Revision as of 17:36, 20 June 2024 by WugBot(talk | contribs)(moving 1 tentatively approved nominations from WP:DYKN, removing 0 closed nominations, WugBot v0.9.2)
This page holds approved nominations that are waiting to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. Following DYK approval, nominations are processed and moved into a Prep area, and from there, prep sets are promoted to a queue, and then to the main page.
If some of the nominations are not showing up properly at the bottom of the page, these alternative pages can be used to view a subset of the most recent nominations.
Last updated 10:14, 3 July 2024 UTC Current time is 10:44, 3 July 2024 UTC[refresh]
Instructions for nominators
This page is for those nominations that have already been approved and are waiting to be promoted. If yours has been approved but has not yet been run on the main page, it should either be on this page or will soon be moved here, or already promoted to a Prep area or Queue ahead of an appearance on the main page.
If you wish to create a new nomination, please go to the Template talk:Did you know page; there are instructions there in a section similar to this one on how to nominate an article for DYK.
Frequently asked questions
Backlogged?
This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until someone promotes it to a preparation area. To alleviate this problem, if the approved page has more than 120 approved hooks, then sets will change twice per day (every 12 hours) instead of once per day (every 24 hours). When the backlog falls below 60 approved nominations set frequency returns to once a day.
Where is my hook?
If you can't find the nomination you submitted to the nominations page, and it also isn't on this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is either in one of the prep areas, has been 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.
In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
In the prep set...
Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
Add an edit summary, e.g., "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
Back on DYK nomination page...
change {{DYKsubpageto{{subst:DYKsubpage
change |passed=to|passed=yes
Add an edit summary, e.g., "Promoted original hook to Prep 3", preview, and save
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 the nominations 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 the nominations 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.
Donot nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section on the regular nominations page, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began, or it was listed as a Good Article; be sure to 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 between 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].
Note for promoters: please be sure to add an "invisible" comment after a hook when you've placed it in prep, noting that it's a special occasion hook and including the date it is supposed to run. This should keep the hook from being moved after promotion, as sometimes happens to hooks when a queue needs a slot filled or a prep set needs to be made more balanced by swapping hooks between preps.
ALT1: ... that breast cancer patients became a primary patient population for nurse navigation after Lillie Shockney reported the impact of the program at Johns Hopkins Hospital? Source: https://www.myamericannurse.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/an12-Oncology-Navigtion-1201.pdf "Breast cancer navigation became a primary patient population focus of nurse navigation when Lillie Shockney, MAS, BS, RN, publicized her success at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, where she helped increase appointment completions, improve timeliness of care, and expedite chemotherapy start time by 2 weeks."
The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. All of the references are reliable. The article is neutral. Both hooks are cited, but I prefer ALT1. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "nurse navigation" or "patient navigation" field is one that few people will know and hopefully people will go to the page to find out more about it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1a: ... that breast cancer patients became a population who frequently worked with nurse navigators after Lillie Shockney reported the impact of the program at Johns Hopkins Hospital?
ALT1b: ... that breast cancer patients started to work more frequently with nurse navigators after Lillie Shockney reported the impact of the program at Johns Hopkins Hospital?
