Worse, no prep loaded either, with 14 hours to go.... Get ready for some "hilarious" April Fool's Day "hooks"!
Quite. I don't know what the plan is but I assume those in the know will take care of it during the day?! They even intend to have two sets for that day. I can't help myself as I'm out all day but if nothing has been done by this evening then I can probably do something. — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah said she is going to put together the April Fools sets. She's basically just been waiting for some of the late entries to be verified, so presumably she will be completing the sets later today. Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Three issues on the main page right now could use an expert eye.
Six hours to go and it looks like DYK's annual attempt to be unilaterally funny (as opposed to inadvertently hilariously banal) is going to be a complete carcrash. Applause!!
Four to go. Goodness me.
Oh, a prep set but no-one with the balls to promote such a load of bollocks perhaps??
It certainly won't be me; when the whole of the main page tried to be funny I could see the point of DYK bending the rules, but now that DYK's the only part of Wikipedia still clinging to April Fools it will just be embarrassing. As I've pointed out elsewhere, we're not only two hours from the cliff-edge of putting this on the main page, we're going to frame it between a 13th-century dysentery epidemic, an aviation disaster and 160 people massacred by ISIS. ‑ Iridescent 21:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent I don't blame you one iota. What a clusterfuck.
I give up. I've got the statue one "fixed" at WT:DYK but I've lost the will to live on the rest. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Good luck DYK, two hours to go and no queue, and fuck know's what's in store for tomorrow afternoon, I can BARELY WAIT to see that load of shocking crap....!
Amakuru I see you have now been given permission to promote the prep. Pay heed to the issues raised here before taking responsibility for doing so....
Yes, this really is a shit-show and I should never have got myself involved so apologies for that. It's tricky because the DYK project (and others) technically have the right for "the exemptions that the main page has historically enjoyed to continue". And maybe the current batch of gutter humour and misleading hooks is that? I don't know. Per this I think an RFC is in order because I don't think this situation is satisfactory. — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
100% definitely. Unfortunately I imagine that I am banned from participating, but the annual juvenile clickbait circle jerk needs to stop.
Legal cases are in italics. Neither the article nor the intro show this. Plus we don't use contractions on Wikpiedia, so "they've" is disallowed - 1 April doesn't mean fuck the rules of MOS. Plus the hook is bullshit, they weren't arrested because they were zombies, they were arrested because they could have caused a breach of the peace given the the very specific context of their arrest. This generalist sensationalist hook is nonsense. And not funny at all.
And the title was WRONG! That's been addressed, along with the italics. The hook is still factually incorrect.
Avoid the contraction once again, and the piped redirect for "sow". This stuff is really basic. And sneaky Oxford comma which isn't used in the target article. Respect the writers preferences people.
"Connecticut senate" or "Connecticut Senate" per the target article and our own article? Or is it now hilarious to just decapitalise a word for the sake of it?
Apart from being just a contrived piece of crap hook, how does it even begin to be "get lucky with a Genie"? It won a Genie award. This is beyond juvenile.
"the wine won" - not really, it went to a retrial and Messrs Hazard and Williams won although even that wasn't clearcut. Still, why let the truth get in the way of yet more DYK nonsense.
That ridership is only on weekdays, and the verification to the source is practically impossible (not to mention that the overall ridership _is not_ referenced by the source given).
I've fixed the annual reference, but the weekday ridership (which is traditionally the only one given, as it is the most important for government metrics) can be found in the APTA source. It is listed as "King County Dept. of Trp." on page 4 (and again on page 34 as LR), which is as close as we'll get to a real figure. SounderBruce 07:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks SounderBruce, but how does a reader without a priori knowledge (e.g. me) understand that "King County Dept. of Trp." + "LR" equals "verifiable claim"?
Says "on or around 1 April", no verifying it's 1 April this year.
Removed. It's mostly sourced to a webpage that's 404 anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Festivals take place on or around April 1. April 1 itself is Edible Book Day (which is what the link text shows) because that's the birthday of Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. I replaced the dead references with new ones and put the article back in. —howcheng {chat} 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"over 1,000 casualties" -> infobox says 2,950 "casualties and losses" (although to be fair, that reference is dead). Not sure where "2400" comes from for the lower range of prisoners, the lead says "up to 4000". This feels a little unclear to me.
