Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

An alternative way forward

While I'm sure we could all do with a break after the discussion of the last few days, since some users have in my opinion rushed into making proposals without adequate prior debate, I feel obliged to make a proposal or two of my own lest others be adopted by default.

Firstly, I think it's become clear through this discussion that there are two conflicting schools of thought in regards to the future of DYK. The first wants to retain it more or less as is, but with improved quality control; the second is pushing for a completely new process in which relatively few but higher quality articles are featured. A lot more could be said about these two positions, but I think I will simply note that there appears to be no consensus to move to a completely new format at this time.

That effectively leaves us with looking at ways to improve the existing process. The critics have proposed two main methods: firstly, Tony's suggestion that the intial review process be made more thorough; and secondly Sandy's suggestion that administrators take more responsibility via a "directorate" of some kind. I think both these proposals have merit, but we lack the resources to implement either of them on the scale proposed.

My suggestion therefore is that we adopt the general thrust of these proposals, but on a scale we can realistically implement given the available manpower. I quite like Tony's idea of a more thorough initial review process but he is clearly envisaging a sort of GA-Lite process for which we lack the resources. As I've already suggested however, it shouldn't be too difficult to adopt the essential elements of Tony's proposal in a less ponderous form. What I am envisaging is a template something like the Wikiships assessment banner, which has a number of fields in which the assessor provides either a "y" or "n" response, on the basis of which the banner delivers a given rating. It seems to me we ought to be able to adopt a similar template that outputs a given DYK review icon (accept, reject, problem, query) based on the responses to the checklist. The checklist results could also be duplicated on a single line of text as a means of summarizing the problems, while a "comment" field could be used to provide further detail.

A system like this would take up scarcely more space on T:TDYK than is currently used in reviewing, which IMO is an important consideration. It would also help to remind reviewers of the issues they are expected to check, and it would make them more accountable for their failures. Some kind of sanction for sloppy reviewing would then become possible, which should go a long way toward ensuring that reviewers take their responsibilities seriously.

The second suggestion put forward in prior discussion is the notion of greater accountability at the admin level. Sandy has been the most vocal proponent of this method, arguing for a "directorate" where a group of admins take full responsibility for everything that appears on DYK. Again, the problem with this proposal is that we simply don't have the manpower to implement it.

While I have been largely inactive at DYK for the last six or seven months due to RL issues, I have nonetheless formed the impression that admins have come to rely too much on QPQ reviews and are not doing much if anything in the way of double checking updates for themselves. So this is another area where I think we can improve without unduly adding to the existing burden on DYK admins.

My proposal in this regard therefore is that admins moving an update from prep to the queue be obliged to sign a statement confirming that they have checked every article in the update to see that it meets minimal quality standards. Additionally, they should be obliged to confirm that they have checked each individual hook for grammatical and other issues. We can't expect DYK admins to thoroughly check every aspect of every article but a system like this should help prevent blatant errors slipping through.

I think the implementation of the two above proposals together should substantially improve the quality of the end product, which judging by many comments above has slipped in recent months. Please discuss. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, thanks for your comments, which have some merit. However, part of the scurrilous hidden agenda in my first RfC (checklist) is that reviewers and nominators actually talk to each other, and we take a little more time over the preparation/judgement process. I don't mind icons, but they are secondary to comments, especially if DYK is to fulfil its potential in mentoring, training, and encouraging newish editors (as MilHist does so well). A lot of people seem to think DYK is too rushed and ends up being superficial; and I'm unsure why there's a concern to take up no more "space" on the nom pages.

Your proposal that the queuing admins have to sign a statement saying they've basically done all of the reviewing themselves is a much greater burden than a directorate would normally face: directorates rely on reviewers, some of who will specialise in reviewing only some aspects of the noms. My impression of the queuing admins at DYK is that they're very good indeed: the logical thing is for them to get a take on the review(s) for each nom they consider putting into a prep area; at the very least, moving a nom to a prep area, whoever does it, should involve an assessment of the review(s). Tony (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Adding big templates might look impressive, but it's not necessarily going to improve the quality of the review. But what it is going to do is add considerably to page clutter. We seem to agree on the basic principle however, so perhaps the rest can wait for a discussion on specifics. You may have a point about assessing reviews - now that we have individual pages for nominations, that would certainly be easier to do. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Gatoclass wrote here. With regard to Gatoclass's admin sign-off, I suggest that this should somehow be logged on the subpage of each included article -- that will help to address Sandy's concern about accountability. If a hook/article is found to be problematic after reaching the Main Page, it will be as simple as glancing at the subpage to find out who approved it initially, who promoted it to prep, and then who promoted it from prep to queue. One other improvement I'd suggest is requiring two reviewers to approve a nomination before it can proceed from the nomination page to a prep area. This was discussed at the time QPQ was implemented, and I think it's time we take this step. By giving a second review in each case, we can not only better ensure that we are not passing inappropriate articles/hooks to the Main Page, but can also identify reviewers who may currently be rubber-stamping nominations. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point in double reviewing; it basically just makes QPQ redundant. If we went to double reviewing, we might as well just dump QPQ and go back to voluntary reviewing. However, I should also point out that my proposal does include a limited secondary review from an admin when moving updates to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Very happy for nominators fifth and beyond to QPQ review the clerical character-counting aspects (plus one more skilled one, if they can manage it). I'm not doing article vintage at the moment because I don't know how. Partial reviewing should be the expectation in many cases, I think. Tony (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see the point in doing "half reviews" and it would make QPQ pretty pointless. It would be nice however, to have some dedicated plagiarism and copyvio hunters, but we're unlikely to acquire any since it's a tedious chore that nobody wants to do. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony is coming up with some great ideas, I have a lot of respect for the way he is constructively moving forward.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Tony has been a beacon of civility and professionalism here. He has demonstrated good faith ceaselessly. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Optimalism

