Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Reviewer instructions

Thanks

Thanks for taking the initiative on this. This is good stuff so far. 28bytes (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I'd suggest making a bigger thing of DYKCheck, it simplifies the reviewing process in making sure the first three parts of reviewing an article can be done in seconds. SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure about this, it seems to be mainly a rehash of existing information we have on other pages. I had something a little different in mind. Perhaps I'll do a draft myself, to try and consolidate my ideas, and see what direction that takes. Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing this--it looks very helpful, and I wish I had had a step-by-step walkthrough like this when I was starting out. Two small suggestions: you might mention the rule about x2 BLPs in your criteria to avoid confusing new editors on this clause. And when you write the "finishing" part, I'd suggest encouraging reviewers to make sure they notify nominators about questions at their talk page, since T:DYK is so hard to "watch." Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good points, I've added both. I think I started this before the 2x BLP rule was added. Do you think this is far enough developed that it can be moved into project space, or do you see any gaping holes? cmadler (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

5 days old... past 5 days...

• Check that the article is either new to the English Wikipedia (generally no more than 5 days old), or that the readable prose has been expanded at least fivefold recently (within the past 5 days),

If I am not wrong, this 5 days rule means 5 days old on the date of nomination not on the date of reviewing which can be weeks after nomination. If that is true, then I propose to clarify that by changing the above mentioned sentence to:

• Check that the article is either new to the English Wikipedia (generally no more than 5 days old when nominated), or that the readable prose has been expanded at least fivefold recently (within the 5 days before nomination),--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're correct; that's a good change that doesn't alter the intended meaning (and besides, this reviewing guide doesn't contain the rules themselves) so go ahead. cmadler (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

New reviewing format

It looks like there's a new "table" system, and subpages for each DYK, but I've been unable to find where this information was discussed. Could someone point me at it please? --Elonka 15:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of bare URL requirement

I propose getting rid of the no bare url requirement starting with : "References may not have bare URLs such as". This requirement is tough for new editors, and really is no impediment to following a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would really prefer to keep this requirement. Sanctioning the creation of large numbers of articles that are subject to link-rot is not improving the encyclopedia. Plus, although it's easy enough to follow a reference, it's much harder to get an idea of notability or reliability of an article if the references section is just a big mess of bare URLs, with no way of telling whether they're blogs, forums, or whatever. It's now pretty common for articles going through AfC to require better presented references than that - DYK shouldn't be taking a more lax approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference paragraph

For referencing, is it sufficient if there is a reference at the end of a paragraph or would each sentence which is relevant to the hook need to be referenced separately (with the same reference). This would be relevant for this nomination that I am reviewing at the moment. bamse (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the hook statement separately referenced, but one reference per paragraph really is enough. The problem comes when others insert text in the paragraph referenced by another reference. At this point they should replicate the reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing and QPQ

I have updated the guide following the discussion here. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hook for double-entries

I reviewed my first DYK nomination and suggested that a sub-article be made to make the relevance of the hook clearer. That sub-article has now been created and has been added to the first DYK nomination, so this may be a double DYK. But what about the hook in such cases? Must the hook have two catchy points with different references in the two articles for both articles to qualify as a DYK ? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you post this at WP:DYK, the talk page for DYK and this sort of issue, where it is likely to receive a timely reply. This page is just for discussion about the reviewing guide. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing articles for DYK

Hi, can anyone review and approve/disapprove an article for DYK, or do you have to have 'reviewer' status? 98.119.101.103 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can review DYK submissions. You do not need any particular user right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Could I get a clarification of the DYK reviewer's responsibilities? Am I responsible for certifying only the section of the article in which the hook appears? If the rest of the article has neutrality issues that aren't tagged, or copyediting issues, do I have to work on the whole article to the best of my ability? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. All DYK articles must adhere to basic policies like Neutral Point of View. And that goes for the whole article, not just the paragraph or sentence with the hook. If is doesn't you must get the nominator to fix the problem, fail the article or ask for a second opinion. Articles that need substantial copy-editing shouldn't be accepted either. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers also can fix issues they find in the articles they review for DYK (sometimes the issues are reasonably easy to resolve). --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt responses. It often feels like lookin' for trouble, since suggestions aren't always well received. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK Check not working for me

I complied with the instructions but it doesn't appear. Can someone help me out? I posted on the DYK Check page but did not receive a response, and I'd like to make this work so that I can start doing DYK reviews myself. Without that tool it will be difficult to check expansions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What to do after an article has been reviewed?

I am new to the DYK process. Back on July 3rd I submitted an article for DYK consideration along with some hooks; soon, another editor proposed some more hooks, and then a reviewer graciously came along and reviewed it, giving the proposal a blue-circle-with-a-backslash (i.e., a "maybe") review— that reviewer and I then interacted to work out the kinks still remaining in the proposal, and six days ago we settled on what we agreed was a good hook for the article... And here we sit. The reviewing guide doesn't (yet) say anything about what is supposed to happen next after a "maybe" review in which the problems have been worked out. Does the reviewer now need to file some sort of review completion? Mark the discussion as somehow closed? Invite additional reviewers to review our discussion and agree or disagree with our conclusions? Is there a bot that will come along eventually and move the nomination along automatically? The proposal is still sitting there, and I am not sure what, if anything, I should be doing myself to move it forward (perhaps waiting really is all I need to do, but again, I do not know). A little help?? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 06:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring a newbie reviewer

Hi. Noob here; never reviewed a DYK to date. But I just made my 3rd or 4th nom in the past 3 years, so thought I ought to learn how to do it.

I'm a little intimidated, and couldn't quite figure out how to find a good (straightforward) candidate to start, and then what to do. Got a bit confused looking at the DYK/reviewing page.

I wonder if an experienced DYK reviewer might be willing to coach me through the first one, or two? I would appreciate it. If so, maybe just ping me on my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion, or perhaps not

Hi. My nomination of Petronius Maximus, 21 May, was, I think, approved. It was the reviewers first review, so they commented that they were asking for a second opinion; very wise. I have noticed that they left a symbol, which I am not sure is going to do what they want it to. I was going to message them, but they are now blocked. Any advice as to what, if anything, I should do? I am quite happy to wait for another reviewer to come by, but a little wary that the way things have been left the nomination will not attract any attention. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

QPQ

Because I nominated Shirou Emiya, I had to do a QPQ about another nomination. I did Template:Did you know nominations/Kyler Murray but it appears that wasn't properly nominated. Should I make another QPQ in order to get reviews of my own nomination? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Finding hooks that need reviewing?

The instructions say, "It is best if you start with one of the older unreviewed nominations", but what's the best way to find those? My usual process is to start at the oldest date, scan downward until I get bored of looking for an unreviewed one, then just jump to the newest end because I know I'll find one easier. That's clearly sub-optimal. Is there something like Category:DYK submissions pending review that I'm just not seeing? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm back here to do another review, once again got frustrated because it's hard to find what needs to be reviewed. I see that the last time I was here (6 months ago), I asked the question immediately above, which got no response. Any suggestions? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Current image for Golden Retriever

"Golden Retriever" - and nothing else?

@Amakuru: Sorry, I am not aware with the formalities, neither whom else to ping, neither where to post my question. I think that in the current version the image of the Golden Retriever should do a bit more "stating of the obvious" and say Golden Retriever with fowl or the like. At low resolution screens, this is not trivial to recognize for the reader. --KnightMove (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the article says it's "retrieving a shot game bird", so I've put that. The photo says it's from the "International Field Trial for Retriever" so I assume that caption is accurate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot down

Under the Finishing the review section there's a link to DYKUpdateBot which is currently out of service. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping @Scottywong and Σ. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)