"Waffen SS" should be "Waffen-SS" per our article, and similarly Wehrmacht should be italicised too. Plus article says "an estimated 80" were killed, not exactly 60 per the blurb.
Blurb gives no indication as to what Ultima Thule actually is. A comet? An exoplanet? A star? Perhaps including ", a trans-Neptunian object," would assist the readers?
Should be "conducted every Beethoven symphony" (to ensure the reader knows that every symphony that Beethoven had written was conducted here, not just every Beethoven symphony that happened to be performed there was conducted by Koch) and "at the historic..." is unnecessary fluff.
Better still, "conducted all of Beethoven's symphonies"... but this is going to be too late, even the other place is too full and not being adequately serviced.
The source says that the district "appears to have moved", not that it definitively has, this uncertainty from the only source here should be reflected in the hook, otherwise Wikipedia voice is being used to state a fact which isn't corroborated by the source.
The article actually says he gained the nickname (from a single newspaper source) for " coaching of all of Georgetown's teams, which went on to be highly successful" (nothing about "victorious", and instead of the very awkward "multiple", why not just use what the article says...?
Marchant actually wrote it to dispel two myths according to the article, not just one which is cherry-picked by the hook.
@The Rambling Man: thanks for checking the hook, but this is not a mistake. The hook simply mentions one fact. It doesn't claim that it is the only fact in existence. The hook reads: "aimed to dispel the myth ..." and lists a myth that the creator aimed to dispel. There's no statement or implication that this was the creator's sole or even primary aim, merely one of the aims. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, the hook says it was his aim to dispel a myth. Not true, it was his aim to dispel two myths.
It implies existence, not uniqueness. Take the sentence "Obama aimed to close Guantanamo while in office". A true statement which does not imply that he had no other goals during his term. The hook uses exactly the same syntax. There's no error here. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be more accurate and less misleading to say "one of his aims" as the other aim is curiously omitted here yet mentioned comprehensively in the article where his "two myths" are clearly noted.
Your proposed change makes the hook no more accurate at the expense of verbosity. I say "no more accurate" because it is already completely accurate. It's of course not true to say that Marchant had exactly two aims because he must have also had such aims as making money and providing entertainment and all sorts of things that all TV writers are working towards with all of their works. No reasonable person would infer that Marchant had exactly one aim from the hook, because firstly it's not implied at all and secondly it's self-evidently false. There's no shame in admitting when you're wrong and I'd respect you greatly if you did, but if you choose not to then I shall refrain from commenting further on this non-error. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to why one of the two myths have been cherry-picked, that is all. Such a shame that two such meaningful aims that Marchant had, only one of which is deemed prominent enough for the main page. And as for No reasonable person..., that's just insulting, so I'd be glad not to hear more from you here, keep your personal attacks to yourself.
Article says 2 Jan is feast day for a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and for the Anglican Communion. The main prose doesn't even mention 2 January as a Feast Day other than as a "lesser festival" for the Church of England.
It's listed in the infobox. I'll add it to that section of the article. —howcheng {chat} 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the issue was with "(Roman Catholic Church)" which wasn't correct, it should have been "(part of Eastern Orthodox Church and Anglican Communion)"
"of A. Mitchell Palmer (pictured), the U.S. Attorney General," awkward phrasing, why not "of U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer (pictured), " and unlink US Att. Gen? And "across 30 cities in 23 states" it was "more than 30 cities and towns in 23 states".
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"46 others" is a peculiar pipe link, I would make it "along with 46 others" as the "along with" confers the "execution" element, as opposed to just being an article about 46 people.
"the West Virginia Mountaineers football record for single-game tackles for a loss" so could someone explain to me in what way this is interesting to a broad audience? It looks like college football trivia of the highest order, a record for a college team for a single game counting tackles in a game that was eventually lost? Seriously?
Current DYK includes on Main page and in the text the expression "tackles for a loss". Tackles is wikilinked in both places, but I'm at a loss as to what "for a loss" means. Does it means most tackles made in a game that's lost? Most tackles made in moves that the defence lost yards in? Or the offence? I quite like American football, but the esoterics of the stats fests it offers are bewildering and shouldn't baffle readers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Too late, but a tackle for a loss means that the offense lost yardage (i.e., the tackle was made behind the line of scrimmage). I made it clearer in the article. —howcheng {chat}
I don't think that's the point really, it was a completely trivial intersection of factoids which would be of interest only to the most diehard of college football fans, most definitely not "interesting to a broad audience".
I do not believe that "designed to operate solely inside harbors" is directly equivalent to "solely intended for use in harbor defense." There's nothing to suggest that they weren't designed to be able to chase enemies out of harbours and follow them into non-harbour waters.
FYI, I started a thread at WT:DYK that raised this same issue before I saw this post. I agree wholeheartedly that "operating solely inside harbours" is not the same as being "solely intended fir use in harbour defense." EdChem (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a no-brainer, it should be removed back to nominations.
What is the word? Is it pissing? What should we do about this? — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I imagine so, but since the source is unavailable to probably 99.95% of our readers, we'll never know, and since it's a phrase which would be unclear to 95% of our readers even if they knew what the mystery word was, it should be pulled and returned to noms for a more "accessible" hook to be constructed.
The asterisks are in the 1804 original (there should be a hidden text note to that effect in the DYK template to prevent good-faith attempts to uncensor it). It was routine in the period in question not to write any potentially-offensive word in full, even in private correspondence (early 19th century writings are full of "G–d d——", "b–y h–l" etc). You know and I know that it stands for "pissing post"—the article explains that the railings weren't yet up so when it was first erected it was used as an impromptu urinal—but it would be OR to write the word out in full when it doesn't appear in the original; for all we know, the anonymous author might have been struck by its resemblance to an upturned root vegetable and have been saying "parsnip post". ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I said I believed that's what it was intended to mean, but the problem there is that many of our readers don't necessarily even understand "pissing" let alone when it's obfuscated to such a degree that it might not even be accessible to most. That is all.
I'm not losing sleep. It's not as if this is something that can be misunderstood; either someone understands it to mean "pissing post" in which case all's well and good, or they don't understand it and are intrigued enough to click the link in which case they'll find it is likely that the anonymous author was correct in asserting that at that time the structure was being used as an impromptu urinal which explains the context, or they won't be interested in which case it doesn't matter either way.
