Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:55, 23 June 2016 editFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,478 edits →Prep area 3: the fourth installment: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 14:00, 23 June 2016 edit undoLavaBaron (talk | contribs)17,075 edits →Prep area 3: the fourth installmentNext edit →
Line 395: Line 395:


Cwmhiraeth, have you really checked these hooks before promoting them? The error rate is getting quite high here... In this case, the problem is "September 1". No date is given in the source that supports this hook, and our article on the job, ], gives 15 September instead of 1 September. As the date of 15 September 2016 is supported by another reliable source, it seems clear that the hook fact is not only unsupported but also false. It's easily corrected (and in the grand scheme not that important), sure, but not easily found once the reviewers have done their work, as most people would then assume it to be checked and thus correct. ] (]) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth, have you really checked these hooks before promoting them? The error rate is getting quite high here... In this case, the problem is "September 1". No date is given in the source that supports this hook, and our article on the job, ], gives 15 September instead of 1 September. As the date of 15 September 2016 is supported by another reliable source, it seems clear that the hook fact is not only unsupported but also false. It's easily corrected (and in the grand scheme not that important), sure, but not easily found once the reviewers have done their work, as most people would then assume it to be checked and thus correct. ] (]) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
:Since ] wrote the hook, I'm pinging her. As everything prior to the commas is a preamble, and the hook-proper comes post-comma, I see no problems whatsoever with it. ] (]) 14:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:00, 23 June 2016

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives
Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 21:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 9 hours ago( )


This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

RFC: A bot to review objective criteria

T:TDYK is currently two months backlogged. Some of the DYK criteria, such as article length, 5x expansion, and copyvio checking are already automated. However, as it stands reviewers need to manually use Shubinator's tool and Earwig's tool to perform these standard checks. These issues could be pointed out easily by a bot for nominators to work on, rather than having to wait several days/weeks until a human reviewer gets around to raising them. Performing these standard checks on top of more nuanced ones (close paraphrasing, neutrality, hook sourcing, etc.) is also time-consuming for human reviewers and every once in a while an article slips through due to a new or lax reviewer. I have an offline script already written that I currently use to assist with my reviews and I believe I could automate it completely into a DYK clerk bot to check automatically for length, expansion, and hook length and leave comments on the nomination pages. I wanted to see if this is something there is consensus for - if so, I can take it to BRFA. Intelligentsium 02:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. This would also be helpful for hook nominators themselves to use, to check that they have met all the criteria. Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This will certainly help, particularly when it comes to working out those 5x expansion count nominations. Though there would need to be some way for the bot to distinguish between the nominations where its an expansion and the nominator accidently puts it as a new article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, these are things amenable to automation. As to the above comment about new articles, it would also be relatively straightforward for a bot to check if something submitted as a new article actually meets the "new article" requirements, either from creation or from the article's move to mainspace. That would also be one less thing to be manually reviewed. Seraphimblade 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support You betcha!! Not only would it help regular reviewers, but it would also cut to the chase for new reviewers who haven't quite gotten the hang of all the review criteria. And there's another benefit - we have to take it on faith that a reviewer covered what they say they did. With a bot, the specific issues mentioned above would be checked on every nomination. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Switch to support per below for Copyvio, support for the others. 5x and article length are easy objective criteria. As wikipedia defines 'Copyvio' there are a number of issues (close paraphrasing etc) where the tool has been known to be less than stellar. I suspect this would result in the situation 'Oh BOT has said no copyright issues, next'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not intended to confirm or deny a copyright violation, simply to link the reviewer to Earwig's copyvio tool. I have added a note that there is low confidence in the copyvio detection and users should still manually check for close paraphrasing. See the BRFA Intelligentsium 13:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah right. Switched to support then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've done an example run in my userspace. Any feedback is welcome.
Intelligentsium 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Intelligentsium I really like what you've done with this, and believe it is a leap forward in the DYK process. The only addition I'd like, if possible, is that with GA the date it achieved that is important, and with expansions it's important to know what date that was completed. Even though both of those show up with DYK Check, there's no guarantee every reviewer uses DYK Check.— Maile (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support seems reasonable, so long as we caution folks that the tools sometimes go awry (such as Earwig's tool with Misplaced Pages mirrors, for instance). Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can a QPQ check be added? EdChem (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Questions: Looking at the marine mammal report, I can't figure out which version the bot used for the pre-expansion size. The one I think is the appropriate one has a different length. Also, the report says Earwig gives 70.0% but when I ran it, I got about 6%. I'm confused. EdChem (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The bot uses what the article looked like 7 days before the date of nomination - that would be this version. By my count (DYKcheck and Shubinator) that's about 14kb, consistent with the bot's report of 14,593b. Note that the bot parses wikitext while Shubinator's tool parses HTML so there may be a slight discrepancy between the counts. Can you link the Earwig report that said 6%? The link the bot provided shows 59.9%; yesterday it showed about 70% but I have no control of the copyvio tool. I've added the chars needed feature, thanks. Intelligentsium 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support looks accurate and has the potential to be very helpful. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC) EDIT: It looks like there's a small bug in the marine mammal review: it claims paragraph 3 is without a citation, but it is part of the lead, and the lead does not require citations. Can that be fixed? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the issue and have implemented a fix for this. However in general it's not trivial to tell what counts as the "lead", especially since some articles that come to DYK don't have sections. Intelligentsium 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: will the bot handle nominations like this one with multiple hooks proposed and multiple articles so the hook length can be over 200? EdChem (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I thought about it. The problem is that multiple nominations can be ambiguous, especially if malformed. Can you think of an easy way for a bot to determine if a nomination is a multiple nomination (as opposed to, say, a nomination of an article with a comma in the title) Intelligentsium 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, but I do see 8 QPQs but the bot did not. Also, on hook length, my understanding is that we only include the longest of the linked nominee articles and keep to under 200. I would be interested to see how the bot handled the multi-article case I mentioned earlier (even though I know it is now promoted)... is this possible? EdChem (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The bot only saw the multinom Template:Did you know nominations/Bradlee Ashby, Matthew Hutchins, Corey Main, Helena Gasson, Emma Robinson (New Zealand swimmer) as one review. It would be too much effort (for marginal reward) to ask it to parse QPQs recursively. I went off WP:DYKSG#C3 as the consensus standard for multinom hooks but am open to changing it if that doesn't reflect common practice. Intelligentsium 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: Sorry, I didn't see your other comment. See User:Intelligentsium/Radu Budișteanu, Victor Gomoiu, Gheorghe N. Leon, Gheorghe Mihail, Constantin Nicolescu, Vasile Noveanu (1) for what that review would look like. Ignore the comment about not being expanded - the expansion is calculated from the date the nomination page was created, and I just created the mock nomination page in my userspace today. Intelligentsium 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: Thanks, very helpful. What I see with the hook lengths, though, is likely accurate but less helpful. Saying a hook of X is too long but Y is ok hard to verify in light of the 200 characters, IMO. Perhaps something like hook length of X less uncounted links for bolded articles after the length gives adjusted length of Y. We can then look at Y in light of the 200 limit. For example, if the adjusted length is 202, I might be willing to ok it or look to change by a few characters. Does this make sense? EdChem (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, that seems like a good idea. I'll put something like a "corrected" length for multinoms. Intelligentsium 22:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination page trial