Why do we think this photo is actually CC-BY-SA like the commons page claims? The Author is listed as "Lillie Shockney"; considering this is a photo of Lillie Shockney, and looks like a studio portrait, it's unlikely that it's a selfie, and thus the Author is incorrect. The author of a photograph is the photographer. And it's apparently downloaded from https://aonnonline.org/authors?autid=1:lillie-shockney-2, which has a highly restrictive TOS statement. RoySmith(talk)23:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Mary A. Wray, a celebrated American actress of the 19th century, was considered the oldest representative of the American stage at the time of her death in 1892? Source: A Woman of the Century
New enough, long enough, and neutral with all reliable sources. The hook is directly cited. I assume good faith on the book reference. I prefer the first hook. A QPQ is needed. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: QPQ done. Re AGF, you could also access them by Wikipedia Library repositories such as Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com. But Google News archive in itself is freely accessible and reliable. And yes, let's go with ALT0. Regards. X (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xoak I was only referring to the Moulton source, which I just now noticed I could have read from the external links section. This is now ready to go. SL93 (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xoak and SL93: bearing in mind that the only sources we have for this superlative claim are 1892 obituaries, I don't think these hooks are viable—per WP:CONTEXTFACTS, I'd need to see a secondary source (preferably somewhat recent) make either of those claims, or a new hook entirely. Seeing as this has remained unpromoted for more than a month, I suspect my fellow promoters are of the same opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or they could just say that, instead of doing the nonsensical thing of not saying anything to give the nominator a chance to fix the issue. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yep. nuts. i'll keep looking. Still, I would agree with AJ that we've been fooled by "first" in usually-accepted-as-RSes too many times to accept a source from the time on its own word. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Everything looks good to me! A very interesting list. Preference is for either toe hook. Noting that DYK Check shows less than 1500 characters, but the text in the list proper is well over the limit — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, we'd have to IAR this as the prose size is 18 bytes short of the 1500 bytes limit. But I agree that there is so much (valuable) prose in the table that this should be ok. I shall note that the toe image is not in focus and thus recommend against using it. Schwede6606:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gobonobo, if the toe image can't be used, do you have a preference between toe hook (without image), arm hook (with image), or something else? Rjjiii (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
toe used for cocktails
The toe is fabulous (both unusual and intriguing) and I really think it is the best option if we're going with an image. It renders quite well at 140x140 pixels and is only out of focus if you click through to the enlarged image. However, we could use a different crop (example pictured) if you wanted something sharper. gobonobo+c04:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Rjjiii: There really are a lot of options here. I focused on the most interesting images of body parts, and didn't spend a lot of time considering using the portraits of the individuals. If the toe is too gross for people, maybe a hook about the Heart of Louis XIV being both eaten and made into paint, which could work without an image as well. I'm not sure how to word it though. There are a ton of options and I'm totally open to suggestions. gobonobo+c05:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that while both are named from the same place, the genus Republica(pictured) is not the genus Republica?
Source: Archibald & Cannings 2021 doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4966.3.11materials and methods for location data "We examined a single fossil in lacustrine shale recovered from exposure B4131 of the Tom Thumb Tuff Member
of the Klondike Mountain Formation at Republic, Washington, U.S.A."
Wolfe & Wehr 1987 doi:10.3133/b1597 page 2 fig 1 shows the location in Republic of site 8428 of the Klondike Mountain Formation, page 22 gives the genus etymology and 23 the type locality occurrence in Republic
Overall: My first time reviewing a dual-article nomination, and I appreciate the effort which must have gone into it!
Both articles moved to mainspace yesterday. QPQ is done. No plagiarism detected via Earwig. For both articles, length, referencing and image licensing are all good. For the insect, I think that the first paragraph of "Description" and of "Paleoenvironment" are both a bit long and ought to be split up a bit, and that "Paleoenvironment" should have at least one image - even the location map over at Klondike Mountain Formation would be really helpful. For the plant, you really should move the distribution images a couple of paragraphs down to avoid MOS:SANDWICH, and the last sentence of the lead is missing a period. Still, I would not hold up the nomination for those reasons alone.
To me, it is the hook which has multiple significant issues. It may not be grammatically correct (shouldn't it be named after the same place, not named from the same place?), it is really confusing and vague, as you have no way to tell what place is actually being referred to without clicking on both links, and I feel that a lot of readers would just say "So what?" when they see it as currently written. Suggested wording: Alt1"...that extinct plants and damselflies from the Eocene were discovered and named after RepublicinWashington?"
I also think that both articles should have a sentence which makes this connection between the two more explicit than the mere hatnote at the top. Lastly, you should at least add DOI and ISBN links to your DYK citations. Right now, there is no way to tell which citation refers to which fossil without going through the articles' references, and we should not have to do that. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InformationToKnowledge The hook as written is a play on the hemihomonym use of the genus name Republica for both a plant and an animal, but I like alt1 as well. I've added the dois for each source and a map to Republica weatbrooki, plus added splits in the Description and Paleoenvironment sections. A sentence calling out the hemihomonymy has been added to each article under classification. The image/map placement for Republics (plant) is more problematic though. I edit on a wide screen desktop monitor, and my view of the article has the maps already almost all the way down to the start of References. Ideally I was wanting a single map, but I wasn't able to find one I could make work for the West coast sites plus Alaska.--Kevmin§18:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking conciseness into account and a matching the details of the articles:
We may be waiting a while for them, as they haven't edited since the 14th, and the frequency of edits was tapering off before that.--Kevmin§18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ... that prior to broadcast, the "unspecified marque" on Can't Touch This had been used as an example of why British game show prizes were "rubbish"?