No, I'm definitely not losing sleep over it. It's probably in my bottom 0.1% of things I'm worried about right now. Just putting it out there, wouldn't be surprised to see this whole thing reprised tomorrow at the other place.
"led to elimination" appears to be missing "the" in front of "elimination" (as per the article). And the "selected" filmography (selected using what criteria?) needs referencing, some of the films don't even have articles...
It doesn't say in the article that Maguire dismissed these students (as asserted by the hook), it says "which resulted in the dismissal of seventy from the college".
Come on, enough is enough, the hook does not say what the article says, so it needs modification. This has been on the main page for 15 hours now...
This battle ended on 7 January, and the lead prose states "Although Chinese forces captured Seoul by the end of the battle", which to me isn't quite the same as "Chinese and North Korean troops captured Seoul." on 4 January...
Later in the article, it says that Chinese troops entered Seoul on 4 January, and the city had been evacuated. There was no more fighting after that, so I'm why the lead has the battle extending to 7 Jan. —howcheng {chat} 00:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
But it's still confused as your quote talks of the Chinese, not North Koreans, and says they "entered Seoul" on 4 January, not that it was "captured".
On the afternoon of January 4, the KPA I Corps [Korean], the PVA 38th Corps and the PVA 50th Corps [Chinese] entered Seoul, but they were only greeted by an empty city in flames.[119] Most of the civilians had either fled south through the frozen Han River or evacuated to the nearby countryside.[120] The South Korean government in Seoul, which was reduced to essential personnel before the battle, also left the city with little difficulties.[121] A Chinese platoon reached the Seoul City Hall at about 13:00 and raised the North Korean flag. "Captured" is fairly accurate, I would say. —howcheng {chat} 17:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"F-14A Tomcats shot down two Libyan MiG-23 Flogger Es" too much detail, and nowhere do I see Flogger E, would stick to just F14 Tomcats and MiG-23 Floggers".
Removed "A" and "Es" Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No mention of "authenticity" in the article at all. A translation to "the poet's principal voice" is there, but anything else is speculation.
It was nominated with the quote and translation. It was in prep like that, then returned. I think "authenticity" summarizes the intention f what she said, good enough, but I see no reason to put that summary in the article where the precise wording is (better). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
As "authenticity" or "authentic" or any such variation doesn't exist once in the article, it is highly disputable that it's suitable for use in the blurb. That's original research.
It's a summary. I prefer the original quote for a hook, so won't oblige. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
You can't in any case, it's edit protected.
I could add "authenticity" to the article, but prefer to let her speak for herself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
You could, and sure, you could "ask an admin", but you'd need a reliable source for "authentic", which it currently doesn't have, hence the reason the hook needs to be fixed before it runs tomorrow.
So what should we do, Gerda? Reopen the nomination for further thought, or go back to the previous version of the hook as at [1]? — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's been running on the main page now for 7 hours with made up text.
OK, I've changed it to "... that Thomas Mann's widow, Katia, (couple pictured) called Gert Westphal "des Dichters oberster Mund" (the poet's principal voice) after his reading of her husband's works?" Does that work, Gerda Arendt? — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It was a good day in real life, sorry for a late response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Far too much of it is without citation, should never have passed QPQ.
Pulled. Not sure if a new one needs to be added or anything else needs to be done, but there was way too much uncited there to take the risk it hit the main page, so I removed it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes
General
Two hooks with "during World War II", the repetition is boring for our readers, should be avoided.
Reading the source, it appears that only X-rays are mentioned there as being provided free of charge to Jewish refugees (to whit: "help a limited number who need X-ray treatment".), not general treatment. The hook is too generalist, and I think the article may even be wrong here.
"Western Christianity" seems like a bit of a stretch when the article only states and references "Church of England" for celebration on 5 January.
Apparently, most Western churches, say it's the 5th. I edited the article to make this clearer, but the only church where I could find a source that definitely says it's the 5th is the Church of England, and I couldn't nail down which churches say it's the 6th – as far as I could tell, it was only individual congregations (examples: [2][3]). —howcheng {chat} 19:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Target article is piped to a redirect, and is there a good reason it's not using the article title in any case?
Fixed the redirect. I suspect using "Torment" instead of "Temptation" is because the museum that owns the piece uses "Torment" as the title - Kimbell's page on the paintingEaldgyth - Talk 13:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The long-term title was "Torment" until an undiscussed move last night. I have moved it back and fixed the bypassed redirect. — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Our article calls them "biblical Magi", not "Biblical Magi" per the hook, nor "Biblical magi" per the target article. Messy.
Obvious that it should be "biblical Magi". "Biblical" is only capitalised in the article name for standard capitalisation purposes. Changed. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Two hooks about the three Kings in the same set? Is there some kind of "three kings" special event happening today? And each one using a different pipe to the same article? Ouch.
A shame we have the maintenance tag on the article so it can't be noted at OTD. Either way, we shouldn't be using different terms for the same entity in the same set.
"in revenge after" this is a very odd construction to my ears. Probably no need for "in revenge" or if needed, a reword such as "as revenge for" or similar. And the article main prose says "killed more than 55 civilians" even though the lead says "refers to the killing of 55 Kashmiri civilians"... messy.
Removed "Kashmiri" and changed the revenge bit to "as revenge after". The part that was questionable in my eyes was the "in". "As" instead works fine imo.
Still says "55" while article body says "more than 55"...
Raised at ERRORS, mainly because we shouldn't be doing "allegedly" hooks anyway. Will pull it if needs be. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Pulled and replaced with Sex Pistols, a Featured Article and no issues with the hook. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely no need for "been" to be part of the pipe link. Plus a bit of a jump for our non-expert readers to see "described as a new species" as the same as "synonyms", there's nothing in the prose of the article at all to support this hook, just the hidden list in the infobox. Should be pulled, how did this pass QPQ?
"was drafted into the Red Army at the age of 16?" according to the article, "she was drafted into the Red Army in 1944.[2]", and given that she was born in 1925, I'm not sure how she could possibly have been 16 at the time. How did this pass QPQ?