There seems to be pretty clear (unanimous actually) consensus here that this is something people want. If there are no objections then, I'll go ahead and request approval for a live trial at the bot's BRFA. Any additional comments related to the bot's tasks the technical aspects of its functionality should go on the BRFA page. Intelligentsium 00:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Credits for current hooks

Some of the creators/nominators of the hooks currently on the main page (from queue 5) did not get credited. I don't know if anyone else noticed. Random86 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm lacking a credit for Trinity Green Almshouses. Doesn't the bot usually do it? Joseph2302 (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The DYKUpdateBot that handles these functions stopped working, and we had to do manual updates for the last two sets on the main page. I don't think anybody got their credits posted on their own talk pages, and the articles didn't get their talk page notices. Shubinator has been working with Tool Labs, and believes it will function correctly with the next update. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The credits added manually don't show up with the QPQ check tool. I don't know if it is possible to change that. Random86 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Article moved

There is a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant‎, but I have moved the article page to Pennsylvania Shell ethylene cracker plant‎ as cracking produces ethylene, not ethane. I have posted a note at the nomination. Is there anything else that needs doing? I don't want to confuse the bot when the time comes. EdChem (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? The sources say ethane. Little chance of confusing the bot as we're the "bots" who move the nominations to prep... Intelligentsium 17:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the Shell reference, you'll see they use the correct term, ethylene (or ethene, it's the same thing). Cracking has to introduce double bonds or the law of conservation of mass is violated - see the cracking (chemistry) article. I know the news sources are wrong, I looked at them, but Shell knows what the process is and uses the correct term. As for bot confusion, I meant if the name of the article and that used in the template nomination page are different. EdChem (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Line about "pirated products" could be better

Please see the recent discussion. If "pirated products" appears more often than the alternatives in reliable sources, that still seems moot here because hooks do not have citations. If an admin sees this before the DYK turnover, I would say "products they refer to as pirated". Connor Behan (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sending notification to DYK nominator to inform them about alteration of hooks