"the only mutiny.." seems odd when it's an article about "a series of mutinies"... it would seem "the main mutiny" of the series took place on 1 April...
Went with "The main mutiny in a series of mutinies of the" because I couldn't see that that "the only mutiny" was supported at all in the article.
Article doesn't capitalise "Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing", nor does it refer to it as simply a "fighter", more specifically it deems it the "first operational close-support and reconnaissance fighter aircraft " It's also not mentioned that it entered service specifically with the RAF on 1 April, the infobox is the only place that date appears to be mentioned but nothing in the prose specifies it was the RAF.
Fixed the V/STOL issue, and it is a fighter aircraft, merely a sub division of such. However the prose suggests it entered service on the 18 April, but it looks like it entered service on 1 April and was delivered to the first squadron on April 18. There are quite a few sources for this, so I've added one and fixed the prose.
I agree it's a subdivision, the point I was making was therefore it might not be able to be claimed as the "first fighter aircraft", it was the first "subdivision" of fighter aircraft...
Fox mentioned three times in the hook, plus no context, who was Neilson and what was The Fox's Frolic? A painter and his painting? A book and the author? And Publications section dreadfully under-referenced.
So it fails basic DYK rules, but will run tomorrow anyway? Applause.
" zinc oxide nanoparticles, one of the three most" the article is not so definitive, it says "ZnO nanoparticles are believed to be one of the three most produced " we shouldn't be using Wikipedia voice for fake news.
The only reference for him playing in the 2018 cup is a "he will play" reference, i.e. not that he actually did. On top of that, the relevant section of the article in question is a confusing mess really.
So the hook is actually unverifiable, but it passed and will run tomorrow anyway? Further applause.
He didn't play in 2018 - that cite is for the 2017 tournament. So that source says that it will be his eighth tournament and also cites that he'd only lost one, and source 19 - which I've copied to that sentence - confirms he played. What isn't cited is that Europe actually won in 2017, so it needs that. The bigger problem I have with this is that you don't "win" the Mosconi Cup, your team does - it's like saying "Tiger Woods played in five Ryder Cups, winning three of them". I'll post at DYK. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The article does not state that she was 60. She could have been 59.
The play opened on March 1, 1933 [1] so she would have just turned 60. I've added the month to the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The theatre names would take too much room, and links to the cities wouldn't help much. If you mind the piped links, they could be dropped completely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I see the problem of too many links, - coming from the German Wikipedia where the max number of links in a hook is one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It's the same number of links as in the promoted hook.
Improving after promotion is not prohibited. Anyway, I began improving Teatro Regio (Turin). Todays building not mentioned in the lead. Number of ref zero. Better no link, - sorry that I didn't see that sooner.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Once in the queue, only the privileged few can "improve" it. Right now it's still showing as two Easter egg links which, particularly in the context of the hook and that another link is being used for a similar thing is not an Easter egg, is very poor form. Shouldn't have been promoted like this.
Can one of the privileged few please remove the links for Paris and Turin? The three places are not created equal. While the Glyndebourne Festival is where the greatest singers sing in summer, but only few readers may know, Paris and Turin should be halfway known, and which house precisely doesn't matter. - I called project opera anyway to improve the Regio article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Where is "first successful portable computer" referenced? The article lead talks about it being the first commercially successful portable computer but that's not referenced either.
There are other issues with this ... "In the first eight months after April 1981, when the Osborne 1 was announced, the company sold 11,000 units. Sales at their peak reached 10,000 units per month". Er, what? Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It is possible that the statement is correct if it sold 11,000 in right monyhs and then lager on had a bumper month with 10,000, but [3] seems to suggest figures of 2000 a month at the end of the year and a downhill slope from there. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Howcheng, the ref you added directly contradicts other information in the article (e.g. the weight of the system), but it does verify the blurb claim.
This is called "Hanshik" in the infobox which has some confusing messages about the date, which could be either today or tomorrow, and nothing appears to reference tomorrow for 2019...
The infobox is for dates in China, which vary per year. In Korea, it's always April 5, as per the cited source. —howcheng {chat} 16:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't say they're the dates for China, plus it's confusing with the "Begins", "Ends" and "Date" entries. What is that all about??
