" invaded Poland at Wieluń and Westerplatte among others" reads very oddly to me, both in terms of "invading Poland at..." and "among others". Perhaps something more like "German forces invaded multiple locations in Poland, including Wieluń and Westerplatte, starting the European theatre of conflict in World War II?" Actually, even more complex, because it appears the didn't invade Wieluń on 1 September, they simply bombed the crap out of it (90% of the centre destroyed), so the wording needs even more thought.
ALERT! DYK is running Bombing of Wieluń tomorrow as well as a bold target article, best we don't have this in both sections!!!!
I've swapped it with another story in ITN. It'll be better going in next year anyway, seeing as it's the 80th anniversary. — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Promoted with heaps of bare URLs, failing DYK rule D3. Worse, the hook isn't referenced......
The references were in the second article, so I've added them to the first. The url's aren't really bare as their details are included. I personally don't like this reference style, but if memory serves me correctly, it's a valid style under the guidelines. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
No, they're inadequate, "Parameters accessed from Genus species page" for example is insufficient to prevent linkrot. They should never have been promoted. Fail.
On closer inspection, it does appear that some of those references need further elucidation. Pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The references here are not "bare urls", perhaps you don't understand the concept? Rule D3 simply states "References in the article must not be bare URLs (e.g., http://example.com or [1])." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Re-read what you just wrote...! And in any case, several of them would not be retrievable from the information given if they died. Much easier to just use proper referencing. Perhaps you don't understand the concept?
"for three days" well the article lead says " a major conflagration that swept through the central parts of the English city of London from Sunday, 2 September to Thursday, 6 September 1666" so that's 5 days (inclusive), right?
This started on 2 September but went on several days, so the blurb should reflect these executions commenced OTD. And "thousands"? The article suggests: "1,100–1,300 killed"
I added the reference, but the article turns out to be more of a mess than I first noticed. Replaced with Bhaktivinoda Thakur. —howcheng {chat} 22:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
"largest heron in South America". So what? One heron has to hold that title. Is that the best we can do? Maybe add some dimensions to put it into context?
Incredibly awkward "Etches's" aside, "considered "key acquisitions" by" why in scare quotes? The article doesn't use such an approach.
Changed to ... that clothes created by Matilda Etches in the 1940s were the first modern fashion items to be hounoured as key acquisitions by London's Victoria and Albert Museum? — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"umpires visiting hospitals have given seriously" very odd phrasing, should be "umpires have visited hospitals giving seriously..." and clearly they're not stuffed animals...
Hooky enough for the NRA.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've had a go: "... that Major League Baseball umpires have visited 131 hospitals since 2006, giving seriously ill children more than 12,500 stuffed toys, through their UMPS CARE charity?" — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The phrasing was OK in AmE. "Stuffed animals" is also OK for a U.S. article, and the article uses that term. See the Wiktionary entry for "stuffed animal". Jmar67 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on that aspect of the hook, but I think we do usually make some effort to use ENGVAR-neutral terminology on the main page if the term used might lead to confusion, or repeated loggings of "errors" as a result of regional variation. An example of this is in ITN, when we can't decide whether to say "England defeat Germany" or "England defeats Germany", we reword neutrally along the lines of "... the FIFA World Cup concludes with England defeating Germany in the final". The visiting/visited part was just wrong, because it implied that umpires have been visiting hospitals since time immemorial, but only in 2006 did they start bringing animals with them. — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Struggling to understand your reasoning here but no big deal. The visits did start in 2004. I still think the original wording was proper. Your hook is OK. I can appreciate the ENGVAR problem. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
ENGVAR neutrality should be addressed in the nomination approval process. Jmar67 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to make a proposal at DYK to include another checkpoint. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Awkward phrasing aside once more (why not just "she rode out"?), the article states that this was all "reportedly", and hence not actually necessarily "fact", so DYK should not declare it as such.
I've attempted a fix, though I wasn't sure how to phrase it - it's not really a "report", more a "popular story" as the source has it (and no, I really don't care that the tweaked hook is >200 characters). Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Very bad form to pipe link "pedal laceration" to an article which doesn't actually mention "pedal" or "laceration"... Art imitating life?
The article does appear to be relevant however, so I think it should remain linked - probably the best solution would be for somebody to add a sentence or two about pedal laceration. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
So we'll just keep the error that's been reported twice then, good move.
I was going to edit the article myself but I don't have time right now so I've pulled it. I will look around for a replacement hook later today if nobody else replaces it in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added something to the corals section which I hope satisfies this. Also changed it to "basal laceration" because that's what the source says. — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Only source quoting his date of birth has it as 14 September, not 4 September....
Added some sources for 4 September ([2], [3]). The Guardian quotes it as 14 September, they appear to be wrong. Fish+Karate 13:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It's made of water and agar, so this is deliberately misleading. One could argue that pretty much any cake is made of water if you're going to deliberately leave out all the other ingredients. Plus, a tighter crop on the image is needed, it's mostly leaf and wooden spoon as far as I can see in that tiny thumbnail.
I've added the bit about agar, and also the line from the article about it having practically no calorific value. Will have a look at the image later on, if nobody else does so first. — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I can make out the raindrop cake glob quite readily; it's right in the center of the image. Here's a view of the image as it presently appears in the article, at 250px. Sure, it's smaller as a DYK image, but it stands out enough to the point that I wouldn't call it an "error". North America1000 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's not an error, just pretty much undecipherable as it's going to appear on the main page.
I'm going to declare this one OK I think. I had a look at tomorrow's main page even on my phone screen, and the blob of watery agar was still visible there. And it would be hard to crop it much without moving the edges of the plate, which I don't think would be helpful. Curious people can click through easily enough. — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Why does "Slovene-American" need a hyphen when the linked article Slovene Americans doesn't hyphenate it once?
