06:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the world's first childrens' art museum has 150,000 artworks by children in its collection? Source: no. of artworks=https://armeniadiscovery.com/en/articles/national-center-of-aesthetics & 'world's first'=https://www.thecaucasustours.com/childrens-art-gallery/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jenny Hurn
  • Comment:

Lajmmoore (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Lajmmoore: Love this! New enough, long enough, Earwig comes up clean, no image, QPQ has been done, and hook is damn interesting. Unfortunately, visityerevan.am, farusa.org, hamazkayin.com, armeniadiscovery.com, thecaucasustours.com, and evnmediafest.com are not reliable sources. Once those are replaced or removed, I can go ahead and pass this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an image now, and I think there might be WP:FOP problems. Also, "first" is going to be very hard to verify, as we can't rule out there being an earlier, smaller museum in a distant country the authors of the sources never heard of. Bremps... 10:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, yes, there is an image! I'm also not convinced the licensing checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment RE: image - the file name states the painting was done by Ruben Igityan, who was the son of Henrik Igityan. He died in a plane crash in 1975 with his mother. Henrik would therefore inherit the rights? I assumed that since Henrik is still involved with the NCA, and the image was donated as part of a partnership, that the licensing was OK. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1... that the Yerevan Children's Art Gallery shows "the unexpected beauty of children’s art"? Source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000063186

• Forgot to sign and ping people yesterday (blame my tired eyes), but I think the article is now improved @Theleekycauldron: & @Bremps:, thanks for your input! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lajmmoore: I still see some unreliable sources, and that the Centre itself is being used to support controversial claims. I don't think ALT1 communicates anything more interesting that the name already implies – sure, someone said it's a children's art gallery and that it's surprisingly good. One person saying that doesn't make it all that intriguing, I would think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Theleekycauldron: I think I quite liked the hook, because I don't think most people would automatically think children's art was beautiful?! (it did have a grammer mistake in that I removed now)- I'll look at the rest later on :) Lajmmoore (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, fair enough. But the hook can't be phrased in wikivoice, so we'll need an ALT that provides some attribution. Let me know when the other changes have been made :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks @Theleekycauldron: - I've added a couple of new citations and trimmed the NCA ones now - I don't think they support anything contentious, just numbers of artworks. I've also toned down the "world's first"-ness. In terms of an ALT2, how about:

ALT2... that Zhanna Aghamiryan described how paintings at Yerevan Children's Art Gallery (pictured) showed future generations "the unexpected beauty of children’s art"? Source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000063186

What do you think? Lajmmoore (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Does the above satisfy your concerns, and is this approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore: I've removed some of the references, so the article looks fine now – i didn't catch earlier that the quote is from the director of the museum, and now I feel uncomfortable approving it. if it were from an independent source, i might've gone ahead, but i'm a bit concerned about puffery now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of further options @Theleekycauldron::

• ALT3... that Zhanna Aghamiryan described how paintings at Yerevan Children's Art Gallery (pictured) were "psychological documents" as well as art? Source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000063186
• ALT4 ... that the founding of Yerevan Children's Art Gallery led to the development of a national aesthetics centre? Garoian, Charles R. (1994). "Teaching Art as a Matter of Cultural Survival: Aesthetic Education in the Republic of Armenia". Journal of Aesthetic Education. 28 (2): 83–94. doi:10.2307/3333273.

Either of these work better? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lajmmoore: how about this instead? ALT5: ... that one Soviet children's art museum kept no records of its operation for over 20 years? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, with my "i'm a museum curator" hat on, it's not a DYK i like as it sounds a bit negligent, but I do totally see why that theme might be suggested. Maybe we can tweak it to:

• ALT6 ... that Yerevan Children's Art Museum kept no records from the 1970s to 1990s as self-protection? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Myanmar’s junta Min Aung Hlaing publicly apologized religious leaders for the firearm death of Shindan Sayadaw, a prominent scholar monk who was shot by the Tatmadaw soldiers in June 2024? Source: VOA Burmese, The Irrawaddy
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hypochrysops piceatus
  • Comment: The subject was also nominated for ITN as RD.

Htanaungg (talk) 10:08, 25 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: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article appeared in the news before, and the hook does not seem interesting because these types of killings are common. Considering the reply of the nominator. I feel life ALT2 is more interesting. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Thank you for the review. Per WP:DYKNEW, I’ve mentioned in the comment that the subject is listed only in RD section of the ITN, not bold link.

Although this type of killing may be common elsewhere, it is a rare case in the highly religious country that a prominent religious figure was shot dead by the ruling junta’s soldiers. Plus, it is very few that the junta apologized publicly; he would never show his weakness in public.

I’d like to nominate another ALTs:

• ALT1: ...that Myanmar’s junta Min Aung Hlaing publicly apologized for the firearm death of Shindan Sayadaw, a few days after his spokesman blamed the opposition armed groups for the case?

• ALT2: ...that the assassination of Shindan Sayadaw in June 2024 led to a confrontation between the Burmese military and the religious leaders?

Regards, Htanaungg (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alts to be reviewed, per nom request. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: although TheNuggeteer's comment about ALT2 was made after the ALTs were proposed, the timestamp wasn't updated, so it isn't clear what order things were posted. TheNuggeteer, if you are formally approving ALT2—that is, you've fully checked it and think it's the one that should be promoted—please be more specific below and include a new icon (tick) to supersede the "review again" icon just above my post. Thank you. I have struck the original hook because you said it doesn't seem interesting. As the ITN appearance was in the "Recent deaths" section, the nomination is not disqualified per DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the alts, inlcuding alt 2. TheNuggeteer (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 seems misleading—there was no actual "confrontation" in the article, merely a disagreement over what response was suitable. I also don't find ALT1 that interesting—it's pretty clunky. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Htanaungg: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Brandiose's design work for the Rocket City Trash Pandas led to the team selling $4 million in merchandise before it played its first game?

• Reviewed:

Kimikel (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I think I'll review this, but I'll have to request a second opinion as this will be my first DYK review. GoldRomean (talk) 01:47, 27 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 eligibility:

• Cited: - The source provided says that the $4 million in sales is based on the team name, not Brandiose's design.
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: My first DYK review and I'm not sure about the hook, so requesting another reviewer. Thank you. GoldRomean (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the original source, I added another (the NYT link) that directly attributes the merchandise sales to Brandiose's rebrand. Kimikel (talk)