"has claimed" very odd wording. He made the claim once, on Desert Island Discs. Far better to say that he "stated" it, and probably link "on a desert island" to Desert Island Discs for important context for the readers, i.e. this wasn't just Hanks blurting something out, it was part of an episode in a long-running British radio show.
No expert by any means but lead says "The first entity to use the Italian tricolour was the Cisalpine Republic in 1797..." while the main body says "The first official tricolore italiano, or Italian tricolour, was adopted on 7 January 1797, when the XIVth Parliament of the Cispadane Republic..." i.e. two different Republics...
The Cisalpine Republic was created from the Cispadane Republic, but it didn't exist until 29 June 1797, so that looks to be an error in the article, which I will fix. —howcheng {chat} 20:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
"echoes the theme" - come on, this isn't a literary review, or a tabloid. Please use encyclopedic tone.
The word "echoes" actually comes from the source, although that appears to be a review by an "MFA candidate in poetry at the University of Minnesota", i.e. a student, so I'm not sure it's really a reliable source. Should we pull this one? — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru:The Rumpus is an online publication with listed editors. It's quite reasonable as a source. Vanamonde (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"echoes the theme" is not encyclopedic language. If it's a quote, quote it. Otherwise, it's bollocks. And "echoes the theme" is by its nature a personal opinion, so that should be reflected in the hook, it's not Wikipedia saying that the "theme" is "echoed", it's someone else. Come on, you all should know this by now, to try to defend it is absolutely pathetic.
I've attributed the quote in the article, and put the hook in quotes in the DYK: "... that one of the poems in How to Be Drawn by Terrance Hayes was described as "echoing the cultural critique of race relations in America" that he found in Ralph Ellison's novel Invisible Man?" TRM and the DYK regulars may or may not approve of that. — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Attribution and quotation is far better than the pathetic crap being defended beforehand. Sometimes I wonder why I bother, but then I remember that it's all about the readers and not some kind of odd trip to defend the indefensible. Thanks Amakuru!
I disagree. The present construction is so complex that by the time you get to "he" I don't remember who "he" was, - the author? the one who described it as echoing? - I suggest you better say something about that the author found the theme where without the term "echo". KISS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"whitespot ghost shark is known from only four specimens in the Galápagos Islands" while the source states "This recently described species is known only from two specimens and an additional two observations". Why are people making things up, and how does this get through QPQ?
The same source later says "Known only from two captured and two observed specimens..." [4]Vanamonde (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
" killing approximately 50 people." article lead says "The explosion and resulting fire claimed the lives of 50 people" (and latterly, a diver). But most of the article is under-referenced so it should go in any case.
Hook feels wrong, needs "those of" because the subject is the biographies. Also, the "Works" section needs references. Also, I'm not seeing where it says he wrote biographies of 100 of his contemporaries. I see, in the list of works, 100 volumes of Les Contemporains but that doesn't necessarily equate to 100 biographies, just 100 volumes.
Some of these are on Wikisource. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The source given has it under "A biographical culture flourished in the French press." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that addresses any of my points.
I don't speak French. I see here the 100 names of the people he wrote biographies about, and some of them you can read word for word. - I added as a source the French National Library, and I added links to online versions of all works listed in the article. I don't speak French. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I've added "those of". Haven't checked the sourcing issue so will leave you two to "duke it out". — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not a sourcing issue, it's a DYK issue, the claim doesn't match the content of the article.
We have three ALT proposed hooks on DYKTALK. Which precise unmatch do you mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't looked at ALT hooks. I'm talking about the hook in the queue.
I've replaced the hook and reopened the nomination. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Format should match target article title. Also not sure about the use of "autograph" in this context, I suspect it means holograph...
I am not sure about the format, in both. Each of the terms is generic, but the combination perhaps isn't? - You just made me understand that the German "Autograph" doesn't translate to autograph (which is the German "Autogramm"), so changed to manuscript. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The format should be consistent, at least.
I've removed the italics from the article. It seems our consistent style is not to italicise such things, even where they've become established titles. e.g. Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I hesitated because there are many Toccata and Fugue, but I know only two IPaF, and Reger's was the first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
"... Indian cassava mosaic virus infects cassava crops in India... " you don't say....??!!!!!!
This was always my favourite statement of the obvious, until some spoilsport decided to expand the article in 2013... — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of the point of the hook - although it does infect cassava crops in India, nobody knows where the virus actually came from. Have tweaked the wording to make this clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish and karate (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "landmark" is steeped in POV and is not referenced in the article. What could be used is the fact that this paper led to one source referring to Wilkinson King as "the father of endocrinology". Could say ".. paper on the thyroid gland which was re-discovered a century later led to Thomas Wilkinson King being referred to as "the father of endocrinology" or something. Right now, it's just POV.
I've removed "landmark", although I'm not sure if that satisfies your concerns as perhaps that takes it into the "so what" territory. I'm less keen on the "father of endocrinology" phrase as it stands in the article, as it is unattributed. It could just be that I called him the father of endocrinology when talking to my mates down the pub, and the statement would still be true. With a bit of expansion in the article text and a named individual, the fact could be brought into play. — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it was The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease that published the claim of his "fathership". That could be added to the article. Uncertain how this kind of thing keeps making it through QPQ mind you.
Not seeing where the date of publication is referenced. The source given simply has the year. And the last two links in the blurb both redirect to the same target...
"commuted" and "death sentences" both piped to redirects. MOSNUM as well, i.e. 167/4 or one hundred and sixty seven/four. Also not convinced by the causality of this blurb. George Ryan's article doesn't mention Burge at all and says the commutation was "due to his belief that the death penalty could not be administered fairly".
Piped redirects and numbers fixed. Fish+Karate 13:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Fact added to article (and cited). —howcheng {chat} 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It was after the sentence immediately following (about where she is buried). The citation is to an offline article about her obituary, so I AGF'ed that it would include the date of death. —howcheng {chat} 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Dreadfully clumsy and verbose hook, this was tailor-made for quirky "... that Raymond Arritt has won "0.002 percent of a Nobel Prize"?" Instead of which, the entire point of clicking on the link is now all given in the hook. Boring.
Only he hasn't (won that percentage). There was a failure in his math. RIP. - I wanted his smile and sharing a Nobel Peace Price for Climate Change (whatever percentage) for New Years's Day, but wasn't too sad that our music was pictured instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"claimed to have won..." would be perfect then. Much hookier than the current hook.
