To discuss the content or layout of theTemplate:Did you know page itself, go toWikipedia talk:Did you know.

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on theMain Page with a "hook" (an interesting fact). Nominations that have been approved are moved to astaging area and then promoted intothe Queue. To update this page,purge it.

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to haveseveral traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for ageneral audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (seeinstructions below). Because ofWP:DYKTIMEOUT, a nomination should be reviewed within two months since the reviewer/promoter may agree to reject and close an unpromoted hook after that time has passed.

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on theapproved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of theprep areas, promoted from prep to aqueue, 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 theDYK discussion page or with the closer, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances. If your nomination was promoted, but it hasn't reached the main page after two weeks, you can also query this on the DYK discussion page.

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough,new enough, no seriouseditorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For more information on the DYK rules and review processes, see theDYK guidelines and thereviewer instructions.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

• Look through this page,Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
• Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
• The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
• To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

  Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

  If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line:* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
• Save the page.
• After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page onTemplate talk:Did you know/Approved.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing{{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Handy copy sources:

• Open the DYK nomination subpage of the nomination you would like to remove.
• In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line{{DYKsubpage with{{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace|passed= with|passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.
• Alternatively, you can usePSHAW, which automates the process.

• 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 versionbefore the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
  • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
• Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
• If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message atWT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

• Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

• ... thatIloilo City used to be the second most important city in the Philippines, next to Manila, and was widely known as the "Queen City of the South," a nickname now mostly associated with Cebu City?

• Reviewed:

Merd123 (talk)11:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @Merd123: New enough (mainspace Dec 5), long enough (34 KB), no apparent copyvio (Earwig flags mostly proper nouns). However, the hook fact is not acceptable as neither the article nor the source mention the fact about Cebu City. A new hook is needed.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)02:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. I understand the concern so I have revised the hook to the following, which is fully supported by the article and source:
    ALT1: ... thatIloilo City used to be the second most important city in the Philippines, next to Manila, and was widely known as the "Queen City of the South" during its economic peak from the 1890s to the 1930s?Merd123 (talk)06:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Merd123: That hook is still far too long and complicated. My suggestion would be to focus on just one specific fact, rather than trying to include too many at once.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I think one possibility is that Iloilo did not have a permanent city hall for several years before the current one (IIRC, mainly because the previous one was demolished without an immediate replacement), but it would be tricky to write a hook about that which links toHistory of Iloilo City and would not feel EGGy.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure this exact wording could be workshopped further, but maybe this angle could work?

  ALT2 ... that for part of itshistory, Iloilo City's city hall did not have a permanent location?

  ALT2a ... that for part of itshistory, the city hall of Iloilo, one of the Philippines' largest cities, did not have a permanent location?

• ALT1a is pretty complicated, admittedly, but it might work in some form if context is needed. ALT1's angle is a bit misleading per the above comment, but I'm not sure what else is usable.@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Do you have any other possible suggestions? Other than a reword of the original hook, although the original hook might actually work better for a hook about Iloilo City itself and not its history.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)07:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Approving ALT2/2a, this hook is more interesting than ALT1. This phrasing is okay but it would also be okay to tweak it a bit. Pinging@Merd123:, do you approve of ALT2?— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)18:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I approve both ALT2 and ALT2a and am fine with minor wording tweaks if needed. Thank you for the review and suggestions.Merd123 (talk)10:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realized that the wording I used for ALT2 is actually vague and unspecific, since they might be interpreted as talking about thecity hall's history and not Iloilo's, so here are the adjusted wordings (I am labeling them as ALT3/ALT3a):

    ALT3 ... that for part ofIloilo City's history, its city hall did not have a permanent location?

    ALT3a ... that for part of thehistory of Iloilo City, one of the Philippines' largest cities, its city hall did not have a permanent location?

  Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Approving these as well.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)18:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin:,@Narutolovehinata5:,@Merd123: Hi all, as a final check before promoting the article I have to ask: what source exactly states that the Iloilo City Hall had no permanent location? Sources 87 and 88 talk about the inauguration of the new city hall, but not that the city had none before.Barbalalaika 🐌20:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was also confused by this — the statement about the city hall's impermanence also appears in§ Post-war and independence era (1945–1986), but the source cited in that paragraph does not seem to support any of the information there. I've added an{{fv}} tag accordingly.(pleasemention me on reply; thanks!)—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)04:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barbalalaika andTechnoSquirrel69: I'm not sure if this answers this question, but I remember it being reported in news reports prior to the opening of the current city hall that the city's offices were temporarily located at the local Robinsons Mall. I think the reports about that should still be online. If that could be added to the article, we could have a hook based on that.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)08:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay: I found a couple of news articles that confirm that the mall thing:[1] and[2]. It is also briefly mentioned atthis Philippine Star article; it's possible that a more direct news article exists in their archives. Given that, if it's added to the article, how does this suggestion sound?

  ALT4 ... that for part ofIloilo City's history, its city government offices were temporarily located in a shopping mall?

  Courtesy pings toMerd123 andVigilantcosmicpenguin.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems fine to me, provided the sources and statements are added, and the{{fv}} tag addressed. I would also recommend a couple moretext–source integrity spot-checks before this is re-approved.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Merd123: The nomination will be marked for closure if the requested additions are not made, as this is already pastWP:DYKTIMEOUT. If Merd123 does not return, perhapsTechnoSquirrel69 can add it and we can ask either VCP or Barbalalaika to approve it?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thatŌuchi Yoshioki suggested thatAshikaga Yoshitane adopt his usurperAshikaga Yoshizumi in order to resolve theMeiō incident?

• Reviewed:
• Comment: I linked the source to commons because that's the only place I can actually find the text online. The translation is rough, but I'm pretty sure it's right. Still, probably should be double-checked.

Ships &Space_(Edits)01:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• This isn't a review, but while I think there's a core of a good hook here, as currently written it's hard to follow or understand for readers who are unfamiliar with Japanese history. Could you try rewriting the hook to make it more accessible? For example, maybe something like:

ALT0a ... that it was suggested that the shogunAshikaga Yoshitane should adopt his usurper to resolve theMeiō incident?

Another possibility could be a different hook fact entirely.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Only just realized that I didn't specify that Yoshitane was shogun, nor explain anything about the Meiō incident itself. Thanks for pointing that out. So:

ALT1a ... that, afterAshikaga Yoshitane was deposed in theMeiō incident, it was suggested that he adopt his usurperAshikaga Yoshizumi?

would probably work a lot better. Alternatively, the character limit is quite undershot, so:

ALT1b ... that, afterAshikaga Yoshitane was deposed in theMeiō incident,Ōuchi Yoshioki suggested that he adopt his usurperAshikaga Yoshizumi?

should also work (according to my count, at least) if the mention of Ōuchi Yoshioki is to be kept. The only thing to note is that Yoshioki's English-language article is pretty bad, only citingWikipedia in Japanese – translation of Ōuchi Yoshioki「大内義興」page with elements from related links at the end, and while I do hope to go through it and add references (or perhaps more accurately, translate itagain but also include the references), I don't really know when I'll start nor how long I'll take, so it might get deleted before I'm finished.Ships &Space_(Edits)01:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review still needed.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will review thisChidgk1 (talk)06:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little knowledge of Japanese history so first I just read the lead and have the following suggestions to help most laypeople understand without having to click links or read body (feel free to disagree but if so please tell me why):

Simplify first sentence by removing Japanese (perhaps to infobox) and moving month info lower in lead.

Add a little more context to lead.

So the 3 instigators were all in the national army? Perhaps mention Masamoto rank in army if relevant.

Mention Yoshiki position - was he like a king of whole country and does shogun mean king? It seems that if he was already fighting a lot then he was not actually in control. Maybe something like powerful barons in England?

Very briefly explain daimyo and kanrei in lead

Lead could say whether many people were killedChidgk1 (talk)07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at above hooks before reading body of article and find ALT0a hooky enough as I guess most people, like me, have a vague idea that a shogun is like a king of Japan. Also ALT1a hooky enough but b I find too long and complex for a hook.Chidgk1 (talk)08:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now reading body so here are some thoughts:

Fix harv errors

You don't think name of article should have "coup" as seems much more than an incident?

Background section throws me straight in the deep end - can I have a little more context please?

Linking the same word in lead and body is fine e.g. please link kanrei from first occurance in body. After you have done links use duplicate link tool to find duplicates then unlink dups manually if you think not useful

As well as linking foreign terms on first occurance could you possibly explain some in the sentence so we don't have to click. For example in "The new shogun was also opposed by Ise Sadamune, who resigned as head of the mandokoro on 27th day of the fourth month (15 May 1490)." if the mandokoro here is the governing body of the extended family could become something like "The new shogun was also opposed by Ise Sadamune, who resigned as head of the mandokoro, the family council, on 27th day of the fourth month (15 May 1490)." If you read the Economist magazine there are some good examples of defining unfamiliar words while keeping the flow - I maybe able to find an example if you want.

Suggest you relegate Japanese language to and dates to footnotes as it means nothing to layman like me but might be useful to specialists and future editors. Except where it has special significant like why incident called Meiō.

Checked DYK guidelines - translations are eligable. Checked Earwig no copyvio.

Asked nominator to fix harv errors

When I put the jawiki article in Google Translate it confirms the hook but obviously jawiki is not a reliable source so I asked for help atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Can_someone_help_me_check_a_DYK_hook? to check hook source. NOTE TO SELF - DON'T FORGET TO CHECK SOURCE OF HOOKChidgk1 (talk)06:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ships&Space: Thanks for all the work you have done on this article. I tagged to ask for a few cites and clarifications. Please could you let me know when you are ready for me to rereadChidgk1 (talk)08:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Just fixed most of your concerns on clarification, and some other things I noticed. Didn't handle the citation problems because I don't really have that kind of time at the moment. To respond to your comments here:

• Simplify first sentence by removing Japanese (perhaps to infobox) and moving month info lower in lead. For the first part, seeSengoku period,Shimabara Rebellion, andOttoman Caliphate. They all have the same formatting, though I'll grant that it could be moved to a note, likeGermany orKorea. For the second part, seePride's Purge and1689 Boston revolt (though dates do seem to be somewhat uncommon in the first paragraph of coup articles).
• Add a little more context to lead. I assume you mean the historical background? Please expand upon this.
• So the 3 instigators were all in the national army? Perhaps mention Masamoto rank in army if relevant. I read the "Commanders and leaders" section of themilitary conflict infobox as including persons who aren't actually leading on the field (seeMexican- American war).
• Mention Yoshiki position - was he like a king of whole country and does shogun mean king? It seems that if he was already fighting a lot then he was not actually in control. Fair. Will clarify.
• Lead could say whether many people were killed. Will include if I can find source(s).
• You don't think name of article should have "coup" as seems much more than an incident? SeeWP:TITLE. Most sources use "incident," not "coup." It's actually a fairly common practice in Japanese; compareMarco Polo Bridge incident andTainei-ji incident.
• Background section throws me straight in the deep end - can I have a little more context please? Can you clarify if you want more information from the time period, or to have it start at an earlier date (like theŌnin War)?
• As well as linking foreign terms on first occurance.... Sure! Would notes be acceptable (for longer explanations at least)?
• Suggest you relegate Japanese language to and dates to footnotes as it means nothing to layman like me but might be useful to specialists and future editors. Will do.