Comment: I can't get over The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian, and even the BBC all printing as gospel that he actually did it - he was in fact shot out of a catapult. Where's your fact checking?
5x expanded by Launchballer (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 231 past nominations.
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough. QPQ is done. AGF on the Japanese- and Korean-language sources for plagiarism etc. Hook isn't the most earth shattering, but it does seem to be the most interesting fact in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Drive-by nomination, as it's been around 6.875 days since this was converted from a redirect and I want to get this in under the wire. I have a small amount of work to do, starting with the excision of those ugly WP:CLUMPs. Note that I've included 'credited' because, as can quite clearly be seen in the image in the cited source, series 4 winners Spelbound also contained women. Also noting that the majority of this article was created by an IP.
Created by Launchballer (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 234 past nominations.
Review: Newly expanded article from a redirect meeting the required length size of prose. BLP is notable to exist as a standalone article now passing WP:ARTIST. No apparent copyvios. QPQ done. Rest article seems fine. Problem comes with only the fact that this is a synthesis and hence not perfectly verifiable. Do we have any another source mentioning her to be the first woman winner without a dog? Or else, do we have anything else from the article to a new hook? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that source. Googling 'credit define' gives one definition of 'publicly acknowledge a contributor's role in the production of (something published or broadcast)' - is there not a similar definition in the OED source? And if not, how would you convey this information? (HuffPost, the piece used in the article, says "the only solo woman to ever triumph on BGT without the aid of a dog sidekick", but I would argue that "Ashleigh and Pudsey" is quite clearly a double act.)--Launchballer10:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that with the horror film Infested, the French director Sébastien Vaniček wanted to show how not frightening but "complex and beautiful" spiders are?
Converted from a redirect by Cavarrone (talk). Nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Article new and long enough at the time of nomination. Length and referencing adequate ("Plot" isn't but that's MOS). No copyvio per Earwig aside from the block of interview quote. Hook interesting, cited inline. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that Tyla delayed her debut album's submission date in order to collaborate with Tems?Source: ref: One of the most powerful tracks is "No. 1," featuring Nigerian R&B star Tems. Tyla even pushed back the deadline to turn in the album so she could lock in the collab.
Reviewed:
Created by Dxneo (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Overall: Image isn't appropriate; as per Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, the image used for DYK must be in the article. It is also pending a review to see if it's free... I can't help there, as I've been unable to find where YouTube is keeping its licensing information ever since it was redesigned. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dxneo, having it in the article would fix the first issue. I've also been able to confirm the CC-BY license with this archive, so the second part isn't an issue. Once the image is in the article, we're good to go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I unpromoted this hook because I realised it breached WP:DYKIMG ("Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article"; as such, it should be run without the image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo, Crisco 1492, and Hey man im josh: Apologies, but I've pulled the hook, both because the set this was promoted to already had two music hooks and thus needed rejigging (see WT:DYK#Prep 4 rejigger; courtesy ping Bruxton), but also because I don't think the hook as currently written meets WP:DYKINT. If readers do not know who Tyla or Tems are, the hook doesn't really seem to make much sense or at least catch attention. There might be potential in the hook fact itself (i.e. the submission date delay), but in any case the hook probably needs to be reworded to add context for readers unfamiliar with either artist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, Crisco 1492, and Hey man im josh:, I thought the hook was supposed to be concise and straight to the point. "If readers do not know who Tyla or Tems are, the hook doesn't really seem to make much sense or at least catch attention." So how do we go about this, are we supposed to introduce them on DYK? I'm so confused. Any suggestions on how the hook can be improved? dxneo (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dxneo. Even without following recent music, I was able to tell that it was "that musician delayed album to allow collaboration with musician." We could contextualize it by including "South African singer" for Tyla and "Nigerian singer" for Tems, but that introduces repetition and doesn't seem to qualify Tyla sufficiently given her Grammy win and charting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contextualizing is probably a good idea and what I originally had in mind as the solution. Also while the Grammy winning thing is a good thing, not everyone may be following the Grammys or be as well-versed in entertainment. Not all Grammy winners are household names. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, yes you are right. However, these are two well established artists. Tyla peaked in top 10 in over 25 countries and was also certified higher than Gold in over 10 countries. On the other hand, Tems pretty much did the same thing and even more since she has been in the game longer than Tyla. We may say『South African singer Tyla…』as there are other Tylas, but there's only one Tems. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that South African singer Tyla delayed her debut album's submission date in order to collaborate with Tems?