From what I can tell, it was a multi-day thing in China but has since been condensed down to one day as the Qingming Festival (which is April 5, but the article is ineligible), so it's only observed in Korea and Vietnam now. I tried to make that a little clearer in the infobox. —howcheng {chat} 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The source for the size of this painting is curious. On one hand it says it's 8.44m long, but on the other it says "61 x 110 inches" (that's 155cm x 279cm), whereas the article makes the claim it's 332 inches wide (which is 8.43m incidentally). I think a better source is needed, especially as the "hook" here gives the size of the mural to the nearest centimetre....
The source used is this one. It seems that the mural is divided into three panels, of which the first is 155cm x 279cm, while the others are 155x284cm and 155x281cm. When added together, those three widths do indeed total 844cm. So I think this one's OK. — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Ahem, quite a few changes were made after my tidying up, including re-referencing the offending claim, so we're good now. Probably a MASSIVE coincidence.
This hook is context free (and oddly reverse-written), it should be something like "... Cole Porter's nickname for his romantic partner Nelson Barclift was "cute little nose"?
Rather than "nearby", the article says "Cape Fugui or Fuguijiao Park surrounds the headland.[12] It includes a rocky beach with ventifacts .." i.e. the hook should really say "... that Cape Fugui, the northernmost point on Taiwan, includes a beach with ventifacts?
I think what this is trying to say is that there is a park called Cape Fugui Park, which covers an area including the cape itself, which is just the northernmost tip. As such, the ventifacts probably are near to the cape rather than actually within it, although as that the scale of the park is not given that is still an unsubstantiated claim... the ventifacts could conceivably be 1000km away from the cape if the national park is a big one! — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going by what the article says. If it doesn't mean "Cape Fugui ... surrounds the headland" then it needs to be reworded. I'm no expert on that, but read literally right now, the Cape includes the ventifacts, they're not (vaguely) "nearby".
Very well, I have reworded it as you suggest. — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The hook is unclear - as it turns out Bredow wasn't in the camp while his colleagues were, perhaps just adding "who were interred" before "in the Oranienburg ..."?
Agree that the wish to have it short led to ambiguity, and good solution! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"digs a burrow with its head and lines it with particles of clay or mud cemented with mucus" that's principally what all worms do, right? So is this like a hook saying "X is a breed of dog which has a forehead and a nose?" Completely unremarkable and not in the slightest bit interesting to a broad audience (a guiding tenet of DYK).
Appalling.
DYK that worms look like worms and do worm stuff? Certainly in the top 5 worst hooks of 2019.
Which $?? And it's a shame we're obfuscating the fact that this stamp, per its own article, is "the world's most famous rare stamp", that might encourage readers to go and take a look.... And "later" is a little misleading, unless I suppose if you're 141 years late for something, that still classes as "later"....
Image still showing. Jmar67 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, unnoticed for the last seven hours or so...
More like 2.5 hours, but we certainly could do better. Fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Did OTD not flip at midnight UTC then? Why was that?
It did, but the Moldova hook was not removed until 4.42am. So yes, *something* was wrong for 7 hours, in that the inaccurate hook was up for 4.42, but the image issue was only there after that. — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see, so something was wrong for the 7 hours, just two different things! Cheers. Plenty of other stuff there right now that needs addressing!
ok I'll get to that when I can. At the gym right now, phone editing between reps! — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I've put references for the 7 April 1841 as well as her going home to France in 1848... so should deal with the immediate issue, although why such a "momentous" event is not mentioned in the FA prose at all I have no idea. — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. But you're right, it solves the current issue.
Section tagged... (plus we have four b/d's OTD, usually three, is this a backlash against ITNC having up to SIX RDs nowadays?!!)
In fact, on closer inspection I note that THREE sections are maintenance tagged. As one would be against the rules, two would blatantly not good enough, three... well that's just unacceptable.
Is it remotely interesting that "a [unnamed] shopping center" has a design style from another state of the US? The article makes it clear that it's actually known for it's mid-century modern design. Only the local rag seems to think this "California-style" is even remotely worth noting. Plus we don't link major geographical entities with which around 95% of readership will be very familiar. If it linked to some article on what "California-style" even actually means, that might swing it...