Also, I noticed that you put aclarify template in the "Reaction of the imperial court" subsection, but I'm not sure what the problem is. I think it's fairly clear, aside from needing to clarify what theMōshitsugi was, that it'sEmperor Go-Tsuchimikado (a person)commanded Shirakawa Tadatomiō, (another person)Mōshitsugi and director of the Department of Divinities... (two titles held by the second person). Could you please clarify how it'sforeign word mush?Ships &Space_(Edits)18:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ships&Space: Thanks for fixing harv errors. As far as I remember DYK can't proceed further whilst there are "citation needed" tags. So how about we move the uncited info to the talk page for now, then you or another editor can look for cites later if and when you have time? I am struggling with the hook cite. Google Translate seems to think it is traditional Chinese but you have Jinson as Japanese. Could you possibly use the "rp" template to add the page number after the cite in the article? Also if you like you can request an image be used too - seeWikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines#ImagesChidgk1 (talk)10:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that when theCommunist Party of Transcarpathian Ukraine merged into theSoviet Communist Party in 1945, party memberships were not transferreden bloc but rather each member had to undergo review?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Le Roseau d'Or

Soman (talk)20:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• The hook as currently written is rather long: I would suggest dropping "party memberships were not transferreden bloc but rather" and instead go straight to the "each member had to undergo review" point.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: How does this sound to you?

ALT0a ... that members of theCommunist Party of Transcarpathian Ukraine had to undergo review following its merger with theSoviet Communist Party in 1945?

Another option could be an entirely different angle.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiNarutolovehinata5. I would ok with ALT0a, thanks. --Soman (talk)10:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewer needed.Z1720 (talk)16:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ?

Overall: Some small grammar mistakes throughout the article, but nothing disqualifying. 0% similarity on Earwig. One concern I do have is that a large portion of the article is taken up by biographies underCentral Committee, which I feel are excessively detailed. Everything seems to be cited. The hook is cited and mentioned in the article, although I'm not sure it's anything interesting or unusual since the Soviet Union was known for wanting loyalty from its members, so it running background checks on incoming members before accepting them into their party seems like common sense. I think you can add to the hook that only less than a third of the members actually passed the review, which is stated in the same source. This is my first time reviewing, so an additional opinion is probably needed.Chomik! (talk?)20:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ...thatThomas Johannes Mayer portrayedWotan andWozzeck, with a voice filling large opera houses but flexible enough for the finest nuances?Source:[4]
  • Reviewed:Michael Menzinger
  • Comment: Due to Christmas, I'm some hours late. Both roles are pinnacles, not "doing his job". Wozzeck just turned 100 (OTD). The voice is described per the source (which calls him "an ideal Wotan" for that quality, but other critics said similar things. Other ideas welcome.

Gerda Arendt (talk)07:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• The wording in ALT0 is not likely to be interesting to a broad audience, and every opera singer I know has a voice that fills a large house. A stronger hook would involve the first part of the quote, an ideal Wotan: "a giant of a man, but capable of tender emotions". Hope this helps a bit. Will be happy to review with a revised hook.Flibirigit (talk)03:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. As you will know, many voices, when going for the vocal power to fill the "large houses", loose finesse and flexibilty, and it's unusual that he didn't. I don't know why you'd think that it's not interesting what singles him out. What I don't like so much about the other part of the quote - which I considered - are a few things:

  • "giant of a man" is pure physics, no achievement
  • it says nothing about vocal qualities, would work for only the action part
  • "tender emotions": almost all opera singers I know are able to expresstender emotions but he was outstanding inalso portraying the complex other emotional aspects of one man who has to kill his son because his wife demands that it's done (to preserve the sacredsness of marriage, of all reasons) and his daughter refuses , and the other who kills the woman he loves, the mother of their little child. --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The wording too niche for a broad audience to understand what are the "finest nuances" of Opera. Unfortunately, I found nothing else interesting in this biography.Flibirigit (talk)14:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see any "finest nuances" of opera involved. Can you perhaps help to clarify in the wording that "large opera houses" means the perhaps five largest in the world, and implies that he appeared there? I tried to stay concise, not mentioning individual ones. You are also welcome to phrase an ALT about the tender emotions, but it's normally the less tender emotions that seem to interest more, no? - Please compareJubilant Sykes. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

• New enough: - ?
• Long enough:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting: - ?

Overall: Article was created on December 16 and nominated for DYK on December 25. Nine days difference can be ignored for good faith. Length and sourcing are adequate. The article is neutral in tone and no plagiarism was detected. The image of Mayer is appropriately licensed under fair use. The QPQ requirement is complete. I will revisit the hooks later. I am busy and reminders and not necessary.Flibirigit (talk)15:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck ALT0. I doubt that "Wotan" and "Wozzeck" will not be interesting to a broad audience, and that only opera fanatics will recognize them. A variant of ALT0 without those names could work, but the second part of the hook is also problematic. The cited source states "einer raumfüllenden Stimme", which is literally translated as "a room-filling voice". The proposed wording, "a voice filling large opera houses" is misleading and fails verification. As I stated previously, every opera singer has a voice that fills a room. A better hook will focus on something else. The source reads, "ein Hüne von Gestalt" (translation: "a giant of stature"), and "die über die feinsten Zwischentöne verfügte" (translation: "who possessed the finest nuances"). This contrast between a large man with a voice for the finest nuances is more likely to hook an average reader. The only other aspect I find interesting in the article is his education in relation to the "intellectual approach to his later opera characters". Best wishes.Flibirigit (talk)23:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking closer. I disagree, of course. Wotan and Wozzeck don't have to berecognized but are unusual names inviting to be explored, - I strongly believe that DYK? should normally be answered by "no" and be an invitation to learn something new. Wotan is a key character in a work that spans four nights, which is unusual and should be interesting to know, and Wozzeck is the title role of an opera which just turned 100 (which was mentioned on the main page, pictured), a key work of the 20th century based on a key play of the 19th century, which is unusual and should be interesting to know. Both names are short, so don't take much room for those who don't care, but are extremely unique and recognizable for those who do know, telling that he was able to portrait highly complex characters, - why skip that? I dropped a hint at opera, knowing of the aversion to a complete field of culture that I find fascinating and diverse. I'd have trouble to get his stature connected to his voice which is needed to indicate indirectly that we talk about vocal music. Again: you are free to word a hook that you would like. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt,Flibirigit has rejected ALT0 and there are no other hooks in this nomination for reviewers to consider. I'm not marking the nomination for closure at the moment, but unless new hooks are proposed there is nothing here that would allow any reviewer to take action.Dclemens1971 (talk)22:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flibirigit has not responded to my last explanation. But let's see.

ALT0a: ... thatThomas Johannes Mayer portrayedWotan andWozzeck?

ALT0b: ... thatThomas Johannes Mayer was described as an idealWotan?

ALT0c: ... thatThomas Johannes Mayer was described as an "idealWotan", "a giant of a man, but capable of tender emotions, with a voice that filled the house, but flexible for the finest nuances"?

ALT0d: ... thatThomas Johannes Mayer's international career began when he portrayedWozzeck atLa Scala in Milan?

ALT2 is too long but take your pick.Viriditas, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Consider the unusual (readinteresting) contrast between his background in the humanities and liberal arts that informed his characters, such as Wotan, and his baritone voice that projected the authority of those roles? Maybe something like

• ALT0e: ... that informed by his knowledge of the humanities,Thomas Johannes Mayer brought the idealWotan to life?

  Thank you Viriditas! --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Will revisit this tomorrow.Flibirigit (talk)23:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Flibirigit: I just found the mother lode of potential hooks on Mayer. Please allow this to stay open for a few days, as the hook candidates I've found are great. I will need to add them to the article, of course.Viriditas (talk)09:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thatOli Herbert would spend up to three hours locked in a room working on a single guitar lick?

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Sorry if I messed up the template, I just created this article and the person that reviewed it suggested that I should nominate a fact so here it is.

Lolcow33 (talk)07:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Hey, welcome to DYK,Lolcow33. Your nomination is timely, and the article is new enough. It does need a couple of changes and I had one additional suggestion:Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)07:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two passages with no citation:This album also featured one of the bands biggest hits "Two Weeks" which reached number 9 on the U.S. Mainstream rock chart. andAs of 2025, the investigation is still ongoing. These need citations for the page to be eligible for DYK.
  • I happened to see the second Blabbermouth cite which seems to be regurgitating a report fromWTNH ([5]) — why not cite it directly?
  • Hook fact checks out to the TeenView interview. It's interesting and got my attention.
• @Lolcow33: There are some comments to be addressed above.Z1720 (talk)16:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that afterDai Dai Ames andJustin Pippen transferred to the2025–26 Cal Bears, the team had its best start in over 65 years?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Poppy O'Toole

TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)02:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• I take, will review in the next 24 hours.--Launchballer05:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I needed all of it and more. Both are long and new enough and the QPQs are done. Earwig's clean and the hook checks out. No reason why this might deserve a maintenance template, though I trimmed a couple of BLP violations myself (and I really hate the tables not aligning right). Let's roll.--Launchballer05:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• User:AirshipJungleman29, why did this get pulled?-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)13:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @TonyTheTiger,Launchballer, andAirshipJungleman29: can't speak for AJ, but I would have pulled it perWP:HEADLINE (and a subsequent failure to verify the hook in the body).theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)02:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll see what I can do.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)00:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @Theleekycauldron,Launchballer, andAirshipJungleman29: Source says that if Cal started 12-1, it would be the best start since 1960: "Cal, if it takes care of business against Pacific, Dominican, Northwestern State, Morgan State and Columbia, would take a 12-1 record into the start of ACC play.