I understand it as a statement of modesty, not a claim. Why not let a fellow Wikipedian speak in his own voice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the far shortened version works well in English as a modest claim. It's nonsense anyway, but what's written is so verbose that it loses the point of DYK hookiness en route.
Not seeing where "brightest comet in over 40 years" is referenced.
"As it reached perihelion on 12 January, it became the brightest comet since Comet Ikeya–Seki in 1965." in the body of the article, sourced to this source.Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Use the same value as the article please, i.e. 51 mm. After all, we all know that 2 inches is 50.8 mm so should be rounded to 51 (like in the article).
Presumably it's referenced to Earthquakes and Volcanoes: Hot Springs, but that's not a reliable source since it's published by BiblioBazaar (and as the googlebooks listing says "This is a pre-1923 historical reproduction that was curated for quality") It needs pulling. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This source and some more endorse the 6.5 number, although I also wonder about the other content sourced to this BiblioBazaar book. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
" changes to Tintoretto's Esther before Ahasuerus (pictured) from the 1540s onwards.." I'm not seeing where it said the changes were made "from the 1540s onwards".
"the little brown bat weighs nearly a third of its mother's weight at birth" but the characteristics section says " individuals weighing 5.5–12.5 g (0.19–0.44 oz)", so presumably this "nearly a third" is the absolute maximum, and in most cases is not close to 30%, in fact much less.
" before being redeveloped to serve as Turkey's biggest library?" this implies that the redevelopment has happened. It has not happened. It may never happen. It is a "planned" redevelopment.
One of the sources says the redevelopment is currently underway, another one doesn't mention this, so changed to "planned"
Very oddly phrased, should be more like "... wounds on the abdomen of the wolf spide Geolycosa pikei begin to heal immediately?" Plus the article makes a very dubious "size" claim...
First on-screen kiss for an actor? Why is this interesting (to a broad audience)? Most actors will have had a "first on-screen kiss" at some point, is this somehow more notable?
"Augustus" is piped to a redirect. He was also given the title of Princeps at the same time.
Fixed redirect and added princeps. Unsure whether we should be italicizing Augustus and Princeps - thoughts? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The hook is about the poem, not the book, so it shouldn't be in italics. Plus, why "79-page"? Surely this depends on how it's printed? Plus the source says the poem itself isn't 79 pages long, as that includes notes and appendices.
It's still only 79 pages long according to that one source which reviewed one version of the publication. This should really be how long the poem is in verses, or words or characters or something which doesn't depend on its layout.
Their chance is the link, if they really don't know the common name of one of the world's leading papers (and then probably won't be interestied in the person anyway). Would you request to say British Broadcasting Corporation, or International Business Machines? Noboday I know speaks of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, it's one syllable, pronounced Futz, or three syllables for more fancy, Eff Ah Tset, like BBC or IBM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the common name on Wikipedia for BBC or IBM is BBC/IBM, and they are English language in any case. FAZ is certainly not common, nor the common name on Wikipedia (or else the article would be at FAZ (newspaper)) and of course in English we would pronounce it fazz, not futz or eff ah tset. Just use the expanded version and perhaps even explain what it is. 99% of our readers will not even have heard of it, so the hook is tragically diminished.
(ec, so may be answered) I know that English-speaking can't pronounce my name right. It probably should be moved to your suggested name, but I am still licking the wounds of my last move discussion, so won't (nor would it be done by tomorrow). In a DYK hook, I didn't want to hold up the readers attention by nine syllables in German. Pipe it to "leading German newspaper" if you have to. I think she short name is better for the purpose of getting to the recognition of the countries. - So after edit conflict: "the leading German newspaper FAZ"? Again, kind of boring and in the way of getting to the point. - Please don't use "tragically" in such context and for me, - I may misunderstand the word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That would certainly make it clearer to our English language audience, 99% of whom will have never heard of FAZ, no matter how it's pronounced.
Prompted or not by this, the topic came up on the paper's talk. linguee.de, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This is marked as solved, but instead of "the leading German newspaper FAZ" we now have the German toguebreaker Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 9 syllables. Solved?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sea of blue in the hook, and the hook would benefit from the added detail in the article, i.e. "taking things for granted rather than reasoned opinion", my emphasis, because it's far more powerful that way.
Sea of blue done but the scathing opinion is missing (and after all, that's what's interesting about this "bland as" hook), so that's a real shame.
The source used in the article is an advocacy group that "was formed by a group of teachers who were at the Cleveland Elementary School" so I would think their count of 32 wounded is probably the most accurate. —howcheng {chat} 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
should be "eight people", but having said that, the article says 5–8 deaths in one col and 1 death in the other col of the infobox, so what is the real number here? Perhaps "at least six"???
I imagine it's to prevent the repetition of "people". Infobox should have said 8, the reference for 5 actually said 3 and was out of date anyway. Fish+Karate 16:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I've done "eight people" but now the repetition of "people" feels suboptimal. How about "...dead amid protests over the government's..."? GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's better, even if the process of getting there nearly merited it's own section here. GoldenRing (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
We talk about a 4 December GA. On 31 December, one bare url was added, possibly after the DYK review (no time to check). Instead of making this comment, you could have just formatted it, which I did now.
Shouldn't have been promoted to the queue with this basic failure. Thanks for fixing it.
No mention in the sources of an "act", other sources call it a "scheme" (interestingly announced in 1966...)
The source specifically states, "Free secondary-school education was introduced in Ireland in 1967 with huge consequences for the education of Irish girls and boys." Would you prefer amending the hook to: ... that in her second novel, Echoes, Maeve Binchy underscores the paucity of educational opportunities in small Irish towns before the introduction of free secondary education in 1967? Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer the hook and article didn't make up terms that aren't verifiable and that QPQ didn't pass such hooks and that people didn't promote such hooks to queues, so yes, at least your version is verifiable.
Not only an easter egg, but also "Spanish Crown" is piped to a redirect. Plus the only instance of the name in the article is unreferenced....