There's a hook in Prep Area 4 "... that Optimalism has health benefits and can be a learned skill?" Does anybody see the hook supported in the article? Yomangani^talk 23:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's title seems to be a misspelling. From my skim of it, the article seems to be about optimism. If this is the case, the article is also duplicating an existing article and should be redirected, with any new content merged over to there. I'm taking it out of the prep pending further discussion; I'll leave the actual AfDing to someone else, if anyone else agrees that this article should be AfDed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-do of the penultimate issue I brought to DYK, which is a failure to observe WP:MEDRS. Would anyone who understands DYK please provide a link showing who approved this hook and who moved it to prep? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So we can tar and feather them? Yomangani^talk 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not tar and feather, this should be looked at as a review of the process. But here's what happened. Created [1], Reviewed[2], moved to prep [3]

NB the editor who created this has less than 100 edits - clearly a new editor and DYK does a fantastic job of encouraging new editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, so we can drop them a note informing them of MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And who is going to review an article for compliance with WP:MEDRS or any other guideline outside the core? Certainly not some QPQ reviewer who might have written their first article today. All these proposals for directorates, checklists etc. don't scale either. I imagine they will wear the current reviewers down and drive them out, but not a lot else. Yomangani^talk 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about MEDRS, but I am concerned that the majority of sources do not even mention the word "optimalism". Bit difficult to accept them as sources really Worm^TT · (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec re @ Yoman) Right. DYK is not fixable, but QPQ reviewing is making it worse, and if the only way to fix it will drive people out, then it should be shut down. Anyway, Worm, thanks for doing that homework-- without archives, I don't know how to do it easily, and appreciate that you did it. I'm out of time today-- has anyone notified the three editors of the issue? So, we've got at least three editors who need to be informed on correct sourcing, and if DYK is to serve one of its alleged purposes of helping to create new content, it should be doing just that. At least one of those editors (Panyd) should know this darn well by now, as she is an established editor, and I've discussed with her before. Moral of the story-- nip these problems in the bud before DYK enables more faulty editing. This is NOT the first time we've had faulty medical statements at DYK (see my penultimate issue raised here in the last month or two). The good news here is that a knowledgeable experienced editor (Yoman) found this in the prep area and prevented it from being placed on the mainpage: if that were a regular occurrence, along with notifying editors of the mistakes along the way, methinks we would no longer have a long-standing DYK problem. Accountability at either the prep or queue level is missing. Archives will help nominators and reviewers alike learn from their mistakes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Panyd only moved it to prep. Having the admin recheck every article that they move to prep isn't going to work, and the turnover of editors and admins is too high to work these problems out of the system permanently anyway. DYK is fixable in my opinion, but not by attempting to make the review process more rigorous than FAC (where's the FAC checklist template?) Accept DYK for what it is: a shop-front for works in progress. Change "From Wikipedia's newest content:" to "From Wikipedia's newest content; these articles may need improving, correcting or deleting. If you'd like to help, pick one and start editing." Do a quick check that the articles don't obviously breach any core policies (just as you would on New Page patrol) and then tip them out on the main page for editors and potential editors to fix up. All you are doing then is sifting the new page creation list for articles that have potential. This is supposedly the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so why should the main page be filled only with content that discourages editing by its apparent completeness? (I use "apparent" advisedly as some absolute nonsense gets through DYK and remains unchallenged because it has superscript numerals nearby.) Encourage visitors to become editors by giving them something they might want to edit. Yomangani^talk 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much my feelings too. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sing along, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yomangani sums up my opinion quite nicely. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's a nice piece of lateral thinking Yomangani :) It would certainly prevent any misconceptions about the purpose of DYK. But that doesn't mean we can't lift our game at the same time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

cmadler likes this.

BTW, I put a merge proposal on the article in case that affects anything. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah, BWV 88, TvM, Sonderbehandlung

Mixed remarks:

• Messiah Part II is in prep, the Bach cantata, which should appear no later than Friday, not yet, could that be swapped, please?

  When would you prefer it to be featured? Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Anytime soon, for instance instead of Messiah Part II (now prep4, which might appear anytime, possibly pictured with the autograph of the Hallelujah Chorus, as was suggested). Last (liturgical) year I had the cantatas ON Sundays, now I would like to reach different readers, but somewhere close to the Sunday they were written for (which was in this case last Sunday, whereas BWV 9 - also approved - is for next Sunday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tatiana von Metternich, Special occasion 26 July, appeared 11pm that day where she lived and died that day 5 years ago. Not only was it night hours again, also I could not watch. Thank goodness someone else watched a change to the article. If you want to do me a favour, just read it. (And get Special occ articles to a queue in the middle of the day next time, please.)