No Cal team has done that since Pete Newell’s last team back in 1959-60." So I don't think headline is the issue."-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)00:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• if. and the body does not explicitly attribute that hypothetical success to those two players.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)00:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again a weak objection. The source is an article that features the excellence of the two players and discusses projected comparisons. Let's just letUser:AirshipJungleman29 explain himself.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)02:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scrolling down the DYK page looking for a nom and butting in here - I have to agree with leeky. The hook implies that those two guys together are responsible for the successful start, because otherwise why would we mention them together with it? If they are responsible, there ought to be a source that says so. If they're not, the hook is just two unrelated facts strung together, and therefore not that interesting. ♠PMC♠(talk)02:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • On March 9, don't be surprise if Pippen is ACC all-defensive team and don't be surprised if both get some sort of All-ACC recognition (although it may just be honorable mention). Will look for a source. Also don't be surprised if this team wins 5 or so of its last 7 since its last 7 games are all against teams with losing conference records so far.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)09:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • OKthis source shows Ames led the team in scoring and Pippen led the team in assists at the time of the 12-1 start. I'll look into adding this to the respective articles. I believe Pippen led the team in steals at the time as well, but I don't have such a source.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)14:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the source to both articles.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)14:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thatan ex-Hindi film actor recreated his Pakistani song forhis new album in 2025 withone of the Spotify's most streamed artists?
• ALT1: ... thata 2025 album contains a collaboration song betweenan ex-Hindi film actor andthe most streamed artist of Spotify Pakistan?

*ALT2: ... that a collaborative song betweenan ex-Hindi actor andSpotify Pakistan's top artist was releasedfor an album the same year after the 2025 India–Pakistan crisis?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Mighty Space Miners
• Comment: Merged the information for this hook from these multiple references. Hope it works out, because my previous nom for "Urain Ge" and141 Schools for Peace underperformed.M.Billoo 19:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Added two alts on the same pattern as was ofKattar Karachi, considering that the term of India-Pakistan collab may trigger interest.M.Billoo14:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

M.Billoo19:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Overall: Approved. I think hook 1 and alt 2 are the most interesting. --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)16:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Billoo2000 and3family6: Couple things here: there are a few sources cited in this article that I suspect arepress releases disguised as news coverage (such asthis one andthis one), which is unfortunately quite common in Indian-subcontinent publications. I would treat any source without abyline with a higher degree of skepticism when assessing for reliability. Also, these hooks leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth — they're bordering onimproper synthesis with the way these different facts are presented together, and bringing up the India–Pakistan conflict when the album seemingly has no relevance to it is not ideal.(pleasemention me on reply; thanks!)—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)04:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @TechnoSquirrel69: Hi, thank you for your feedback. I understand the definition of press release coverage, and am aware about the RSNOI policy. Just a concern for scrutiny, I assume that the press release means either totally copy-pasting word to word, or close paraphrasing by more than one news outlets, or lack of fact checking and just churnalism. But in this case, I have selected those references which I felt different from the others and did not select which I felt majorly same.

It is true that the news outlets have copied the album description and tracklist only, which may look like a press release, but the other text inside the references I have selected is different. It is also true that I am unable to find the album's critical reception or any bylined source, otherwise the article would majorly rely on the primary source, i.e. Zafar's social media and his recent interview on Geo News program, and anyone could strike it out for being unreliable.

I believe the RSNOI do not apply here; despite being unbylined, the references used here carry different wordings in no promotional tone except for the descriptions. Please correct me if wrong, I am willing to cooperate and rectify my mistakes.

For the SYNTH, I accept my mistake and I am sorry for presenting like this, so striking as asked... But are all hooks falling under SYNTH?M.Billoo18:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that atrilateral agreement made Turkey designate Israel as its No. 1 threat?

• ALT1: ... that the 10thTrilateral Meeting between Cyprus, Greece and Israel took place in December 2025?Source:https://strategyinternational.org/2025/12/23/publication231/
• ALT2: ... that 3+1 framework is the name given to the US connection to theTrilateral agreement?Source:https://www.ekathimerini.com/politics/foreign-policy/1291060/greece-israel-and-cyprus-to-step-up-joint-exercises-in-eastern-mediterranean/ ,https://www.cbn.com.cy/article/121169/greece-cyprus-israel-and-the-us-reaffirm-energy-security-commitment-in-the-eastern-mediterranean?utm_
• Reviewed:

TonyFerro (talk)14:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• @TonyFerro: Article new enough (Dec 23), long enough (6100 B), no copyvio (Earwig says 5.7%). However, the sourcing has some issues, and I will be strict about this as the article deals with contentious topics. Please explain why the following sources are reliable: Georgios Koukakis,Greek Reporter, Eugene Kogan, MEPEI,Eurasia Review,Strategy International. Also,there is a consensus thatGreek City Times is unreliable, and theAgora Dialogue source is unusable ans it is merely a link to another source that's cited. In addition, it looks like there are a few sources that do not verify the stated information, such asEgypt Oil & Gas andOffshore Technology, which do not mention the alliance.
  There are some other, smaller issues (short sections, short lead, capitalized headings, duplicated references, typos, hyphen should be en dash), but these are simple stylistic issues that aren't required for the DYK criteria. As for the hook facts, ALT0 is interesting and verified in source.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)23:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am still learning Wikipedia, so i can't really say why a source is reliable. If i have used unreliable sources i am sorry. Please pin point the and i will try and find others that are reliable. In case of the gas fields, i brought sources proving they exist, rather than their connection to the alliance. As i wrote about the force balance in the region. In any case i will try and find better sources.TonyFerro (talk)13:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin Did you read my reply or review again the article?[reply]

• • TonyFerro, please note that unless you sign a comment with four tildes (~~~~) your ping in the comment will not be seen by the user you are pinging. Courtesy ping toVigilantcosmicpenguin.Dclemens1971 (talk)12:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyFerro: Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier. I'll try to address each source that I'm concerned about:
    I linked to an existing discussion aboutGreek City Times. You can read this discussion to see why people consider it unreliable. You would have to start a new discussion if you disagree.
    Some of the other sources (Greek Reporter, MEPEI,Eurasia Review,Strategy International) might be reliable publications, but I need evidence. Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines include theWP:USEBYOTHERS guideline; we should try finding examples of these sources being cited in other reliable sources, as evidence that they are reliable.
    The source by Georgios Koukakis and the one by Eugene Kogan are both self-published. Please note that websites like ResearchGate allow people to publish their own work, so it may look like an academic journal without actually being one. Since these are self-published, we should follow the guideline onWP:Self-published sources—these are only reliable if we can verify that the authors are reputable experts in their field.
    The sources about the gas fields, as you say, only verify that the gas fields exist and not their connection to the alliance. This violates the ruleWP:No original research, which requires sources that directly verify the information.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)18:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that it rained pineapples during aTakanashi Kiara performance?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Josiah_Mtekateka
• Comment: one would suspect this happened during her song "Pineapple", but the source doesn't say so

1brianm7 (talk)00:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• New enough, long enough, no visible issue regarding prose, well-cited, 7% on Earwig hook is cited and compliant with the guideline. Although, kinda misleading may need rewording if possible but could be aWP:DYKAPRIL hook but regardless, probably no problem. QPQ is done. Good to good.Warm Regards,Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs)14:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article pulled by errors.

ALT1: ... thatTakanashi Kiara has been said to break with norms by posting memes andrickrolls?

1brianm7 (talk)18:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ...that theVTuberTakanashi Kiara has attempted to take part in theEurovision Song Contest multiple times?

• Assuming this is allowed to go through, I have asked for permission from the original hook nominator if it was ok to add a hook. If I need to also provide QPQ I will be happy to do so.CaptainGalaxy21:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that that Captain Galaxy is accurately reporting our conversation. Also, they have significantly expanded the article and so a new review is probably needed, not just judging the hooks.1brianm7 (talk)00:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Federated States of Micronesiacut ties with Russia following the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

• ALT1: ... that after the Federated States of Micronesiasevered ties with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, Russia included the country on anunfriendly countries and territories list?Source:(Al Jazeera)
• ALT2 ... that the Federated States of Micronesia justifiedsevering ties with Russia following the invasion of Ukraine on "Micronesian values"?

Source:(Island Times)

• • ALT3 ... that Russia's embassy in the Philippines was in charge of relations with the Federated States of Micronesia, before thelatter cut ties with Russia over its war in Ukraine?
  • Reviewed:TKO (Justin Timberlake song)

CoryGlee05:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Will review this.BeanieFan11 (talk)16:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if these hooks meet DYKINTEREST. Many countries sanctioned Russia after the invasion, and Russia retaliated accordingly. (t ·c)buIdhe21:27, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Buidhe: hi, yes, I though of it because the FSM is a small nation, but I have added an alt given your input. Thanks.CoryGlee22:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ?

Overall: Article looks good. Nice work. Regarding the hooks, the first probably is too bland per Buidhe. I think the second is kinda interesting (the "unfriendly countries list"? Hadn't heard of that before.) I don't see the quote from ALT2, "Micronesian values", in either the article or the source? I think the second, if worded right, could be made interesting enough. Perhaps something like "... thatRussia considers the Federated States of Micronesia an "unfriendly country"? What do you think?@CoryGlee:BeanieFan11 (talk)22:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• HiBeanieFan11, thanks for the review. Yes, I have no problem in rewording. In fact, I have an ASD problem when it comes to summing up, LOL. As for ALT2, the Island Times source says“It is often described that the preference of any Pacific Island Country, to include the FSM, is that we be friends to all, and enemies to none,” Panuelo said.

“This indeed and truly remains the cornerstone of our nation’s foreign policy. But values and convictions must matter more than not at all, and as this paradise in our backyards is founded on our Micronesian ideals of peace, unity, and liberty, so too do we advocate for these ideals to be shared and spread.