I suppose I can live with ALT1, although my preference would still be to include Nigerian singer somewhere in the hook. That would be optional though given the focus is on Tyla and adding that would make the hook far more clunky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Lions fan, am I allowed to just reject this outright? (kidding) Article is new enough, long enough, and well sourced. Earwig appears to be down, but a spot check of sources showed no issues. QPQ done. Hook is interesting, but I worry that in going for "hookiness" it might go too far towards being misleading. The Packers were one of the teams in the game, but is that the same as the players being "selected" for the game, as those for the actual all-star team were? What about wording it something closer to
@Gonzo fan2007: What do you think of this? It's still "hooky" while hewing a little closer to fact, in my opinion. But despite my joke earlier, I'm not deliberately trying to be difficult and am open to other suggestions. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrOrinScrivello, that actually was going to be my original hook, but then I questioned whether "played" was factually correct. There aren't a lot of great sources for an 84 year old game, and I can't be certain that every player actually "played" (there were at least 2 injuries for Packers players noted before the game). "Select" is kind of the word used by the NFL for being chosen to the Pro Bowl and is consistent with List of Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl selections. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "select" is what you usually expect to see in most Pro Bowl situations, but it seems to me that on this particular occasion the players themselves weren't "selected" per se. Maybe a way to get around the "play" issue would be to say,
I think this is mostly hair splitting, though, and would not argue if the promoter choses any of the three options. Assuming my suggestions didn't alter the original enough for this to be considered approving my own hook (in which case I'm fine with another reviewer being requested), I think this is good to go. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am. I know it's not quite what you wanted, but I think this is still an interesting hook and at least your good work on the article will still get featured. ALT2 is good to go. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the vocalist on the dance song "Music Sounds Better with You" was in a punk band that disapproved of his collaboration with electronic musicians?
Overall: I am assuming in good faith that the Dutch refs adequately support the text and that there is no plagiarism. I've done a general search myself as to the subject of the bio in English sources. There were some deletions made to the article of the word Nazi here; restoring the word would help make this properly neutral in accuracy, and I would be happy then to pass this final item of the qpq. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:FD8F:5C17:CABB:9E61 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ: - Not yet complete Overall: Nominator still needs to complete QPQ, but otherwise it looks good. It might be good to add in the Production and release section that it had a theatrical re-release in 2024, distributed by Kani Releasing. AdJHu 胡00:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Colombian singer Feid collaborated for the second time with an American hip hop producer in "Luna", and it was called "an effort to take the genre to the global level"?
@Miraclepine: That's what I meant, only for me adding another alt and having it approved is equivalent to changing it in some way. I'm sorry for making you think I was literally going to change what's above. Well, here it goes: ALT1: ... that the Colombian singer Feid performed "Luna" as the only song at the 2024 Copa América opening ceremony, but there were several technical issues in the transmission? Santi (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha and Mehedi Abedin: The article has a citation needed tag and needs copyediting for sentences such as "Parents of Choudhary and Sarojs have been MPs/MLAs and of Jatav have been deputy sarpanch", "The 14% strength of women in Lok Sabha is considerably short", etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: The tag wasn’t' there when I was inspecting the article as a reviewer. Also the article was good to me in that time and it was edited many times by many users and ip after review. Mehedi Abedin11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decent sources: NHLE listing particulars (extensive), a journal article with more than a passing mention, book about the university (I have checked this via WebArchive) and a couple of newspaper pieces. No issues around notability.
Re. The lecture centre was finished in 1966 or 1967: surprising that Historic England has not been able to pin down the completion date, but I have checked the listing particulars and other sources and it is indeed the case.
Image is suitably licensed, was taken by the article author, is used in the article and looks fine at thumbnail size.
All statements are sourced. No issues with neutrality.
No copyvio or close paraphrasing noted. There are a couple of phrases which cannot really be reworded without losing their meaning.
Hooks: both are fully verified. ALT1 is better; I wonder if it might be worth including a reference to the building's use in A Clockwork Orange to grab attention. Something like: ...that Brunel University's "imposing" and "frightening" lecture centre(pictured) featured in A Clockwork Orange? (another editor would need to sign off that hook).