I have had three of my hooks altered after being passed in the Did You Know Template page, without my knowledge. For example, when a hook was pulled out while it was online because there were conflicting sources, I could have had explained the issue. Sometimes the alterations are not completely correct and they are done without knowledge of nominator who probably has a solution to whatever is wrong. I would like to propose this. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the admin who changed one hook. And the reason I did it is because of Superlatives talk thread. I'm not going to oppose any admin who wants to change it back.
Original hook: that the Aqaba Church in Jordan, is the world's first purpose-built Christian church?
Prep 3 hook: that the Aqaba Church in Jordan has been described as the world's oldest-known purpose-built church? This particular change in wording was made by Gatoclass with an edit summary that said "per source - "oldest known" is not the same as "first". — Maile (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Queue 3 hook as I changed it: that the Guinness World Records lists the Aqaba Church in Jordan as "oldest known purpose-built Christian church in the world"?
I don't care if an admin wants to change it back. But the reason I changed it was to avoid it being pulled from the main page, because of the issues raised at the Superlatives talk thread. Admins and others, please post your opinions here. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: I don't see anything wrong with the Prep 3 hook, considering that it's reliably sourced to the Guinness Book of World Records. The Queue 3 hook is much too wordy, and if anyone questions it, they can just click on the article and see a superior source. The problem we've been having with superlatives is when they don't reflect the source. Please change it back to the Prep 3 version. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I prefer another admin do that. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
But the Aqaba Church hook is supported by more than GWR, and doesn't have any sources conflicting with it. Two small examples, including UNESCO.. , Makeandtoss (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that The Rambling Man is the one who pulled this hook from the main page, in response to a post from Andrew Davidson. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It's too late by the time erroneous hooks have made it to the main page. They shouldn't get there, so pulling is most often the best remedy. It's not up to admins to go about fixing hooks which are incorrect I'm afraid, the key is to try to preserve the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that nominators and reviewers should be consulted about changes to hooks. This is both courteous and sensible as they will be familiar with the details. As for the particular cases listed above:
  1. I don't like the phrase "one of the first" as the word first usually implies a singular distinction. "One of the earliest" would be better.
  2. The revised hook for the Aqaba church does indeed seem clumsy but some caution does seem warranted. Reading the source New Perspectives on Late Antiquity in the Eastern Roman Empire, I notice that tentative language is used such as "putative" and "so-called". My understanding is that this would have been one of several similar buildings constructed around that time and no-one is sure if it was the first of them. Most of them were destroyed in the persecution of Diocletian. This one was destroyed by an earthquake. What we have now are remains or ruins, not a living church, right? See list of oldest church buildings for some more context.
When hooks are put into play like this, it would be good to centralise the discussion and clearly identity the versions with the usual ALTn tags. Perhaps when hooks are amended we should require a corresponding update to the nomination page and the change listed as an ALT. That way, there would be a better audit trail and the nominator would get more warning that something was up. Andrew D. (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrator requested to change hook in Queue 3 ASAP

Per previous talk thread, please change hook back to:

... that the Aqaba Church in Jordan has been described as the world's oldest-known purpose-built church?
This fact is reliably sourced to the Guinness Book of World Records, and the addition of that name is just weighing down the hook. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The hook is due in 5 minutes I assume? No action was taken yet.. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kairana migration row

I had submitted this nomination on 17 June, but it was deleted the same day and the nomination was rejected on 18th. Now, the page has been restored and moved to Kairana and Sardhana migration row. I think the nom should be reopened now and reviewed. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Reopened nomination. Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6, hook 3

"... that the Shoubak Revolt (1905) was sparked after Ottoman forces started to put women of the Arabs of the town into forced labor?"

would be more concise and read better as:

"... that the 1905 Shoubak Revolt was sparked after Ottoman forces started to put the town's Arab women into forced labor?"

Could an admin kindly look into this please. Edwardx (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a while ago, so here's a new list of the 31 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current hooks (through June 11). As of the most recent update, 29 nominations have been approved, leaving 132 of 161 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, and especially to those who take on the ones from May.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Short Queue 1

This hook set looks rather short on my screen and i worry about messing up the MainPage layout. Can someone swap in some wordy hooks or add an 8th hook so that this hook set can take up more space on the left side of MainPage, please? I have to be away from the computer soon so i can't do it myself. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

CAN WE NOW GO BACK TO EIGHT HOOKS PLEASE. So the rest of us who give a damn can fix the main page every twelve hours to accommodate DYK's fluctuations, eight hooks is only fair on OTD and ITN. How many times? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's a matter of "going back to wordy hooks", I think we should go back to 8 hooks. Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the device you are using. In some cases TFA+DYK can still be much longer than ITN+OTD. SSTflyer 01:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You can see how Queue 1 will look with today's layout (June 20) at Misplaced Pages:Main Page alternative (Queue 1), though it won't show the June 21 layout, which appears to be two or three lines shorter between ITN and OTD because there are many fewer special celebrated days under OTD, even though it has the usual five bulleted entries. If we swap the fourth and seventh hooks between Queue 1 and Queue 2, that should improve the set length for the former and help balance the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Going to eight hooks will permanently help balance the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016 nominations

Do we need a special holding area for the approved Wiki Loves Pride nominations? Andrea Jenkins, approved, has a request to run before the end of June. I'm not sure all of Wiki Loves Pride has the same calendar, except the edit-a-thons seem to be ongoing through October. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, a special holding area is useful to delay till a later day. But instead of delay you want haste. But if it is approved and ready to go the chances are high they/it will fit in before the end of June. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I opened a June holding area for LGBT Pride Month so prep promoters will see it. Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed staircase hook from Main Page

The hooks have been removed from the main page and there is general agreement that Fram's actions were appropriate. If he wants to continue debating with LavaBaron, I suggest the pair pick a suitable user talk page to do it on. Ritchie333 13:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Did you know nominations/Howe Street Stairs] @Coffee, LavaBaron, Bobamnertiopsis, and Hawkeye7:

It is reliably sourced, but not correct. It seems to be about outdoor public stairs only (and even there it is sometimes ranked 5th or 6th only), but excludes indoor and non-public stairways, like those found in every skyscraper. Howe Street has 388 steps: the Empire State Building has 1576 stairs (to the 86th floor), the Willis Tower has 2109 steps, and so on. The Space Needle in Seattle (hometown of the Howe Street Stairs) has an 832 step open air staircase. I have removed the hook from the main page. Fram (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumably, length is measured by linear distance, not number of steps. The staircase steps referenced in this article are substantially wider than a building staircase, aligned at a much more gradual incline than those of a skyscraper, and, as noted, are intersected by several wide landings that include multi-lane streets. I think it's customary to measure length by linear distance, not quantity of geographic features. But, whatever. LavaBaron (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Describing the steps of a staircase as "quantity of geographic features" is weird. And having a hook about the supposed linear length of the staircase, without any indication of what that actual length could be, is even weirder. All sources discussing the length of staircases discuss explicitly the number of steps, never the length one has to walk to completely mount it. I have even less idea what the width of the steps has to do with anything. If your reaction to this is unfounded speculation plus "whatever" then please don't suggest any further hooks for DYK. Fram (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think LavaBaron was simply implying he understood your point of view and thought there was no point challenging the removal of the hook. While I personally would describe the stairs at the Monument to the Great Fire of London as 202ft high, not 202ft long, I can see how it would confuse non-native English speakers. Ritchie333 10:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
See below, he doesn't understand the problem at all, he simply feels that it would take too long to challenge my claims, and that his article has had it's eight hours of fame anyway, accuracy be damned. Fram (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Great points. A staircase would be X-meters "high" measured vertically from top to bottom. The same staircase would be X-meters "long" measured by distance one would travel to traverse it (in the sense one might differently question either "how high is the road" or "how long is the road"). Depending on the depth of each step and other factors, these two numbers will likely not be identical, nor would they likely match quantity of geographic features such as steps, handrails, landings, etc., one would cross while traveling the staircase. But, like you said, I don't think there's any point in challenging removal of a hook that would have expired in a few hours anyway. LavaBaron (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that you haven't understood anything about the problems with your hook. In an encyclopedia that took accuracy just slightly serious, you would now have been disqualified from contributing to DYK any longer. On Misplaced Pages, you can probably continue as before and believe that you are right because you say so. "How long is that book?" No one with any common sense will seriously answer "5cm", everyone will say "800 pages". Length can be measured in many ways, and the length of a staircase is normally measured in steps and/or in height. Neither measure puts this stairway as the 4th longest in the US. One would think that you would have learned that much after writing an article on a staircase and adding a hook about its length (assuming you didn't know this before this). Fram (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm certain no one would say "How many stop signs is that road?" They would say "How long is that road?" I'm certain most people would find a road more analogous to a staircase than a book. (Also, please be more careful to place your comments in proper thread order; you've elevated your own comments above mine in thread order, as above with Ritchie333, which makes it confusing for other editors to participate. Please also be careful to sign your comments.) From your comments, I understand and acknowledge you've conducted original research that disputes the RS that support the claims in the article in the form that they were reviewed and approved during the DYK process. However, I really think you should redirect your fury towards the authors of the RS (and explain your research to them) instead of at me. I neither agree nor disagree with your OR and, as you seem very upset, am disengaging from this topic and article completely. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. That escalated quickly. LavaBaron (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article. After removing some errors, duplication, unreliable sources and irrelevant stuff, it now sits at some 1160 characters and would not qualify for DYK by a wide margin. Please take a lot more care in the future when writing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