But feel free to choose whatever.CoryGlee00:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Do you think my suggested hook is sufficiently interesting?BeanieFan11 (talk)18:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is no—Russia has unfriendly relations with a lot of countries. (t ·c)buIdhe20:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but (to me) it feels unusual that they would specifically deem the Federated States of Micronesia, an obscure set of Pacific islands, as an "unfriendly country". Personally, if I saw that hook on the main page I would probably have clicked on it just to find out why the FSM are viewed by them as "unfriendly". Thoughts?BeanieFan11 (talk)20:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: and@BeanieFan11:, may I have your view on ALT3? I just added it.CoryGlee20:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, I agree with you ... the FSM being "unfriendly" to Russia is not "common" as pointed by Buidhe... Yes, I understand that many are unfriendly to Russia, but the FSM is a particular case.CoryGlee20:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could probably use another user's opinion on whether the hooks are interesting.BeanieFan11 (talk)20:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming here to agree that the "unfriendly nation" angle is interesting, as long as it can be properly sourced. All of the other proposals are probably too long or not as interesting.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a "Compact of Free Association" (the clue is in the name) between the FSM and the US, so this and the article are a bit misleading. It's not like some neutral country is making an independent determination,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)13:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maculosae tegmine lyncis ... You cannot independently verify that without resorting to unverifiable sources because the FSM is an independent country and denies any influence. Gossip is not for WP.CoryGlee15:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gossip.. that's a bit disingenuous; according toCompact of Free Association the U.S. is responsible for protecting the FSM; so perhaps a gossip-free,the FSM, a US protectorate, freely voices opposition to Russia or some such?Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)16:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is accurate. While the FSM (and Palau and the Marshall Islands for that matter) are similar to protectorates, they are generally treated as independent nations by the international community. They are even UN members.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, quotingCompact of Free Association,the FSM, a US affiliate country that looks to the US for protection, freely voices opposition to Russia?Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)14:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: You are unnecessarily turning this into a POV/political discussion. The first sentence of the article says that these nations aresovereign states and they are not cases you could argue, i.e.Puerto Rico. If you disagree with the hook, I can look for another, but not on the basis that the FSM is not an independent country because that would fall into yourWP:OR or POV.CoryGlee14:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Turning it political? The hook is about the FSM being anti-Russia. Is that not political? It looks more like the purposeful suppression of key contextual information,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)14:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting into this. You can review this and if I consider it to be OR or biased, I'll ask for another reviewer. Thank you.CoryGlee14:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting into this. You just pitched up to say I'm making it political. Then when one person says this is ridiculous you hope another reviewer may fail to spot at least one major issue with the article as it currently stands,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good day.CoryGlee15:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. provides support to the FSM, but it is not accurately described as a "U.S. protectorate" – it is a sovereign nation. What is the issue with the hook?BeanieFan11 (talk)17:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am likely not the best to opine because I nominated this, but I'd say that this was a personal opinion or position before a fact: the FSMis a full UN member and independent nation. In regards to the hook, I'd agree with the oneyou proposed to avoid any confusion. Regards.CoryGlee19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can this move forward now? The objection was based on a misunderstanding that has now been addressed. This is ready to continue.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of misunderstanding has not been addressed — the article still fails to mention the above. Recommend closure,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)13:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic attempt without providing a reliable source to which youdiscredit FSM's dependence on the US. I'd recommend you to either source in the FSM article itself that it is adependent territory or you will enter into an edgy vandalic behavior. Thanks.CoryGlee15:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit – I requested admin intervention at this atWP:NPOVNCoryGlee16:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: What is it that you think needs to be done?BeanieFan11 (talk)16:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, there could be a link toCompact of Free Association,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)16:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the article? Where?BeanieFan11 (talk)16:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11: I'd recommend to wait for an administrator opinion because the user has had issues at DYK (see talk page) and linking COFA is not needed because it's a defense and trade agreement which has nothing to do with the FSM decisions on international stage, at least off the speculative stage.CoryGlee17:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11's question is just as valuable as any administrator's input here. I personally do not see howCompact of Free Association is relevant to the articleFederated States of Micronesia–Russia relations. --Reconrabbit20:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: I guess you did not understand me, sorry. I agree, in fact, I appreciate BeanieFan11's input so much. But given this user's insistence on making the FSM lookdependent on the US has dragged this on into this long thread. But I repeat, the user has a history of at least two DYK warnings. COI perhaps?CoryGlee20:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, adding, I will not push anything, but the user's comments making it a long, fruitless discussion where the user does NOT provide a reliable source to state that the decisions by the FSM aredirectly influenced or dictated by the US makes their inputs herekind of vandalic. TBH.CoryGlee20:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Federal assistance to the FSMadministered by theDepartment of the Interior, intriguing!Responsible Statecraft (per enwiki said to advocate "realism")US maintains military grip over ‘sovereign’ Pacific island states: "U.S. officials insist that, in principle, the compact states remain sovereign over their territory, but that position is misleading. Even if all three compact states unilaterally terminated their compacts, the United States wouldremain in a position to control them, having built into the compacts a series of mechanisms to make U.S. military controls permanent." (my emphasis),Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)20:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maculosae tegmine lyncis yup, I guess that no one denied those terms of the COFA and how the US assists the FSM. Now, concluding that military control and federal assistance directly impacts FSM decision-making in foreign policy issues makes your conclusion (said conclusion) blatantoriginal research. You can't (per OR) reach a conclusion taking information from different sources. Please, desist. If you wish not to, I propose intervention to bring this to an end. Thanks.CoryGlee20:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does the U.S. providing assistance to Micronesians haveanything to do with whether the proposed hook ("... thatRussia considers the Federated States of Micronesia an "unfriendly country"?) is usable?BeanieFan11 (talk)21:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is because of the word "country": usually, but not always (famously with the UK's countries), that term overlaps with "sovereign state". If the issue is "country", would the solution simply not be something like "... thatRussia considers the Federated States of Micronesia "unfriendly"? Still, the FSM is not widely considered a protectorate in the modern sense of the word (the article onassociated state has more details, and makes it clear that associated states and protectorate are not the same thing). Saying the FSM is a protectorate without actual sourcing does not make sense and is close to being OR.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)03:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I can assure you that if this simple DYK article ends in the conclusion (or putting in doubt) that the FSM is not a country, this will make it to the news, at least in the FSM. We would have torewrite so many articles regarding the FSM, the Marshalls, Palau, the United Nations membership, the meaning of sovereign state and COFA, also question Puerto Rico's status in comparison to these and why Puerto Rico is not a UN member, and so on an endless list. Can't believe it, honestly. This is not even logical.CoryGlee03:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the FSM isnot a country is completely nonsensical and should be disregarded. If Maculosae tegmine lyncis baselessly declaring a sovereign nation to not be sovereign is the only issue, then this deserves to receive a stamp of approval now.BeanieFan11 (talk)04:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whence this misprision? The reviewer template above includes "Does the article cover all major viewpoints",Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)05:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

congress.gov: "the FAS governments, the foreign Freely Associated State governments, have the obligation to cease and desist from any action that the United States unilaterally determines is prejudicial to our defense and security arrangements". relations with Russia?Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)06:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Russia)[10],[11]: "Согласно Соглашению о свободной ассоциации, стратегические вопросы обороны ФШМ остаются прерогативой Вашингтона" (ПАЛАУ) "Соглашение о свободной ассоциации ... В соответствии с ним в вопросах обороны, финансов и внешней политики государство ориентируется на Соединенные Штаты." - per compacts, strategic defence and, explicitly in the Palau doc though also sovereign in the COFA, (COFAs), defence/finance/foreign policy the prerogative of the US/US-aligned. (Fun fact, the currency of the FSM is the USD),Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)07:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of that supports the ludicrous assertion that the FSM is not a country. This is justWP:STONEWALLING for a reason I cannot understand.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The US dollar is the currency in so many other places too. I mean it seriously, can someone address this? It's way too frustrating that such an incongruous argument is getting this dragging on and on. Looks like feeding... An unreliable position, let's say. Full of original research. I don't know what else to say or do.CoryGlee10:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the user is trying to rewrite so many things per bias, plus not addressing what they have been asked to address, and stubbornly falling into unreliable sources, PRIMARY, biased, full of original research, and inaccurate (as the US dollar thing) I request some DYK administrator or someone toplease, stop it.CoryGlee10:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources? Which? "Does the article cover all major viewpoints",Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk)10:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please for any reviewer, finish this madness. Read please all above and guess you won't need much. This is feeding, nothing else, and I am not going to get into this madness.CoryGlee11:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting through all of the above, the issue as I can grasp it is that there is concern that the hooks relating to the Russo-Ukrainian war are uninteresting, being not unique nor unexpected. On this I would tend to agree. Unfortunately, that seems to be most of the article. The lead opens by stating relations were "unofficial", which seems wrong as they cite a government cite noting official relations. Unfortunately, I can't at a quick look find out much more interesting, it seems a mostly regular and uneventful relationship.CMD (talk)11:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sureChipmunkdavis I was not arguing that point, I was just asking for the madness about putting in doubt the FSM decision making, requests to put it into article (example, COFA terms, etc.) that's what I pointed. Unfortunately, patrolling often oversees deliberate attempts at pushing POVs ... I am okay with the article standing as it is, and the FSM as a sovereign nation. I do not care about hooking it. I've so many approved hooks in my files, so ... Don't need this. What I wanted, I am sure, is true and will stand unchallenged. ThanksCoryGlee12:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything in particular about how the CFA affected FSM-Russia relations. The little tidbits I did find suggests that Russia engages through regional bodies, for which the CFA is not directly relevant. Personally, I wouldn't add it without a source directly commenting on the matter. Procedurally, if a content dispute emerges out of this, and to be clear I don't think the above content dispute affects the DYK nom (although worth taking into account suggestions that are helpful), then it would need to be handled through another process.CMD (talk)12:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also quite poorly organised. The body starts with Feb 22, then goes back to 20/21, then back to Sep 19, then forward again to Feb 22, then forward to May 23, then back with quotes from Feb 22, then forward to Mar 22, then forward to a quote from May 25, then back again to Mar 22. Some sort of order would be nice.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)12:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I started to reorganize this. I am not going to comment anything else on this template because I see that, as usual on WP, there are double standards, giving carte blanche for fringe theories to drag on and on, despite contradicting every single reliable source. But you know... the FSM is not Gaza and not as touchy, if not, we'd surely have had a flow of opinions and indignation. Best regards and do not expect me to comment further on this.CoryGlee12:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, since you pinged me, that I found the second and third sentences of your comment incomprehensible; if you do comment further, please try to clarify. Thanks,~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)12:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: just that this was allowed to drag onnot on the basis of quality or interesting or not hooking, it was allowed to go onfringe theories about the independence of the FSM (a full UN member), nothing was done, not from a noticeboard nor after repeated requests that the review focus on reliability. Not interested (and I don't have to) clarify anything else.CoryGlee12:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, as for my sentence on "other countries"... I am not the first (there are many, even reliable media) calling out Wikipedia bias on certain issues, such as stating that disputed things such as a genocide there or there is actually real, or that Palestine is acountry (when not even a full UN member) nor wide recognition. Conversely, a fringe theory about a full, independent UN member country (the FSM) made this thread long and offtopic.CoryGlee12:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when a Wikipedia user raises a good-faith objection, normal procedure is to work it out. I can assure you this "long and offtopic" thread is miniscule compared to those on the Gaza genocide/Palestinian independence.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)12:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not the same, those two topics you mentioned at the end of your comment are a matter of interpretation because many do not even recognize those terms, while the FSM has long been granted UN status and international participation without power fragmentation nor any resort to draw attention. But, seeing how this has turned into a huge debate without any justification other than POVs, I'd suggest it to SNOW close. I had kind of forgotten about this small article that I created.CoryGlee15:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• (summoned via WT:DYK) Re interestingness: agree the proposed hooks aren't all that interesting. Re FSM–US affiliation: burden is on MTL to show that the CoFA is relevant to FSM–Russia interactions with reliable sources that explicitly state as much, anything short of that is OR editorialization. My own concerns: sourcing the article and some of the hooks proposed here to Tass is inappropriate for DYK.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)16:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's replaceable (TASS, I mean) ... Regardless, what you pointed out (that itmust be stated verbatim that the FSM decision was influenced by the USA or CoFA) is what it wasall about that I was asking help for... Yet, experienced users above were more interested in tagging and claiming "poor organization" plus uninteresting hooks (I agree) than pointing to blatant OR. Well...CoryGlee16:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think the suggested "... thatRussia considers the Federated States of Micronesia an "unfriendly country"?" is interesting? It's something I'd click on if it was on the main page, and I rarely do that.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be too annoyed if it ran, but it's not all that uncommon to be disliked by Russia, so, like, it's not my first choice for a Main Page slot.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I agree with TLC and others that claims about neutrality have not been backed up with reference to reliable sources, and as such can be set aside. I also agree that the hook is somewhat humdrum. This is the sort of topic on which it's difficult to say anything that isn't routine, and which is therefore not the best fit for DYK in my opinion, but I haven't been involved with DYK as of late so I won't be the one to formally reject it. CoryGlee, you are likely to see a more positive response from your colleagues if you stick to the matter at hand rather than continually complaining about the conduct of other users at a forum not intended for such complaints.Vanamonde93 (talk)19:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, while I agree that it has served me no good to complain, as I told another administrator on a related issue (I kind of got fed up with the usual double standards), I will stick to the issue at hand (as you say). Be sure, however, that I exercised a lot of patience before tagging and/or reporting "new" users. I will certainly change that view now that I deem the treatment I received unfair. Reciprocity. No revenge.CoryGlee19:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has become quite a mess, but it's worth pointing out that the original question was not about the hook's interest, but rather the concern about the FSM being a protectorate.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't know if, as in ITN, the nominator (this case me) has the power to withdraw the nomination. Honestly, having reviewedmultiple nominations as part of QPQ, I would be hesitant to take either way... approve/reject. This thread proved a failure to me to stay cool even in the face of deliberate (and unreliable) bias, and aside from taking my own responsibility, proved a failure from administrators or others who might have made it clear that it was about the content and not thecrazy theory of the FSM independence. Close it, please.CoryGlee23:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CoryGlee: If you have no further interest in this nomination, would you be alright with me taking over from here? I don't want to see a perfectly good nomination ruined by a lone editor pushing a viewpoint that makes literally no sense and contradicts all facts.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • BeanieFan11, of course Beanie, feel free to completely take over. I honestly have no energy, and as you say, which I agree, it was an unfair handling of this all. Thanks for treating me so nicely, I said things I do not feel nor think and learned the lesson of feeding problematic users' conspiracy theories. Feel free, and thanks again.CoryGlee23:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: What's needed for this to be approved?BeanieFan11 (talk)23:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was actually considering marking this for closure, albeit for the genuine concerns raised in this discussion (i.e. the sourcing and interest issues), rather than the protectorate issue. Personally, I actually find the "unfriendly" angle interesting, but multiple editors have objected to it, so it is not going to get any consensus. The sourcing also has to be less reliant on red sources (I imagine that they could be allowed in a limited amount as stating the official Russian positions, but still).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which sources specifically are there issues with?BeanieFan11 (talk)00:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Theleekycauldron mentioned some, including TASS and other related sources.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)03:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only one mentioned I see is TASS, and the only thing sourced to that is a quote from the Russian government. What's wrong with citing the Russian news agency for the opinions of the Russian government?BeanieFan11 (talk)01:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thatChicago State Cougars football is the onlyNCAA Division I gridiron football program in Chicago?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/I'm Only F**king Myself
• Comment: This is the first of two QPQs for this review. P.S. I had to move my connection to my iPhone personal hotspot because this Target/Starbucks is blocked.

TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)21:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. Most of this article is not actually about Chicago State Cougars football, but rather about other colleges that have played or currently play football in Chicago. That may be understandable because Chicago State has not yet begun its first football season, which is about eight months away, but the proportion of Chicago State Cougars football content to the length of the article seems rather low. --Metropolitan90(talk)08:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated atWP:CFB, this is sort of like the lengthy background atUtah_Mammoth#Background_and_establishment. It is the only current DI football school in Chicago. The background basically talks about the history of Chicago football by describing past DI football schools in Chicago, current DI non-football schools in Chicago, current non-DI football schools in Chicago, and current DI football schools near Chicago.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)16:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • This DYK still needs a full review, but my objection above no longer applies, since TonyTheTiger has removed most of the content regarding other football-playing colleges in Chicago. --Metropolitan90(talk)08:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Full review needed.BlueMoonset (talk)22:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed hook is written in present tense, whereas the corresponding text in the article is in the future tense. Please clarify and/or propose a new hook. Will do a full review after a reply to this.Flibirigit (talk)14:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1... thatChicago State Cougars football will be the onlyNCAA Division I gridiron football program in Chicago?-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)02:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

• New enough: - ?
• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral: - ?
• Free ofcopyright violations,plagiarism, andclose paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting: - ?

Overall: The article was created from a redirect on December 24, and nominated eight days later for DYK. The article is long enough even without the removed background discussed above. The last sentence of the history section is unsourced. The sections "Classifications" and "Conference memberships" have no clear source. There are still inconsistencies with present tense and future tense.The first sentence of the introduction is future tense, but the second sentence is present tense. Please clarify. I cannot proceed with the hooks until that is resolved. I found no plagiarism issues. No images are used in the article. QPQ requirement is complete.Flibirigit (talk)03:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, never alter another user's comments. The December 24 date is calculated fromthis edit. Best wishes.Flibirigit (talk)14:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not seeing the 02:55, December 25, 2025 timestamp for that edit?-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)16:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does the whole article need to be in the same tense. It contains facts about present subjects and future subjects.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)22:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see this: "21:55, December 24, 2025 TonyTheTiger talk contribs 4,360 bytes +4,325 creating page undothank Tag: Removed redirect". Will expand more on the review later tonight.Flibirigit (talk)00:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am seeingUTC timestamps. Did you change your settings to local time? Be advised that it is easiest if we all are on UTC. Then determining whether an action was timely is easier. In this case, I believe you are making my nomination late by describing a time in non-UTC.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)15:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article need not be in the same tense. However, some of the wording seems to contradict itself. I have struck a portion of my initial review as I mistyped. The opening line of the introduction is in the future tense, whereas the first sentence of the background section is in the present tense. These seem to contract each other, by stating that a program is both current and future. Please clarify, thanks.Flibirigit (talk)02:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• My latest tense correcetion puts the first and second sentence at odds.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)15:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we are now beyond the "National Signing Day" on February 4, 2026, I think would make this an active program, as opposed to a future program. In that case, then only the 2027 season would need to be in the future tense. Is there anything that could be added to this article with respect to signing day? I foundthis press release, but something independent of the school would be best. Sorry for the delay in the response. I think we are almost there.Flibirigit (talk)21:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • When dealing with objective facts,WP:PRIMARY sources are OK aren't they?-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)06:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thatBrigitte Bardot's 1967 song "Harley Davidson" reflected women's emancipation and newfound freedom?
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Baxendale

Moscow Connection (talk)23:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• @Moscow Connection: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. The article itself is fine, but the hook leaves me wanting. The article doesn't justify "newfound" enough to warrant its inclusion in the hook, and I do worry that making this statement without attribution isn't possible unless multiple sources, not just Delta FM, do it. Ping me when you respond.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)07:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It just sounded better like this. And the word emancipation ("Emancipation") is "the act of freeing from restraints" and is synonymous to "liberation" ([12]), so it implies that the freedom was "newfound".
  @Sammi Brie: Not sure if the matter is solved, but pinging you anyway. I can reword the hook or find a new one, I'll think about that. --Moscow Connection (talk)08:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, please wait a couple more days. I have some real life things to do. I will have time to attend to this problem on Sunday. --Moscow Connection (talk)18:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm back. I will take care of this in the next couple of days. --Moscow Connection (talk)19:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have proposed that this hook be used for aspecial occasion DYK set forInternational Women's Day. Interested editors canjoin the discussion here.Z1720 (talk)03:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Alexandra Koster of Australia'sSBS likened the camera work inUkraine's Eurovision 2025 performance "Bird of Pray" to having a "schmear of Vaseline"?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Abdudzhabar Abdurakhmanov

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My"blotter")02:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• Not a review, but I'd suggest changingSpecial Broadcasting Service to "Australia'sSBS" — this is an acronym that does not get expanded a lot in common use.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)07:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My"blotter")09:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• May I give a more specific source?
  • Source:https://www.sbs.com.au/news/live-blog/eurovision-2025-final-live-updates-and-coverage/1wq3ldaeu?page=2#00000196-dfca-daf5-a1b6-fffb15760000
  — Precedingunsigned comment added byTc 13 17 19 (talk •contribs)20:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: New enough (GA Dec 28), long enough (9400 B), well-sourced (it appears the sources are considered reliable about Eurovision), no copyvio. However, I don't think the hook is acceptable. The source makes the statement about camera work, followed by a statement about the song "Bird of Pray", but it is not written in a way where it makes a connection between the two (i.e. it could have been a general comment about camera work that had been happening across multiple songs, not just this one specific song). As such, I don't think this statement even belongs in the article (same goes for the following statement about the blackouts). A different hook is needed.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)06:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I believe the hook is okay. The mention is placed in the specific section where "Bird of Pray"s performance. Also, you can confirm this by looking at the performance video. If this is still a problem, I could try to find a new hook.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My"blotter")06:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheNuggeteer: I think we should try to find a hook that's more directly about the subject.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)07:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1: ...that some rehearsals forUkraine's Eurovision 2025 entry "Bird of Pray" were held online because members of the team were outside the country?
• Source:[13]
• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I believe this is better.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My"blotter")08:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheNuggeteer: Can you explain whyEuromix is a reliable source? (It's not listed atWikipedia:WikiProject Song Contests/Sources, and I can't find any discussions about its reliability.)— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk |contribs)21:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that thenat spiritPyapon Taung Shinma was born through a virgin birth after her mother was bitten by a black ant?Source:Temple, Sir Richard Carnac (1981).မြန်မာ့မိရိုးဖလာဓလေ့ နတ်သမိုင်း: ၃၇ မင်း မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၌ကျင့်သုံးသော နတ်ပူဇော်သောဓလေ့များ (in Burmese). Cā pe Mitʻ chve Cā pe. pp. 174–175.သမိုင်းဖြစ်စဉ်မှာ မယ်ဖြူ၏ မိခင်သည်သင်မရှိဘဲ ခါချဉ်အနက်ကိုက်၍ ပဋိသန္ဓေရှိပြီး မယ်ဖြူကိုမွေးဖွားလေသည်။ ပြောင်းပြာရွာအနီးလက်ကောင်း ရွာနေ မောင်ဖြစ်သူက လင်မရှိဘဲ သန္ဓေတည်သည်ကိုရှက်၍ အခေါ်အပြော မရှိ ဖြတ်ထားသည်။ [Translation: In the historical event, Mae Phyu's mother became pregnant after being bitten by a black ant without having a husband, and gave birth to Mae Phyu. Her brother, who lived in the nearby Letkaung village near Pyaung Pya village, was ashamed that she was pregnant without a husband and cut off all communication with her.]
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Hagemeister Park