I can verify the info with this source, but cannot verify the actual quote in the article - which lacks a citation for the quote (thus failing one of the GA reqs...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Piped redirect fixed. Fish+Karate 16:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Quote requires verification, this shouldn't be featured as a purported "Good Article" when such fundamental issues are overlooked.
The footnote right before that sentence (used for the date) says "Huerta, p. 37", so I'm going to assume that it's applicable to the quote as well. —howcheng {chat} 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I just realized that James Cook was also on Jan 17, so replacing this article with William Price (physician). —howcheng {chat} 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing where this is noted in this way in the way in the article (I see " Soviet forces linked up on 18 January" but not sure that's equivalent to "the Soviet Red Army eased the Siege of Leningrad, opening a narrow land corridor to the city." And do we really need "Soviet" since that's tautological, right?
Why not just "Soviet Army"? --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, and why base our main page text on some "implication", stick to the facts presented in the article.
Awkward structure: As part of Operation Iskra, the Soviet Red Army eased the Siege of Leningrad, opening a narrow land corridor to the city.
– Suggest: "In Operation Iskra, the Red Army (or the Soviet Army) established a narrow land corridor to Leningrad, partially easing the protracted German siege." After "Iskra", we could add ("the spark")." Suggest "partially" because the siege wasn't totally lifted until 1944. Sca (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Done as suggested. —howcheng {chat} 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Awards and honours section is mostly unreferenced.
Found refs for the monuments to the memory of a great patron of music who ended in Auschwitz. They are not invented. Also one pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm certain nobody said they were invented but as I say each and every time, such claims should be verifiable using reliable sources. That's no surprise to anyone, surely?
I wasn't surprised, just a bit sad in this particular case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m just being consistent, claims need verifiability.
Not when the sky is blue, or nobody questions. By DYK rulez, we need inline citation for the hook fact, + one at the end of a paragraph. That's all. Change the rulez? - I am willing to provide extra refs for extra "citation required", but its my time that I often think could be spent more productively. Published books and published recordings are all blue skies to me, and this pictured monument for a victim of the Holocaust the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m afraid these simply aren’t “sky is blue” examples, they seldom are. If the citations are so plainly simple for you to find, just add them before they get tagged. And DYK “rules” are nothing to do with site-wise policies such as V and RS I’m afraid.
Article infobox makes a claim that this is on 20 January this year, not 19 January. It is, after all, not Sunday tomorrow.
Yep, looks like Howcheng got his days of the week mixed up. Have moved to the 20th, and moved Martin Luther King Day from 20th to 21st... WJBscribe(talk) 14:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Article lead starts by saying "... occurred on January 18, 1996 when ...", so not on 19 January then...
19th is correct according to [5]. Looks like this edit introduced the wrong date, so I have restored it to 19th in the article. WJBscribe(talk) 14:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"freeholder" isn't in the article, and is ambiguous and unnecessary in this already bloated blurb. And since the article has it "circa" OTD and since it's probably made-up anyway, should we really be doing this kind of stuff on the main page?
We have other legends in OTD: Emperor Jimmu, Hayk, and Romulus and Remus are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, so I don't see how this is any different. Took out "freeholder" and the second instance of "Finland". —howcheng {chat} 00:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Should the blurb capitalise "Question" when our own article does not? Or should we just use the method of linking used in the target article, i.e. to link all of "Final Solution to the Jewish question" to the one article?
Went with lowercase q. Did not change the linking. —howcheng {chat} 00:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Why are we linking common English words like axe?? And is the "2018 Champions Trophy" so non-notable that we don't have an article to link to aid our readers' understanding of what a blow this was to Mr Svan?
Do we really care what a tabloid trash reviewer said about a Home and Away character? She also said he was a "hottie", so perhaps include that too....
We do our best to please you by getting rid of a truly banal hook like ... that actor Patrick O'Connor watched old episodes of Home and Away and talked to past cast members to prepare for his first-ever television role as Dean Thompson? and you're still not satisfied. Instead, we should make a rule to ban all soap opera and fictional characters from DYK, because there's really not much interesting to say about them. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not what an encyclopedia should have on its main page. Pathetic.
I cannot find anything even faintly noteworthy in the article, and note that the actor doesn't have an article. Does the article actually meet our inclusion criteria? Is every soap character notable, even if played by an (apparently) unknown actor? WJBscribe(talk) 12:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, apparently so. I'm afraid that it's the "quick pass" of this kind of nonsense which really leaves a bad taste in the mouth for the whole DYK process. The problem appears to be that those regularly involved in these elements of the process aren't seeing beyond the DYK grinder and are summarily failing our readers every day.
The way to test the notability of an article is at AfD, isn't it? Is it an error to include a hook in the DYK section on an article when the notability is not disputed? EdChem (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the error is the belief that what a tabloid journalist says about a fictional character in a soap is in someway either encyclopedic or interesting to a broad audience.
Actually, the article says he got promoted to sergeant after his heroics. The article makes no causal claim between those heroics and the award of the MoH some 35 years later.
Another abject failure, the article says nothing of the sort. How does this stuff get through QPQ??
I think this one is probably OK? The article is slightly oddly structured, with that "Medal of Honor citation" section seemingly apropos of nothing, but between the statement of casuality in the lede and that citation it seems like it is established that the medal was because of the heroics. — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I disagree and have changed to promoted to sergeant - the sources do not confirm that the medal was awarded for a single incident as opposed to being for (or in combination with) another incident during his service career. We should stick to verifiable claims on the main page. WJBscribe(talk) 12:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
And we should also maintain adherence to DYK rules, which this clearly did not during all the quality control checks. Nowhere in the article does it state his MoH was awarded for that act, nowhere.
Also, the article lead is misleading - it suggests he got the medal before he was commissioned as an officer, which is demonstrably incorrect! WJBscribe(talk) 12:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@WJBscribe: it looks clear cut to me. [6] gives the 250 yard sortie as the exact reason why he was given the medal. But no matter I guess, it's not like it's wrong now. — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
My point remains though, it should never have been promoted as-was. Yet another dismal QPQ failure.
"Declaration of Independence" is piped to a redirect, and since this is being used in a general sense in this construction, shouldn't it be decapitalised??
Firstly, Operation Cobra (a featured article no less!) makes no mention whatsoever of this blue on blue event, is it real, has it been properly verified? Secondly, it's not clear at all from this target article, nor the hook, that the bombing was against its own troops.