  This is a moot issue because other countries might want to learn about Germany. Germany is "big" enough for that. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• It was in the queue for 5pm (London), then that changed, which would not have been too bad, had it been one slot sooner. This was a matter of reverence rather than to make a fact known. Did you read the IP addition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't find the credit for Sonderbehandlung which I expected at User talk:Marrante, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  I guess no credits were given because another editor expanded that article Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are right, I missed that one line on expansion, User talk:WilliamH, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nom subpages

Is there a quick way to sort and display only approved hooks (make life easier for prep loaders) or hide them (make it easier when looking for hooks to approve)? Maybe the DYKcheckmark can come with a cat? Will this help? --PFHLai (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's not any way built in right now. The only way I can think of is to add a cat to the DYKtick, but that would probably not be ideal, for a few reasons:

• Since {{DYKtick}} is subst'ed, the cat would appear directly in the Wikitext, which is not the end of the world but it would make things slightly more cluttered
• The category wouldn't necessarily be accurate, because articles can still be challenged for various reasons after someone has added the DYKtick. (Although, this same problem is also true of just visually scanning the page looking for s; I imagine no system will be free of this problem.)
• All we'd get is a category full of supposedly approved hooks; they wouldn't be displayed in any way, so you'd have to click through to each subpage to see what they are. That would probably be less convenient than what I assume people do now, which is scan the page visually looking or and .
• Because the subpages are not deleted, pages would remain in the category even after they have been promoted and after they have already been on the main page.

Anyway, I don't know of any way built into the system that would allow for what I think you're looking for. It might be possible to have a bot (like DYKHousekeepingBot) periodically update some page that consists of just the approved hooks and one of just the unapproved hooks, but you'd have to ask an editor who knows more about bots than I do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and explanation, Rjanag. I guess it's obvious that I know nothing about programming. I am not sure if this is a good idea, but I think T:TDYK is getting very long, so I wonder if the nom subpage can include a 'hide/show' button near the top. Approved noms can be folded to hide the discussion, esp. when it's only a checklist with a strings of 'OKs', signatures and timestamps, or after a long-winded debate that ended with a consensus and a green tick. Or maybe the 'hide/show' button could be on the checklist template. I dunno. I like the bot idea, and I think the bot can add or remove cats, but I know nothing about bot-making. Anyway, I like the newly implemented templates. I just think that they are taking up a lot of space on my screen. A lot of scrolling for me when looking for hooks to move to preps. --PFHLai (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would be possible to have {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} anywhere in the nom. For example:

---

Icelandic Phallological Museum

• ... that the Icelandic Phallological Museum displays the world's largest collections of penises (exhibits pictured) and recently acquired its first human specimen?

• Reviewed: Anshei Minsk ([4])

Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Completed review

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed: Hook Length, format, content rules: rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Source: rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Interest: rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Image suitability, if applicable: May be controversial, but I think it's ok. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Article Length: Vintage: Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Neutrality: Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: Copyvio: Comments/discussion: Not sure if it's ideal to include "recently" in the hook. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to go. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

It wouldn't be automated, though; reviewers would have to add the {collapse} templates themselves (or, e.g., un-comment hidden ones that were already there) when approving. Also I don't know if it would be distracting to have those green boxes all over the page. Also, maybe this system caters most to people looking for hooks to review, rather than hooks to promote or something, but I don't know. Anyway, it's worth thinking about, and I'd be happy to hear more input from others about this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it "Good to go" when most of the aspects the RfC insisted be explicitly checked and passed are blank in the hidden template? Tony (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I was only grabbing that one for an example of how this might be formatted. This is just an example, not an actual completed review. I happened to have that page open, so that's the nom I pasted in here. Don't read anything into it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I anticipated that Tony's checklist would make the Suggestions page too long, and that seems to be occurring. The solution is not IMO to start hiding discussion in hatnotes, because that adds an extra degree of complexity and is probably going to mean even less scrutiny of discussions. I added a suggestion of my own on how to minimize the text output from a checklist to this thread, but it hasn't attracted much comment yet. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there is an existing way to display only verified hooks, but it does so on a separate page at User:Bawolff/DYKVerified. I've used it myself from time to time when T:TDYK gets very cluttered, but it never really caught on with other reviewers. You just hit the button at the top of the page to refresh the list. Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I had in mind when I mentioned a bot doing this (if it can be done by a script, even better, that's probably easier to maintain). When you used it recently were you able to tell if it still worked for the new subpage nominations? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Record of promotion from prep to queue

In response to Sandy's question #3 at #Nomination subpages, I went ahead and added this to the template that handles the nomination subpages. Basically what this does is, when a page is promoted, it spits out a line that some admin can come back later and fill out to indicate when he/she promoted that hook from the prep to the queue. Here is a sample of what it would look like on an already-promoted hook (scroll down to the bottom). So basically, the way this would work is, when an admin moves a set of hooks from a prep page to a queue page, they could "sign off" on each one.