Presumably because in this context it's a compound modifier, whereas the article title is a noun. I think per MOS:HYPHEN the current version is correct. — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably. The only exception I see at MOS:HYPHEN is if the term is deemed to be a proper noun, the cited example being "Middle Eastern potatoes" rather than "Middle-Eastern potatoes". Is "Slovene American" a proper noun? I have no idea. Note that African Americans hyphenates the adjectival form throughout, so there's almost certainly an inconsistency somewhere. — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The article consistently capitalises "Reverse" as in "There are no rules against a Reverse rotational lift, " and "perform a legal Reverse rotational lift." (although if the former is true, the latter is tautological), and whether it's right or not, there should be consistency between hook and article. I note most other "lift" names are capitalised in the article as well...
Calling it a "Reverse rotational lift" doesn't seem to fit any capitalisation convention. If it's a proper noun then it should be "Reverse Rotational Lift", whereas if it's not, it should be "reverse rotational lift". I've gone with the latter, as Google search suggests it is by no means consistently capitalised in running text, and I have amended the article accordingly.
Um, the article states that it was not just her blonde hair, but her "fluent Polish" which helped her "pass as a Pole". It's quite disingenuous to suggest that it's just her hair that did it to be honest.
I've tweaked it as suggested and also changed "Pole" to "gentile" as "Pole" makes no sense as Jews in Poland were also Poles; also that's what the article and source state (or imply). Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hook says "had seven children before becoming" but the article is not so specific, it says "eventually they had seven children" and provides no timeframe.
Trimmed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Article is dreadfully focused on the naming and hard to follow, but it seems that the hook which says " its scientific name" is somewhat misleading as it's scientific name according to the article is Acanthophis cryptamydros with the Lancaster name being a synonym.
Tweaked. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"C.P.E. Bach." I thought we spaced out those initials these days, i.e. "C. P. E. Bach."? Also, the "English Bach" claim is not referenced in the article.
Oops. I meant to say "London Bach" rather than "English Bach", as that is the moniker that is cited. Perhaps I've been living inside the M25 for too long if I've started confusing the two. — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Article doesn't mention day, just says "In fall 917, Liu went further and declared himself emperor of a new state of Yue, at his capital of Panyu (which he renamed Xingwang)."
Perhaps the source does not give an exact date. North America1000 09:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 So perhaps it shouldn't be featured in the "on this day" section?!
Well there are two references in there, one is a calendar converter, the other doesn't mention 917 at all, perhaps I missed it?
Presumably you're meant to derive some date from the Chinese text, and then use the calendar converter to deduce that the date is in fact 5 September 917. Seems too tenuous to me, so I've replaced it with a Voyager 1 story. — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I won't revert, but I don't see how that's any different from getting an old Islamic date and using a converter to derive the Gregorian one. —howcheng {chat} 23:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Come on, how on earth would 99.9% of the readers of English language Wikipedia verify that? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's assume you didn't need the date converter, but all the sources were in Chinese. We'd still AGF that, right? Same difference. —howcheng {chat} 16:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
From Chinese Wikipedia/Wikisource? I'd be dubious about it, and since I can't even see "917" in that source, even more so. Honestly, if it's such a struggle to find verifiable sources, such articles should be precluded from featuring in OTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
When founded, it was just called "Hotspur Football Club" so the blurb shouldn't really be calling it anything else for its foundation. And the target article uses "Robert Buckle" instead of "Bobby Buckle" which is also odd.
Rather than "American and Australian forces made an airborne landing..." why not "American and Australian airborne forces made a landing" since airborne here already links to airborne forces?
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
6 September 2018
DYK
Well....
... nothing at this point! Kind of makes up for yesterday's 87.5% failure rate...
Well "founded" five days before it was opened and built seemed like a stretch to me, and I checked, no sources talk about the "founding" although they do say the original opening date was delayed. Probably would be better to actually post this to commemorate the day it really opened, rather than some arbitrary date preceding it.
The Piggly Wiggly company site (ref #2) itself claims the 6th as the opening date. Ref #4 (Time magazine): "Clarence Saunders opened the first Piggly Wiggly on Sept. 11, 1916 in Memphis, Tenn.—after a few construction delays, which is why the company celebrates the anniversary on the 6th." A press release from the current parent company says uses the term "founded". —howcheng {chat} 22:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
So you added the "founded" source to the article to verify the claim in the blurb?
"less than 300,000" calling Davos... Obv (and even per the article!) should be "fewer than..."
Nope. Less than is correct.[4] — Amakuru (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, but perhaps you'd like to make the article consistently incorrect if you wish to follow one interpretation of that blog...
It's definitely "fewer", as it's referring to individual units of something that can be counted ("300,000 units"). Which is even what that blog says. Changed. Fish+Karate 07:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The blog says don't say "fewer than". It also says you shouldn't use it with quantities that aren't thought of as individual objects. Such as the items at a supermarket checkout. So no, fewer is a hypercorrection in this case, which doesn't follow usage for at least the last 100 years, and the article should be amended rather than the blurb. — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well each console was an individual unit, identical, and therefore most definitely are thought of as individual objects. But this is classic ERRORS fodder, so perhaps if necessary it could be continued there if anyone feels that strongly. I'll be archiving this day shortly (but please don't take that as anything other than just housekeeping).
"may find other hazards above the waves" well actually, the source says they are simply just other "predators" rather than the nebulous and unhelpful "hazards". Image caption should really mention the subject matter as well, more relevant than the illustrator...
It is other hazards, as it's not just predators ("sometimes fish land accidentally on the decks of boats"). Image caption changed.
"in the Mexican league" there exists more than one "Mexican league" (or article calls the LNBP "the top professional basketball league in Mexico", so really instead of "the Mexican league", it should be "in the LNBP, the top Mexican professional basketball league, ..."
I've removed the pipe from LNBP, this is clearer and less clunky (we wouldn't say in a DYK on Harry Kane that he plays "in the EPL, the top English professional football league"). Fish+Karate 07:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
There's no point at all in naming and ranking "SS-Rottenführer Viktor Pestek" when he's non-notable and his rank is indecipherable to most. We do have an article on Rottenführer which could be linked. The hook also ought to reflect that the escape was made by Lederer and Pestek himself, not just that Pestek "helped".