New enough and long enough. QPQ present. This is a unique contribution to DYK as it is three paragraphs and a list; even though one paragraph does not end in an inline citation, I am treating it as a lead-section paragraph. All the list bullet points contain at least one inline citation. The hook fact checks out and is included. Image is OGL-licensed and acceptable for the Main Page. Good to go after 4 July per above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, Sammi! If you've got concerns over the amount of prose in this article, I've expanded the lead with another paragraph. Let me know if you think this has improved things. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that early in his career Terry Pratchett had published short stories in newspapers, which remained unknown until they were posthumously discovered and republished in the 2023 book A Stroke of the Pen?
Article - Created 16 June, nominated 19 June: 4688 words: sources reliable, including source of hook: article is presentable. Hook - meets criteria of verifiability, interest and format. Good to go.Smerus (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: Article looks good, QPQ is done, etc. When I first saw the hook I wasn't sure if "second most played" referred to a concurrent count, or of a number of purchases in the past month or all time. I think it might be better to add something to the effect of "concurrent". You passed me in DYKs :(. ―Panamitsu(talk)03:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do have some major doubts about this "game"'s notability. Mainly, I think it fails WP:SUSTAINED, as it appears to be a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon that quickly drops off the radar and there is nothing to really talk about with regards to its content. I am not sure if DYK articles are required to pass notability criteria (the guidelines simply say "reliably sourced") but it risks coming off as advertising if a non-notable gimmick reaches the main page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I feel the article pretty plainly meets GNG. It's covered in-depth in a wide variety of reliable sources for a month now, including Forbes. Even "gimmicks" are notable if they get significant, reliable coverage. (And no, notability is not a DYK thing. If it gets AFD'ed thats another issue.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources in the article are from a 2-week timespan from the beginning of June to a few days ago. That, to me and likely most other editors is not a sustained span of time in which the "game" is discussed. That goes into the realm of Wikipedia as news website rather than as a lagging indicator of notability. "Brief bursts of news coverage" do not demonstrate notability. There's a possibility that several months from now, the "game" will still be major, but we are not a crystal ball. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually games have some degree of pre-release announcements and whatnot even before it comes out, with release day only cementing its notability. I'd say literally any game article that is created shortly after a game is announced is frowned upon for being WP:TOOSOON. I'm not saying it should be deleted now, but it does risk being deleted at a later date if its popularity fails to last. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Dr. Oen Boen Ing, who often worked for free, was so popular that the Indonesian government was petitioned to not evacuate him during a period of violence against Chinese Indonesians?Source: Lie, Ravando (2017). "Dr Oen Boen Ing: Patriot Doctor, Social Activist, and Doctor of the Poor"(PDF). Wacana. 18 (2): 467. doi:10.17510/wacana.v18i2.592. – "The report also said that Dr Oen was able to assist more than 200 patients a day and more than half of them did not have to pay a single penny. ... When a series of anti-Tionghoa upheaval erupted in Surakarta, Dr Oen was supposed to be evacuated to a safe place by the Republican government. However, after hearing such a plan, people in Surakarta submitted a petition rejecting the idea and hoping Dr Oen would remain in Surakarta to assist the poor."
Overall: Earwig marked ~40% for the Wacana PDF, but a spot check indicates that it's probably due to the foreign language element and particular phrasing like "fun fairs"; I didn't see any serious issues. Promoter, feel free to double-check my work; this is my first QPQ review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Adejunmobi, Moradewun (January 1994). "History and Ideology in Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo's Prose Works". Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines. 28 (2): 219–235. doi:10.1080/00083968.1994.10804351. ISSN 0008-3968.
ALT1: ... that Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo spared the manuscript of his first novel from destruction before his suicide? Source: Adejunmobi, Moradewun (January 1994). "History and Ideology in Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo's Prose Works". Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines. 28 (2): 219–235. doi:10.1080/00083968.1994.10804351. ISSN 0008-3968.
The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. All of the references are reliable. The article is neutral. Both hooks are cited, but I prefer ALT1. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a promoter, I also greatly prefer ALT1, but I don't quite understand the "nurse navigation" bit. What's the best way to simplify the hook Mary Mark Ockerbloom?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 are you available to review the above two hooks? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New enough, long enough, and neutral with all reliable sources. The hook is directly cited. I assume good faith on the book reference. I prefer the first hook. A QPQ is needed. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I can see the license either logged in or not. dxneo (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet complete
Doing... ミラP@Miraclepine 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, WP (along with Wikisource) needs more Malagasy-related topics over time. See you on the front page! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