Hteiktinhein (talk)17:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• article is new enough (6 days between 28 december and nom on 3 january). article is long enough, exceeds 1,500 characters of prose. hook uses hqrs, not detecting any neutrality, copyvio or a.i. concerns. qpq is done and i thought it was interesting. i might recommend excising or blue-linkingnat, since the sentence structure is a little complicated. happy to pass this.
  • Plifal, reviews must be signed to be valid. Also, nominatorHteiktinhein has removed "according to legend" from the hook you approved—hooks really should not be changed post-review; if it's important, an ALT hook can be proposed with new/updated wording—so please be sure that this is still a valid hook with those words removed when doing a properly signed updated review below. Thank you.BlueMoonset (talk)15:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • i'm sorry i thought i had signed it, total error. i don't have control over the hooks meaningfully changing post review, but given the article currently says, "She was said to have been born" and the hook gives a more definitive claim i'm going to go ahead and say not yet. --Plifal (talk)15:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because she is regarded as a deity rather than a mythical or fictional figure. Official historical records of the nats describe her birth as occurring “in a historical event” (သမိုင်းဖြစ်စဉ်). Therefore, I do not believe the wording is inappropriate. If there are concerns, please feel free to raise them. Thank you.Hteiktinhein (talk)15:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hteiktinhein i don't have an issue with either phrasing, but the current hook gives a more definitive statement than the one in the article, if the source is definitive (which the supplied source seems to suggest) i would recommend altering the artcle to remove the above phrase in order to match; then i have no issue in passing. the inclusion of (nat) spirit should be fine to indicate that this is a supernatural phenomenon.--Plifal (talk)08:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that you can play Alexander Clamilton, a proofreader dragon, and a squirrel in theUnsanctioned set ofMagic: The Gathering cards?Source:https://www.cracked.com/article_27000_a-first-look-at-unsanctioned-magic-gatherings-new-set.html
  • ALT1: ... thatMagic: The Gathering'sUnsanctioned set contains sixteen original cards that are all illegal in the game's tournaments?Source:https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2019/10/wizards-announces-unsanctioned-an-un-box-set/
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Jesse L. Douglas
  • Comment: I am aware that Cracked.com is listed as generally unreliable perWP:CRACKED, but it is cited in this article for an interview with Mark Rosewater, a designer of theUnsanctioned set. The blog posts from Rosewater himself at Wizards of the Coast can also be used to verify the lead hook. Also was tempted to go with "Alexander Clamilton, a proofreader dragon, and a squirrel commander".

LivelyRatification (talk)00:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Given the nom's explanation (and my familiarity with the game), I am fine accepting the cracked interview as reliable. Article is new enough and passes spotchecks; my concern is about the hooks. I don't think either is particularly interesting; the first one is kind of a plot-summary (seeWP:DYKPLOT) of the game (plus: why should the reader care about minor pun related to Alexander Clamilton's name, and a squirrel? The proofreading dragon is ok-ish, but again, plot...). And the second one is again not very interesting IMHO (and I say this as a MtG player too - I doubt it is more interesting to our average reader who knows nothing about MtG). Now, I think this can be rescued by mixing the claims and stressing how the set contains humorous cards - something like "set contains solely satirical and tongue-in-cheek cards like a proofreading dragon that are illegal in the game's tournaments"? Bonus if you can work "anthropomorphized animals" into the hook, furries tend to draw views, IMHO :) Ping me for ALTs and I'll review them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}06:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to withdraw this nomination, unfortunately. Have been rather busy with work and real-life stuff and the proper hook inspiration has not yet properly struck me :-( --LivelyRatification (talk)03:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, as someone who knows virtually nothing about MtG, I thought ALT1 was interesting. But if you are really unable to continue this nomination then this can be closed.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "cheese grater" facade

• ... that Denver'sPopulus hotel became a subject of online and media discussion after some observers compared its facade(pictured) to a "cheese grater"?

• Reviewed:
• Comment: First submission - appreciate the feedback!

Pdubs.94 (talk)18:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment:@Pdubs.94: Hi, and welcome to DYK. Not a full review, but your article is good. Just a few suggestions; you can consider copying some info from theWP:LEAD into the article body, and move the references. It would be better if the lead reflects the cited material in the body, instead of using citations in the lead. You can also complete some of the citation furnishing, like putting dates and author's first and last name in the references. Do not worry, the article has got no major problems. Thank you and all the best!M.Billoo03:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pdubs.94: Hi. Can you please rework on someWP:INLINE citations? A few paragraphs appear unsourced, and it may be hard for a reviewer to find the exact citation for easilyverifying the prose. If your work is completely based on the references inside the article, then only the references need better sorting ahead of the clause it verifies. Thank you!M.Billoo04:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @M.Billoo2000: The original nominator seems to have not edited in about three weeks. I am happy to hop on and assume responsibility for this nom. I have added two citations that seem to resolve the sourcing concerns you raised earlier. Is there anything else that you would like me to handle so that we can get this nom over the finish line? Best, ~Pbritti (talk)16:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The name "Aparium Hotel Group" inside the infobox appears unsourced, and it is nowhere mentioned within the article body. However, the Hospitality Net reference seems to confirm this so it can be used as inline citation as well. Should I perform a full review now? Thank you.M.Billoo20:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @M.Billoo2000: Yes, I think we're ready to go now. If you have any other comments, drop me a ping. Thanks for sticking with this review for a month. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)16:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pbritti:Since opening, Populus has received extensive coverage from local, national, and international media outlets, including The Denver Post, Westword, Forbes, Vogue, Time, and The New York Times. This clause may also need inline citations, as well as the justification or maybe repharsing, considering the terms "since opening" and "international media".The Denver Post is only cited here with the date of pre-opening. And as suggested earlier, I think MOS:LEAD can now be made free of many references. Thank you.M.Billoo17:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Like the Denver property, the Seattle hotel emphasizes sustainability-oriented design and operations, though it was developed as a distinct project rather than as part of a standardized hotel brand. This may need further clarification because the inline citation has only a passing mention.M.Billoo19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @M.Billoo2000: Yeah, that came across as painfully LLMy. I've rewritten or removed the offending material. Thanks again for taking back up this review and apologies for my late response. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)16:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is good to go now, and I have also done some CE with INLINE.M.Billoo05:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I pulled this hook from queue due to issues related to LLM-generation. The article itself has choppy LLM language, attributing sources when it is unneeded and making vague and exaggerated claims. I checked the four sources in the "Sustainability" section:

The first paragraph is cited tothis Forbes source. The problem in the prose is that it says it as if multiple sources have covered it and said these things; if they have, they need to be cited here, and usually it isn't encyclopedic to say it like that. The verifiability issue comes where it saysCoverage noted that this claim goes beyond the carbon-neutral designations commonly used in the hospitality industry. This is not in the source and makes it fail verification and potentially making it original research.

The second paragraph is a close paraphrase ofthis NYT source.

The Populus’s approach started at construction, witha concrete mix said to emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide than regular concrete.Repurposed elements are heavily relied on, including wood from an already felled cottonwood tree for the reception desk; beetle-kill pine for some walls and bed headboards; and snow fencing from Wyoming as decorative ceiling beams. The 365 glass-fiber-reinforced concrete panels on the hotel’s exterior, inspired by the bark of aspen trees, help keep the building cool in summer and warm in winter.The hotel did not build a parking garage — instead it uses existing lots in the area for valet parking, and encourages public transit for guests.

According to national reporting, the project useda concrete mix claimed to emit approximately 30 percent less carbon dioxide than conventional concrete and incorporatedrepurposed materials throughout the building. These included wood from an already felled cottonwood tree used for the reception desk, beetle-kill pine for walls and headboards, and reclaimed wooden snow fencing used as decorative ceiling elements.The hotel did not incorporate an on-site parking garage, instead relying on nearby facilities and encouraging public transit use.

The third paragraph was cited tothis Vogue source which doesn't seem to support any of the information in the paragraph from a cursory read and I replaced it with a cn tag.

The fourth paragraph is cited to the same NYT source, and does seem to check out. It does have the LLM phrasing, however.

Appropriate tags have been added to this section.Pbritti, I think this needs a complete rewrite as the problems are fundamental in the language it uses to run on DYK, if you're still interested in it.HurricaneZeta^C02:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, struck ALT0 due to it failing verification (seeWT:DYK#Populus Denver (nom)). Suggested by Pbritti:

ALT1: ... that the facade of Denver'sPopulus hotel(pictured) has been compared to a "cheese grater"?

ALT1a: ... that the facade ofPopulus Denver(pictured) has been compared to a "cheese grater"?

HurricaneZeta^C03:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @HurricaneZeta: As a reviewer, sadly I could not figure out the LLM tone or close paraphrasing, so I am really really sorry for it. Though, the term "cheese grater" is mentioned in some more than three references which may qualifyWP:SIGCOV:

• some Westword readers compared the building to a cheese grater
• Creepy eyeballs. A cheese grater.
• Some liken it to a cheese grater
• resembles a cheese grater or a bunch of mouths
• akin to a cheese grater

I understand that the article should be rewritten in own wordings, though my intention was INLINE at that time, so I believe the original hook was OK as well. Though, now I have no problem with the ALTs as well being short and to the point. Thank you for highlighting the issue.M.Billoo12:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The term"first" carbon-positive is purely subjective, though the onlycarbon-positive can be a SIGCOV with more three references:[14][15], theForbes one, and theNYT one.M.Billoo12:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also sorry for overlooking the INLINE for the biodegradation prose, which I had verified from theNYT source. And here is some other coverage:[16][17][18][19]M.Billoo13:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @HurricaneZeta andPbritti: Hi again. Please check the article, I have performed some clean ups and rephrasing. Also, here are some other references given above, which can be used in the article if necessary. Hope it is good to go for the DYK. Thank you!M.Billoo03:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Resubmitting for a second review. My QPQ, if required only, would beBetter in Denim. Thank you!M.Billoo13:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thata Swiss district voted twice on changing cantons—rejecting the move in 1983, approving it in 1989—and still required a federal referendum to make the change official?
• ALT0a … thata Swiss district rejected a cantonal change in 1983, approved it in 1989, and still needed a federal referendum to make the switch official?