This hook would really benefit from some context, like when and/or where the SS Hope served (the developing world in the 1960s/70s), as those many of us who aren't familiar with hospital ships (not linked) will just shrug shoulders and say "so what, what's the big deal, why should a "hospital ship" have more than one dermatologist? Sounds a bit posh for something that probably serves warzones..."
"fifty years after Poison Ivy was introduced, the Batman villain... " poorly constructed, should be "fifty years after the Batman villain Poison Ivy was introduced, " or "fifty years after Poison Ivy, the Batman villain, was introduced"
" New York City's Rockaway Peninsula was ", the article specifically says "and the Rockaways in Queens." and doesn't mention "Rockaway Peninsula" at all. Please stop making stuff up.
It's called "Rockaway Peninsula" in its own article. Tweaked the hook's article to include it.
hook: "ended what has been described as the opening battle of World War II", article: " but it was only one of many battles in the first phase " &c.. Frankly, it's a complete farce to publicise a description of something which is (even in the article) demonstrated as false.
The article contains two solid sources that describe it as the opening battle, and other statements in the article do not "demonstrate [the claim] as false". The article mentions only Operation Himmler, which wasn't a battle, and the bombing of a bridge and some airfields about 15 minutes before, which are not actions that might ordinarily be considered battles. Regardless, the hook only says Westerplatte has been "described" as the opening battle, which is demonstrably correct, it doesn't make an absolutist statement that it was the opening battle. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It’s a junk hook because you’ve had to try to justify it with such a response. QED.
I'd be happy to defend my reasoning but in this case I don't think it's necessary, as a google search would appear to confirm that Westerplatte is widely considered by historians to be the opening battle of World War II. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
In that case why don't we say in the article and the DYK that it's "widely considered" to be such, rather than the much weaker "described as"[by whom?]. And cite that to the sources you found in your Google search? — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me put it this way Amakuru. I did a quick google search on Westerplatte and the first half dozen books that came up all described it as the opening battle of WWII. So with the sources already in the article, that's eight sources. What I don't know for sure is if other sources name some other battle - a lot can depend on definitions. For example, I was always taught that World War II only began on 3 September, when France and the UK declared war, making it truly a world war. Few facts of this type are ever completely beyond debate. So it would be a bit original-researchy, IMO, to boldly state that it is "widely considered" to be the opening battle when I'm not fully conversant with a wide number of sources. As for adding more references, that would be good, but I have neither the time nor inclination for it right now and it isn't really necessary anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hilarious. So the promoted article is actually inadequate and makes some dubious claims, and we know that, and we're featuring it on the main page, but hey fuck it. Классно!
That's an absurd mischaracterization of my comments. It's clear that a substantial number of historians consider Westerplatte to be the opening battle, and that's more than sufficient to confirm the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No, what's absurd is leaving a lame hook linking to a clearly under-prepared article with dubious claims. Thatis absurd.
There's nothing wrong with the article, but if you think there is, there's nothing to stop you from fixing it. I also happen to think it's a very strong hook that will get thousands of hits. But I've learned from hard experience that you will never admit to being wrong and will just keep harping on until you either get your way or your protagonists quit the field. So with regard to this particular issue, I am hereby taking the latter option. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
And I've suggested you avoid editing here, since you're so keen to avoid actioning such challenging issues. Stick to the main ERRORS page in future.
"killed 7 soldiers" -> seven. And I don't think we need "fireworks" to be linked here. Also, certainly in my variant of English, we dispose "of" something, not just "disposing illegal "...
The hook has chosen to refer to him as "Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku" while the article uses "William Pitt Leleiohoku II" or "Prince Leleiohoku", and never refers to him as the hook usage, so that's a little odd, and the sentence preceding the "hook sentence" says "Prince Leleiohoku were really in..." which (to me) is grammatically incorrect, either there's something missing (e.g. "Leleiohoku's were really...") or it should be "Leleiohoku was really..." Either way something's not quite right there. QPQ!
"was penalized 25 points" this is (without context) unnecessarily overly detailed. Unless the average reader knows how many points are normally awarded for a win (and in F1, for example, a much more widely understood and viewed sport, 25 points is huge, but it appears that in NASCAR that it's not that big a deal with individual drivers gaining thousands of points throughout the season. Just drop "25 points".
Firstly, piping it to "Bangladesh anti-drugs campaign" is really euphemising it, it's not referred to that in the article. Most "anti-drugs campaigns" don't include "killings" for instance. Secondly, the Easter egg link to Crossfire (Bangladesh) ("shot at night") is completely inappropriate (and not reflected in the article). Also, "shot at night and weapons and drugs were" could use a comma, probably after night.
Another easter egg link to Vietnam War (readers would assume Vietnam would link to ... Vietnam). And isn't it normally tours of Vietnam or tours in the Vietnam War?
Blurb says "is a 1436 oil painting" while article opens with "painted in approximately 1437" (in conflict with the 1436 category too...). Blurb is also rife with pipes to redirects. Worth checking all the remaining claims bear out too.....
Yes
OTD
Malta, Malta!!
Over-represented methinks!
Disagree. If that's the case, then Rising of the Priests is never going to appear unless Victory Day drops off due to maintenance tags. It's extremely common for a country to have both a holiday and a blurb, especially when it's the UK or the US, so I don't see why we treat Malta differently. —howcheng {chat} 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Picking "at least 88" out of that article is a bit odd and a bit of a stretch. Why not focus on the main shootings in which at least 400 were killed?
There's widely varying numbers on this and it should probably be pulled. 88 is the lowball estimate. This talks about the rumours around the numbers dead, with the figures varying from 86 to 4000. Fish+Karate 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
That source states how a historian working for the current government arrived at 88 deaths, so it seems fairly safe. I've added that number to the article intro and infobox. —howcheng {chat} 16:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid it still appears ridiculous to highlight something with such a range of uncertainty. Somewhere between 88 and 900? Seriously?
