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.
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:
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.
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.
Advanced procedures
How to promote an accepted hook
At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area
Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
Hook should make sense grammatically.
Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)
For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
Check that there's a bold link to the article.
If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
At the upper left
Change {{DYKsubpageto{{subst:DYKsubpage
Change |passed=to|passed=yes
At the bottom
Just above the line containing
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
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]]
Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
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.
Qualifies through 5x expansion. Good sourcing on both the first hook and the article in general. No evidence of copyvio, article generally in good shape. Still needs a QPQ. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that all solutions of the Erdős–Moser equation correspond to convergentsofln(2), yielding "one of very few instances where a large scale computation of a numerical constant has an application"?
ALT1: ... that the only known solution to the Erdős–Moser equation is 1 + 2 = 3?
I'll also note that the article would be better with a bit more prose to contextualize what is going on here. Currently the article itself is very inaccessible to the average reader, it would be nice to have a background of why this equation is important (I see the term "Diophantine equation" being used, maybe you could include a few sentences on how this relates to the article) and some prose (as opposed to proofs) to convey the methods being used to solve it. Sohom (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to our DYK rules, "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". I don't think that is the case for the proposed hook. Also, I think the hook is misleading: as far as we know, it could be the case that all solutions of the equation are the single solution 1+2=3, unrelated to the log(2) calculation. And calling this an "application" is dubious when it is just a mathematical calculation used to support another mathematical calculation. I have generally interpreted this rule as requiring that the hook connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond mathematics (just as we require that hooks about fiction connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond the plot). Unfortunately I see no non-mathematics at all in the article, on which to build a hook. It's kind of interesting to me that the known lower bound on a second solution is such a huge number, but I don't think I represent a general reader for this purpose. I do also agree that the walls of equations make the article hard to read (not just to the average reader), but that is not really a DYK criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, as a non-math guy, this hook is remarkably uninteresting. Though that is obviously my opinion, it shows that it is likely not a suitable one, or the article as a whole as a matter of a fact. TheBritinator (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better. It still doesn't relate to non-mathematics at all, but at least it's (1) at a level understandable to the general reader, and (2) kind of intriguing how something so basic-looking as 1+2=3 could be the basis of something where we don't know if there is another solution. The question is whether it's enough better to pass the interestingness test. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donot 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: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.
Qualifies through 5x expansion. Good sourcing on both the first hook and the article in general. No evidence of copyvio, article generally in good shape. Still needs a QPQ. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I've seen you around so much I sort of assumed you needed a QPQ; this is good to go. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed now that additional hooks have been suggested. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