• Reviewed:

DraconicDark (talk)21:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

Overall: According to WP:HOOK, the wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other. This is not the case.Munfarid1 (talk)19:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello@DraconicDark:, this is an exceptionally long article, and apart from my reservations about your hook, I request that another editor should have another look at my review. My basic reservation is the length and detail of this article. While the German version may be of more interest for readers in that language, this English version should be considerably shortened to make it interesting reading for readers outside of Switzerland. My question for another reviewer therefore is: Does this article meet the requirements for DYK? - I have not found any discussion on possibly excluding articles for their length and detail, but IMHO, you would do well in considerably shortening this article. This would increase the chance of readers paying attention to all or most of the text, which after all is our common intention. For this reason, I would also suggest you formulate a more interesting hook. Best regards,Munfarid1 (talk)19:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Munfarid1: I have addressed the problem with the length of the hook. I don't see how the wording of the article, hook, and source don't agree, since the hook is summarizing the story of the article, which tracks the story's description in the source, and focusing on any singular aspect of it would sell the story short. I am not against changing the hook if reviewers were to disagree that it's sufficient though.
  Regarding your other concern: I don't think there is any rule specifying amaximum length for DYK articles, since I have seen some that are pretty long. I disagree that this article would not be interesting to English speakers, since the story of how this happened is inherently interesting, and removing parts of it would make the story incomplete.DraconicDark (talk)20:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• • @DraconicDark: Ok, the hook is shorter now. I am not sure, however, about the wording of the article, hook, and source. The way I understand the term "wording" it does not refer closely enough to your summary in the hook. Your summary expresses the same meaning, but not the wording. - I will leave the decision on this reservation and the interest of the hook to the promoter or another reviewer as the next step in this review process. If the promoter thinks my reservations are not valid for holding back this nomination, I would certainly give it a green light. - As similar questions have occurred in other reviews, I just want to be sure of a second opinion. - Maybe@Narutolovehinata5: who has a lot of experience in these matters can help?Munfarid1 (talk)08:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this could be worked on further, but maybe simplifying the hook to something along the likes of "thata Swiss district's request to change cantons needed to be confirmed by a nationwide referendum?" I know the article says "federal referendum" rather than "nationwide", but for practical purposes they're equivalent, since the main point is that all of Switzerland had to vote and not just the relevant canton.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DraconicDark andMunfarid1: Pinging regarding the above response.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DraconicDark andNarutolovehinata5: Thanks to the quick and helpful reply by Narutolovehinata5, I also think that his wording for another hook is better suited. - As soon as this has been formulated as ALT1, I would be able to give this review the green light.Munfarid1 (talk)17:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am just waiting for DraconicDark's response before formally proposing it.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)09:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response from the nominator, I am formally proposing it here:ALT1 ... thata Swiss district's request to change cantons needed to be confirmed by a nationwide referendum? Looking at the article, the actual case, which involved decades of campaigning, as well as back-and-forths, is very interesting, but it might be too difficult to condense that into a single hook, so this will have to do.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)08:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

M113 APC General Luis Malinis with the mounted COBRA fired during live drills in Camp O' Donnell.

• ... that development of theController Operated Battle Ready Armament(pictured) was financially backed by theDepartment of Science and Technology and thePhilippine Army?

• ALT1: ... that five companies expressed willingness to manufacture theController Operated Battle Ready Armament(pictured) for thePhilippine Army after live fire drills atCamp O'Donnell?Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20251212013426/https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/12/11/dost-developed-cobra-weapon-system-turned-over-to-dnd-1613
• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Pitono Purnomo
• Comment: The article's got a couple of URLs that aren't archived. The RCWS is quite new(ish), so there's not a lot of info on it. Also have a suggested image, but can otherwise have another image just in case.

Ominae (talk)05:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• Not (yet) a review, but as much as I'd really like to see more Philippine representation on DYK, neither hook as currently written seems to meet DYKINT. The first doesn't seem all that surprising, that a country's army would fund the development of a military project? Multiple company biddings are the norm for military projects as well, so ALT1 as currently written is not interesting. I think there might be some potential for a different hook angle if the appropriate context is provided: after all, the Philippine military is notoriously underfunded and underdeveloped, so perhaps a hook that involves that theme in some way might work.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only (for now) reason why I advocate for ALT 0 is because it's generally unheard of with the DOST and the PA splitting the funding. Most of the defense hardware acquisitions are done through foreign contracts and the local ones from the Marcos-era SRDP relied on licensed production. Plus, there aren't a lot of local defense companies out there as far as I know that are still alive. Honestly don't have other ideas for ALTs if you're willing to shoot them down. There's BUHAWI too, but that's also another recent example. The other attempts to make local hardware after the downfall of Marcos Sr. didn't do much as private companies didn't get that support from the government, which is why I find it interesting/surprising the government "solely" stepped in.Ominae (talk)04:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that ALT0's interest would really depend on knowing Philippine military or defense-related context, and regrettably that would fall under DYKINT.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, not necessary, though I get the point why you'd say that. I did a DYK nomination for the Counterintelligence Group and it went through. At this point, I'd rather wait for a second opinion. Still have no idea on what kind of DYK question if you've shot them down at least.Ominae (talk)02:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing an alternate in case another reviewer doesn't like the first one.

• • ALT2: ... that theController Operated Battle Ready Armament(pictured) was tested in various field conditions prior to the live drills atCamp O'Donnell?Ominae (talk)05:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review needed now that new hook has been proposed.BlueMoonset (talk)20:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I take, will review in the next 24 hours.--Launchballer14:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominae: Long enough, new enough. QPQ is nowhere near a full review, but seems to have run without issue I'll take it. Earwig is clean. No reason why the article would deserve a maintenance template, though I removed an inappropriate{{opinion}} tag. The problem with ALT2 is that the source attributes and the hook doesn't, and this needs rectifying. You may also wish to suggest anWP:DYKAPRIL hook involving "cobras".--Launchballer22:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Launchballer:, I can do it as another ALT if the other ALTs aren't suitable. Hope I don't go crazy.Ominae (talk)03:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• • ALT3: ... that theController Operated Battle Ready Armament's Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was based on the success of machine guns developed under Project BUHAWI?Ominae (talk)04:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that theGerman language has developed anew progressive aspect in everyday speech?

• Reviewed: [[]]

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)}20:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• I love linguistics but I doubt the average reader even knows what a "progressive" (edit: or "aspect") is, making this an overly obscure hook. (t ·c)buIdhe07:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't really a way I can simplify it within the hook so I'm just taking my chances that it's considered fine.JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)}17:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most technical articles are not well suited to DYK. Furthermore, even from a linguistics perspective this mundane example of ongoing language evolution is not really all that noteworthy. (t ·c)buIdhe18:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - see above

Overall: (t ·c)buIdhe18:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buidhe andJacobTheRox: I agree that the hook as currently written is too specialist or technical. However, there does seem to be something that could be used instead. What about:

ALT1 ... that there is dispute on how to capitalize verb components ina recent form of German progressive aspect?

While it is still technical (especially with the term "progressive aspect", which to be honest I'd never even heard of before, even as a fluent speaker of English!), it should at least be slightly easier to understand, and there is an aspect about controversy, which might at least be eye-catching. If there is a better way to word the subject in the hook, that would be good too.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that how to capitalise acolloquial German progressive form is the subject of much dispute?

Is that any better?JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)}18:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a much shorter and simpler hook, yes it is better.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buidhe: Have your concerns been resolved, and is this ready to be approved? If not, what else is needed?Z1720 (talk)16:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think that this is of interest to people with no knowledge of the study of linguistics. (t ·c)buIdhe19:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @JacobTheRox: Are you able to propose some alternative hooks? The more that are proposed, the more likely it is that at least one of them will be of interest to others.Z1720 (talk)19:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT3 ... that despite being "somewhat viewed as standard speech already", the Germanam-progressive is still considered ungrammatical in schools?
• ALT4 ... that the spread of aGerman colloquial aspect has been described as 'biphasic'?
• ALT5 ... that a colloquialGerman progressive form has been described as an entirely new verb form?

Those are all the others I can think of right now.

• ... thatthe first stand-alone board and card game set inThe Witcher universe was released in 2007, as part of the promotion forthe first video game?Source:https://rozrywka.spidersweb.pl/dzien-wiedzmina-ksiazki-opowiadania-andrzej-sapkowski-serial-netflix
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Hu Tao
  • Comment: Stand-alone is used to distinguish from the 2-player card game relased at the same time, bundled with the video game and never sold separately. Board game classification is used for card games (which is why they are listed in BGG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}08:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}08:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - Routine release information

Overall: (t ·c)buIdhe14:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also other issues with the article. For one, it is in dire need of a copyedit, both in terms of grammar, and in terms of moving the footnotes to come after punctuation. There are multiple parts that use parentheticals; those need to be revised to meet encyclopedic standards. Finally, the article is actually lacking in hooky material. Apart fromBuidhe's concerns that the hook is not interesting to a broad audience (which I agree with), the only possible hook I could think of, or at least angle, was something like: "... that a2007 card game set inThe Witcher universe uses screenshots from the video games?", but I'm not sure if that would be considered broadly interesting either.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured the article issues may not be an issue with the DYK criteria, but I could be wrong. I agree the second hook doesn't seem to meet the requirements either. (t ·c)buIdhe15:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Requiring a copyedit" is technically not a DYK requirement, but if an article is in a bad enough state then there is definitely room for improvement. Given the lack of hooky material, regrettably I would not oppose failing this on that ground.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

per above (t ·c)buIdhe03:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that this is not interesting - it's plenty interesting to folks interested in board games, video games, and the very famous Witcher franchise. I can c/e the stops; for grammar I can pingUser:Nihil novi, and I'll also ask folks at WT:DYK, BG and VG to comment on whether there i nothing interesting. I think the main hook is interesting, and the propsed ALT1 above is good too. PS. C/e (punctuation, parenthesis, etc.) done, and more hooks proposed below - although I still think that that the fact that very famous computer video game had a board game promotional companion is interesting in itself. Shrug.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}00:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1: ... that a2007 card game set inThe Witcher universe uses screenshots from the video game released at the same time?
• ALT2: ... thatThe Witcher: The Adventure Card Game, a marketing tie-in for the first Witcher video game, was the first board game set in the Witcher universe available on the open market?
• ALT3: ... thatthe first board game set in the Witcher universe received mixed reviews, unlike its well-received video game counterpart?