"by secretly photographing themselves holding rainbow flags in Tehran" the article is clear: " Activists have taken photos of the event in other cities, including Kerman." so not just Tehran
"take on the hue " well the source says "may gain color camouflage by incorporating the pigments of the biotic substrata on which it feeds", so hue is not mentioned at all, and as we all know, hue has a very specific meaning, and it's not the same as "color".
I rewrote the content (in the article) to read, "this skeleton shrimp may take on some of the coloration of whatever it is feeding on" (diff). Cheers, North America1000 07:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
"that Indiana police believe that " well the case wasn't investigated by Indiana State Police, it was the "Fort Wayne Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation", and the article says "The DNA from the condoms matched the police's DNA profile of the suspect, leading investigators to believe the incidents were connected.", i.e. investigators could be the FBI or Fort Wayne cops or both. Also, the hook is in the present tense while the article makes this assertion in the past tense... More complicated by the fact that someone has now been charged with this crime, so ought we even be promoting this hook at all?
Updated to: "... that police investigating the 1988 murder of 8-year-old April Tinsley believed that the murderer also left threatening notes with used condoms on girls' bicycles in 2004?". Don't know if that satisfies your issues? (Other than the question of whether it should be pulled, which I'm not sure about) — Amakuru (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
"someone made a charro outfit out of pull tabs" - it was made mainly from ring pulls, as the source clearly states "the suit contains the cut off aluminum bottoms of the cans down the sides of the pants, around the brim of the hat, chin strap and belt". And why "someone made"? Reads very poorly indeed, if you're not going to mention good ol' Victor Almaraz, then re-write the hook to avoid it sounding like we don't even know who made it.
Yes
OTD
Emperors aplenty
"jointly became Roman emperors." the articles describe them as "co-emperors"
Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Blurb: "were completely annihilated." article: "suffered a heavy defeat". Hyperbole much?
The article says: "Poor tactics, and the choice of an open battle with the more experienced Ottoman cavalry, resulted in the total defeat of the Croatian army." I didn't want to say "totally defeated" because that sounds like bad teenager slang. —howcheng {chat} 06:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Dates for Jewish holidays are now done by code. Data files were downloaded from http://hebcal.com and are now accessed using Template:Calendar date. There is always the possibility of GIGO but Hebcal is considered reliable for Hebrew calendar date conversions. —howcheng {chat} 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Where is the reference?
I've updated to use the ref that Howcheng suggests. — Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Blurb "estimated 10,000 people died", article: "The number of dead and injured is hard to estimate, with different sources giving accounts varying from 1,000 to 13,000.[2]" (the 10k died claim is in the lead and unreferenced...) I'm not even sure I can find a reference for "The Lesser Judgment Day"...
No need for "coal" to be added into the link for anthracite. Plus, they weren't just "fired upon", 19 of them were killed and dozens/scores more were wounded.
Can anyone explain what's happened in that "Notable works" followed by a basically empty "Complete works" (with a ref in the heading) followed by what I guess is one of his works written out in full for some reason?
That threw me at first, too. The "Books" section is collapsed. If you look to the right edge, there's a "show" link that will expand the section. —howcheng {chat} 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it shouldn't be collapsed, we shouldn't have references in titles and why the section dedicated to a whole poem?
I've split that section into its own list, List of works by Jeppe Aakjær, and axed it from the article. The list is too long anyway. Not sure about the whole poem, I'll leave that decisoin to someone else. It's not copyrighted anyway, as the author died in 1930 and Denmark uses death+70years. — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
"that the oceanic two-wing flyingfish exhibits countershading?" what, just like " all flying-fishes" (per the target article) and like " many species of mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, and insects, both predators and prey, and has occurred since at least the Cretaceous period"? This is not interesting to a broad audience.
I had better respond here in case anyone is foolish enough to heed TRM's comments and pull the hook. Most people do not know what "countershading" is and have never considered how fish might camouflage themselves in the open ocean. It's an interesting topic. In this instance I found a source that mentioned the countershading and so was able to use it and cite it in the article. The fact that other flying fish also exhibit countershading is not in the least relevant as to whether the fact is interesting to a wide audience. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Cue a series of dull as dishwater hooks about various flying fish (and thousands of other types of creature) etc all of whom display "countershading". Yawn. No wonder it's going out of business. This is certainly contender for worst hook of September.
I thought it was quite interesting, I'd never heard of countershading. I don't imagine we'll have thousands of similar hooks just because we had one. Fish+Karate 09:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
A couple of things: an odd easter egg link from "Janet Fraser", a two-sentence blurb??
Rewrote as "Janet Parker, a British medical photographer, became the last recorded person to die from smallpox, leading to a debate on whether the virus should be preserved." —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
"U.S. Ambassador" is a pipe to a redirect. Plus, the second phase of this attack (" and CIA annex, in a different diplomatic compound") took place on 12 September, not 11 September... Plus the lead is far too long...
" is the shortest tenure since 1903" well, since she's still holding it until December, and who knows what will happen in between, it should be "will be the shortest". Plus, the reference seems to say "the newest 112-day addition"? Oh, and I fixed the badly formatted reference, you're welcome!!
Seriously no need to link New York City. Once these sets are built, someone should "sanity check" the level of linking. And is poor old Fredric Wertham left out of this? He "conceived" of the idea and it was he who recognised the problem!! Also, it seems key that it was one of the first to provide low cost treatment, as specified in the article, which doesn't appear in the hook.
" the engineer of a Metrolink train in Chatsworth, California, ran through a red signal" - presumably this means he drove a train past a red signal, rather than ran through it himself... Also not comfortable with the "Distracted by text messaging". The article states "cause of the accident was most likely the result of the Metrolink engineer's use of text messaging", i.e. it was most likely as a result of the texting, but not definitively, as there were also other contributory factors.