As I've previously said, (a) I disagree with your understanding of the word "length" as a measurement of quantity of steps instead of linear distance, and, (b) am unwilling to comment on other editors' original research into staircase lengths in the U.S. or other topics. While I respect your personal interpretation of "length", the fact is it has a fixed meaning on cartographical topics and it's not a good use of my time to argue over alternate definitions. It seems, from your previous comments, you may be confused over staircase terminology as it appeared you misunderstood "width" for "run" (in non-technical verbiage this might be called "depth") or possibly the "riser" (the height of an individual step from its nosing descending down toward the lower step).
In any case, you might get more satisfaction with your warnings by aiming them at the reviewers of this DYK, Bobamnertiopsis and Hawkeye7; they may agree with your interesting take on this and be willing to accept "banning" from reviewing DYKs, I don't know. Personally, however, I generally shut-down when people try to taunt me into agreement. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Many words to disguise that you have nothing to support your position. I don't try to taunt you into agreement, your first replies made your position very clear. You could start with indicating which of your RS discussed the linear distance of the stairs. Right, none. You could also indicate why you included those other errors in the article, things where you completely misread a source, or used an utterly unreliable source (a "record" from a site where people can email their best time to the webmaster? Really?), and so on. Basically, you are taliking bollocks. Please, in addition to disengaging from this discussion, and this topic, disengage from DYK totally. The reviewers may have a responsability, but the first and biggest responsability lies with the article creator, who should know the topic best. You used publicstairs.com in your article (I removed it). This site explicitly states : "A few of the longest stairways (most number of stairs): " so apparently my definition isn't so unusual. Where's the evidence for yours? You have none. Fram (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
"Right, none." - Actually, the source is "Seattle Stairway Walks: An Up-and-Down Guide to City Neighborhoods" by Mountaineers Publishing. I would have been more than happy to tell you that had you asked, but you chose instead to jump into what should have been a mild and easily resolved edit question about a painfully tame and vanilla topic (a staircase) by name-calling and demanding I quit Misplaced Pages. I remain completely confused as to why you've got yourself so worked up and upset. The entire matter was resolved the moment you pulled the hook; I disagreed, and still disagree, with your unconventional interpretation of the word "length" but the perogative is yours and I deferred to you to exercise it. If you need to know I agree with you and to see my public genuflection, well I'm not sure what to tell you. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Right. Let's link to that source, shall we? . Please indicate which page you believe supports you, as at least the article on the Howe Street Stairs has nothing of the kind. It does show that your claim that the stairs are 1.3 miles long is utterly ridiculous though. But then again, you claimed at the same time that the stairs are "spanning approximately 1.3 miles", and that the record time for running them bottom-to-top was "one-minute and 44 seconds". Anyone with some common knowledge and critical insight would notice that these two statements are mutually incompatible. Your supporting source actually supports my claim that length of stairs is commonly addressed in number of steps though, and here as well: "With the 106 steps under Colonnade Park you've already walked, you've covered all 388 steps - the longest stairway in Seattle!" Did you really think no one would read that source and everyone would simply believe you? When in a hole, stop digging. (oh, and don't lie about what other editors have said either, it doesn't become you). Fram (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You could start by putting a sourced length of the stairs in the article! There was originally an unsourced 1.2 miles that I removed because it was inconsistent with Google Maps measurement. I don't think I'd count the flat streets between sections as part of its length either. A more primary source than the WTA magazine would be more reliable. Reywas92 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I think he's offline so, as a courtesy up-to-speed - Fram's contention is that both of the RS are incorrect because skyscrapers have a greater step-count and length of staircases is measured by step-count. He is absolutely correct on the first point, that skyscrapers have a greater step-count. I'll defer to him to argue the second point; I'm a SME on staircases so probably can't represent that point well as it's outside perspectives with which I'm familiar. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be an SME on staircases, but you have in this whole discussion been utterly unable to read and interpret a source correctly. Even the source you claim supports your position literally disagrees with you (see my reply above). Hint: the "length" of the Howe Street Staircase is not 1.3 miles by a very wide margin. The "length" of the staircase (in your definition) is also not given in any of the sources. Doesn't it strike you as weird that sources discuss the number of steps in a staircase, and call it the longest or fourth-longest or whatever, but never actually give a distance for it? Perhaps our SME can explain this discrepancy? Fram (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, I never claimed that the sources didn't make that claim, I only demonstrated that they are wrong (or only right for a specific subset of staircases). LavaBaron makes a desperate attempt to claim that it is right after all, based on some unsupported (and actually contradicted) reading of the sources and some definition he invented. Coupled with the number of basic errors he introduced in that article, I'm not inclined to believe him on his word, even though he is a self-declared SME on staircases. Fram (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The "contractions" you've found are from publicstairs.org, a source you've previously (and correctly) said is non RS. Speaking of contradiction. LavaBaron (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean "contradictions"? Anyway, no, I've used your own source, "Seattle Stairway Walks", linked to it, and quoted from it. Your own, reliable source contradicts your claims. I note that you make no effort to find anything in that book that actually supports your position, even though you presented it here as the source you base your statements on. Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, actually it doesn't. Simply repeating that it does, and injecting ad hom attacks like calling my opinions "weird" and lacking "common sense" doesn't, I'm afraid, change that. But you can try to shout something into a fact, I guess. In the meantime, you're citing publicstairs.org - a site you've previously said is non-RS - to support your claim I'm contradicting myself. Anyway, I'm out-of-town at the moment so can't invest any further time in working through this with you. I already said I don't object to the to your removing the hook, so I don't know why you're so terribly upset. Why don't you make a RfC at the Talk page of this article to resolve the question of whether "length = step count or linear distance", and spare the good people of DYK this spectacle? Whatever you decide, good luck, I'm out of here. LavaBaron (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I have not described any opinions you may have as "weird" (I used it for a description and for some hook-article discrepancy). I have also not described anything you said or did as lacking "common sense". That's not the first time that you've made incorrect claims about what I said in this discussion. Leaving aside that distraction: reread my previous comments please. I'm citing (in my post of 06:57, 22 June 2016) from "Seattle Stairway Walks", the book you presented, not from publicstairs.org. I quoted from that book, from the relevant chapter on this staircase. That book, your reference of choice, contradicts your claims. I've asked you to present some section, some quote from that book which actually would support your claims (perhaps the book is contradicting itself and we are looking at two different sections?). I ask you now again to do so. Fram (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, you're right about everything you've said. I agree with absolutely everything. Have a great day. LavaBaron (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Coffee this is a case of where an otherwise reliable source says definitively 'X is ...' but then fails to provide evidence, and is also generally contradicted by other evidence available. Yes sources describe it as '4th longest' etc but that is, as Fram has pointed out, easily verifiably incorrect. Generally this would result in a discussion on the article talk page as to if the material, which while sourced, should be in the article. However its clearly completely inappropriate for it to be linked on the main page while that is happening. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
agreed ... Disputed content should be removed from main page pending discussion. Questions of this type are why we have the RFC process.LavaBaron (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Aplets & Cotlets

Yesterday, we also featured on the main page a hook from Aplets & Cotlets, written by the same editor.

Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets @LavaBaron, Yoninah, Hawkeye7, and Amgisseman(BYU):

The source for the hook is either which is a blog, or which is also a blog. So, for starters, the hook isn't reliably cited at all. The second source states " ultimately couldn't win support from legislators whose home districts were partial to Almond Roca, a Tacoma-made toffee coated in nuts." which doesn't support the hook as written. It's not that they refused to support an eastern Washington candy, it's that they preferred another. And no claim is made of East vs. West (yes, one is located in Eastern Washington, and one in Western, but that doesn't mean that support or opposed are based on that distinction, or even that it can be matched to it).The first source is just a satirical blog piece, a column, not a reliable source; and it has nothing in it that supports the hook.

So please, enlighten me: which source supports the hook (perhaps give us the quote that does), and is it reliable? Otherwise this is two out of two problematic DYK hooks by the same editor. Fram (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Stranger is a widely used RS weekly newspaper. Epicurious is RS for culinary topocs. I'm not interested in entertaining this crusade further. Request a TBAN at ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That the Stranger article is a satricial blog post, not a journalistic piece. Even in WP:RS, many blog pieces and opinion pieces are not considered to be RS. And of course the basic problem that these sources don't even support your hook remains... Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's incorrect. It's an article in a RS newspaper written in a punchy style, as is typical for weekly papers. It is not a "blog post" except in the sense that's the branding many RS newspapers use for digital-exclusives (but, of course, you know that already). Your attempt at deceptive framing underscores your previous ad hom attacks. (But, if you like, here's WNYC-FM with substantially identical information .) I'm out of town ATM so, frankly, don't have time to entertain this toxic crusade you've taken upon yourself. You were clearly having a bad day yesterday and decided to dump on the first editor you came across. Anyway, our differences aside, I think you're a fine contributor and genuinely do hope you feel better. All the best - LavaBaron (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So, nothing to support your hook? Thought so. And please don't discuss the editor (for someone complaining about ad-hom attacks, you are very keen to deduce what kind of day another editor had, and how they feel, "redirect your fury", "you seem very upset", "try to taunt me", "name-calling and demanding I quit Misplaced Pages.", "you've got yourself so worked up and upset", "shout ", "you're so terribly upset", and the above post...) I have discussed edits and sources, and have provided sources to support my statements. You have very rarely done the same, and in these cases they didn't support your claims at all. When one strips alls irrelevancies from this discussion, the end result is that neither hook that appeared on the main page yesterday was acceptable (the first was sourced but the sources were wrong: the second one isn't sourced at all), and that you seem to be unwilling or incapable of accepting this, which means that none of your edits can be trusted. The problem is not that you make errors, we all do: the problem is that when they are pointed out, you try all kinds of rhetorical tricks (from the strawman defense to the argument from authority) to derail the discussion, but when you actually present something tangible, it turns out that your claim and your source don't match at all. Fram (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"So, nothing to support your hook? Thought so." - *sigh* OK, correct on all counts. I need to stop being a trickster and what not. I agree with all your points completely, unambiguously, and without hesitation or mental reservation. Ritchie333 - this discussion has been resolved, would you mind closing the thread? LavaBaron (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queue 3

"Omar Fayad, Governor-elect of Hidalgo and the husband of actress Victoria Ruffo, tapped her to be the local director of the DIF in Pachuca". What on earth does "tapped her" mean? I have no idea at all; is it an Americanism? That needs to be re-written so that it's globally understood. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Better wording: "Governor-elect Omar Fayad of Hidalgo appointed his wife, actress Victoria Ruffo, to be the local director of the DIF in Pachuca" EdChem (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pity that 3 editors suggested a change but none was made.  :( We need more DYK editors with a +sysop bit. EdChem (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You should have used WP:ERRORS, far more admins around there. Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but this thread was discussed to a resolution before the queue went onto the main page. EdChem (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, if it's going to imminently impact the the main page, there's no reason not to highlight it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS has more traffic than this page, hence an urgent fix is more likely to happen if you post there. I'd recommend posting the report on ERRORS and then providing a link to it here; that covers all bases. Ritchie333 09:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Kepler-1647b planet hook (pictured hook, removed from Main Page)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kepler-1647b @Hexafluoride, Hawkeye7, and 97198:

The hook is reliably sourced (NASA statement widely repeated in reliable sources), but is it really correct? It seems that the hook may be about transiting planets only, not about all planets in such an orbit. Or perhaps it is aonly about Kepler-designated planets, and not about all known circumbinary planets?