There is not any consensus for or against anything like this yet, because no one ever responded to my message proposing it as a solution to Sandy's question. Feel free to comment on whether you think this is useful, whether you think it's too much for the admins to have to do, etc. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjanag ... if I am following correctly, this now means (?) that every nomination will have an archive where others can see who reviewed and who put it on the main page? Are the nominations all archived in one central place, such as the FAC archives? That would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what sort of archiving you'd like, but currently the situation is still the same as last time we discussed it. There are a few different sorts of archiving that can be done under the current system, although none of it is around yet (simply because none of the new noms have gone off the nomination page yet):

• Category: all promoted nominations go into categories like Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2011 (a subcategory of Category:Passed DYK nominations), and all failed nominations go into corresponding categories (e.g. Category:Failed DYK nominations from July 2011, Category:Failed DYK nominations). Thus, any old nomination can be found that way.
• Static archives: The instructions at T:TDYK#How to archive a day's nominations instruct editors to move a completed day's worth of nominations to, e.g. Template talk:Did you know/Archive/2011 July 28. Of course, none of these archive pages exist yet, because no day's worth of new nominations has been completed yet (the new nomination system only just started).

Overall, though, I don't think either of those archiving methods serves much purpose. Months from now I assume there will be little need to go through all archived nominations from a given day or month or whatever; rather, what you probably want to be able to do is, for a given article or hook which you find problems with, you want to go back and find that individual article's nomination discussion to see who passed it, who promoted it, etc. That is already possible without any formal archiving system (the nomination pages are not deleted, so for instance if you find a problem with the article Something you can just look up Template talk:Did you know/Something and the information you're looking for is all there). Nevertheless, both the above sorts of archives will also be there, I'm just not sure what anyone hopes to use them for. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page suffers from overlinking. Please stop linking common terms

There's a discussion about overlinking on the Main Page due to DYK, OTD, and ITN. Please can DYK help reduce the number of Main Page links to terms that add little value to a reasonable reader of English? Lightmouse (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Conan in Prep 1

"... that Conan the Barbarian has an existentialist subtext?" Conan is a character; he can't have a subtext. If it was "...the book Conan the Barbarian..." that would be fine, but I think the supporting sentence in the article is "Howard's most famous character, Conan, is an existentialist character who defines his own purpose and shapes his own destiny" which doesn't support mentioning an individual book. Yomangani^talk 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Prob better to reword as "...that Robert E. Howard's character Conan the Barbarian shows characteristics of existentialism?" It's more precise - but could be done better I think. I don't think "subtext" should link to the article. It's a nice page, btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with the existing hook, Conan the Barbarian is very well known as a fictional character so it seems to me that further explanation would be redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, having read the source, I agree the hook is a bit inaccurate. I've changed it to "... that the worldview of Conan the Barbarian has been described as existentialist?" Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool and slow it down?

I'm all for ideas that reduce or eliminate plagiarism on the main page, but the poisonous atmosphere that has been created here – especially between DYK regulars and the more insistent newcomer reformers – is not healthy for DYK or the project at large. The notion that DYK could be replaced at any time by another process is laughable; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features#Did you know shows nearly 2:1 support for the section, and there is no major movement of the kind required to remove DYK. Forcing quick change under this premise is simply wrong. In addition, the insistence and zeal on a hastily-designed reviewing checklist that was deployed with scarce consensus (and is now defended on the basis of a single word ("explicit") in a preceding RfC?), is now seeing backlash against the increased length, loading times, and complexity of the T:TDYK. Let's slow down, drop the rhetoric, and find a consensual middle ground, where the needs of DYK can intersect with the desires of the reformers.

The two biggest needs of DYK, as I see them, include a simple-enough format that new(er) editors can nominate articles they have created or greatly expanded to appear on the main page. This is proven to significantly increase the motivation of the editor; just ask any student who worked with the ambassador movement who got an article on the main page. Right now, the instructions and preloaded template isn't bad, but new users probably get really confused with acronyms like "BLP" or the "reviewed" field, which makes it look like everyone has to review an article.

They also require a simple-enough reviewing system that allows hooks to be shuffled onto the main page. Despite proposals above, there does not appear to be a consensus to slow the number of hooks on the main page, so we need a reviewing format that is simple enough for most editors to use. A checklist seems like the simplest option if the concerns raised above are addressed – which appears to be happening at #Another template above.

Please feel free to add more "needs" below, and let's find areas on DYK in general where reformers and DYKers can agree.