I've added "likely" to the start of the hook, but "ran (through) a red light" is a common American idiom ([5]) Fish+Karate 12:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems obvious that the engineer ran the train through the red signal, rather than stopping the train, getting out of it and jogging past the red signal. I don't see how anybody could be confused by this. This part is not an error, in my opinion. North America1000 12:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It's AmEng, not universal, as in the UK we don't have "engineers" driving the train, we have "drivers" (oddly). An "engineer" would normally be someone onboard to assist the smooth running of the ... engine. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure. At any rate, I guess I'll jog on regarding this one for now. North America1000 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The structure of that sentence was quite painful on the eye anyway, so I've given it a bit of a rewording: A Metrolink train collided head on with a freight train (damage pictured), resulting in 25 deaths and 135 injuries; the Metrolink driver had passed through a red signal, having likely been distracted by text messaging. — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The term "driver" is arguably BrE, not universal. I doubt that there is a satisfactory universal term in this case. The article uses "engineer", which is the common U.S. term for the operator of a separate locomotive (the engine). Hooks should respect the usage in the respective article. Jmar67 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
No, not if they introduce ambiguity to a large number of readers.
How about a compromise such as "Metrolink engineer (driver) ..."? Jmar67 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes
14 September 2018
DYK
Caption
Why is this centrally aligned?
It looks weird with the usual left-alignment ([6]), perhaps because the image is narrow? Fish+Karate 10:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"was an immediate international success" I couldn't see this in the reference.
Reference 3 says it 'rapidly became very popular in Germany and abroad'. Reference 1 describes it as 'hugely successful'. Reference 2 (translated) says 'sensational international success'. Is it the word 'immediate' you're taking issue with? Or is the issue with the reference provided within the DYK nomination? If it's the first I think 'immediate international success' is a reasonable paraphrase of the three sources but it could perhaps be tweaked to 'rapidly became an international success'? If it's the second, meh. Fish+Karate 12:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The article itself doesn't say "immediate international success" or even really allude to it. It says the premier in Germany was a success, but nothing about the success (or otherwise) outside of that.
In line with the references, I've added ", where it was equally well-received." to the bit about being played outside Germany in the lead. Does that do it? Fish+Karate 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the addition. Look at the nom: we started more cautiously. The opera was ranked with Carmen at the time. It was a success that it appeared in London and New York soon after the premiere, but explicitly saying it was successful there may be a bit too much ;) - Still a good summary, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Technical point, is it "Accelerators" or "The Accelerators"? Article title has no "The" yet its usage in the article and this hook does...
The comic is called "The Accelerators", looking at its front cover, and the website of the publisher ([7]). Article moved accordingly, to The Accelerators (comics). Fish+Karate 11:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone actually read this article? The grammar is appalling, whole sentences repeated.... Simply not good enough to be featured on the main page. Oh, and who cares how many of each team will be playing??!
I've copyedited the article. Fish+Karate 14:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
And reminded the DYK reviewer who said it was "good to go" to check the article and not just the hook. Fish+Karate 14:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"days (September 2 was followed directly by September 14)" remove parentheses and reword "with September 2 being followed directly by September 14." It's also unreferenced.
The ref is the law itself. —howcheng {chat} 20:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Blurb is really staccato and poor to read, and the "in Milan" is repeated (the final stage). I'm also not convinced we need "only" in front of "197 riders"...
Is this actually really still a "thing'? Last refs in the article date back to 2014.
Hmm... it's not looking very active. Their Twitter feed is still active with a retweet on Sept 5 (but only 3 tweets this entire year), and the website hasn't been updated in a year (and Google Maps is broken on it too). So I think it's not worthy of being included. —howcheng {chat} 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"more than 700 prisoners of war and a few civilians" the "a few civilians" reads very poorly to me, almost flippant. I'd like to see that referenced too.
Changed to "about 50 civilians" based on the numbers given in the "Casualty estimates" section. —howcheng {chat} 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. It's the very first sentence in the very first reference. "Anna Winlock was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, September 15, 1857." —howcheng {chat} 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The claim of it being the longest loop trail in Washington is dated to a 2006 source. Are we sure there aren't others since, such as the Overland Loop Trail which is 18.5 miles in length?
This article is highlighted today for the UK, we shouldn't highlight exactly the same article two days running.
Not an error. This happens occasionally. Purim, for example, because it's celebrated in Jerusalem one day later. —howcheng {chat} 01:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't be featuring the same article two days running.
"with possibly the strongest winds ever measured in a tropical cyclone" - Well no, those "possibly the strongest winds" occurred within the cyclone four days before it hit Japan.
"Palestinian" is piped to a redirect. And the blurb really can't say "killing at least 700 civilians." when the very opening sentence of the article says "the killing of between 762 and 3,500 civilians". Oh, and the infobox says "460[2] to 3,500[3] (number disputed)". What a mess.
Synced the intro with the infobox and updated the blurb.
Units should be converted, although the hook is patently clumsy. Something like "brown-hooded kingfisher has been recorded eating reptiles longer than its own body length" would suffice, as that's the point, not the actual number of cm of the bird and prey.
I've added in conversion units, but I'm going to disagree about including the units. I think that's useful and more informative than simply saying the prey is longer. — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Would it be any more remarkable if it was a 30 cm bird eating a 34 cm lizard? Or a 15 cm bird eating a 17 cm lizard? I don't think so. But at least we got the technical issue sorted, cheers.
Hook says "killed more than 10,000 Native Hawaiians" cited portion of article says "wiped out 10,000 people, mostly Native Hawaiians". This is inconsistent
Seems a shame not to go the whole hog and include the fact that he was "murdered the year after his release", if we're going along the whole quirky hook thing here.
Caption is too wordy, just "illuminated tram" will suffice. Oh, and " billed as "the greatest free light show on earth", " guess where that "claim" comes from? It's Blackpool Borough Council, the organisation which runs and advertises the illuminations... Advert much?
Trimmed. Somebody else did the image caption, by the looks of it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The article says that it's a "breastaurant" not a "restaurant"... Oh, and the law was changed in three "municipalities" according to the article, not three "cities".