The source says she was the first women to hold the position of "co-vice-president" actually, not "vice president" in her own right. But why let facts get in the way of a good story??
"... the Paris International Air Navigation Conference was held in France..."?? YOU DON'T SAY? Unless of course we're making sure our readers aren't confused by the fact that Paris could be Paris, Arkansas.......... Suggest (at the very least) just saying "... the International Air Navigation Conference was held in Paris ..." and hope our readers know that Paris, France, came first.... And "entered their territory", well really (and per the article) it was "entered their airspace" or "flew over their territory"...
I have changed the latter point, but I think you have misread the opening. It says "that the Paris International Air Navigation Conference of 1910 was held after France became concerned...", not that it was in France. THanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, pardon my indignant short-sightedness, that's what happens when you read things in between washing up and going to softplay....
Oh, I do like a good soft-play centre. Did you go for a swim in a sea of plastic balls and crawl through padded tunnels? — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, the good news is the youngest is now happy to go off on her own and explore and play with all the other kids, so I get a coffee and some browsing time!
Make the most of it. Mine have now outgrown that and do tennis instead, which means standing in the cold and any surfing I do has to be carried out on the phone. It looks like we don't have any article covering the softplay concept... perhaps I'll write one. — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Really there's no good reason to pipe out "psychological" here, it's fundamental to understanding the hook.
Sorry, I just copied from the article, without thinking. Could one of the helpful spirits unpipe, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Howcheng:WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply to this case, for two reasons. (1) the link in question is a piped redirect, not a redirect from a piece of text that actually appears in the prose, and (2) the section explicitly makes an exception for "Links on the Main Page". We should therefore fix these as they are found. Not an egregious error, but still an error. — Amakuru (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was a plain redirect, not a piped one. —howcheng {chat} 07:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... but maybe because it was styled as [[concert hall]]s, with the plural outside the link, does that make it a pipe? I don't know. Splitting hairs at this point I suspect.... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It was a piped redirect. Simple. Let's just fix these going forward rather than debating whether we should spend hours debating whether we should fix them.
Six wikilinks in this blurb, and I don't think the pipe to "set a world record" is appropriate, because the article is about the match, not setting a world record.
"the German philatelist Wolfgang Baldus " well the article clearly states he's a " graphic designer, artist, and philatelic writer" (per lead) or "Graphic designer and artist" per infobox. Probably best not to just make stuff up.
Awful, long piped link, should be just something like "... has called for US$100 billion in reparations for slavery during her campaign? Note also the US$ too, don't just assume our readers will know this is US dollars.
Why "but also", why not "and also"? In fact, it's a little clunky, it's not really important that he was an operatic bass at the Berlin State Opera, the real hook is his world premiere performances, so just focus on that, "that Siegfried Vogel, an operatic bass, performed world premieres at the Staatsoper Berlin, the Metropolitan Opera in New York and the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow?"
During the height of his long career, it WAS important because being based in East Berlin, New York was not so common. Better wording welcome. "that Siegfried Vogel, an operatic bass at the Staatsoper Berlin for decades where he appeared in world premieres, performed at the Metropolitan Opera in New York and the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow? - Btw, after Germany was united, he was dropped by the Staatsoper, too expensive a singer by then, they wanted cheap young people, - sad story, - can't find the relevant Spiegel article though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's important to our readers and creates a clunky and uninteresting hook I'm afraid. World premieres beat where being based any day of the week. And it's not clear to our readers that this was even in East Berlin, nor would they get the significance of that from this hook either. Better to stick with interesting the readers enough to click on the target rather than befuddle them with ornate detail to turn them completely off.
I disagree. The premieres were operas nobody speaks about any more, we don't have articles for them, so don't know if his roles were leading roles, while Metropolitan and Bolshoi put him in an "upper" class. I thought the openess for something new was worth mentioning, and reviewers keep telling "opera singer sings operatic role" is not interesting (while it's the very thing I'd want to know about some singer). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It is clunky, and the meaning is still unclear. Does "... that Siegfried Vogel, an operatic bass at the Staatsoper in East Berlin, performed in world premieres there, at the Metropolitan Opera in New York, and at the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow?" convey the intended meaning? Bazza (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No. Simplify, by giving a year rather than a place (East and West Berlin doesn't matter then, NY and Moscow were on opposite sides during the Cold War from whichever perspective), and dropping the premieres which happened only in Berlin, and avoid "opera" twice: ALT1: ... that Siegfried Vogel, a bass at the Berlin State Opera from 1965, appeared at the Metropolitan Opera in New York and at the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow?"