Bottom line: if DYK is to succeed, we can't make it so complicated or so close to GA that we create a vicious circle that will see DYK lose nominations and reviewers. If there is consensus to raise the standards, great; but right now there is none. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I consider myself a 'regular' at DYK, for the last 4 months or so. I have been following the discussions on the problems and the procedures, and I am aware of the recurrent problems which expoloded in October of last year. Yet, I have seen little progress in dealing with the issues faced by DYK during my active involvement in this corner of the project. The cozy DYK club wants self-policing, yet cannot deliver the change that the community is clamouring for. The RfC amply demonstrated that. The reviewing – including the requirement for nominators to review another candidate in a 'quid pro quo' manner – is not working as it should; novices are unaware what is required; regulars go through the motions. I believe you downplay the gravity of the issues faced. Admittedly there is quite a lot of rhetoric and some vitriol, but it's equally unhelpful how you paint this as some sort of campaign to get rid of DYK, which for my part I guarantee isn't the endgame. The "hastily designed" template is not my creation, but that of a current sitting Arbitrator, who I dare say doesn't want DYK to sink either. The system is overloaded with large number of articles to review and post; rotation is high (4 shifts a day). I feel sorry for the admins, who cannot hope to ensure that the 'regulars' have done their jobs; they cope only on a pure mechanical level. You seem to acknowledge that a checklist is necessary, yet you complain that there is no consensus for the exact form. We don't need simple reviews, we need thorough ones. What matters to the community is not whether the checklist has the pretty buttons on them; what matters is that problems such as copyright violations do not get through to the main page. The greatest impediment to changing DYK is the current mindset. That needs to change and produce the necessary results in a short time, otherwise I would foresee the community will be a lot less tolerant about DYK, and will resign to the accepting the problems as 'intractable'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OC, just to note that Carcharoth is not a sitting arbitrator (term finished 31 December 2010), and that the design of the template was taken across from the RfC text that I designed. He explicitly acknowledged me as being the author. (Just so there's no confusion here.) Tony (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Tony. This is not the first time people have thought I was still an arbitrator, but it is annoying when people make that mistake, especially as whether someone is or was an arbitrator has no relevance to this debate. Ohconfucius, I copied Tony's text into template namespace as an initial draft to be worked on, mainly because someone else at the time suggested it be "made into a template" and I didn't see anyone else about to do that. It may or may not work, but I thought that was the next step needed. And for the record, speculating that I don't want 'DYK to sink' is a gross oversimplification. What I want is to see articles systematically improved in a way that everyone can be confident in, rather than endless bickering. My view, if I had to sum it up, would be that all articles need to go through a minimum level of checking after creation (or later, if missed at the time - expansions are another matter again). That 'first check' should really be a process separate from DYK, and any articles that arrive at, or are used in, DYK/GA/ITN/OTD/FA and so on, should have gone through that minimal amount of checking or be checked upon nomination at such places. You can only build on work done previously in an article if that work forms a solid foundation. Without doing such checks on all articles, you risk building on sand and having the articles fall apart later. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise that my facts were wrong. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for your post. You say that the recent RfC on whether DYK should be kept at all on the main page "shows nearly 2:1 support for the section". But let's not bask in this apparent endorsement. Of the two-thirds of participants (28 editors) who don't want to trash DYK outright, only half (14) were solely positive about the current process. That's more like a satisfaction rate of 32.6%—not an endorsement rate I'd be using for one moment in an argument to resist reform. Even those basically positive entries include such statements as "It is a pleasure to see that many DYK critics have joined the reviews and are helping to improve the nominations", and "DYK has been having an identity crisis for a few years now".

Let's take a look at the other half of the "endorse" !votes you garner as support for DYK, but who were critical:

• 6 want the flow to be slowed and/or believe there's not enough reviewing ("Higher standards and stronger checks are needed", "some current reform plans look really promising"; and "I very much support increasing quality standards for DYK (and I also think that reducing the number of noms and featured articles goes hand in hand with such a reform)"; and "but not in its current guise, and with a lower rotation");
• a further 3 are partly critical ("we need to eliminate the 'everyone-gets-a-trophy' culture and focus on getting quality articles ... Some of the DYK writers don't even seem that interested in the topics they're writing about. They just want to collect awards, ..."; and "Linking to a poorly referenced, poorly written article from the main page doesn't seem like a good idea to me.");
• 3 want it to be partly or all GAs (resonating with the 58% support for one or two GAs per shift on this very page, above); and
• 2 want older and longer articles included.

Now, these are the friends of DYK. Tony (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice it people would apply the same scrutiny to "add GAs to DYK/replace DYK with GA" proposals. Every time that proposal comes up, it seems like half the people who write a fat '''Support''' under it are actually supporting different proposals than the one they are putting their signature under. ...these are the 'friends' of GA-in-DYK... rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

implying that there must be enemies, which I believe is incorrect. That entire RFC had max. 45 voters per section, which is a very low attendance for Main Page matters. The number of editors involved with DYK alone is significantly higher (not all are active at this very moment). Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I stopped voting at some time, so my voice is not counted, don't rely on numbers here, please. I rather create content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Content: did you know that Messiah (Handel) is up for FA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Endorsing Gerda Arendt's comments. When there's a clear view as to what we are !voting about, I'll !vote. (And it won't be to support the current system.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFC currently has 28 support !votes for DYK, 11 of whom express the view that there is room for improvement. No-one denies that, there is room for improvement everywhere on Wikipedia. Very few people however express support for radical change - I'd say maybe three. Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Responses to Gato and Materialscientist: Gato, nope, 14, not 11, of those who don't want to bin DYK express something negative. Materialscientist, you say that I was "implying that there must be enemies, which I believe is incorrect". I'm afraid to spoil the party by raising the matter of those who do want to bin DYK in the main-page RfC: more than a third of participants. I was too polite last time to point out what your enemies are saying, just at one section on another page. This is in addition to the half of your friends who are telling you it needs to change.