Regrettably, I do not see how any of these hooks are interesting to a broad audience. The first two have already been objected to above, the third requires familiarity with The Witcher or being a fan of it. Hooks about works of fiction ideally need to appeal to broad audiences, even non-fans, and I can't see how ALT3 is all that different. Ironically, if it was theother way around (for example, a poorly-received source material resulting in a positively-received adaptation), that would actually be interesting. Bad media based on good media is pretty common, the other-way-around less so and more surprising.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming from WT:DYK, and this stood out to me in the article as hooky:

ALT4: that one reviewer saidThe Witcher: The Adventure Card Game was "a very pretty piece of junk”?

I can't speak Polish but google translate gave broadly the same translation (I got junk, not crap, though)1brianm7 (talk)01:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that could work, if Piotrus is open to that idea. The "first" aspect is still not interesting.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with ALT4, although for me it is less good than the others (I did consider it, actually, but did not write it down due to giving what IMHO is undue weight to a single reviewer's wording. But if you like it more, it's fine - it does represent what most reviewers thought, so it is reasonably neutral on second glance. As for translation, Polish word "gniot" can be translated as junk, crap, etc. It's slangish, seehttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gniot -> (colloquial) worthless work or object; dross, dreck . PS. And we promoted a similar hook few months ago:Template:Did you know nominations/Fromage (board game). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}01:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 is an interesting hook: colloquial, engagingly ironic, not requiring familiarity with the topic's esoterica.Nihil novi (talk)10:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Comment movied by Piotrus from article's talk page, courtesy pingUser:Nihil novi[reply]

• All presented hooks are interesting enough to be run on the mainpage as they all touch on multiple general topic areas that the subject is part of. 2 peoples personal preferences are again being forced over 5 million main page viewers.--Kevmin§20:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buidhe: You marked this as rejected as couple of weeks ago, but I see there has been discussion since then. Do your concerns remain, or is this ready for another review?Z1720 (talk)16:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that alt4 meets the interest requirements, but I agree it is superior to other proposed hooks. (t ·c)buIdhe17:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: (since Buidhe did not). Can we move forward with this? We have only one person doubting that the newest hook is interesting, several people opined positively about it, and I don't think veto is common in DYKs. Do we need a RfC? :D (Also note that other hooks were found interesting too, by more than just myself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}06:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only hook here that has gained any sort of consensus is ALT4; only one other editor thought the other proposals were interesting, which isn't enough to count as consensus.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)08:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: There were other support comments in differnet threads, but sure, ALT4 is most widely supported. Can we go with it? As discussed, we have run identical hooks in the past (quotations from reviews). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}02:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also friendly ping toUser:Z1720. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}04:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that there is consensus (if a loose one) to go with ALT4, I'm open to approving it; however, I've taken a look at the article again and it still needs a copyedit. I'll approve ALT4 once that is done.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that "Seven Nation Army" was initially envisioned byJack White as a potentialJames Bond theme?

• Reviewed:

RTSthestardust (talk)02:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Some sources may need to be replaced, namely links to social media posts and YouTube clips.
• Neutral:
• Free ofcopyright violations,plagiarism, andclose paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Article might need a copyedit. There's a lot of repetition (the lead's paragraphs all begin with the song title),

Overall: Needs just a bit more work but otherwise looks good. I would also like to see some other hooks based on the song's sporting impact.SounderBruce04:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @RTSthestardust: See the above review. Once the concerns above are resolved, this can be re-reviewed.Z1720 (talk)16:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Lady, by C. F. Goldie at the Auckland Society of Arts Exhibition

• ... that C. F. Goldie exhibited withthe Auckland Society of Arts(example pictured)?

• Reviewed:

Avawatson03 (talk)00:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• @Avawatson03: Not yet a review, but could you please propose a new hook? The current one may not be interesting to a broad audience, especially to those who may not know who Goldie is.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the new hook, but generally, we let the original hooks remain in the nomination, we just propose a new hook later in the nomination. I have restored the original hook and struck it, and am putting the new proposal below:

• ALT1 ... thatthe Auckland Society of Arts was the first community art society in New Zealand in 1870?

@Avawatson03: The issue here is that the hook is a "first" hook, and perWP:DYKFIRST, hooks that are about a "first X" need to have exceptionally strong sourcing and ideally a search for counterexamples to prove the firstness. As such, while not outright banned, they are discouraged whenever possible.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)06:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that theAndrea Margutti Trophy was founded to commemorate a 14-year-old Italiankart racer who died while racing in 1989?

• ALT1: ... that theAndrea Margutti Trophy has been contested by sevenFormula One World Drivers' Champions?Source:https://tkart.it/en/news/events/the-34th-andrea-margutti-trophy-in-lonato-with-240-drivers
• Reviewed:

MB243702:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment The seven drivers in question for ALT1, each listed by the source, are:Jenson Button,Kimi Räikkönen,Fernando Alonso,Nico Rosberg,Lewis Hamilton,Sebastian Vettel, andLando Norris.MB243702:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that thecaesarDalmatius was murdered by his soldiers with the support ofcaesarConstantius II?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Troadec family murders

Jon698 (talk)23:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• @Jon698: The nomination may be closed within 24 hours if a QPQ is not provided.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will be able to add one after 1 PM CST.Jon698 (talk)13:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: QPQ done.Jon698 (talk)19:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Emphasizing that this is still in need of a full review.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thata furniture company's advertisements have featured live lions, tigers, and bears—andE.T.?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Dilution policies of the British Ministry of Munitions (1915–1918)
• Comment: Please note that there isan ongoing AfD discussion regarding this article; my position can probably be implied, but consider !voting there (whichever way you please) instead of reviewing if the AfD is still open.

Pbritti (talk)01:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: if AfD ends in a keep and this nomination remains alive, I suggest saying that the advertisements featuredlive lions, etc. I thought the ads were gonna be akin to LiMu Emu and Doug or something.Roast (talk)01:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The AFD was closed as no consensus, so this is ready for a full review.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd ask that any potential reviewers wait until 8 February before beginning their review, as I have some cleaning to do following substantial work done on the article while it was at AfD. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that filmmakerWei Shujun has often depicted characters struggling with their rational worldviews under extreme circumstances?

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/David Barsum Perley
• Comment: Thanks to222emilia222 for improving the article. Hopefully the seven-day limit can be extended for a first-time DYK author.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• Since this was promoted to GA status on January 10 but was nominated until January 20, this is technically ineligible for DYK even taking into account the built-in extension. However, as a first-time author, and 10 days being close enough to nine days, we can probably let it slide.

The main issue at the moment is hook. Isn't that theme about rational characters facing adversary very common and not specific to Wei's work? As currently written, it may not meet DYKINT, so a different angle may be needed here.

Other than that, I did not find any close paraphrasing, and the article is properly sourced and meets DYKCOMPLETE. For now I did not do any of the usual hook checks as I am waiting for alternative hook proposals first. Please ping me once you come up with new hooks. Given that the article is already technically ineligible, this is more at risk of being rejected entirely if new hooks are not provided (since this isn't a case of "the article or nomination is otherwise eligible or close enough").Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)08:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find the hook interesting, but how aboutALT1: ... that the films ofWei Shujun often meditate on the process of making films for the Chinese cinema industry? Feel free to adjust iff you will.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)09:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's better, but I'm not sure if "meditate" is the best word here.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)09:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, are you asking me to think of another word or do you have one in mind?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Meditate" seems like the wrong word because, as far as I can understand, he covers the industry and does not "meditate" it. "Meditate" sounds like he's overseeing a dispute.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusingwikt:meditate withwikt:mediateNarutolovehinata5.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)12:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It's still weird though, because when I think of "meditate", I think of meditation (the relaxing thing), not as in "dealing with".Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you now the difference between meditating and meditating on something, as with here. Is wverything ready to progress this nominarion,Narutolovehinata5?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that thefirst session of the United Nations General Assembly was held in a church inwar-damagedLondon only four months after the end ofWorld War II?

• ALT1: ... that theBritish foreign secretary persuaded a church congregation to vacate their hall for thefirst session of the United Nations General Assembly, saying "there could be no better place than a House of God"?Source:https://unric.org/en/in-pictures-first-ever-un-general-assembly-in-london-80-years-ago/
• ALT2: ... that delegates to thefirst session of the United Nations General Assembly were given ration books and tours ofbomb-damagedLondon during the session?Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2025/09/23/un-general-assembly-anniversary/ &https://unric.org/en/in-pictures-first-ever-un-general-assembly-in-london-80-years-ago/
• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/1854 San Salvador earthquake

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk)20:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free ofcopyright violations,plagiarism, andclose paraphrasing: - There appears to be someclose paraphrasing.
• Other problems: - I found two sources that were retrieved usingChatGPT. I double-checked that the article does not have anyLLM hallucinations, as this sometimes crops up with LLM use. Conversely, however, this resulted in some instances of close paraphrasing; this is OK forthe US government source that is in the public domain, butthe FCDO source is protected undercrown copyright and may therefore need to be reworded.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Several comments:
  • ALT0: Can you please provide the relevant quote from the source?
  • ALT1: The source provided here and in the article are both primary sources. Are there secondary sources for this quote?
  • ALT2: Two things. The URL suggests that this source was retrieved using ChatGPT. Also, are there any secondary sources? This appears to be a governmental blog.
• Interesting:

Overall:@Raydann: Good effort on the article, but I saw a few issues that should be resolved first.Epicgenius (talk)17:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much for reviewing the nomination and for the feedbackEpicgenius. Please allow me some time to get back to this; am quite busy with pitching and planningan upcoming GLAM event. I will address your concerns shortly. Thanks for understanding.❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk)21:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ... thatCarrie Underwood's "Good Girl" is built around a pattern of open fifths composed of C5-F5-E♭5-B♭5 rather than using full chords?

• Reviewed:

RedShellMomentum22:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• The current hook is too technical and maynot be easily understood by readers unfamiliar with music theory. How does the following suggestion sound instead?

• ALT1 ... thatCarrie Underwood described her song "Good Girl" as "kick butt"?

Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions andRedShellMomentum:Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: That works.RedShellMomentum18:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

an artist described their own work as "kick butt"? I'm not sure how that's interesting ...publeek (house •service •theleekycauldron • she/her)02:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably there does not seem to be anything else in the article that's hooky, so the alternative is rejection.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions: any other ideas for a hook?theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)15:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I couldn't find interesting contents from Composition nor Critical reception section, but I found that this song was multiply used inThe Voice program, and I think it can be an "interesting" topic.Furthermore, "Good Girl" was performed across several seasons of The Voice, including renditions by Adriana Louise during the third season's Live Rounds,[39] Amber Carrington in her Blind Audition on season four,[40] and Kat Perkins during her Instant Save on season six.[41]Camilasdandelions (✉️)18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A song being used multiple times in a singing contest isn't really that interesting. It might appeal to fans of The Voice, but it might be more debatable for non-fans.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]