Article has been moved and toll is way over 800 now...
No, the official number is 844; the 1,200 death toll is "just a prediction" and "not the official number," the Disaster Management Agency spokesperson said. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 10:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand, this report said the number was way over 800, and it is. You said so yourself. No-one here said anything about 1,200...
Sorry, there was an error that lasted for almost 4 hours due to the "prediction" number, but it's okay. That's been resolved. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 11:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Terrorist suicide bombs exploded ..." this reads very strangely to me. They were terrorists, they were suicide bombers, they blew themselves up, etc, and as the article very poorly puts it: "a series of terrorist suicide bomb and a series of car bombs " car bombs too (which weren't "suicide bombs" (sic)).... And "killing twenty people and injuring over 120 others" -> MOSNUM so 20/120 or "twenty"/"one hundred and twenty". And "more than" 120, not "over".
Reworded to "A series of terrorist suicide bombings occur".
3 x refs added. 1st dot point presumably refers to bios in further reading and the mil intell Edwin Fishell book per ref 12? JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, all cited now, couldn't find the un-named 1996 book so removed that.
I like saying it hangs, and there's no reason for the MOS to be dictatorial in this arena. Reliable sources use this terminology. And look, there it is hanging. Not an error. — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't say I didn't warn you......
I have resolved this by tweaking WP:VAMOS, because disallowing "hangs in" is stupid. Fish+Karate 09:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Article says "is in the permanent collection". Do we know it is on display at this moment? I think the entry in WP:VAMOS was valid. Jmar67 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yay, now I feel fully authorised to write "hangs in" for my POTD blurbs. ¡Vamos indeed! — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
A mostly unreferenced section of productions and a smattering of other [citation needed] tags, not good enough to have passed QPQ...
A translation. Book Dieter Kranz: Berliner Theater. 100 Aufführungen aus drei Jahrzehnten, Berlin 1990 (100 performances from 3 decades) will have them, only: I don't have the book. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
After citing several individually, I found a list (even longer) in his Akademie entry. There is no doubt these productions exist, right? (Just saw one this year, which made me expand. A gifted lead writer would be nice, - I have trouble summarizing. One ref was printed yesterday, saying how legendary his 1975 GDR premiere of the piece was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"tallest, longest, and fastest roller coaster in the Orlando, Florida, area" come on. I'd be interested if it was the tallest, longest and fastest in all of the world, or perhaps even all of America, but probably not if it's just the tallest, longest and fastest in Florida, but seriously, "in the Orlando, Florida, area"?? Is that even thing? It also looks like that's promotion-speak from the people who run the business... good advert.
As Orlando is a hotbed of amusement parks, I suppose that's a point of distinction for this coaster, but after reading the article, I can't really find anything else one could use in the hook. Maybe something about how it's named after the mako shark, the fastest shark in the ocean? That's not that great, either. —howcheng {chat} 15:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Works section is mostly unreferenced, some items have ISBN, but the rest are unlinked and unsourced
I know I should be doing something about this, most likely chopping the DYK, since nobody has fixed the sourcing. But I'm not really in the mood for the ensuing drama right now, so I'm letting sleeping dogs lie. Sorry about that. Maybe someone else will deal with it! — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
All it needs is a link to his author page at le BNF. Sorted. Fish+Karate 10:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. My question: how did it pass QPQ?
Gallic shrug. Fish+Karate 12:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Article says " that Khan's dog also accompanied him on his prime ministerial helicopter" i.e. dog singular, not dogs per the hook. And it's a bit of a stretch to say "everywhere", they don't go to the toilet with him do they, or in the shower?
One section completely unreferenced, one section almost entirely unreferenced, and about half a dozen other claims [citation needed]. QPQ fail, once again.
Someone in German made some nice lists which I didn't have the heart to through out. I dropped his appearances, as mostly redundant, referenced the recordings (recordings, they are in lists, much easier than theatre productions), dropped the university competition which seems not to keep a record (although I don't doubt he won), and dropped those compositions only on his own site (again: although I don't doubt that he composed them, - who would know if not the composer?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It's never a case of suggesting these things don't exist, it's a simple case of WP:V and compliance with DYK's own rules.
"that while playing professional basketball in Slovakia" he wasn't assaulted while he was playing basketball, he was assaulted in a nightclub. It was more a case of "during his time in Slovakia"
There's no need to have "Muse's" in the bold text, indeed it would be preferable to have that link to the band itself rather than as part of the album link.
If you're being precise (8,109) then do we really think 9,190,000 is appropriate? In any case I would suggest "more than 9 million". And repetitive use of "maps".
His plane was certainly shot down on this day, but his capture was "within 24 hours" so it's not clear that this blurb is quite correct for today. Could also link Corporate Air Services HPF821 to "shot down".
Kumar Sangakkara has been retired a while, the blurb should reflect that, perhaps by saying "Retired Sri Lankan cricketer" or "Former Sri Lankan cricketer"... It's not the neatest bold link either, perhaps bundle the total number of centuries together and then explain them separately afterwards, in not bold not linked style.
"at the Nazi concentration camp Theresienstadt," unnecessary verbose, just "at the Theresienstadt concentration camp" is fine. And the article notes that the panic ensued after the kids were having their hair cut ("some children panicked when their hair was cut and they were asked to undress") so the hook isn't quite there.