A breastaurant is a restaurant. Changed the cities bit though. Fish+Karate 11:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to breastaurant. Unless there's a good reason not to, main page blurbs should use the same wording as their target articles. — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
" that German soldiers" why is "German" easter egg linked to "Nazi Germany"? Why not simply replace "German" with "Nazi"? In fact, it would probably be far more elegant to say something like "... that the Axis powers of Germany and Italy committed..." And where's the "more than 5,000"? I see that Germans committed more than 5,300 but I'm finding it hard to pin down the number committed by the Italians...
I've reworded it. Not sure what to do about the figures. If the Germans killed that number on their own, then the more than 5000 number for both sets is not actually wrong. The question is only whether we should remove the mention of the Italians. Or reword a bit. — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Seven [citation needed] here, in a BLP, including parents names, place and date of birth etc. Not good enough for BLP...
Some of the cns had already been eliminated, and I've now removed things that still weren't cited, e.g. use 1960 rather than 22 Oct 1960 since I can't find anything backing that up. I'm quite surprised these issues weren't picked up during the QPQ review process. — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not. Thank you.
Yes, perhaps I phrased that wrong. I am shocked and horrified, but probably not surprised. — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: The thing that shocks and horrifies me is that TRM was prepared to tag bomb the article when it was in the queue and just about to go on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth the thing that doesn't shock me the indefensibly poor quality of the reviews going on at DYK which allows such a series of BLP violations to pass through its QPQ process. It's vitally important that such violations are noted and resolved or removed before going to the main page. Ideally, of course, that happens during the DYK process, but it's abundantly clear, day in, day out, that the process there is not fit for purpose.
Fish and karate got to this one while I was busy rewriting it, but I've inserted my revision anyway hope that's OK: Second World War: the German Army began the Massacre of the Acqui Division on the Greek island of Cephalonia, executing 5,155 Italian soldiers by 26 September. Seems to scan a bit better, and also includes the name of the article in the hook - I'm not sure why we're often so averse to doing this. — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a nice hook. But it would be even better if those "sinkings" were described (accurately) as "accidental" or somehow the idea that the sinkings were not deliberate is there, because it's not clear that these were all mishaps...
"pyrogglyphid mites " wow, a typo in the title of the target article? QPQ reaches a new low on the spectrum... And of course, it only affects the mites in this way during one stage of their development, i.e. the protonymph stage, that's not clear here either. Oh, and it's relative humidity. Of course.
Fixed the typo and added 'protonymph', but the article doesn't mention "relative" humidity, it just says 'very low'. I think "under low humidity conditions" is ok. Fish+Karate 12:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it's funny that. After all, the source uses relative humidity but why should the article?
I've updated the article to use relative humidity throughout, and linked the term. I don't think relative humidity and humidity are the same thing. — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
They absolutely are not the same thing at all. Which is why I noted it amongst the myriad issues with this single sentence. Cheers.
I think that one is an outlier. Other sources in the article, especially ref 3 (Mississippi Department of Archives, which should hopefully be basing their info on official records), say Sept 22. The Stephen D. Lee Institute says the 22nd, so I believe that to the correct date. —howcheng {chat} 16:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so we use the reference, regardless of the fact that it says something different to other sources? How, then, can reference 1 be considered "reliable"? And why is it being used to reference his date of birth? Bad form.
Ref issue fixed, but bad use of existing ref still outstanding
This hook wins the award for the grossest non sequitur this month. Quite what determining the difference between two skin conditions and leaving Nazi-occupied Europe have to do with one another is beyond me. Is this supposed to be quirky?
"deserters from the Sudan People's Liberation Army embarked on a long march to another country" what an odd way of putting it. Turns out "another country" actually has a name... and it's Sudan!
"... based on a photograph taken ..." the article says it's "a collage of several photographs which were taken at the Giant's Causeway"
It is multiple photographs, which is kind of obvious when you look at the cover. (Why can't people go with the hook I wanted?) Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
" that NHRA ..." this is not a commonly known organisation (like NASA) so we shouldn't just be using the acronym and expecting people to understand it.
" is believed to be the first explicitly socialist radical society in London" what about the Rose Street Club founded three years earlier? If the differentiator is somehow this "explicitly" term, then I'm not actually seeing that in the target article...
Yeah, not sure how this got through. Even the "believed to be" doesn't match the text, which says "described as", and we aren't told either in the article or in the DYK nomination who it was that did the describing, (making this a WP:WEASEL, or what the source text supporting this actually says. I've replaced it with the line from the lede (which I've cited separately), which is both weaker and stronger, because it says "one of the first", but does not restrict the set to radical societies only. I was personally also concerned that the term "radical society" is not really defined, and we have no article for it. — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Date not referenced. The inline ref given is to a generic date conversion website and offers no instruction or route to arriving at 24 September for this year.
This one is down to the movable date template, which calculates dates but doesn't bother to put citations. I've replaced them with accurate cited dates. — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"The First United States Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789," according to the article, this date was when the act was adopted. It appears to have been "passed" by the Senate on July 17.
"alone" and "assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy" are both pipes to redirects. Also worth noting this date was when the report was released to the President only, it was public three days later.
Instead of the clumsy "by a route going up any of its faces", just use the article terminology which is more precise and correctly linked: "by ascending one of its faces".
"a" needs to be inside the pipe, i.e. a wave of terrorist violence (although that pipe suggests it was much more subtle than just "terrorist violence", i.e. "a series of social, political, cultural and military conflicts", so that's somewhat Easter eggy).
"Harald Hardråde" is a pipe to a redirect, Location section is mostly unreferenced, Aftermath section has unreferenced para...