If the premieres are irrelevant, why are they part of the proposed hook?
I didn't say irrelevant, I said New York and Moscow are more relevant, and if we can't have both without being misleading, I know what to drop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's clunky and almost unhooky the way it's written. I've given my opinion and suggested alt, if it's not of use, let it be, and see the lack of pageviews. Pointless perhaps?
The ALT sounds like there were premieres in New York and Moscow, caused by ambiguity in the original, admittedly. I'd like to get that out, page views or not. Another ALT2: ... that Siegfried Vogel, an operatic bass at the Berlin State Opera, took part in three world premieres there, including Paul Dessau's Lanzelot? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
ps: will improve Dessau's article, just in case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The current hook is terrible.
We have two alternatives here, - where are the helpful spirits? Bolded. Bedtime for me though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
They are few in numbers.
Have you agreed on something? — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Gerda has proposed two ALTs, I have no opinion.
(ec) You probably need to take the first, because it has the same content (- the premieres) as the original, while the other introduces a new opera. Interesting composer! Learned a lot (including that he had practically no refs but an infobox from 2007). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've changed it to Alt1. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Another stunning "worms eat mud (sic)" hook, something that even my two-year-old daughter knows. So the answer to this DYK is "YES, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT".
A lot of claims of international recognition which aren't verifiable. Plus it's not the whole of the US. Plus, are we really featuring an article which such excruciating content, e.g. "Examples of commemoration during this observance include giving your sibling a gift (including a surprise gift),[12] a giftcard, and taking one out for dinner.[13] Nonmaterial examples of observances during this day includes giving hugs to your sibling(s), enjoying time with them, and honoring their presence in your life.[12][14] It's not as bad the worm hooks, but it's close....
No clear sign that the book by "Hole Charles" exists, let alone verifies the date of death, which is mentioned in the prose but that reference (at least in the notes) only mentions the year of death too...
Page number given and text quoted match, too. Can we fail this one on "inability to fill out citations properly"? --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The date of death is referenced further down the article by the book [4]. — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the Hole reference. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This was already "dispute-tagged" before I looked at it so it fails DYK rules and should be pulled. Tag was applied five days so shouldn't have been promoted to a queue either....
"...became interested in photography as a means to influence public opinion..." well not according to the article, which states "At first, she was interested in photography as a process, particularly trying and failing until the desired product is achieved". Her interests in influencing public opinion came later.
Looks like she wasn't mustered into service until more than a year later, so while the blurb isn't entirely inaccurate, it's a little misleading in that it kind of asserts that the mustering also took place OTD.
The "world premiere" factoid is mentioned, unreferenced, in the lead. Another, similar claim, is made further but caveated by a quote which says "believed to have been the first performance of a play written by a New Zealander." but no mention of "world premiere". And note, "believed to have been" in any case, not absolute statement of fact.
Say "believed to have been", - quite likely no earlier premiere will be found, but you never know, therefore write a caveat. - You could also just factually say when his play was premiered, - impressive enough, - who needs "first"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Well right off the bat, I'm not convinced that the hook is properly verified by the article. After that, who knows?
I've updated the article to say that according to the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is is believed to be the first world premiere. We can't say "it is believed" in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:WEASEL. And we certainly can't baldly say it as a fact, as the hook currently does. How do we get all those layers of uncertainty into one pithy hook though? — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The original (and approved) hook was more cautious. Can you take that? The other was verified by Yoninah whom I trust ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT0 is now in the queue, as far as I can see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep, although I've just read it again and the wording is slightly awkward... "the first producer of regular productions"... Might see about improving that slightly. — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, late to the party here. The hook about to go live is awful: "the first producer of regular productions". Is that what TRM's anti-errors page produces? @Amakuru: please choose something else from the nomination template. ALT2 is much better: ... that James Henry Marriott(pictured) was the first optics professional in New Zealand to make a telescope? Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah this is far from "anti-errors", this is "instead of errors". If you're going to be so disrespectful, I'd advise you don't come here again, ever. We've fixed more than 1500 main page issues in nine months and I don't care for your attitude on this occasion. Fix these ongoing issues within the DYK project, don't continually expect me to do the job of all the DYK project each and every day. Honestly, it's draining and incredibly sad that DYK continue, day after day, to attempt to promote such sub-par material to the main page.