And no, despite "claims" from some people, it's not mentioned explicitly at the Cobra article. Don't waste my time.
I added a link for claim, but if someone has never heard of a claim jumper, it doesn't help. Also, the linked article doesn't mention "claim jumper". Pinging page developer MB. Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The hook originally said "Mexican claim jumper" which is clearer, but was changed because it was felt repeating Mexican three times was "clumsy". I added a definition of "claim jumper" to land claim, so I think you can put the link back Yoninah. MB 17:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have never previously heard the phrase "claim jumper". A bit of googling suggests it may mean the same as squatter? Is that right? If so, would this be a more internationally used English word? WJBscribe(talk) 18:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oddly now we have a link (easter egg) on "claim" but not "local" or "jumpers". What an omnishambles.
I've mucked around with the link a bit, hopefully it is clearer. GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Can't verify the date, the source given appears to be "broken" in some odd way I've never seen before...
I've added the date in the lead, where it's verified by the Los Angeles Herald ref. I can't puzzle out what's gone wrong on the ref in the body... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
That reference in archive.org was an infinite redirect loop, and the original site no longer exists. I checked other versions of the site in the archive, and it just seems to be some sort of web portal that was never completely constructed. Luckily, I was able to replace all instances of it with another source in the article. —howcheng {chat} 19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting read, but one which reveals that all we have to go on here is speculation (and Brezhnev's own opinion) that it was an attempt on his life, nothing definitive, so perhaps the claim needs tempering a little (e.g. per the article "However, even without official confirmation, the event was seen as an assassination attempt on Brezhnev")
Tiresome repetition of "headquarter" in badly written hook, not even sure why the Chicago Loop clause is even required, it's meaningless to most readers.
This appears to have been fixed, though to my mind it'd still read better without "in 2018". Thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by this hook as it didn't retain its presence in the Chicago Loop by moving to that address - it could have done so by moving to any other address in the Loop. How would people feel about this alternative: "... that in 2018 CNA Insurance moved its corporate headquarters to 151 North Franklin (pictured), maintaining its almost 120-year presence in the Chicago Loop?" WJBscribe(talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Our title for the painting in question appears to capitalise "His", as in "King Gustav III of Sweden and His Brothers"
I think the error is in the caption in the linked article; our article on the picture, King Gustav III of Sweden and His Brothers, has the capitalisation and English-language sources used in that article are divided. Is there a MOS guideline on this? GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"heard about it only by telephone", what's the "it" here, because the way it reads "it" refers to the fact that Strauss head that Brahms was at the premiere (which the article does not say). If "it" means "the premiere itself" then a reword is needed as it's already pretty clunky.
"was told this only be telephone"? GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the article actually says that....
Oh I see, I'd got the sense of the hook the wrong way around. I think my change is an improvement, see what you think. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the point I'm making is that the article doesn't state that Strauss found out Brahms was at the premiere.
Agreed. I inserted 'himself' (as in "but the composer himself heard about it only by telephone") to try to emphasise the contrast between how Brahms saw it and how Strauss heard about it. Maybe not going far enough then. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)\
I don't think I'm being clear enough, the hook is saying something that the article isn't.
Okay, let me check - the article says that Brahms saw the premiere in person but Strauss only heard about the premiere by phone. Right? And the hook could be construed to say that but at first glance it looks like it's saying that Strauss heard Brahms was at the premiere by phone. Or have a missed something? If not, I thought my change clarified this, but obviously not well enough! GoldenRing (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's my interpretation too, but the wording is still open to misinterpretation, I think.
I see Gatoclass has done the needful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No, Gatoclass has just written an incorrect hook. The article does not state what the hook claims. - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing how the DYK process can be so fucked up that it takes three people to mess it up initially and then a few more to mess it up a bit more.
Is it me or is the there nothing very noteworthy about this hook. US agents being nearly killed by a drug cartel feels likely to be a fairly common occurrence rather than particularly relevant to this article. Can we not find something more interesting to say about the 1999 Matamoros standoff? Perhaps that they managed to escape despite there apparently being up to 15 heavily armed gunmen, some wearing police uniforms, involved in the ambush? WJBscribe(talk) 13:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is so terribly tiring trying to convince those at DYK that they fail time after time after time to uphold one of the basic tenets of DYK, namely "interesting to a broad audience". This is just another example of banal hook acceptance because it's quicker to do that and grab the QPQ credit than to read the target article fully and find other, more interesting hooks. It happens every single day sadly.
Two U.S. drug agents nearly killed in Mexico was a rare occurrence and a big deal, as drug cartels in Mexico rarely target U.S. law enforcement since the murder of Kiki Camarena (that is mentioned somewhere in the article). I like your idea too, though I'm not sure where we can propose it to get it considered/amended. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"surprised", well with nearly 1000 Germans killed, I'd say they were more than just surprised and forced to retreat, I think this somewhat understates the events...
"...surprised a German High Seas Fleet squadron, inflicting significant damage and casualties and forcing it to retreat"? A bit long perhaps. GoldenRing (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I added the word intercepted which I think at least somewhat improves the intensity. What do you think? Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Better, maybe the severity of the clash could be incorporated though....
"inflicting over 1,000 casualties and forcing it to retreat"?
why the awkward "30 homicides of young women", instead of "the murders of 30 women"?
I've fixed this in the OTD queue. The article itself uses "homicide" and "murder" interchangeably, which may be true under American law (I don't know, and he was never tried for most of them anyway) but in general English they are not interchangeable. "30 homicides of young women" sounds to me like it was the women doing the killing. GoldenRing (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The only "professor of comics" in the world? What about theseguys? Anyone heard of Google?
of caricature AND comics, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
+ we can drop the claim, of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely drop the claim.
Someone, not me. Was the only in Germany at the time, and made for him, - but that's probably too clumsy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is even worse than I thought.
The source does say he was the only such professor in the world in 1984, so I've remodelled it to say that. At least it's now verifiable. Whether it's true or not, who knows... as TRM's second link above shows, sources are wont to declare people the only one even when there are demonstrably others out there. — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
" tropical cyclones in the past may have induced " now think, is there really any need for the clumsy "in the past" here? Bonus points also for the terrible easter egg linking.
I've reworded to avoid the awkwardness, but still thinking about how to avoid the easter egg. Suggestions welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If the easter egg is a problem you might expand the link so that it covers the entire "tropical cyclones may have induced past climate changes" string. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
MOS per cats and dogs, i.e. all numbers or all words. And "humane man trap" is in quotes in the article, so that should be respected in the hook (or conversely un-respected in the article), and we usually use the word "case" instead of "dozens" for such "units" of wine...
I've fixed the number and "cases". Does anyone have access to the source to check how the man trap is presented? GoldenRing (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"participated in" is really weak prose, why not ".. represented the King's Shropshire Light Infantry in cricket, rugby, hockey, squash, skiing, and athletics?"
"pop rock-dance" is this actually a real genre of music?? There seems to be nothing in the article referencing this "genre", does it really exist?
The combination of the three does seem contrived - "pop rock" and "dance" seem to have both been used (separately) to describe the artist, but not sure about the album. Could we just delete "pop rock-dance" from the hook? WJBscribe(talk) 10:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That would be a good start.
The article gives the genre as "pop rock, dance" so I've changed to "pop-rock/dance" in the hook. GoldenRing (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Would be better to call it by its common name, the "Day of Anger".
Changed to "The Day of Anger during the Egyptian revolution began, eventually leading to the removal of Hosni Mubarak after nearly 30 years of rule." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes
26 January 2019
DYK
Caption
"marble head"?? We normally call these "busts" right?
I suppose busts tend to have shoulders too, but the caption in the article says it is a bust, so changed to bust... WJBscribe(talk) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This is mildly misleading because that comment was made by Beecham decades before the book was written, indeed, Beecham was long dead before this tome was even dreamt up. And the source doesn't say "partially", it actually says "The encyclopedia is meant as a sort of response..." nothing about "partially" and "sort of" is key here to my first point. Because it's disingenuous to consider it a real response to something someone said decades earlier.
Names of vessels, e.g ships or aircraft, should be in italics. And why is the article subject name different?? Just creates unnecessary confusion. And "Croydon Airport" is not "London", easter egg. So not much positive to say about this.....
What do you think of it now? Clarified the landing points as well as italicised the plane name. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Needs a comma after "South London", but otherwise at least it states the facts now, thanks.
Likewise, we say "the age of X... " or "aged X", but never "at age X" in BritEng. Plus confused by the chronology here, she moved to Manhattan when she was 17 but I don't see how she was 17 when she was in the 1989 film Cookie if she was born in 1970? Did Cookie really take more than a year to produce? Really? And that GA is using the Daily Mail to reference this "fact"? See WP:DAILYMAIL, verboten. The sources do not verify the hook as writ, it wasn't even "reportedly", it was according to Lloyd herself (so self-published primary claim alert!!). So, not a lot going for this one either...
Most films spend a year in post-production. And the audition probably took place in the year before filming began, so it makes sense there was a two-year difference in her age at audition and the year of release. And the hook fact is verified by the Yahoo! source as well. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the hook is not verified by the Yahoo source. The Yahoo source says "Still, she reached for the stars, beating a reported 5000 actresses – including Jodie Foster – to take the lead in Cookie, scripted by Nora Ephron in 1989 and was living alone in Manhattan at 17. There is no necessary link between the two clauses. Plus, the grammar is still not BritEng, so please, at least fix that, even if you wish for this dubious garbage (all sourced to what Lloyd herself has claimed incidentally) to proceed to the main page.
I guess it'd be okay with "at the age of 17, Emily Lloyd was offered the lead role in Cookie, one to which she claims to have beaten 5,000 others, including Jodie Foster...?"
Why not avoid any "future" issues here, and simplify the language by saying "... was the first football video game to allow players to dive deliberately?" which also removes that grotesque split infinitive.
You can safely reject the advice given subsequently, if it was "unique" at the time, then it was the first at the time, because all previous football games didn't suddenly stop existing.....
Deary me, some people. If it was unique at the time, it meant it never featured in any other games previously because all the other games still existed. It's not that hard to comprehend. And concision? Only when it suits it seems.
This win's January's "most intractable hook" award. Really, what?? Given the demographics of our readership, this will be meaningless to around 99.5%, who actually won't click, they'll just ignore.
Can you explain what your problem is with this hook? I cannot claim to be any good at this process, and I usually avoid it. However, the word 'intractable' doesn't seem to make any sense in this context, the relevant topics are well known and linked, and indeed, the comparison is an interesting one. Sun Yat-sen and Borodin were both very familiar with the history of the American revolution, and so the significance of such a remark was instantly apparent at the time. I expect most of our readership will know Sun Yat-sen and Lafayette...and if they don't, we have hyperlinks to allow them access to that information. RGloucester — ☎ 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
We'll see then, won't we? While we have wikilinks, it doesn't mean people will click on them, particularly if they don't even get the gist of the hook.
What is not clear? If there's a problem, I'd prefer to resolve it. I cannot do that without clear feedback. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You've said you're convinced that most of the readers will know these individuals, even well enough to know what the hook is trying to say. I hadn't heard of any of them, and although I'm not a US college professor, I did get a couple of degrees from a half-decent British University. So I'm sure if you understand our readership demographic (20s to 30s, male, mainly US) so well, and are convinced, then it's not a problem. To the rest of us, it's unresolvable in hook form and therefore of no interest.
Well, I figured any basic education would include major historical figures like Sun Yat-sen and the Marquis de Lafayette, but perhaps that's too much to ask in this day and age. How about "that Chinese revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen referred to Comintern agent Mikhail Borodin as his "Lafayette", a reference to the aid provided by the Marquis de Lafayette to the American side during the American War of Independence?" RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Without a doubt a 100% improvement for me. Sorry my basic education didn't meet your minimum standards.