Still some tags and unsourced content on this. Sounds like a job for Ealdgyth. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The article needs a lot of work. It's been on my radar for a while, but I just don't have the time to devote to it right now. Too much of the article is sourced to primary sources (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), there are sloppy citation practices ("The death of King Edward the Confessor of England in January 1066 had triggered a succession struggle in which a variety of contenders from across north-western Europe fought for the English throne. These claimants included the King of Norway, Harald Hardrada. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Manuscript D (p. 197),[1] the Norwegians assembled a fleet of 300 ships to invade England." has the citation in the wrong place (the ASC is the source for the 300 ships, so it should be after that statement) but the ASC doesn't support the first sentence at all), other unreliable sources are used (like this self-published work or a Victorian-era history). It's a lot more work than just slapping a few citations into it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Blurb says "About 4,200 people took part in the first running..." the article says "For the first "modern" marathon race in 1977, just over 1,000 people signed up for the race, with expected numbers of just 200–300.[50]" which is in direct conflict to the unreferenced claim in the lead. And it should really just say "About X runners took part in the first Chicago Marathon." (or similar) rather than the curiously verbose and possibly ambiguous current wording.
That "For the first "modern" marathon race in 1977, just over 1,000 people signed up for the race, with expected numbers of just 200–300." is shit, it's from this reference which is talking about the Ravenswood Bank Lakefront Ten Mile Run, which happened in May 77, not the Chicago Marathon. Have removed the bad info from the Chicago Marathon article and tweaked the blurb. Fish+Karate 12:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Replaced with John Bonham. Don't worry about the few bits of unreferenced content, I can fix all of it when I'm near my book sources this evening, unless Ojorojo gets there first. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Reference error, we shouldn't be featuring this kind of stuff on the main page...
¡Ay caramba! I knew my run of not generating any TFP errors would have to come to an end some time. What specifically is not referenced? — Amakuru (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a ref error for ref 3.
Now fixed. Fish+Karate 09:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
"received no Division I scholarship offers" why is this interesting? Do most basketball players get a "Division 1 scholarship offer"? Plus it's unclear, this isn't noted in the article, he was offered a scholarship by a school instead, right? Hardly scintillating stuff.
He was the star of the 2018 Division II national championship game and thus very likely good enough for Division I. Was also the Division II Player of the Year. He did get a scholarship from his Division II school, but that is not important.Jmar67 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
None of which is clear from the hook. At all. Hence my original question. This is nonsense.
The hook was enough to arouse my curiosity. I see the nomination approver preferred it over another one. Jmar67 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It might have been interesting to people who know the machinations of American college basketball, but that's hardly what one would call a broad audience per one of the key aims of DYK.
I see no issue with the hook either.--WaltCip (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Because you're aware of the machinations of American college basketball perhaps? It's meaningless to me, or rather, of no consequence, of no interest at all. And I only say "to me" because I'm very interested in most sports, including basketball.
And some of the point has gone wayward, this "not being offered a scholarship by a Division I team" is not mentioned in the article. He wasn't offered a scholarship by Cambridge University either, so we could use that hook?
" Ferris State was the only school to offer him a scholarship, so he committed to the Bulldogs" and this is even worse, how do the majority of readers know that "Ferris State" isn't this mythical "Division I team" and how do the majority of readers know that "Ferris State" = "the Bulldogs"? Nonsense. Should never have made it to the main page. Embarrassing.
The originally suggested hook was much better. I think it would be no more confusing to non-Americans than many cricket blurbs (to pick an example, not to denigrate the sport) are to Americans. --Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
We have a new hook, based on the original version: ... that basketball player Zach Hankins helped Ferris State win its first Division II title in 2018, being named the tournament's most valuable player?. Comments and thoughts on a postcard please. — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is completely non-controversial and accessible to all. Cheers.
Poor construction with repetition of "retreat", suggest second could be replaced with "doing so", or similar.
...that Manshuk Mametova was the first Kazakh woman to become a Hero of the Soviet Union, after she refused to follow the rest of her unit in retreating from battle in Nevel — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Äbtissinenhaus is used in the caption and in the article but not explained/translated at all. This is, after all, English language Wikipedia. And "ladies"? Shouldn't that be women?
I don't think so, but it was done. Damenstift in German, and probably only for the rich or even noble. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
And since Stift is another German word, it should be in italics (like our article).
Just more than the 30 days mandated by the rules, this is a clear vote-winning electioneering hook to appear on the main page for 20 million view just over one month before the election in which she is running.
One completely unreferenced section, one section mostly unreferenced and what's not relies 100% on links to other articles, a [citation needed] and .... Simply shouldn't have passed QPQ...
While he "campaigned", it appears that it did absolutely nothing (well, at least nothing as far as the article is concerned) so while this might be the most interesting thing in the article, it's really not actually that interesting at all.
"was one of the first to criticize Ronald Reagan?" well that was the opinion of one single music journalist, whereas one of the band's own members simply said "It's a fun song. It's kind of a spoof on everybody", so the "criticize" claim either needs tempering or the hook needs rewriting, there's plenty of good material in there, after all.
Who or what else could "And Ronnie the Popular said it was a Communist plot" be referring to? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite follow, that's all part of the spoof, right?
The drummer said that. The guy who wrote, sang and produced it, however, is politically active and kind of likes Trump (or did in 2015, he might have changed his mind since), and so might not necessarily feel the same about it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the point is that contemporaneous RS say both it was a criticism and a spoof. Unilaterally declaring one without acknowledging the other or at least acknowledging it was a singular review seems potentially misleading to me.
Date not referenced. And are we assuming that Eritrea uses the "Ethiopean calendar"?
Reference added. From Ethiopian calendar: "The calendar ... serves as the liturgical year for Christians in Eritrea". Fish+Karate 13:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"became the only person to complete a Grand Slam in golf" surely "became the first person"? We have an article Grand Slam (golf) which lists a total of nine other Grand Slams by five other individuals.
"Only" is correct. The other people have completed career Grand Slams, which is winning all the tournaments over the course of their career. Jones is the only person to have won all of them in a single calendar year. From the Grand Slam article: "Only Bobby Jones has ever completed a Grand Slam. No man has ever achieved a modern era Grand Slam. Tiger Woods won all four major events consecutively within a 365-day period, but his victories were spread over two calendar years. " —howcheng {chat} 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Heh, funny that the target article calls it the "the (pre-Masters) Grand Slam". And obviously a "career grand slam" is a type of "grand slam". But ok.