• "Quality control for DYK sucks. It has sucked for a long time, and I'm not willing to give it any more chances. ... until it reaches a level of peer review that is capable of consistently weeding out plagiarism, junk prose, false citing, and other concerns, it's a liability to Wikipedia."
• "An embarassment to the project. Dangerous. ... Rushed and nepotistic review process ...".
• "Plagiarism Central, the hooks are often sourced to non-reliable sources or sensationalized, ... DYK is an embarrassment to the main page and a vehicle for those who want to climb the grease pole at RFA to put up quick, plagiarized content – scrap it."
• "this corner of Wikipedia ... is broken. ... put it on hiatus, replacing hooks drawn from new articles with hooks drawn from new GAs (thus forcing a minimum of quality control) ... I think it's perverse to feature new articles this prominently".
• "the quantity over quality aspect is currently not in balance"
• "I spent some time watching the proposals page, suggesting that grammar and honesty levels should be improved, and was harried away from it acussed of discouraging new editors. Well I will continue to discourage people from posting sub-standard content onto the main page ..."
• "it simply does not have the purpose it had before. In short, too much quantity, too little quality."
• "Time for it to go. It features the weakest content on the main page and there's no sign that will ever change. It seems very resistant to suggestions to re-tool it."
• "the process has significant flaws, and given the current attitude towards reform by regulars, I no longer support this feature on the Main Page."
• "Dump it as it is. The requirements seem to encourage hastily created articles on obscure topics."
• "There are too many articles in this section, the hooks are generally boring, many of the articles are full of issues - plagiarism, POV, poor sourcing. I worry that if a new editor is first exposed to these articles then that's the kind of articles that new editor will write."

Why do you think I've supported reform of the DYK system? It's to put it on a basis that will survive in the medium term. Because when you combine all of the circling sharks that want more radical change in DYK than just basic improvements, it's quite massive. Tony (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, DYK is currently coming in at the RFC as the second most supported of the four major mainpage features behind FAC, with ITN and OTD lagging significantly behind - Tony's doomsday analysis notwithstanding. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is a difference between A) pushing back against the widespread and hyperbole-laden campaigning to trash DYK and B) opposing all change. Changes and a general wish for improvement here have been the rule, not the exception, since I got started.
  • Tony1 did a rewrite/improvement of the rulebook, with widespread support.
  • The call for for subpages to archive past nominations got wide support here, long before this latest round of attacks, and has been implemented by Rjanag.
  • The proposal of a checklist for reviewers elicited a very helpful beginners' guide from cmadler and has now been made even more useful by Tony1's template.
  • My "two-tier" proposal, to have more competent reviewers work at the level of prep, which I imagined as a way to reward experienced people for doing the harder part of reviewing, has gone through the looking glass to become a proposal for an elected directorate whom critics can punish with public humiliation if a mistake slips by them. I wonder what kind of people would find that job tempting.
• By the way, when you counted the !votes to keep DYK on the Main Page, you didn't count mine because I just added it there five minutes ago. But how many different times and places does one have to respond to the same accusations, the same push for destruction? I really would prefer to work instead on creating good DYK articles. 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharktopus (talk • contribs)

If reforming DYK is intended to save it, that assumes DYK will survive this reform. For better or worse, I think it unlikely. I can't imagine where to find enough people to play this game by the new rules. Art LaPella (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The "Great DYK Regulars/Clique/Cabal versus Reformers/Zealots/Circling Sharks Endless Argument (estb. 2011)" sticking point seems to be that the regulars know that DYK won't scale to be GA-lite and that's what most of the proposed reforms drive it towards. The only way to get round that is to scrap DYK as we know it or change the direction of the reforms. I think the most apposite question on the page came from Walrasiad who asked us to consider what the purpose of DYK is, but they never got a real answer as everybody is far too busy arguing about which is the best way to implement a template. Yomangani^talk
• I didn't vote in the proposal that everyone seems so obsessed with tallying, but I definitely agree that DYK needs to change or be replaced with something else. The en.wiki Main Page gets 4 million page views per day. 4 million. That's a big responsibility, and I'm glad that we're beginning to take it seriously. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Back on track

This got off-track very quickly. Tony, let's not argue over semantics; can we agree that there is no consensus at the present time to removing DYK and that doing so will not happen on a moment's notice? Moving on, Sharktopus' idea above looks very promising (experienced editors review the prep areas), as there is a specific number of hooks to review in the prep areas. Having them review the preps means that obviously poor nominations can be screened out by inexperienced reviewers, yet even if the inexperienced reviewer messes up, it will be caught by the second tier. This might have been a bit touchy without the separate page nomination system, but with that in place, I think this is easily workable. I think it will only require a separate section on T:TDYK for noms that have been taken out of the preps. Now, can we give some attention to this idea?

I don't think the purpose of DYK is to showcase great content. By showing new or expanded articles, it provides an easy way for editors, both new and experienced, to have 'their' article viewed by thousands. In turn, this gives us a larger editor pool by motivating new editors to contribute (This is obviously not the only purpose; I'm just looking at this one). Again, I'll bring up my experience with the ambassador program. The students who had an article go on the main page were ecstatic and some even called home to tell their parents to look at it. How often do you think students call home to tell their moms and dads to look at something they did at school? ;-)

My main point is this: we need to find a simple way to 'reform' DYK without significantly raising the quality or competence required to nominate or significantly increasing the needed reviewing requirements. Both will starve DYK of nominations and/or reviewers, which if left unchecked will permanently damage DYK. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The two-tiered review sounds reasonable enough. In practice, however, we will need the regulars to participate actively in the secondary review. Otherwise, it will shift the burden of ensuring quality onto those already struggling to cope in the prep area. That is sure to bog the system down and ensure that the regulars don't learn anything from each nomination's failings (where they exist). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed, "it provides an easy way for editors, both new and experienced, to have 'their' article viewed by thousands." This statement is a real problem, I think. Nothing's easy like that, and the community has a clear preference for showcasing high, not low quality articles on the main page (see the MP RfC). DYK needs a body of reviewers who will either hang around or pop in, to keep the process moving and to ensure that newish editors have good contact with others WRT their article improvement. Sure, the final buck stops with the queuing admins, but they should not have to shoulder the whole responsibility: plenty of other editors are willing to pitch in, and I believe are doing so now. Tony (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2

