Template talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions
m (3 approved nominations to approved page, removing 0 closed nominations, WugBot v0.8.4) |
BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
===Articles created/expanded on January 18=== |
===Articles created/expanded on January 18=== |
||
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).--> |
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).--> |
||
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Jim McCanless}} |
|||
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario Highway 78}} |
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario Highway 78}} |
||
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Pilate cycle}} |
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Pilate cycle}} |
Revision as of 23:40, 24 January 2022
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and Rules | |
Introduction and rules | WP:DYK |
Supplementary rules | WP:DYKSG |
Reviewing guide | WP:DYKR |
General discussion | |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Nominations | |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Current set on-air | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
DYK Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
List of users... | |
By nominations | WP:WBDYKN |
By promotions | WP:WBDYKP |
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, it.
Count of DYK Hooks | ||
Section | # of Hooks | # Verified |
---|---|---|
January 7 | 1 | |
January 28 | 1 | |
March 9 | 2 | |
March 15 | 1 | |
March 16 | 2 | |
March 17 | 1 | |
March 19 | 1 | |
March 20 | 1 | |
March 22 | 2 | 1 |
March 23 | 1 | |
March 25 | 1 | |
March 26 | 1 | |
March 27 | 1 | |
March 28 | 1 | |
March 30 | 1 | |
March 31 | 1 | |
April 2 | 1 | |
April 3 | 1 | |
April 4 | 2 | |
April 5 | 1 | |
April 6 | 1 | |
April 7 | 5 | |
April 8 | 1 | |
April 9 | 2 | |
April 12 | 4 | 1 |
April 13 | 1 | |
April 14 | 3 | |
April 15 | 3 | 2 |
April 16 | 2 | 2 |
April 17 | 4 | 2 |
April 18 | 5 | 2 |
April 19 | 4 | 3 |
April 20 | 10 | 6 |
April 21 | 10 | 3 |
April 22 | 6 | 4 |
April 23 | 6 | 3 |
April 24 | 14 | 5 |
April 25 | 12 | 7 |
April 26 | 6 | 4 |
April 27 | 5 | 2 |
April 28 | 10 | 4 |
April 29 | 14 | 7 |
April 30 | 11 | 5 |
May 1 | 9 | 4 |
May 2 | 13 | 5 |
May 3 | 13 | 8 |
May 4 | 10 | 5 |
May 5 | 7 | 2 |
May 6 | 14 | 5 |
May 7 | 9 | 1 |
May 8 | 6 | 4 |
May 9 | 12 | 4 |
May 10 | 14 | 7 |
May 11 | 6 | 1 |
May 12 | 9 | 1 |
May 13 | 10 | 3 |
May 14 | 8 | 2 |
May 15 | 5 | 1 |
May 16 | 3 | |
Total | 311 | 116 |
Last updated 07:15, 16 May 2022 UTC Current time is 07:52, 16 May 2022 UTC [refresh] |
Instructions for nominators
If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing.
Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide
Frequently asked questions
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.
Instructions for reviewers
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:
If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a lineArticle length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.
:* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* -->
showing you where you should put the comment. - Save the page.
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.
Instructions for project members
How to promote an accepted hook
At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area
|
---|
For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook. |
Handy copy sources: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
How to remove a rejected hook
- Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
- In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line
{{DYKsubpage
with{{subst:DYKsubpage
, and replace|passed=
with|passed=no
. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.
How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue
- Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
- Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
- View the edit history for that page
- Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
- Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
- Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
- If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.
How to move a nomination subpage to a new name
- Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.
Nominations
Older nominations
Articles created/expanded on November 19
Articles created/expanded on November 21
Articles created/expanded on December 4
Articles created/expanded on December 7
Articles created/expanded on December 8
Articles created/expanded on December 9
Articles created/expanded on December 12
Articles created/expanded on December 15
Articles created/expanded on December 20
Articles created/expanded on December 22
Articles created/expanded on December 25
Articles created/expanded on December 27
Articles created/expanded on December 29
Articles created/expanded on December 30
Articles created/expanded on December 31
Articles created/expanded on January 2
Articles created/expanded on January 3
Articles created/expanded on January 5
Articles created/expanded on January 6
Articles created/expanded on January 7
{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=January 2022 |passed= |2=
Tek Fog
... that the web application Tek Fog was used by BJP to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians?Source: the app Tek Fog is used by users to "amplify right-wing propaganda to a domestic audience." The Indian news outlet also claimed the app had links to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Deutsche Welle
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Racial segregation in the United Kingdom
- Comment: Page was on AfD so DYK was out of consideration in that period. AfD closed today as keep so nominated for DYK today.
Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC).
- Comment This cannot go unattributed, AT ALL. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The contents of the article are currently contested, as the author is aware. It is requested that the DYK nomination is not accepted till outstanding issues are resolvedCaptain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure the last comment by User:CapnJackSp has been made in good faith. Several politically motivated IP users first tried to delete the article. AfD was closed as Keep. And now this guy is asking for an indefenite hold on on flimsy grounds. The article has 29 mentions of Wire and it is sufficiently attributed.Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Don't confuse me with other editors. You haven't added attribution to the very first sentence of the article. I can say more but this needs to be fixed first. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure the last comment by User:CapnJackSp has been made in good faith. Several politically motivated IP users first tried to delete the article. AfD was closed as Keep. And now this guy is asking for an indefenite hold on on flimsy grounds. The article has 29 mentions of Wire and it is sufficiently attributed.Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Full review needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. No QPQ needed for a nominator with less than five QPQ credits. However, there are multiple issues with the article:
- Firstly, several paragraphs in the article lack references or have a citation needed template.
- Secondly, there is no clear description of exactly what the app even is, only what The Wire says about how it hacks. The article doesn't make it clear if Tek Fog is an app that is downloadable by App Stores and thus usable by an end-user, or a secret app that is not willingly or knowingly installed by users. It also doesn't state when it was first released or at least first known, as well as missing other basic app information.
- Thirdly, the article doesn't seem to meet either WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. The article is almost entirely about criticisms about the app, which seems undue weight in my opinion. At the very least, apart from the aforementioned issue about a lack of descriptions about the app itself, there should be more inclusions about denials and statements (or lack thereof) by relevant people in the article. The article lede notes that
The ruling BJP and the prime minister Narendra Modi were silent.
; however, this statement is completely unreferenced and is not mentioned anywhere else in the body. The denials in the article (under the section "Reactions of BJYM, Persistent Systems and ShareChat") are limited to a single paragraph: are these really the only denials given thus far by people or companies involved? If that is all that is available then that would be acceptable, but this needs to be clarified, and in any case I think the article may need some trimming since it focuses too much about the reactions to the app rather than the app itself. - Fourthly, the article may need clarifications for non-Indian readers. For example, "BYJM" is mentioned in the article but is not defined anywhere in the text (the lede mentions a "BJP youth wing", but the connection must be made clear).
- Fifthly, the article needs a copyedit. Mentions of media outlets, such as The Wire, The Hindu, or Washington Post, need to be italicized. The article text also needs revising for grammar and other issues.
- Finally, multiple concerns have been raised on the article talk page, and as far as I can tell, most have not been addressed.
- Right now the article needs a lot of work to be approved for DYK. Since I am largely unfamiliar with Indian politics, I would also appreciate any input from an uninvolved Indian editor or someone else familiar with the topic, but right now, in its current state, I think the article is not ready for DYK. I would also suggest that the article be brought to WP:GOCE or otherwise be copyedited by an uninvolved editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Citation needed tags fixed.
- It is a PsyOps software whose access is limited to the operators and their Org. I have included the link in the lead.
- What is available has been added. WP:FALSEBALANCE. I will work to add refs, as asked
- Fixed
- GOCE copyedit requested
- All major / relevant concerns raised on talk page have already been resolved. While reviewing the talk page, Be advised that many users with political POV just want this article deleted/bowdlerized etc. Please refer to the AfD discussion to understand.
- I will ping the reviewer when I am done with #3 and others. Venkat TL (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your response to #2 needs to be clarified in the article itself, particularly in the lede and ideally in its own section. Rather than mentioning it in a section about The Wire's report, there should be a section about the app itself, perhaps using The Wire as a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I added it in the first line, I will flesh that part more as suggested.Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edits. I will do the rest of the review once the copyedit has been done. However, I am still unhappy with the tone of the article and would welcome any second opinions regarding how to handle it. Narutolovehinata5 ([[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|talk] to you later and I don’t want to call you I wanna it's not like I’m gonna ] · contributions) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the nominator now has had five DYK nominations on the main page, so a QPQ will be required for this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset: I just donated a QPQ to move this forward. --evrik (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the nominator now has had five DYK nominations on the main page, so a QPQ will be required for this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edits. I will do the rest of the review once the copyedit has been done. However, I am still unhappy with the tone of the article and would welcome any second opinions regarding how to handle it. Narutolovehinata5 ([[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|talk] to you later and I don’t want to call you I wanna it's not like I’m gonna ] · contributions) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I added it in the first line, I will flesh that part more as suggested.Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your response to #2 needs to be clarified in the article itself, particularly in the lede and ideally in its own section. Rather than mentioning it in a section about The Wire's report, there should be a section about the app itself, perhaps using The Wire as a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the nominator has retired from Wikipedia, so if no one is able to adopt this nomination and resolve any remaining issues, this nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. I would also highly suggest rewriting the article to have a more neutral tone as currently it seems to have some tone issues and is also too focused on the criticism of the app rather than information about the app itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've struck the original hook and ALT1 per TrangaBellam's original objection. Note that the GOCE request made back on March 25 is listed after around three dozen earlier pending requests, and it could easily be several weeks before a copyeditor takes it on, with no guarantee that even if the tone is dealt with, the deficit of information about the app itself will be remedied. I don't think we should wait for the copyedit if the balance is problematic; if no one adopts this nomination soon—perhaps within the standard seven days?—it should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
}}
Articles created/expanded on January 8
Articles created/expanded on January 9
Articles created/expanded on January 10
Articles created/expanded on January 11
Articles created/expanded on January 13
Articles created/expanded on January 14
Articles created/expanded on January 15
Articles created/expanded on January 16
Current nominations
Articles created/expanded on January 17
Articles created/expanded on January 18
Articles created/expanded on January 19
Articles created/expanded on January 20
Articles created/expanded on January 21
Articles created/expanded on January 22
Articles created/expanded on January 23
Articles created/expanded on January 24
Special occasion holding area
The holding area has moved to its new location at the bottom of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.
- Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
- Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [1]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [2].
- April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.