Maile66, Yoninah, and now the hook is clunky. The article says "He was the first person to make telescopes in New Zealand," so why make it more complex than that? I don't know why the current replacement hook is better in any sense, too contrived and clunky, not hooky and counter to DYK. Never mind.
Yes, I said above that I was going to come and fix the repetitive wording from the productions hook. So I'm not sure why it's been changed to one that was never agreed by the reviewer, Gerda Arendt. It should have been possible to tidy up the wording without throwing the whole baby out with the bath water. — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't care, really. Thank you, TRM, for supporting my RD nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
No citation for the date. It also says Sat 13 April....
OK, so I found a number of cites for 13 April and a number for 14 April. This seems to be the problem - "People will be celebrating Rama Navami on April 13 (Saturday) but followers of Vaishnava Calendar will celebrate Sri Rama Navami on April 14 (Sunday)." Also, the "Saturday" version stretches into Sunday - "Navami Tithi begins from 11:41 am on April 13 and Navami Tithi ends at 9:35 am on April 14." So it's not actually wrong, but it's not really correct either. I am minded just to pull it. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Blurb lacks geographical context for those of us who have not heard of the hospital or Mount Scopus... And why "about 80" when the intro and the infobox both clearly state precisely 79?
This is, frankly, a mess. The blurb says 23 died. The infobox says 21 died. The lead says 23 people including 13 children died. The article says "Six children were listed as dead". We can't promote something in this state on the main page.
Trainor requested it be removed from Vevo. This isn't clear at all in the hook (which asserts she "removed" it herself, which, of course, is nonsense).
I hate to be a pain (!!) but isn't almost every single cue sports tournament ever played decided by the "final ball"? This one, specifically, was decided on the last black... I think I know what this is getting at, but more interesting would be that the final, deciding frame lasted an hour.
Firstly, no context, i.e. "graphic novel character", secondly this hook has no relationship to the real world, talking only of in-universe storylines, so it shouldn't have ever passed DYK review in the first place.
"promotional singles" is piped to a redirect. Plus no need to abbreviate to EP when the abbreviation isn't actually subsequently used. Plus article says 43 singles now. And 38 music videos...
Firstly it sounds like he's dead, secondly there's some punctuation missing which accentuates the fact that each of the five marathons and summits were on separate continents, I could easily read it as "five marathons" (anywhere) and "five summits on different continents".
It's ref #2, but it's on the wrong date because we moved all "begins at sunset" observances to the next day. —howcheng {chat} 18:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"philatelic" is piped to a redirect which leads to Postal Museum, Dhaka, which clearly isn't relevant here. While we're at it, "nonprofit organisations", "railway" and "art galleries" are all piped to redirects.
Routed to "philately" and fixed the redirects. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
A shame to have missed adding that he created "an _impossible_ elephant named..." could have made it even hookier. I am however concerned at the use of the fair use image in that article when a free image of pretty much exactly the same image is used just beforehand, thus rendering the non-free image use somewhat invalid.
Does "Western Christianity" include "Eastern Orthodox Church", as noted (although not referenced) in the infobox
I've removed the unreferenced "Eastern Orthodox Church" from the infobox - infoboxes attract that sort of drive-by unsourced edit and sometimes I miss the additions...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Tagged for lacking inline links, most sections are completely unreferenced.
The external link at the end covers the list of embassies (I made a new section called "List of missions" and explicitly added the source there), and the History section appears to have sufficient references. —howcheng {chat} 20:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"Princess consort of Monaco" is piped to a redirect.
Since List of Monégasque consorts has a big orange cleanup banner at the top, I just removed the link to it in the blurb. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
What more do you need, man? A picture is worth a thousand words. But anyway... I'll try and write the blurb at lunchtime today. Apologies for the tardiness. — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It's ok, I wondered if it was deliberate because the whole article has been tagged...