Referencing error with ref 31, should have been checked, along with the bare URLs... QPQ.
Page creator notes that the referencing error is caused by the pre-formatted template ({{inflation-fn}}) and seems to be a global issue. Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
We should not be promoting pages to the main page with referencing errors, so that could have been halted at QPQ until a suitable workaround was implemented. QPQ fail.
Blurb uses pack ice (which redirects to drift ice whereas the article uses "pack ice" piped to arctic ice pack, suggest we follow the article here, or at least maintain some consistency.
Changed article to use drift ice because that's more accurate. —howcheng {chat} 19:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
"was the best..." completely unencyclopedic. Best in what regard? The article states clearly that he was the "highest profile high school basketball player to choose to continue his basketball career at Harvard University, and its first top-100 recruit." so, "highest profile" (not best) and "first top-100 recruit" (that's the fact here).
"at least 20,000" well yes, that's true, the article says "at least 22,000" though, so why not use the value in the article? You could argue that "at least 10,000" or "at least "10" is true too, but it's probably better to stick with what the article says, right?
Apparently there's a bit of WP:CALC going on here. The article says 65% of whom disembarked in Jamaica, 12% in the Guianas, 14% in other parts of the Caribbean and the remainder elsewhere. The figure therefore excludes the 9% who didn't disembark in the Caribbean, which means 91% of "over 22,000", which would be "over 20,020" if we don't take rounding errors into account. (With rounding errors, the figure for the Caribbean could be as low as 64.5+11.5+13.5=89.5%, which would mean as few as 19,690 disembarked there). — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So it could actually be wrong then?
According to that maths there's a small chance it's wrong, yes. Not sure if it's worth sweating though, as it's very nearly correct and it's not clear how accurate the percentages and numbers given in the source were anyway. Perhaps I shouldn't have raised that point — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably best to change it to "around" rather than "at least" and then everyone's happy.
"broke the Guinness world record for " well the article is Guinness World Records, the article uses "Guinness World Record" and this hook uses "Guinness world record". I'm not actually sure, at all, why we need "Guinness" in the hook, it's either a world record or it isn't, regardless of which organisation is responsible for recording it and selling books based on it.
Airlines and destinations section is mostly unreferenced (just debold it, the other airport article is fine)
I've replaced the hook, because although the other airport is also bolded, that closed on the 7th, so if we're making it the main topic it would be better off a day earlier. — Amakuru (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The hook italicises Sturmabteilung while the article does not. Why do we need (SA) if it's not used in the hook or elsewhere again? The image caption should not use colloquialisms such as "ad", so "advertisement" would be preferable.
It should be italicised (see the main article). It's the cigarette company article that's wrong, and I'll fix that now. Changed "Ad" to "Advertisement".
Unreferenced section (and a huge "plot" section with nothing, but I guess that can slide per MOS:PLOT...)
Added a ref for the scoring, and one for the first recording (a review in English). I assume that the singers there were the same as for the premiere, but asked project Opera for confirmation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This is borderline award for worst-constructed hook of the month. She surveyed all architects and found only 1% to be women. I think the 320 is irrelevant, the 1% says what is needed. "there were seven states which had no women architects registered at all" is also interesting enough should more words be needed to replace the bare number.
Blurb dramatically states "completely annihilated" while lead (only) says "effectively annhiliated" which has a very different tone. Neither are particularly encyclopedic as annihilation is somewhat binary, and that's not the case here.
I think 'essentially' annihilated is just about reasonable given the Portuguese forces were reduced from 20,000 to 368, and one of the definitions of annihilate is "to defeat completely" [1]. Fish+Karate 13:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Reading that section of the article, it seems to me that a bunch of civilian representatives "surrendered" OTD, while the official word from the Belgian Army (On the morning of 10 October, when the Chief of Staff of the Military Governor appeared with authority to discuss surrender) came the following day.
Changed the blurb to say "The civilian authorities of Antwerp surrendered". I didn't want to move the article to 10 October because there aren't very many eligible articles on the 9th, and the official military surrender just seems to have been a formality at that point. —howcheng {chat} 15:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the article, it was the trust of a group of tusk hunters, and it's worth echoing the article, she stitched up his injured hand.
Added "injured" but I think if she won the trust of the group then it's reasonable to say she won the trust of that individual, and it makes the hook read better.
I don't find that assumption reasonable. The hook should match the source. --Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hook says "first female professor of jurisprudence" article says "She is the first ever female professor of law in Turkey. " As we all know, the subject of "law" is not the same as the subject of "jurisprudence".
" to be adopted for commercial use, but it was abandoned only a year later" -> " to be adopted for commercial use only for it to be abandoned a year later"
Caption - it's easter eggy, and should say "at" rather than "in" in any case. And since this is BritEng, it's not " that at age 13", it's " that at the age of 13" or "that aged 13"...
As is becoming usual, a mainly unreferenced section of works, how did this pass QPQ?
It's all in the Worldcat and DNB links at the bottom of the page, so it's not unreferenced, it's just not inline referenced (and inline referencing throughout the whole article is not a requirement for DYK, just for facts featured in the hook). Fish+Karate 08:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it fails the DYK rules on referencing, cheers.