"... that Lesley Gore's song "She's a Fool" was her third of four consecutive Top 5 hits to start her career?" I was going to correct it, but I can't really understand what it means and the article uses the same sentence, so no help there. Yomangani^talk 11:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation: it was her third single, and her first 4 singles were very successful - they were ranked within top 5 places in the US lists (1,5,5,2). I've tweaked the hook, correct me at will. Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ineligible article in Prep 2

The article in the first hook of Prep 2 is not eligible. According to the rules, it "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article". All of the prose in Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: M is an exact copy of that in Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: A–B, except "A or B" is replaced by "M". So this article has one character of eligible prose. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All the text in the lead maybe. The individual notes on buildings look well over the limit and it seems right to count these. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article/list. Just before I went on wikibreak on Sunday, I put a note on the nomination saying what Mandarax has said above. The list is in an intentionally unfinished state—it is a long-term, ongoing project—and I don't think it would reflect well on DYK to have this on the Main Page in its present state. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK queue out of date/late?

Seems that it is out of date. Is it? History2007 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated manually. I am offline for the next update, thus would an admin watch the bot in about 8 hrs please. Materialscientist (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

"... that US Air Force Major General Nels Running was awarded seven Distinguished Flying Crosses, but had never boarded an airplane yet when he left his hometown Frenchtown, Montana?" This won't make sense without a substantial rewrite of the hook. Perhaps: "... that US Air Force Major General Nels Running was the recipient of seven Distinguished Flying Crosses, but had never boarded an airplane until he left his home town to attend the Air Force Academy?" Too long? Yomangani^talk 10:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --PFHLai (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Review checklist formatting improvements

I would like the review checklist to be either:

A. indented by 1 or 2

B. partially hideable,

C. enclosed in a colored box, or

D. some combination of the above

so that the suggestions are more easily visually distinguishable from their reviews. Discuss?
--Lexein (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively not added at all until some agreement has been reached that Tony1's test template is the way to go. Support for a checklist isn't the same as support for a checklist template. Yomangani^talk 16:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Without actually adding it, how can it be evaluated for acceptability/usability? One can a) ask people what they want and/or b) give them something and measure how they use it. Well, (a) happened, and now (b) is happening, hence my two usability reports above. I personally would prefer an edit banner listing the checklist, but that makes for a huge edit banner, given all that's in there now. So I'm fine with seeing how well this looks/works. --Lexein (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the RFC that said OK to the template? There is/was an RFC on a proper reviewing checklist but, as far as I know, only some inconclusive discussion on dropping Tony1's template into all the nominations. Yomangani^talk 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I supported the idea of a reviewing checklist but I think things still need to be worked out in exactly how to implement it. In the current version, I particularly think the focus on "Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting" (at least in, e.g., Tony's example at Faial Botanical Garden is undue, and it shouldn't be necessary to review prose in this much detail. Of course, if the writing is so terrible the article is difficult to understand, the nom should be delayed until it gets copyedited. But pointing out slight grammatical problems or word repetition is not necessary. "Brilliant prose" isn't a WP policy like NPOV, RS, and COPYVIO, and DYK articles shouldn't need to pass a detailed review of prose quality in the same way they need to be checked for neutrality and lack of copyvio. While good prose is nice, it's simply not as important as those things. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One or two of the Botanical Garden prose points weren't in the "obvious" category, but when a reviewer can make a few handy suggestions, why not? For another nom yesterday, I asked for the ref tags to be fixed so they're consistently formatted. And it's not as though the points I made involved onerous fixes; two-minute job, and otherwise when will people learn this? It's all about the training, mentoring, engagement-with-each-other aspect that can make DYK a valuable seeding ground for newish editors (all too little of that on en.WP). But still that nominator hasn't been back: it's a dump-and-run job, which is a pity because the article has some merit. Importantly, there was an Indian one the other day where we really need to talk with the nominator (at the nom page, please) about WP:RS; that would soothe my concerns. I think nominators should be explicitly asked to watchlist their page and return when there's a comment.

Lexein, the template could make the most recent status of each category more visually distinguishable from the suggestions, yes, so perhaps there's a [subst. template, is it called?] way for a reviewer to write a y (yes) or a q (query) that produces a coloured icon, that could work well; best if it doesn't involve copying and pasting a string from above the edit-box, and it would be good if it can be changeable by a subsequent reviewer.

Is there advantage in hiding or partially hiding the list of aspects that has gained such overwhelming endorsement in the RfC?