  • DT Virginis has a circumbinary planet with a "year" of 33,081 earth years (Kepler-1647b has an orbit which takes only 1107 days)
  • DP Leonis b has 6.28 Jupiter masses (1647b has 1.52) and an orbital period of 23.8 years
  • The two NN Serpentis planets also seem to beat 1647b
  • NY Vir b as well
  • PSR B1620-26 b has a 100-year period (and according to NASA 2.5 Jupiter masses)
  • ROXs 42Bb is heavier as well
  • The planet around RR Caeli is heavier and has a longer orbit

So, again, we seem to have a hook which is perfectly sourced, but wrong. I'll remove it. If it turns out I'm wrong, it can be reposted to the Main Page of course. The DYK will now be without a picture hook, so be it. Fram (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The original NASA announcement, despite the shorter title, makes it clear that the claims are only about Kepler-type transiting planets, not about all planets. Fram (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The preprint of the official paper about it is titled "Kepler-1647b: the largest and longest-period Kepler transiting circumbinary planet." That all news sources uncritically copied the shortier, snappier and incorrect NASA title doesn't mean we have to follow them, of course. Fram (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you pse list the removal at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Maile, while that page is, um, interesting, does it serve any real purpose? Pulled DYKs retain their notes on the talkpage, editors retain their credit notes on their talkpage, no lessons are being learnt from this hall of shame, and it really isn't down to an admin who is protecting the main page from DYK's shortcomings to then fall into DYK's bureaucracy. Anyone can add the removed items to that page, if it's actually deemed useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Fair question. Nikkimaria created it in 2011. If it still serves a purpose, perhaps it would be helpful to enlighten us. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: It was created as part of the discussions back in 2011 around DYK reform, and was intended to provide for transparent recordkeeping - we have categories for DYK nominations according to whether they passed or failed in the end, but this set was unique in that they passed but then failed and then maybe passed again, so they aren't necessarily well-reflected in that categorization scheme. There was discussion at the time about supplementing the list by a standard notification to reviewers that one of their passes had been "unpassed", but AFAIK that never came about. (The question of removing talk-page notes for pulled DYKs perhaps warrants a separate discussion). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like there's no real reason to try to mandate this list, nothing is gained from it at all. I suggest we deprecate it and, as Nikkimaria has said, start a discussion about removing the DYK credits if a DYK is pulled from the main page. After all, if something is removed for being factually incorrect, the very least we should do is acknowledge that in the article talkpage history. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like the hook would be correct if it was changed from "... of any known planet orbiting two suns?" to "... of any known Kepler planet orbiting two suns?" possibly with a link to explain "Kepler planet". If so, should the updated hook be returned to the main page? EdChem (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I apologize for the incorrect hook. I didn't know what a Kepler planet was, and I quoted the NASA article, then dove in the paper for more facts. In fact, there's no Misplaced Pages article on Kepler planets. Couldn't the hook be modified to reflect that, such as EdChem's suggestion? ¬Hexafluoride 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, the hook was well-sourced to reputable organisations, but the epsidoe just shows the problems with simplifying things (as done in the press), making a specific "record" more and more general with every retelling. In general, it's a good idea to not only check if your hook is sourced, but also if you can't find sources which contradict your hook. A bit more work, but a better result (or, if no such sources exist, the same result but with more confidence). Fram (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 High heels hook makes no sense

Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy

"...that high heels (pictured) were once illegal in England and Parliament is being petitioned to act again?". I looked at that and went "WTF?" - the petition to Parliament is about banning company workplace policies that force women to wear high heels - not making high heels illegal at all! Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, badly worded hook. Perhaps the authors could do something about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless there's a better suggestion, I suggest just keeping the first part of the hook and dropping the second. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) I have pulled the nomination and taken it off the queue. I commented at the time in the nomination that the hook was confusing and suggested an ALT, but was overruled. Ritchie333 14:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please list the removal at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 14:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The hook does not say or mean that Parliament is being asked to do exactly the same again. It just says it is being asked to act, i.e. pass an Act of Parliament. This was something of a pun but I suppose people are too busy jumping to conclusions to see this. Exactly what might result from this hypothetical legislation remains to be seen. Perhaps they will outlaw such shoes at work, just as they have outlawed smoking and other vices. Andrew D. (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes the problem is that the hook suggests that Parliament is being asked to make them illegal again. I think either the hook just needs to be "...that high heels (pictured) were once illegal in England?" or something about the workplace argument but I can't see a way to conbine the two without it being horribly wordy. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, rather than JTC, it was a simple case of following a logical sequitur that turns out to be fallacious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) @Andrew Davidson: I don't think this is a matter of anyone's jumping to conclusions—or at least, not to any greater extent than the readers of the DYK hook might do. For myself, I think the reading that several people here have reached is the most natural reading, i.e. that parliament is likely to act to reinstate the previous situation described, rather than that it may act in any unspecified manner. But in any event, a hook that is likely to mislead a significant portion of readers should be reworded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, a hook that is perfectly clear tends to be a poor hook. Let's consider some examples. Laura Jamieson does not seem to have done a DYK so let's look at NYB's most recent hooks:
  1. ... that in 1973, U.S. District Judge Orrin G. Judd issued an injunction prohibiting the United States' continued bombing of Cambodia, but a higher court stayed the ruling before it could take effect?
  2. ... that during his 31 years as a federal judge in New York, Henry W. Goddard heard cases including William James Sidis's invasion of privacy suit against The New Yorker and the second perjury trial of Alger Hiss?
These hooks are very clear and explain their subject quite well. The trouble is that they already tell me more than I want to know about the subject and so there's no incentive to click through. The hooks duly got just 17 and 389 hits – view stats which are so bad that I had to double-check them. A hook that causes someone to wonder "WTF?" is better because it encourages them to read the article to understand the topic better.
Andrew D. (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Well a hook that deliberately misleads is a hook that doesn't belong on the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a difference between a hook being odd or nebulous--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC) and being misleading.