This hasn't aged well, Harzer already is the "carrier" (odd phrasing), and has been since March, so he's not the "next" to do that, he's the current one.
Agree. That's what you get for trying to be prompt, - article and hook written when it was just announced. The German word is Träger, like in "eine Krone tragen", - what is that in English, what does a queen do with a crown? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
She wears it...
Yes (how did it get promoted in the first place??)
Since I looked at this, it's now been maintenance-tagged.
I took that out because it doesn't make sense to me. It's not like there are different traditions in different countries. Also, I moved the article to Administrative Professionals Day (sans apostrophe) per request on the talk page. —howcheng {chat} 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"two years previous came to a boil" doesn't read well or encyclopedically.
Rewrote as The Dominican Civil War broke out due to tensions caused by a military coup of the democratically elected government two years previous.—howcheng {chat} 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
As this is clearly being run on 23 April for a reason, wouldn't it be 2000 times hookier to just say "... today is Der kleine Tag?" Even then, the article seems to be making it clear that it's only 23 April in the musical version, not the actual story, so perhaps even the existing hook is misleading.
"Today" was discussed, see DYK nom, I said that it's not without difficulty for readers in the far East and West, due to time zones. The writer of the original story is part of the team for the (much more famous) audio play, so February is kind of overwritten by April.
ODNB says "The date of Adeliza's death is reported in continental sources as 24 March 1151".. but the Complete Peerage (vol. 1. p. 235) says she died 23 April 1151. Unfortunately, the CP dates from 1910, so the ODNB should be considered to supercede it. Needs pulling. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes
22 April 2019
DYK
General
No queue loaded with 15 hours to go...
No queue loaded with 7 hours to go...
No queue loaded with 4 hours to go...
No queue loaded with 2 hours to go...
Yes
General
Bravo for managing to wait so long for one "math" hook only to bring two along in one set (height function and Butler matrix, no less), like the number nine bus! How incredibly dull.
Dates in the infobox appear to bear no relevance to OTD. But interestingly, it seems to imply that GA, FL, and MS observe this on the same day as Alabama, so why single out just one state?
No need for that comma before "which", but in any case, the article makes no mention of publication OTD of excerpts, it states "On 22 April 1983 a press release from Stern announced the existence of the diaries and their forthcoming publication; a press conference was announced for 25 April."
I think "up to 3,000" is somewhat misleading, a figure given out by the South Koreans. The official figure was 54, and even the Red Cross estimated at 160. It's more than feasible that 3,000 is propaganda-driven and we shouldn't be parroting it, unless we attribute it adequately.
I've edited this, removed Hitler Diaries & copy edited Land Rush. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes
21 April 2019
DYK
General
No queue loaded with 17 hours to go...
They argue about the image slot, reserved for something Easter, and I said "something Easter" is not good enough. I take the blame for no queue loaded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Who is "Gurney"? And the article says the awareness of the hymn was only in America in any case. If you don't know who "Gurney" is, you actually don't even know where the hymn was exported from... Not a great hook by any means.
... and combined with a completely unrelated image, but nobody seems to care --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This is misleading. It sounds like the Italian sinking was as a result of the missed German sinking, which is clearly untrue. It failed its primary objective and then sank the Italian ship with guns.
Firstly, yes of course people know that mostly all animal populations have declined. But this hook is barely encyclopedic, over what period? What does "dramatically" bring to this in an encyclopedic sense?
Why is "Birth of Muhammad al-Mahdi" not linked to Mid-Sha'ban which is what the current target article points to for the birthday? Either use the linked article (it appears to be of reasonable quality) or remove "Birthday of" from the pipe. The data relating to the date of celebration should be replicated in the Mid-Sha'ban article.
Once again, I see no benefit in featuring an article whose precise date of occurrence is uncertain.
If it were just the year, it would be fine, but apparently the month is uncertain as well. Replaced with Battle of Mutina. —howcheng {chat} 17:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "fine" cuts it when the main page makes an absolute declaration of the year in which an event happens OTD, in this case when the year is up for debate, let alone the month.