The obsession with hyphens continues, " led Bible-study meetings" in the hook while the article says "taught literacy and Bible study classes" and " to hold Bible study meetings" so let's just be consistently pedantic one way or the other.
This is not interesting, as many people would have been amongst the first to be killed, but what is genuinely fascinating is that he served in the French Foreign Legion, that's proper hooky.
Any chance anyone could explain the meaning of this hook to me please? Seriously...
Apparently this language has just one speaker left right now, a woman named Jessie Ross, following the death of her sister last year. This was suggested as the hook, and to me seems far more interesting than the strange hook we have right now. I've started a discussion at WT:DYK. — Amakuru (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I've changed the hook to ALT0 after getting permission from the nominator. — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"and its predecessors the Irish Free State and the Irish Republic" I would expect some punctuation after predecessors, perhaps a colon. And article is "as of October 2018" while blurb is "as of April 2018".
Storm has killed 6 in the US, maybe adjust the blurb to reflect the same.
@LaserLegs: This is probably more suited at WP:ERRORS or the ITN page as it's not an open-and-shut case, and some users don't like the idea of big changes coming from this page. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
In itself I don't think it's a controversial change. We should be mentioning the US deaths if we're already mentioning the Central American ones. The problem is around how to include it while maintaining the basic structure of the current hook, given the slightly awkward phrasing already in the hook. Hurricane Michael makes landfall in Florida, United States, as a Category 4 storm, adding six deaths to the thirteen it already caused in Central America. might be one possibility. Any others? — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hurricane Michael makes landfall in Florida, United States, as a Category 4 storm, killing 6 people after causing at least 13 deaths in Central America.
" carved petroglyphs into the lava flows" well my impression of lava flows is that they are are streams of molten rock that pour or ooze from an erupting vent. It would be quite challenging, not to mention mildly hazardous, to carve anything into such flows, surely?
They're still lava flows when they have cooled. Lava flows can take many years to internally cool fully, even if the exterior is cool to the touch. Fish+Karate 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but even our own article states "A lava flow is a moving outpouring of lava created during a non-explosive effusive eruption. When it has stopped moving, lava solidifies to form igneous rock."
How about with the addition of the word "cooled"? If it just says igneous rock (which can be formed in many different ways) it takes away from the fact these are/were lava flows. Fish+Karate 08:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hook says "eluded arrest for nearly 50 years" but the article says "In 1993, Lehnigk-Emden was put on trial", it doesn't mention an arrest, and gives no date, so it's unclear if it was "nearly 50 years" or "exactly 50 years" or "more than 50 years".
In Caiazzo_massacre#Search it says "Shortly before his 70th birthday, on 15 October 1992, Lehnigk-Emden was arrested at his home by the German police" Fish+Karate 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I missed that, too busy picking up rice crispies from the rug on the pre-school dash...
No fewer than seven links in that sentence, including the unnecessary sea of blue and chopped up (unnecessarily hyphenated) Grand design spiral galaxy
I've fixed that but the hook says its distance is "approximately 23 million light-years", the Whirlpool Galaxy article says "15-35 million" in the lead, its infobox says 23 Mly (million light-years) but that's been converted from (7.1 ± 1.2 parsecs), so should be 23 ± 4 Mly, and in the Properties section it says "30 million". Oh, and then the article on its companion galaxy (NGC 5195) says both galaxies are 25 million light-years away. This appears to be what astronomers call "an effing mess". Fish+Karate 09:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably pull then.
I've passed it on to WP:ERRORS to sort out. Fish+Karate 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
And now the "fix" has introduced the dreaded "hyphen"!!!!
The blurb says "the last of 16 survivors" while the article says "The last 16 survivors were rescued on 23 December " i.e. not the last of but the last. This, then, conflicts with the timeline in the table at the bottom of the article. Needs to be made consistent before featuring on the main page in this form.
I have often seen the section referenced, check out any posted RDs with such lists. If you can show me where Damon, Cruise and Attenborough were featured on the main page, I'll eat my hat. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
But OTD does not allow maintenance-tagged articles, which this now becomes. And three in 4.5 years? I'd say that makes unreferenced filmographies the exception and not the rule, wouldn't you? And incidentally, I reviewed the Cruise article, each of the "selected filmography" is referenced inline in the career section, so that was adequate.
It's possible. I only clicked on a few featured articles and many didn't even have filmography listed on the main article. I'll leave this one to someone like Howcheng, who is more accustomed with OTD than I am. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
"Selected filmography" is a bit of an WP:OR issue all round. Who does the selecting? Unless the selection is based on some defined (and verifiable) criteria or published as a complete set in an outside source. It is better for the prose to discuss particular films as part of its general discourse, which is presumably what the aforementioned Featured Articles do. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it's usually better to do all or fork. Right now the article, unless substantially improved since I last looked, needs to be pulled based on the ref improve tag.
"causing the camp shut down a few days later" not sure the causality is so clear-cut, nor amd I convinced of the grammar there "to" shut down if that causality is proven, or else a reword is needed.
Oddly, the date of his appointment appears to not be referenced in this Good Article!
I've Replaced it. Looks like he actually took office on the 15th anyway, although Krushchev did resign on the 14th. — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the confusion is due to the fact that the coup of Khrushchev was on the 14th and Brezhnev actually did take power the same day, but the official announcement was not made until the 15th. So contemporary newspapers have it as the 15th, but according to Russia Beyond, which is published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a Russian government newspaper, Brezhnev took over on the 14th. —howcheng {chat} 02:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Date of death is fairly clear, and now referenced, but his birth date seems to be unreliably accurate. Although many sources say 13 April 1922, others say it could have been any time in 1922 or even 1923.[2] Not really an issue for this item though. — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Hook says " is the most widely played card game in Old Bavaria and part of Bavarian pub culture?" yet the article opens with "Although it is rarely played today and is thus threatened with extinction..." so I don't follow this.
I've replaced the hook and sent it back to the nomination page for a gander. — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes
15 October 2018
DYK
General
One hook is missing but the "that" remains
Strange. I thought someone checked the hooks and filled in blanks before promoting them up to the next queue. I've brought one in from the next prep area anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The source says the amount was "in excess of £2000", not 2k exactly. And the phrasing here is awkward, (the fee, the footballer, the record, record amount .... ever). Something like " the fee in excess of £2,000 paid by Blackburn Rovers in 1921 for the footballer Fergie Aitken was the record that Bury had received for one player?"
According to the article " in his autobiography, claimed that his journal dated the reminiscence to 15 October, when in fact the journal gives no date." Probably woth picking something else.
"Vietnam War protests" and "Selective Service Act" both piped to redirects. Also "The Catholic Worker Movement staged an anti-war rally.." the article doesn't say that, it does say that Miller was a member of the Catholic Worker Movement, but nothing about who staged the rally.
Rewrote as "At an anti-war rally in Manhattan, David J. Miller burned his draft card..." —howcheng {chat} 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I've almost given up here, but what makes the region "north of Minneapolis" so remarkable? As far as the majority of our readers go, there could be eight people living in that region...
Boring != Error but perhaps "founded in 1874 to serve the area's large German immigrant community" is fractionally more interesting? Fish+Karate 08:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, boring=error because one of DYK's principle tenets is "interesting to a broad audience". Hence error.
Forgive me, I should have said "Boring to you != error". Some people might find that the fact that for a while a German-language newspaper had the highest circulation in a region of the USA interesting. It's not the most boring fact on tomorrow's DYK by a long way. Fish+Karate 08:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I was unaware that "north of Minneapolis within Minnesota" was a well-recognised or even interesting geographical region of USA... This is not interesting to a "broad audience", (facts like it giving away English-language supplements while other German-language papers were being shut down genuinely are interesting) but as this is the second attempt to shoehorn this article onto the main page, I give up.
This blurb is about as interesting as saying that a house is the "largest one at the intersection of 8th and Elm streets", it may be true but it is thoroughly insignificant. Both the "founded in 1874" bit and the "giving away English-language supplements" bit are MUCH better ideas. --Khajidha (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I've made a change, is it better now? Fish+Karate 11:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
It is better (although "German immigrant " is piped to a redirect...)
"the second Majoor der Chinezen of Batavia" that link is misleading as it sends you to a subsection of an article where Tan Tjoen Tiat is listed around 15th.
I don't think that's an error, the list within the subsection shows he's the second "Majoor". Fish+Karate 08:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Does seem a little odd to feature this when the first observation was made a week or so earlier by not-Kepler...
I think it's fine because Kepler is the one responsible for most of the observations and that's why it's named after him. —howcheng {chat} 16:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be fair and reasonable to state that it was after it had been observed by someone else a week or so earlier.
I'm having a hard time writing that without making it seem like Kepler and Delle Colombe were collaborating, when their observations were apparently independent of each other. I think it's fine the way it is. —howcheng {chat} 20:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Added 'earlier in October' to the sudden appearance
I find the sentence mildly confusing, but if I'm reading it right, it was the first documented arrival of Asians in the Americas, not just North America...
"eighth grade" is completely ambiguous, see Eighth grade for what it means in a multitude of different places. I would have thought the fact he was 6ft 5in tall when he was in "seventh grade" but converted to an age (which is not ambiguous).
I've wikilinked eighth grade, not sure if that satisfies your concern. As a US topic, it's probably fair enough not to clarify it beyond that... — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is fair for the same reason we avoid referring to seasons because they vary around the globe, just as the definition of "eighth grade" varies. And nowhere in the hook does it mention the US.
Infobox says "18/19 October, Thu/Fri (depending on location)" and isn't referenced.
I've included a reference indicating that it is celebrated on the 19th in eastern India and the 18th in western India (and presumably locales further west than that, such as Swindon). But I've removed it from OTD for now given the split date. — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The linked article states "... was filmed on Azerbaijan's independence day, 27 May, and ..."
I've reworded that... it refers to an earlier independence. Also reffed the 18 October date and changed the OTD link to point to Independence Day (Azerbaijan). — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
"first .. first..." and the article says " first isolated on October 19, 1943, by Albert Schatz, a PhD student" i.e. not "researchers".
Would suggest " Streptomycin (molecular model pictured), the first antibiotic remedy for tuberculosis, was first isolated by Albert Schatz at Rutgers University." or " Streptomycin (molecular model pictured), the first antibiotic remedy for tuberculosis, was first isolated during a research project at Rutgers University." or even just " Streptomycin (molecular model pictured), the first antibiotic remedy for tuberculosis, was first isolated at Rutgers University." depending on how specific we wish to be. But I do agree that crediting it to "researchers" (note the plural) is incorrect.--Khajidha (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
PS-the "first isolated" could probably be simplified to "isolated". If that is felt to be unclear, I would suggest "originally isolated" or "initially isolated". --Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to say "by a PhD student" instead of "by researchers", which is both more accurate and more interesting. I think "first isolated" is the key point of the hook so shouldn't be changed if possible, and the first "first" needs to go - would "earliest antibiotic remedy" or "earliest known antibiotic remedy" carry the same meaning and avoid the repetition? Fish+Karate 12:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not being funny, but are we sure that this verifies his date of death? It looks like a basketball report to me....
Google translate renders the Arabic text as: The foreign minister of the former regime, Ali Abdel Salam Triki, died Monday morning in the Egyptian capital Cairo. The health of Triki deteriorated during the past two days, and his last breath in a hospital in Cairo, according to one of his relatives will be transferred to Libya and will be buried in the city of Misurata. In June 2009, he was elected president of the United Nations General Assembly. In April 2011, he split the Gaddafi regime when he was appointed by Libya as a delegate to Libya. Abdul Rahman Shalgam, who defected to Gaddafi, but he refused the post, and decided to stay in Egypt until he passed away.- See more at: https://web.archive.org/web/20151020140741/http://www.alwasat.ly/en/news/libya/89472/#sthash.Onyn4LUq.dpuf
I have no idea what the image has to do with anything. --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
PS - the image caption translates as: Ali Triki Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (photo:) Former Foreign Minister Ali Triki (archive: Internet). Seems to be some sort of glitch on the site throwing up the wrong image. --Khajidha (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Another unreferenced paragraph makes its way through QPQ....
Can't find references for either uncited statement (order of merit / place of death). Fish+Karate 09:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It should be pulled as failing DYK rules then.
(ec): The socalled paragraph contains two facts, an award and his POD. I sourced them now. I can't find a source for his day of death (only the year) other than the German WP and plenty of mirrors. So I removed it and the DOB for symmetry for DYK's sake. They are on Wikidata. We have a conflict now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it was a paragraph, no question there. If there's a conflict with unsourced material, then we're better just removing it.
I removed days and months (although they seem uncontentious), but don't like that now the German Wikipedia and Wikidata say something different (more precise) from our article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
So are you saying that both German Wikipedia and Wikidata are hosting unverifiable information? If so, while it may be uncontentious, it may also be completely wrong.
I see an Integrated Authority File. What else can I say? The days and months were added here in 2014, without source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. Are the dates of birth unverifiable in both de.wiki and Wikidata then?
I don't know what an IAF is, do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a central repository of factual data (e.g., DOBs) and all the wikis use that as their source. Inevitably it has ended up being shit; as little on wikidata is validated, swathes of it are likely to be wrong. I wouldn't worry about it. Fish+Karate 11:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm only interested because I often hear people saying it's on wikidata so it must be okay. Turns out that's a pack of lies...
Promoted with bare URLs (QPQ fail) and some references which are simply incorrect. I started to fix some but ran out of energy, this kind of basic thing should have been fixed prior to, or during, DYK nomination.
I've pulled the hook for now. — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That he was injured yet top of free throws is not relevant. In fact, somebody sitting still on the floor could make free throws, this is a daft non sequitur. I wonder where Vanamonde93 has gone when you need someone to completely autonomously remove such hooks and boot them back to prep when you really need it?
Blurb says "more than 1,400", infobox says "1,550", lead says "up to 1,550" and body says "Statements vary between 1,400 and over 2,000". Bit of a mess really.
I'm not seeing an issue here. If 1,400 is the lowest number we have, but some say there could be more, then it's best if we go with "more than [lowest]". Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It's just a mess, you can't have the infobox stating 1,550 as "fact" and then the text saying something different. That, to me, seems obvious. Perhaps not to others.
All changed to match 1400-2000, with the blurb changed to "at least 1400". Fish+Karate 08:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
"its deadliest school attack" needs context, i.e. three people were killed. And strictly, he didn't attack a high school, he attacked individuals students and teachers at the school.
Added "students and teachers" before "school attack" and added "killing three people" at the end. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed the section about public transportation, whicih could be sourced (public!) but who cares in the English Wikipedia how to get to a place in Frankfurt - Should have done that sooner, best before translating, - sorry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"that Mexican photographer Julio Rodríguez released a photo-book of his travels through Baja California?" SO WHAT? Still, some free advertising for this non-notable book doesn't go amiss now does it? It's hardly remarkable or in any interesting that a photographer released a photo-book of travels somewhere banal.
Not an error as such, and the hook is about the (notable) photographer, not the (non-notable) book, which isn't named in the hook so hardly advertising. That being said, it is boring, so how about "founded an independent arts festival in Tijuana in 2005 to try to help combat a spate of violence?" Fish+Karate 08:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Frankly anything is better than the current tedium.
Have you travelled to Baja California? It's stunning, rough, and not too well known, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's plenty well known enough for a plethora of guide books.
Well, it wasn't when I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
No, but cumulative is important here, just as it is used in the target article. And good point, that list is completely misleading as some figures relate to cumulative while some relate to one-off events, poor stuff.
I couldn't really get "cumulative" in without it being clunky, so I added "during" to indicate that they weren't glued to it for 3 days. Not sure it's perfect, but it's better. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Her article is explicit: it's "the world record for paced bicycle land speed", paced being vitally important here as without the pace vehicle, the speeds would be literally impossible.
Added "paced" (the link is already OK). Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Conquest Brigade was described as a "moderate Islamist" group," as the dispute tag says, [by whom?] please. It's vital to know who said this 'cos if it was my nan who said it, why should it be important? If, however, it was Kofi Annan, for example, well that's a different matter.
Certainly wins this month's award for most-oddly-written hook, repeating "funeral" and somehow Blakely going straight from death to procession after funeral. Why not " William G. Blakely's funeral cortege included the longest line of automobiles ever seen at a funeral in Kingman, Arizona?" Is 1920 relevant? And the article makes it clear this was not necessarily fact, i.e. it was "reportedly" the case... And did anyone notice the article infobox giving his "In office" as "1907–1907"??
"longest line of automobiles ever seen at a funeral in Kingman, Arizona" WHOOP-DE-FRICKIN'-DOO. 1) even today Kingman has fewer than 30000 people, it would have been much smaller in 1920, 2) it was 1920, cars weren't as widespread in general. So, between fewer people in the town and less likelihood of cars amongst those people, it is conceivable that 3 cars would have been the "longest line of automobiles ever seen at a funeral" there. --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The legislative session only ran from 21 January 1907 to 21 March 1907, 1907-1907 is correct but a little odd looking. --Khajidha (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be usual to just put "1907" in that circumstance. — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's only certain people's hooks which are removed by certain admins for being boring. So this one will presumably remain (a) in its hideous state (b) in its boring manner.
The article itself had several problems, too. --Khajidha (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The infobox asks for a start date and an end date and uses those to produce the range. Not sure what to do to replace that with the simpler "1907". --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Easy fix, put the full dates rather than the year. Doesn't fix the hook being boring, though. Also reworded a bit. Fish+Karate 09:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Still there, still repetitive and fundamentally boring, also reported st the “other place”, there was enough time to be bold enough to fix this, but sadly this junk has been on the main page for nearly 12 hours...
Incredibly, despite the lack of toxicity, there's an abject lack of action at the other place, where this crappy hook has been discussed to death by now, no-one really agreeing it's of any use, and yet it languishes front and centre on our main page. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is considered a valid hook, then we need to remove the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion, because small-town-superlatives are not the sort of thing that has broad appeal. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hardly shocking when they also run things like "first in borough of city" or "person does their job" and the like. The process is broken in more way than one and they don't care. Sticking ones head in the sand and pretending everything is going great is the only thing DYK excels at. Hope it is ok for me to post here. 91.97.244.225 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome. And no, not shocking, it's just continually disappointing, especially in this case where it appears that there's a wholesale consensus against it, yet no-one has pulled it. Funny, when you need those kinds of admins, they disappear into the background....
Now, now, MB claims to like it (and makes a ludicrous claim about the number of cars in Arizona at the time while saying so) and Stephen openly said that "boring shouldn't be pulled". --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Funny that one of Stephen's esteemed colleagues felt compelled to remove a hook simply because they personally found it boring (and not one other living soul agreed). Interesting times.
You seem a little annoyed about this "incident" with the aforementioned admin, you've mentioned it a couple of times... But on DYK generally let's not forget the primary purpose is to put new articles on the main page. The interesting-to-a-broad-audience thing is certainly something we should strive for, but I don't personally see it as a show stopper if it's not. Not that my opinion really matters because I don't work at DYK day in day out. — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, whining without the courtesy to ping me. Completely misquoting me. Referring to my "colleagues." Great behaviour all round. I'd already pulled a DYK hook for an unreferenced claim. I didn't want to immediately pull another and was being pinged to do so. Just left it for others to decide, that's all. Stephen 22:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I was discussing something in my own userspace, and I'm not sure I misquoted you, simply noted your actions were inconsistent with another admin, who felt compelled to replace a hook unilaterally because they found it boring. I didn't ping you because I know you watch this page. I understand you pulled a different hook, but that shouldn't have any impact on acting on the consensus to pull another one, once you'd stepped away from the situation after commenting, it was left, not only in its boring state but it's frankly appallingly-written state, on the main page all day despite a near universal consensus to change or pull it. It's the inconsistency here that's the problem, especially with the "interesting to a broad audience" clause. And DYK's primary purpose is not specifically to put new articles on a main page, but if admins are happy for the DYK rules to be continually ignored, what is the point in calling them rules? And enforcing some but not others? And deciding to unilaterally enforce some against consensus while deciding not to enforce others despite overwhelming consensus?
At the time that I commented at MP:Errors, there was one comment to rewrite and one person who liked it. There was no overwhelming consensus at all. I hadn't followed the discussion here. At no point did I say "boring shouldn't be pulled" which Khajidha attributed to me. I also don't have time or inclination to enforce everything, as I'd spent my valuable time examining the article I'd pulled. But it's all moot and gone now. Stephen 05:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Well it's definitely gone but it's certainly not moot, not the principle anyway. It was poorly written, boring and yet survived 12 or so hours in the queue before another 24 hours on the damned main page. Either we bother with DYK rules and consensus or we don't. (And that's not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a general theme).
20:54, 23 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+125) Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (→DYK current: boring shouldn't be pulled) Stephen, was this not your own edit summary? --Khajidha (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I looked. I gots nothing to source that. Hell, I don't have anything that lists him - he's not Norman or at a Norman see so I don't have a listing for him as a bishop. Quick looks in various intellectual history compilations show nothing (my works for that are almost exclusively focused on the British Isles), and he's minor enough he didn't get a mention in my works on the Crusades. He's probably a big deal in Abelard studies, but that's not a field I plow. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Europe's leading tourism group TUI," free advertising and "leading" in what sense? Plus, the article states that "Preussag was Europe’s leading tourism operator.". This was later re-branded as TUI but not necessarily at that point was it "Europe's leading tourism group" (whatever that means).
That would be way more "free advertising"y than the TUI one. Why don't we add an Amazon affiliate link as well? Fish+Karate 09:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
But that’s why the hook is running today, otherwise it’s “so what?”. And I note the TUI garbage remains unfixed!
The TUI garbage is fixed. I don't think a failure to tell everyone they can "go out and buy this album now" is an error. Fish+Karate 11:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
But it’s the specific reason it’s being run today. Otherwise so what?
"found in 2017 in Cliff, New Mexico" the article is much warmer: "... found for sale in a New Mexico antique store ..." (frankly, who cares it was in "Cliff"??)
"Japanese invasion " is piped to a redirect. "Twelve ... at least 120" MOSNUM, all words, or all numbers. And perhaps instead of "large ... at least 120" maybe "at least ten times the size" or similar. Oh, and infobox says it was 13 vs 330 (130 of which were warships, or 133 according to the article). Needs internal consistency.
"1,630 French Canadian regulars and militia and Mohawk warriors under Charles de Salaberry repulsed an American force of about 4,000" infobox has 1,530 regulars, militia etc (that "and .. and .. and" is jarring) and 2,600 regulars from the American force... Something's not quite adding up.
Got rid of the numbers: "A British force and its Mohawk allies under Charles de Salaberryrepulsed an American attempt to invade Canada." Oh, and fixed the number in the article lead too. —howcheng {chat} 16:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"Neo-Baroque French-revival " particularly savage sea of blue and "French-revival" piping to two different redirects. A Wikimarkup mess.
Have had a go at spacing out the links and asked at ERRORS for whether I've naused up the meaning. Fish+Karate 11:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks okay to me, but the links are still piped to redirects.
The way that was written made me wonder how many Neo-Baroque French-revival grand movie palaces there are in the first place, and are there older movie palaces that are of a different style? Well the article only makes the claim that it's the oldest surviving grand movie palace (so by definition, it's oldest of that style too), but then it goes and says the building is only the oldest of that style in Chicago. TL;DR: I got rid of the architectural styles from the blurb: "The Chicago Theatre(pictured), the oldest surviving grand movie palace, opened." —howcheng {chat} 16:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to add "church" after Sagrada Família (see our own article), but it's interesting that the lack of right angles is not noted anywhere in our own article about the building which seems strange considering what an almost unbelievable fact it is...
Now noted in there. Fish+Karate 08:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"... is the only Jethro Tull single to feature a Mellotron" does that mean our article on Mother Goose (song) is wrong where it states it was released as a single on 19 March 1971 and featured a Mellotron played by John Evan?
Should it be U137 or U-137 or U 137? The latter seems the least likely candidate given its usage across Wikipedia. It may well be moot, as there are five [citation needed] tags, included on four wholly unreferenced paragraphs.
Ref added. —howcheng {chat} 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes
ITN
Useless attempts at mail bombs
"A Florida man is charged with having mailed pipe bombs to notable U.S. Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and others." wut? We don't post criminal charges, we post convictions. "having mailed"? Why not just "mailing"? And we don't need "including" and "and others". "notable"?? Really?? PEACOCK-CRUFT. 2/10, MUST TRY HARDER.
" that Jonathan Ross in Saturday Zoo (1993) was described as "humour-resistant Teflon"?" very peculiar construction, and the (1993) adds what, exactly? To distinguish it from some other (1994) Saturday Zoo? Why not "that Saturday Zoo's host Jonathan Ross was described as "humour-resistant Teflon"?
You'd expect "a" to be in the target link, and the article says it killed 289 people (three rescue workers) so that should really be updated, unless we value those lives less than the passengers.
Where is the 28 October date noted/referenced, and what does it represent? The elections were a few days before, her inauguration looks like it took place months later...
According to this source the election was "yesterday" on the 29th, i.e. the 28th. I've added that detail in and cited. — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes
29 October 2018
DYK
Caption
"One of the lakes"? Tie it to the blurb, so "A lake in the Oasis of Mosquitos".
" of the German women's national team" national team for what? I would suggest the team be linked yet no article exists. At least it could be re-ordered to say "that Anne Patzwald works as an ... of the German women's national wheelchair basketball team?"
"the Austro-Hungarian cruiser Kaiser Franz Joseph I sank during a gale.." seems a real shame to miss making this more interesting, i.e. "the while under French administration, the Austro-Hungarian cruiser Kaiser Franz Joseph I sank during a gale off the coast of Montenegro". Boats sink in bad weather conditions all the time.
Just a bit misleading this one, as he wasn't arrested with 348kg of cocaine in his possession, he was arrested, and then authorities were "later led to a safe house" where the cocaine was found. Certainly for me, being arrested "with something in ones possession" means it was found on him (especially in the context of drug dealers)...
Under Article 791 of Mexico's Federal Civil Code, Raúl Meza Ontiveros became a "possessor" (Spanish: poseedor) of cocaine after he received it from Colombian suppliers. So cocaine was "in his possession" when the police were led to the safe house where he had stored it. However, I do think the hook could be rephrased to something less confusing, like saying the police discovered he was "storing" cocaine instead. MX (✉ • ✎) 05:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
MX that may be the dictionary definition in Mexico, but this is English-language Wikipedia, and this has now been brought up also at the other place. So it needs resolution as it's unnecessarily confusing people.
The Rambling Man: Thanks for bringing it up. The issue has been fixed. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"including 50 vehicles, 750 weapons, and 5 military aircraft" well, "military aircraft" are vehicles, so are those 50 "vehicles" really "land vehicles", or some other subset?
Impossible to tell from the source. I'd suggest that most people would read it as "land vehicles", but ...
"first female golfer to compete in a British men's tournament?" - the article makes no such caveat, i.e. "She was the first woman to compete in a men's golf tournament." and " the first woman to compete in a men's tournament when she played in the 1977 Surrey PGA Championship", neither of which say the first "in a British" men's tournament. Suggest this is checked and the article fixed to match the wording of the hook if so.
Hmm ... one source says "she was the first woman PGA Member in the country to compete in an event from the men's tees" (but doesn't mention the 1977 Surrey PGA Championship) and the other one is behind a paywall. Going to hunt a bit more on this one.
This also says "She also was the first woman in the U.K. to compete with men in a professional event from the same set of tees." Without being able to see what's in those two Times sources, that's all we can confirm. I suppose those two things are actually the same thing, however. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
As I suggested, I think it's better (indeed, mandated) for the DYK hook and the article to reflect the same terms.
Very oddly worded blurb, "At the age of 77, John Glenn became the oldest person to go to space on STS-95." perhaps. Or even not, needs work as he was the oldest person to fly in space full stop, not just the oldest person on STS-95 etc.
"that at age 23, ..." please stop bastardising the English used in the target article "at the age of 23" is what we say in BritEng, and that's what the target article is written in. TRY KEEPING IT LIKE THE ARTICLE.
There's no obvious link between the July Revolution and Heine writing a book in Germany about something completely different. These currently read as completely independent sentences.
It wasn't my idea, but gives some historic background, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really, just confuses the matter, could say something like "exiled from France following the July Revolution"...
Better not. He wrote in Paris, as the article says. It was even published there first, which I found interesting, but the reviewer confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well it's needlessly confusing as it stands.
Nope
OTD
General
All births/deaths are missing
I was busy and didn't get to them until now. —howcheng {chat} 16:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"31 October – 1 November in the Southern Hemisphere". Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
No, still definitely says 1 November in infobox
I see it's been removed from the OTD, but I was referring to this section. The article contradicts itself. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
blurb: "took the throne as the last ruling emperor of the Western Roman Empire.", article: "He is often described as the "last Western Roman emperor", though some historians consider this to be Julius Nepos" so not quite as clear-cut as the OTD blurb asserts.
Made it the "last effective Western Roman Emperor", as Nepos's rule was only over a small territory. —howcheng {chat} 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The article says "On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to his bishop, Albrecht von Brandenburg, protesting the sale of indulgences. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences", which came to be known as the Ninety-five Theses. " and "According to one account, Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517... Scholars .. contend that the story ... has little foundation in truth". And why rename the church? Even the theses article states "Luther may have also posted the Theses on the door of All Saints' Church and other churches in Wittenberg in accordance with University custom on 31 October or in mid-November. " so it's far from an event that is certain in any way to have even happened, let alone happened OTD.
The writing to the bishop OTD caused things, not leaflets at church doors. Reformation Day is certainly celebrated 31 October, legend or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about this current OTD blurb and its associated articles, nothing else.
(ec) Actually, the best article to link to OTD is not Luther but Ninety-five theses, a 2017 FA in good shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's already linked as a target article, but the blurb is clearly the issue here.
That's why the blurb starts with "According to traditional accounts..." —howcheng {chat} 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"sparking anti-Sikh riots throughout the country." well the article just says "Over the next four days, thousands of Sikhs were killed in retaliatory violence." (unreferenced, and no indication of where the riots occurred. And "thousands of Sikhs killed" is somewhat more powerful than "riots throughout the country".
Reference added, rewrote. —howcheng {chat} 21:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}