I would argue that a career grand slam is not a type of grand slam, in the same way that a dwarf planet is not a planet. It is a lesser honour. — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Would still seem to need clarification, as the initial objection is the obvious reading. This is for the general public, not golf aficionados.--Khajidha (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It was a "tactical" strike aircraft (hence the T in TSR) and it was its "maiden" flight. You could also reduce the verbiage by using the article's actual title which is simply BAC TSR-2.
"that on XTC's 1999 album" should be "that for XTC's 1999 album". Also "to get a" sounds junk, we should use the terminology in the article "to achieve a"...
Man alive this is the DYK gift that keeps on giving. " in Rome and" Rome is clearly an easter egg link, if it was Rome, link to Rome, if was the Roman Empire, say it was the Roman Empire. There's a third of a world of difference between the two.
"used to be considered a serious pest of potatoes, but this is no longer the case" this is awkwardly phrased, but doesn't appear to be true. It is still considered to be a serious pest but it is heavily controlled now "modern management techniques". It would be more accurate to say that "used to be considered a serious pest of potatoes, but its impact has been controlled by modern management techniques such as the burning of crop residues"
"the longest-living member of the British royal family has been Princess Alice," this "has been" wording is particularly jarring. This needs rephrasing, and also to avoid the repeat of living/lived, maybe something as straightforward as "the longest-living member of the British royal family is Princess Alice who died aged ..." Even that's sub-optimal. But better than the "has been" current option.
@Fish and karate: I edit conflicted with you making the exact same edit, but I must say that "aged 102 years and 309 days" is still a tad iffy. "Aged 102" would be fine, but that detracts from the purpose of the hook. How about "who died after 102 years and 309 days"? That opens up the issue of "after what?". Do you have any suggestions for replacements? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: After her birth, presumably, but that would be horribly clunky. Why is "aged 102 years and 309 days" iffy? Because someone's age is usually just given in whole years? Barring "who clung on for" which is probably not going to work, I'm not sure how it could be worded better without reusing "lived for". Open to suggestions. Fish+Karate 08:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: It could be personal preference and the way I'm accustomed to hearing the phrase, but I'd normally use "aged" like "aged 103 years", "aged 12 days", or "aged 14" (i.e. none or only one phrase of time) and have "102 years and 309 days" be "lived to be 102 years and 309 days old". But then, as you said, we'd reintroduce the "lived" repetition. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"Longest-lived" sounds very strange
and conflicts with article title. Also, "is" implies she is still living. Why not "the longest-living...was Princess Alice..."? Jmar67 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Now I see it as simply harmless, but we had a situation a few weeks back about the use of the phrase "held by". Just sayin'.......
Interestingly, if you actually read WP:VAMOS and search for the word "held", it only appears once, and that one appearance does not proscribe its use (it actually recommends it). "Held by" is a synonym for "owned by", and would be fine to use. Fish+Karate 09:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It recommends it for cases where the specific museum is not known (particularly in Berlin), but as you say, it does not forbid it otherwise. I personally find the whole section a bit unnecessary. Phrases like "hangs in" and "is on display in" are commonly-used in sources for works of art, so I don't see any particular reason why they should be forbidden. Looks like it might be a bit of a one-man crusade. — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it's very interesting that someone is directing others to an obscure section of MOS that they added themselves!
To be vaguely fair, while they did add it themselves, nobody else has seen fit to remove it in the last 11 years. Fish+Karate 11:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, reminds me of one of those admins who got elected with a unanimous 12-0 vote.
"of Grasobern (card deck pictured) has a leisurely character," this reads like a poor translation and is anthropomorphic (at best) and jarring (at worst). Perhaps "is easy to play" would be more "in Ordnung" here.
And " that Indian indigenous people organized" is a little patronising, since that phrase isn't used, instead the more specific and more accurate "Adivasi" is used, which would be appropriate (if linked) here.
Tried again, hopefully ok now. Fish+Karate 11:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
" is 1.6 times more toxic" this is effectively meaningless. Toxic to what? Indeed, so "toxic" that it isn't even listed in List of dangerous snakes, and according to our own Venomous snake article, Toxicity of snake venom (based on laboratory tests conducted on mice) is sometimes used to gauge the extent of their danger to humans, but this is not enough. Some toxins specifically incapacitate for example. So this hook is just poor clickbait. (Plus, of course, the [who?] and inconsistent date problems too...)
It's not clear in this article that the first breach was made OTD, especially since the lead of this target article says "The assault achieved its objectives (though not according to the planned timetable), resulting in the first full breach of the Hindenburg Line," Blurb may need to reflect that the battle led to the first breach.
" that a volcano" - clicks on link expecting an article about a volcano, opening line of article: "Ubehebe Craters is a volcanic field in"... a "volcanic field", not a single volcano then...
That should be changed to "that a volcanic field". However it's my hook so I won't edit it myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus that's a real shame since we now have an error live on the main page (and have had it there for six or so hours...)
The word "declamdora" is not mentioned in either the article to which it is linked, nor the target article of the hook. And "packed" is a bit naff, the article states it better "performed to sold-out venues". Finally, I'm not sure what's so remarkable about someone performing in a foreign language drawing crowds. Operas are often written in Italian and performed in Italian, and draw large audiences. What makes this instance so remarkable?
If we're observing diacritics in all other aspects of the blurb, why not for daimyō too? And actually, the coup started on 28 September, its conclusion came on 30 September, so the blurb should reflect that.
Daimyō now and coup but not sure how to deal with the wording to make it clear that it took place over several days (my initial though was to make it "forced suicide on this date" but I don't think we do that on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
"central station"? What, a central station? I'm pretty sure that's not what it means. But what does it mean?
The dab page Central Station says that "central station" is a former term for power station. I added link to article. Same could be done to hook. Jmar67 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Howcheng perhaps for future reference, consider that "central station" doesn't mean the same thing to most of us as this blurb intended........
.jpg)