"persuade" is anthromorphic, I don't believe for one second that these animals are trying to persuade something to do something. The source says "induce" or one could say "attempt to elicit a response" or similar, but certainly never "persuade", this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
This is mildly perplexing because even me, who knows almost nothing about ice hockey, knows that people can be inducted into these hockey halls of fame without playing the game, e.g. referees, builders etc. So this is far from remarkable.
The article states "Overall, Greece has changed its electoral law on average once every 1.5 elections.[9]" it does not state "on average, Greece has changed its electoral law regarding apportionment in the Hellenic Parliament once every 1.5 elections" as that is highly specific.
Up to you whether to leave it red or not, but I've decided to update the article text to match the hook and otherwise let this one go for now as it's probably just about accurate, per my comment at [6]. Too tired for late-night drama that will ensue if I pull it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
All I care about is that the hook matches the article, and that the hook is verifiable. If you believe that now to be the case, I have no problem with it at all.
There is absolutely no justification on earth for that fair use image in the lead. This is an attraction open to the public right now, anyone can go and visit and take a free-to-use image. Fair use should not be abused in such an overt fashion and we should certainly not be linking to articles from the main page who make such violations.
The issue with this one isn't that the photo itself is fair use, it's that it depicts a "sculpture" at the park which is alleged to be the logo of the ride in question. Thus I guess it's meant to be akin to the logo shown in the infobox at Galactica (roller coaster) or similar. The US doesn't allow freedom of panorama for photographs of sculptures, so this can't be uploaded to Commons on a normal CC licence. Whether it really is the ride's official logo is another matter. There's a rather different looking logo here and the official website doesn't show an image at all, just the title in a font similar to the one in the "logo" we are using. — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Then if it is disallowed under FOP it shouldn't be allowed under fair use at all. And how, therefore, are we allowed to use the other image of the track in the very same article? Looks inconsistent and dangerous to me.
Who knows... buildings are allowed, so perhaps the track (and even the car?) would qualify under that. Certainly we have vast numbers of pictures of cars and indeed railway tracks on the Commons so you'd think someone would have spotted that one by now. I spotted another version of the "alternative" logo at [7] (unavailable in the UK for legal reasons) so it seems like it's a stretch to call this one the official logo, and I've now removed it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is awkward because the volume is part of the pipe and only in metric, needs rephrasing so Imperial units of volume can also be presented to the many millions who don't do metric. It's also curious how the lead of the target talks in mass terms, not volume, probably a better approach.
I would expect to see a comma after "Duke of Cambridge" here, unless three people were getting married. And "A worldwide television audience of 300 million people" seems to be nowhere in the article, which seems to suggest hugely varied estimates as to the number of watchers, all the way up to two billion. I don't think Wikipedia's main page should be claiming a definitive answer if the article can't.
Not seeing the date even mentioned, let alone referenced.
The date was apparently the date of the resignation, and not the date that the compromise was worked out. I've replaced it because that is not made clear in the article, and the hook could be misleading. — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says he died 27 days after he was elected, and that was on 1 April, so this implies he died on 28 April. Perhaps it's best to avoid these mathematical excursions and just say the date he died in the prose?
Dubious and dubious. Firstly doubt has been cast on whether some of those in the aircraft were already infected, so that renders this "fact" somewhat "unfact", and the hook is suggesting this is a the record ever of all time, whereas the infobox says it was the largest "during the 2003 SARS outbreak". Needs serious work before Wikipedia is used to present this unsafe claim as "fact".
Don't have time to look into this now, sorry, but afaik, there has only been one major SARS outbreak, in 2002–3 with sporadic cases in 2004. The CDC states no cases worldwide since 2004.[8]Espresso Addict (talk)
Badly worded, looks like it's talking about the investigation 10 years ago today, not that she disappeared 10 years ago today, perhaps something more like " while investigating the case of Brittanee Drexel who disappeared 10 years ago today..."?
The source just says he was "waylaid" on this day, makes no mention of "attacked by partisans of his predecessor" as far as I can tell. And the latter target article, about the epic, claims "but his eyes and tongue were saved by Charlemange's missi dominici" but once again I'm not seeing that in the only source provided either...
Ref #3 later in the paragraph, but I'll put an extra footnote in for that. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