Admin needed immediately to replace now-empty lead hook in Queue 6

An admin is desperately needed to fix Queue 6: please move in a lead hook from prep, since with the high heels hook pulled, the queue now has no lead hook and is only six hooks long. There is one available lead hook in Prep 2, Gateway Tower, so it should be available for moving. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 3

I have filled Prep 3 but am unable to resolve a template issue with one of the credits for the I.O.O.F. Centennial Building hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3: miniature?

Template:Did you know nominations/I.O.O.F. Centennial Building @TonyTheTiger, Doug Coldwell, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is not a "miniature version" of a flat iron building, and even less (as was originally proposed as hook) " a miniature version of the 22 story triangular shaped New York skyscraper Flatiron building". The Flatiron Building was completed in 1902, the building from the hook was completed in 1876, so it would be hard to be a miniature version of a building that didn't exist yet. "Flat iron" buildings were a long-established type of building in the US, and often were small (before the time of the skyscrapers). This is a perfectly standard flat iron building, not a miniature version. See e.g. the Carroll Building (Norwich, Connecticut) from 1887 for a comparable building, or Rufus Barrett Stone House (1903), Flatiron Building (Portland, Oregon) (1916), Pullman Flatiron Building (1905). The Flatiron Building is the exception, and could be called a gigantic version of a flatiron building. But the reverse, calling this a miniature version, is not correct: it is the standard version (I also couldn't find "miniature" in the sources, but I may have overlooked it).

I could change the hook instead of posting here, but

is a particularly dull hook. I propose removing it from prep and reopening the template discussion instead. Fram (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I had never heard of a flatiron building before, but on investigation decided that it was a three-sided building with a plan the shape of a flatiron. I guess buildings of this shape are uncommon so I would not object to your suggested and rejected hook. I was more concerned about other aspects of the approved hook which originally read "... that the I.O.O.F. Centennial Building (pictured) is of the Italianate architecture and a miniature version of a flatiron building?". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat

Template:Did you know nominations/Roya Sadat, Alka Sadat @Nvvchar, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

The "many awards" of Roya Sadat are sourced to The Hindu, Huffington Post (twice!) and IMDb. IMDb, apart from not being considered a reliable source, is the bio of Alka Sadat, not that of Roya Sadat, and doesn't help here. The Huffington Post has nothing about her many awards. And the Hindu interview has one line, "The film fetched me many awards and got noticed." We shouldn't claim that someone has won many awards only on the say-so of that person. Further down in the article (which doesn't list a single award she won!), the same film is said to have "received wide acclaim around the world." The source for this only states "Three Dots was filmed after the Taliban regime fell and the hard-hitting film won rave reviews across the world."

It may well be that Roya Sadat has won many awards (and there may be sources for this as well), but nothing in the article discusses this and the only source for it is a primary one, not a reliable secondary source. Fram (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Now pulled and reopened. Fram (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 3: the village of Oxfordshire

  • ... that the sixteenth-century Doria Atlas was saved from fire by Oxfordshire residents forming a human chain?

Template:Did you know nominations/Doria Atlas @WWB, Geni, and Cwmhiraeth:

Looking in detail at a random prep area can raise quite a few issues. Two other hooks have been pulled, and we haven't even had the discussion yet whether Tiffany Trump should even have a separate article (as she really hasn't done anything notable apart from being the daughter of). But let's focus on this one, which can probably be settled here and may not need pulling and reopening.

The hook isn't technically wrong, but (at least until today) one could say "saved from fire by inhabitants of the European Union" and it would also be correct. The source states "villagers formed a human chain"; other sources about the same event include The Independent "a human chain of village inhabitants", the BBC "Villagers formed a human chain", and the Oxford Mail "a human chain of villagers formed". It seems more logical to give tribute to the villagers of Wardington (pop. 602) than to the general residents of Oxfordshire (population: 654,000), no?

"* ... that the sixteenth-century Doria Atlas was saved from fire by villagers from Wardington forming a human chain?

or something similar should do the trick. Fram (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 3: the fourth installment

Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro @Raymie, LavaBaron, and Cwmhiraeth:

Cwmhiraeth, have you really checked these hooks before promoting them? The error rate is getting quite high here... In this case, the problem is "September 1". No date is given in the source that supports this hook, and our article on the job, Governor of Durango, gives 15 September instead of 1 September. As the date of 15 September 2016 is supported by another reliable source, it seems clear that the hook fact is not only unsupported but also false. It's easily corrected (and in the grand scheme not that important), sure, but not easily found once the reviewers have done their work, as most people would then assume it to be checked and thus correct. Fram (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Yoninah wrote the hook, I'm pinging her. As everything prior to the commas is a preamble, and the hook-proper comes post-comma, I see no problems whatsoever with it. LavaBaron (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Category: