This page transcludes a subset of the nominations found on the page of all the approved nominations for the "Did you know" section of the Main Page. It only transcludes the nominations filed under dates of the fourth-most recent week. The page is intended to allow editors to easily review recent nominations that may not be displaying correctly on the complete page of approved nominations if that page's contents are causing the page to hit the post-expand include size limit.
... that in the illustrated manuscript Tarif-i Husain Shahi, the image of the queen sitting on the king's lap was washed away by her son?
Source: Michell, George; Zebrowski, Mark (1999-06-10). Architecture and Art of the Deccan Sultanates(PDF). Cambridge University Press. p. 147. Partly scratched away but still visible, perched on the sultan's knee like the consort of a Hindu god, it must be Khanzada Humayun (Fig. 108). The portraits document her rise and fall, for, like the other two Muslim women who managed to rule India, Nur Jahan and Raziya Sultana, her fortunes ultimately suffered a terrible reversal. Painted into the manuscript in 1565, at the height of her influence, her figure must have been removed in 1569, when, after four years of rule as regent, she was imprisoned by her rebellious son, anxious to accede to his father's throne. We further assume that the vandal, not realising that the heroine of the dohada page was also the queen, as the king does not accompany her, left it undisturbed
Reviewed:
Comment: Please feel free to make changes to the alt; Its wording seems a bit awkward to me
Created by AmateurHi$torian (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
ALT1 = ... that the illustrated manuscript Tarif-i Husain Shahi contains one of the rare depictions of a queen in Islamic art?" Source: Michell, George; Zebrowski, Mark (1999-06-10). Architecture and Art of the Deccan Sultanates(PDF). Cambridge University Press. p. 145. The text stresses the rule of both Husain and Khanzada Humayun. Such political prominence was rare for women in Islamic society in India and the Middle East, and female portraiture did not exist. Female figures in Persian miniatures are the heroines of poetic romance, not real women. The Tarif proves to be deeply unorthodox and highly significant, for the queen herself appears in six of its twelve illustrations!
Overall: AmateurHi$torian A QPQ is not needed. Both hooks are fine. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. "It is dated to the middle of the 16th-century." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is long enough and new enough; no sourcing, copyright, or content issues were found. Hook has good source and meets length and format criterion. I recommend first hook; ALT1 uses word petals twice...i.e. petals are not petals...interesting perhaps, but also a little confusing. Image is from flickr with only Attribution/ShareAlike restrictions; image attribution is included in upload; rollover tag is good. However, QPQ is not done yet.Orygun (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you’ve added another hook option (i.e. Alt2). All three hook options meet DYK hook and sourcing requirements. I think first and third are better than second for reasons stated above. QPQ is now done, so DKY is ready to go.Orygun (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DYKSPLIT, splits from non-new articles are not considered "recently created"; instead, they are treated as expansions from the copied material. Since the third revision seems to be the point where you switched from copying to writing new prose, I'll calculate from there. That version had 23601 characters of prose, and the current version has 26147 – nowhere near close to a fivefold expansion. However, I see that you have nominated the article for GA; if it passes, that would make it eligible for DYK. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cited: - ALT3 is not present in the article. I don't think the phrase also called the Great Tri-State Tornado (from the "Kids Britannica" source) supports ALT4's claim of often refered to.
Interesting:
Other problems: - I'm not sure about ALT0's status as a "definite fact" (WP:DYKHOOK), given the extensive doubts described in 1925 Tri-State tornado § Legacy. Similarly, ALT2 is present and sourced in the article, but then contradicted in the same paragraph.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Overall: @EF5: You gave two online sources for ALT1 and ALT5, but the article cites different, offline sources for their claims. This isn't a huge deal, since {{DYKtickAGF}} exists, but it would feel a little silly to use that when online sources are right here. Regardless, once the unsourced sentence is resolved I'm ready to approve either hook. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Sorry for missing this earlier – I just realized that while ALT1 (deadliest US tornado) is stated in the lead (without citation), I can't find it in the body. 1925 Tri-State tornado § Fatalities compares it with other tornadoes, e.g. more students killed … than in any other tornadic event in U.S. history and killed at least 20 farm owners … more than the combined total of the next four deadliest tornadoes in the history of the United States, but doesn't compare the total deaths. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are approved. ALT5 is also approved with an online source given here and an offline source cited in the article, accepted in good faith. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: @Jolielover:, this one is currently circa 300 characters below the 1500 character requirement and needs expansion before it meets WP:DYKCRIT. I am also not entirely sure the hook is sufficiently interesting. 17 is young these days, but back then this was a common military age. I am simply not sure the subjects age or occupation is sufficiently interesting to meet this criteria. Overall you did well for your first nomination, but I'd want to see an expansion and also someone provide a second opinion before I passed this. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta:, when I submitted this it was above the character limit but someone reverted my edit (mistakenly probably), I have added the information back. Personally, I think it's interesting given that one of the few survivors of the attack was only 17 but I understand the criticism. jolielover♥talk15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Jolielover:, also, my comments are not so much a critisicm as much as a concern the hook is not interesting enough. However, as "interesting" is subjective and you have passed the objective criteria, I am going to pass this and allow reviewing admins to decide whether to proceed to prep queue. NB: QPQ not required. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that during Frank Ocean's performance of "Close to You" at FYF Fest in 2017, giant screens live-streamed Brad Pitt acting out a phone conversation backstage?
Source: On Saturday night (July 22), during one of the more bizarre moments of his staggering, raw, emotive headline set at FYF Festival, Ocean told the crowd he was going to cover his favorite song: Stevie Wonder’s version of “Close To You” by The Carpenters. Brad Pitt suddenly appeared acting out a phone conversation while Ocean performed it. Ocean never acknowledged him. He may as well have been on a TV in the background.
ALT1: ... that Brad Pitt once acted out a phone conversation as part of Frank Ocean's performance of "Close to You" at FYF Fest in 2017? Source: Same as first source
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and properly cited. QPQ has been satisfied. The hook is interesting enough. The only issue I found was that Earwig flagged some possible copyright violation, though it appears to stem from a long quote that is properly attributed. All in all, I see no reason not to approve this article. JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Both sources are cited in the article, but neither hook is stated. ALT0 is interesting but could use a bit more context, namely what kind of video game is it and what kind of stations? I suggest this rewording to the nominator and promoter:
...that in the simulation video game Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up, the player needs to manage everything from the construction of train stations to dumping trash cans?
ALT0 is interesting because the latter activity, dumping trash, is not typically an enjoyably activity and so it would be odd to put it in a video game that is meant to entertain. ALT1 seems quite weak to me in comparison, as none of the listed items are unusual for actual train stations to have.
Overall: Having read through, this looks good to me. Earwig copyvio check looks fine. One small thing (Tyler Ervin, the Packers kick returned, muffed the return and was only able to move the ball to the eight-yard line should read Tyler Ervin, the Packers kick returner, muffed the return and was only able to move the ball to the eight-yard line), but other than that this was a smooth read. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New enough and barely long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out and is actually a reasonable way to make the hook more hooky than a standard "events banned", even if Waberi had little to do with sport. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: ... that the Price Tower in Oklahoma was completed nearly three decades after it was proposed in New York? Source: Toker, Franklin (2003). Fallingwater Rising: Frank Lloyd Wright, E. J. Kaufmann, and America's Most Extraordinary House. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 161.
ALT3: ... that the Price Tower's developer wanted a building with two or three floors, but he got nineteen floors? Source: Multiple; see article
ALT5: ... that the Price Tower may have been abandoned partly because it did not have enough staircases? Source: McCarter, Robert (1997). Frank Lloyd Wright. London: Phaidon Press. p. 198.
Comment: Thanks to Tamzin for suggesting the ideas for the first two hooks. The article previously appeared on the Main Page in 2004; DYK renominations are now allowed after five years per WP:DYKNEW. (On a lighter note, somehow even this building managed to have a connection to NYC...)
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 690 past nominations.
Overall:
Article is new enough, long enough, sourced, neutral, free of copyright violations. The image used is free, clear, and used in the article. Hooks are cited and interesting; ALT6 is the most interesting in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmateurHi$torian (talk • contribs)
Florida State University academic-athletic scandal
The article was nominated one day after its creation. It's impressively long and certainly meets the DYK length requirement. Earwig flagged some possible copyright violations, but they belong to long, blocky quotations that have been properly formatted and sourced; no actual problems have surfaced. I also read the article, with an eye for proper sourcing, and found no issues. The hooks are straightforward, punchy, and properly sourced as well. I personally prefer the first one fact-wise. I would also consider an editor replacing the word "involved" with "implicated", as that's what the article and sources say, and it may lessen ambiguity. Anyway, I digress. There are no issues of any sort, and a QPQ has been done. This looks good to go. Phibeatrice (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and properly cited. QPQ has been satisfied, as no review is needed. Both hooks seem interesting, though I would lean towards the first one, personally. All in all, I see no reason to not pass this QYK. JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate sourcing: - Generally well sourced, but for direct quotes like "crashed through", "teenage high jinks", "caught in court action" I'd prefer to see clearer attribution, eg. "what The New Zealand Herald called 'teenage high jinks'", or at least a cite at the end of the sentence.
Cited: - Hook is sourced in the article, but not immediately after the sentence that contains the relevant fact, ie. after "...allowing her to wander around Western Springs Reserve."
Interesting:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Overall: Nice work! Moved to mainspace today. Pic is a public domain derivative work by the article author of someone else's public domain work. Once the couple of minor sourcing issues are fixed this is good to go. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that the most notorious and largest crime against the Polish prisoners of war in World War II was the Katyn massacre of thousands of Polish officers, carried out by the Soviet Union? Source: Moore (2002), p. 27, 44-46. From p. 27: "For many decades after the Second World War, discussion of Polish soldiers taken prisoner by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was dominated by the debate over the responsibility for the deaths of some 15,000 Polish officers at Katyn and other locations inside the Soviet Union.’ Discovered in mass graves by the Germans in 1943, their murder at the hands of the NKVD became a cause célébre "
Article is long enough. Hook is interesting, but as the user said, ALT1 seems familiar to one of their previous hooks, so I steer towards ALT0. QPQ done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AmateurHi$torian A QPQ is not needed. Both hooks are fine. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. "It is dated to the middle of the 16th-century." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg)
Article is long enough and new enough; no sourcing, copyright, or content issues were found. Hook has good source and meets length and format criterion. I recommend first hook; ALT1 uses word petals twice...i.e. petals are not petals...interesting perhaps, but also a little confusing. Image is from flickr with only Attribution/ShareAlike restrictions; image attribution is included in upload; rollover tag is good. However, QPQ is not done yet.Orygun (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I see you’ve added another hook option (i.e. Alt2). All three hook options meet DYK hook and sourcing requirements. I think first and third are better than second for reasons stated above. QPQ is now done, so DKY is ready to go.Orygun (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKSPLIT, splits from non-new articles are not considered "recently created"; instead, they are treated as expansions from the copied material. Since the third revision seems to be the point where you switched from copying to writing new prose, I'll calculate from there. That version had 23601 characters of prose, and the current version has 26147 – nowhere near close to a fivefold expansion. However, I see that you have nominated the article for GA; if it passes, that would make it eligible for DYK. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the unsourced sentence at the end of 1925 Tri-State tornado § Legacy has already been discussed, but WP:DYKCITE says that all content that could reasonably be challenged must be cited to a reliable source. I think Wikipedia:When sources are wrong could be helpful here.
Done, removed uncited claim. EF5 06:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are approved. ALT5 is also approved with an online source given here and an offline source cited in the article, accepted in good faith. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
.JPG)