I also studied at what is supposedly one of the world's top universities and they never mentioned those things. I was studying maths and computer science though so perhaps it was hard to work those things into the syllabus. I have made the suggested change anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You should be learning these things in primary and secondary school, which focus on general education, not at university, where your education will be tailored to your field. I find it unfortunate that two major figures in the history of the two superpowers have apparently been left out of your schooling. In any case, thank you for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I was informed that the revised hook was too long so to avoid further drama I've followed the suggestion of a DYK regular to pull it for now, so sorry about that. I guess you can work on a suitably concise but informative alternative. Re my schooling - although my university was top class, my earlier schools were decidedly ordinary so perhaps that's where the gaps in my basic knowledge originated! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
What a waste of time. First, one submits a hook and gets the equivalent of no 'actual' feedback. Then, without anybody providing notification, concerns are raised on this backwater of a page. Then, one attempts to resolve the relevant concerns, only to be told that the resolution posed the same problem, but in reverse. What exactly is the point in participating in this cockeyed process? RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger. The whole process, including the suitable processing of issues with hooks, is deeply flawed and demonstrates seriously ownership issues. Thanks for trying to fix the issue I raised, sorry it didn't work out. As you can see from the statistics here, the process is not just "cockeyed", it's completely broken, with an average of three to four issues per day being "reviewed, accepted and promoted" to the main page. It's a complete joke.
Another split-inf, and actually "already" is redundant in this sentence in its current construction, so it can go entirely without causing any disruption at all.
Another perfect example of where "concision" applies, only when it suits the involved.
"that 13 was a lucky number for ..." wow, was it? Just like it's a lucky number in Italy? Or to a billion or so people in China?
I'll take this one up on WT:DYK, but perhaps something like "that 13 was a very prominent number throughout the life of..." Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I think the main problem with the hook is actually "who cares"? It's not quirky, it's barely of interest. And I can guarantee you'll get a clean sweep of rejections from the nominator, reviewer and promoter. 100% assured.
I've started a discussion and you can participate here. I think the fact that the number 13 kept popping up throughout his life is DYK worthy, it's just that I fail to see how its reappearance means its "lucky". Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Anarchyte no, I'm banned from participating there, good ol' Arbcom! That's how people can write whatever they like about me and what they claim I've said now and in the past and I have absolutely no way of defending myself against it, was that what Arbcom wanted? Who knew?
Already looking forward to the next hook where Mr X from Idaho thinks the number 9 is lucky! WOWEE!
No
OTD
Image
Makes it look like a national park, and the all-important Arbeit Macht Frei is obfuscated. What is wrong with using the image in the lead of the target article?
Never good when we make a death camp look like the entrance to the local dog park. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The plant had more than one turbine, so to say "the rotors from the turbine" is misleading. The power plant had six units, thus at least six turbines, and just one (that of unit 6) was used in this sculpture. It's in the detail...
Not seeing the date in that reference (ref [10]) although there seem to be many documents, all in different formats; in any case it's too hard to verify.
That's because the date isn't certain. Looking at the recent Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Robert, they give a death date of 28 or 31 December. Most of my printed sources, if they mention Robert's death at all in relation to the "Harrying", just date it to late January. I'm afraid we'll need a different entry here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The only source to mention the date appears to state that the patent was filed on this day, I'm not sure if that's the same as actually having the patent awarded.
I'm not sure that answers my query. The hook says the design was "patented", the source clearly states the patent for the design was "filed". These are not the same. Now you have added a third option called "priority date", so what does that mean? Is the hook right, the source in the article right, or what?
It's right. The original patent was filed in Denmark (see p. 2) on 28 January 1958. When it was granted, the 20 years of exclusivity would start from that filing date – so even though the grant date is later, the date from which the patent is held is the filing date. Now, I am showing links to a US patent filed on 28 July 1958 and granted / published 24 October 1961... but as it is the same invention as the Denmark patent and was submitted in the US within 12 months of the original filing in Denmark, its priority date is 28 January 1958. Thus, for evaluating inventiveness and considering any disclosures, only material prior to the priority date are considered. Patent law is strange and it would make sense to say that something was patented as at the date the patent is granted, but it doesn't... protection dates from the filing date or the priority date, whichever is earlier – in this case, 28 January 1958. EdChem (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Ley wasn't their "driver", he was the "chaperone" for the whole tour, as well as being the lead of the German Labour Front. "Driver" is somewhat disingenuous and lazy.
Changed to "chaperone" per the article. I would link it but our article is crap. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Napoleon nearly captured? If that's such a thing, then why isn't it even mentioned in the lead, where we're supposed to a see a summary of the most pertinent facts from the article as a whole? Ironically, the lead does mention the near-capture of Blücher, but not Napoleon...
It is supported in the article text, and apparently by an inline citation (though not one I can verify). GoldenRing (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The point is that this isn't the most notable event so why is it being singled out of this article?
Whole section unreferenced (surprisingly poor for an FA)
I may get told off for this but I've boldly taken an axe to the entire section. As well as being unreferenced it has almost no prose, just being a large table, and is arguably not of huge interest in understanding the subject. The version which passed FA had no such section. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing "created the Hanthawaddy Kingdom in today's Lower Burma"
I don't think this is a huge issue. Wareru did indeed found the Hanthawaddy Kingdom in Lower Burma on this date, it's just not referred to as the Hanthawaddy Kingdom in the article. This is fair enough, as I don't think it would have been referred to as that in his lifetime, but it is how historians refer to the kingdom thus created. Note the succession box at the bottom of the article listing Wareru as the founder of the Hanthawaddy Dynasty, a redirect to Hanthawaddy Kingdom.
I'm not sure it is fair enough, to not even mention it in the article but to use it in the blurb. It's misleading or at best, confusing for our readers who may not have such an insight.
Nope
31 January 2019
DYK
Caption
"known material in white" - most of the image is white, and the "known material" is so small it's virtually imperceptible.
"that got too real" - seriously, is this an encyclopedia??
Indeed, also "lost her championship" is ambiguous. I think the "opponent" is being referred to, not Lady Shani or the other participant. WJBscribe(talk) 11:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a school side, even if the place was called "Wellington College". And the source doesn't say it was confusing for the opposition. It was probably more confusing for the umpires who could have thought the same bowler was bowling consecutive overs. Or even the spectators. Probably not a good look to just make stuff up that's not in the source.
The phrasing is odd, the subject is the comet, not the approach, so the final clause needs rewording. Perhaps just replace "which was" with "making" or something similar? But for a FA, it's very poorly referenced...
Went with "which was making...", but also replaced with Sirius. —howcheng {chat} 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