Yomagani, "Support for a checklist isn't the same as support for a checklist template."—I think some folks might find the distinction a little hard to grasp: I do. The key word in the RfC proposal people viewed was italicised and underlined. Tony (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You have trouble differentiating between explicitly confirming something and filling out a template? I don't believe that. I linked the two discussions above: the brief RFC apparently came out broadly in support of a checklist, but the discussion regarding your implementation was inconclusive at best (you even have an explicit unanswered query at the foot of the discussion). Yomangani^talk 01:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just replied. If you don't mind me speaking candidly, I think you should get real, wake up and smell the toast and coffee. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the copyediting thing, I agree it's great for the nominator to make suggestions and point out things that can be improved, but DYK nominations shouldn't be failed for such things (as many editors have pointed out above, DYK makes no guarantees that the articles are in excellent shape, after all they're supposed to be "new"; the only thing we should be responsible for guaranteeing is that they don't violate core policies like those regarding copyvio, plagiarism and neutrality), and reviewers shouldn't be required to focus in detail on such things (reviewing resources, both in terms of the number of reviewers and the time they have to commit, are limited). Since minor copyediting concerns are only optional to point out, I don't see a need to include them in the template response. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the template is useful. It may not be in the exact form that everyone would like (can't please everyone in any event), but the important thing is that it does the job as near dammit. Seeing the idea has obtained overwhelming consensus, it's important to hit the ground running with this, rather than let it get stuck in bureaucracy. Most of the essential points of concern are dealt with, and exactly how it looks can be fine-tuned. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony: option 2: partially hiding the review block with a hide/show button is merely to reduce visual clutter and navigation distance. This works best if combined with a colored block. If indenting and/or colored boxing is done, I wouldn't campaign for hiding at all. --Lexein (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The RfC agreed to the following:

“ No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

”

All that's required is that a reviewer explicitly approve an item on the above points. This explicit approval could take the form of a comment like Checked and approved for sourcing, NPOV, plagiarism, copyvio, and obvious faults or could be a short 5-point template (similar to the actual proposal that passed RfC). There's no clear need, and apparently little support, for a large template like the one currently being added. There's also neither a need nor a requirement (nor consensus) for every reviewer to make the explicit approval in the same way. When you review a nomination, you are welcome to use any template, or no template, as long as you cover all the necessary points. By comparison, Good Article review has 5 review templates listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Templates, three of which are shorter and simpler than this one. cmadler (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggested earlier a template something like the Wikiships banner, but I'm not sure people understood what I meant. The template presents a text field like this:

{{WikiProject Ships
|small=
|class=
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all 
major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and 
does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including 
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, 
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=
|needs-infobox= 
}}

By answering "y" or "n" to each field in the checklist, the template outputs a rating for the article (like "Stub", "C" or "B"). The point of this system is that it still presents a comprehensive checklist, but the details are not displayed on the page. We could use a template like this, which instead of outputting a rating, would output one of the four existing DYK assessment icons. More detail could be included if necessary, for example, a field that had been failed could be displayed. This would still give reviewers a checklist to guide them, and would make them more accountable, but would also keep page clutter to a minimum. Additional comments could of course also be left by the reviewer. Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it could work. The current template is much clearer to reviewers (and DYK desperately needs to attract new reviewers) because it neatly divides the points into Hook and Article, the two aspects that are hopelessly mixed up in the current unsatisfactory, inconvenient system of coloured ticks, crosses and diagonal lines—they seem to be at loggerheads with the notion of explicitly reviewing a list of different hook and article criteria. When I first started reviewing, I looked at the icons and though: what the h...? I don't get it. Tony (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for the template to figure out the assessment based on what a reviewer inputs, but I agree that an abbreviated form of assessment in the template would be good. For one thing, having verbose comments in several lines of the review template starts getting cluttersome when, inevitably, the discussion progresses, people respond to some of those comments, the hook changes so those comments are no longer relevant, or alt hooks are proposed somewhere. (For just one example of what I mean, see [5]; there are plenty more confusing, cluttered templates elsewhere on the page right now.)

What I had in mind was something like a one-line template with all the various review points and their associated icons arranged horizontally. For instance:

{{subst:DYK review
|length=y
|newness=y
|hookfact=
|hookinterest=n
|sources=
|npov=y
|plagiarism=
}}

which might output something like:

Length: / Newness: / Cited hook: / Interest: / Sources: / Neutrality: / Plagiarism:

Detailed discussion of various issues could go on below. When people reach agreement that some issue can be checked off or something, they can simply add the tick in the box above. Of course, the presentation details of what the box looks like are negotiable. It could also be table-ish like this:

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism

or whatever. (although a table might be hard for newbies to edit.) Likewise, the details of precisely which points are included in the template are also negotiable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's more like the idea I had in mind, thanks for that Rjanag :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that I wouldn't be using the basic DYK icons for every field - only for the overall assessment, otherwise it might cause confusion. We could probably just add a simple tick/cross for the individual fields, or even just have "y" and "n" output in green/red for example. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. The icons in  Done and  Not done would also be less confusing, although given concerns about page load times, it's probably just better to go with Y and N like you suggest. Maybe something like this:

Length: Y / Newness: Y / Cited hook: ? / Interest: N / Sources: ? / Neutrality: Y / Plagiarism: ?

rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. And then, the DYK icon could be automatically generated depending on the number of fields that got either a tick or cross (tick icon if all pass; "maybe" icon if one or more fail; maybe a rejection icon if a whole heap of them fail). Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured it would be easier just to let the reviewer manually put in the icon (either at the time of review, or later, if there are things that still need to be resolved), and just use this sort of template as a guide for making their decision. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there also be a BLP box for checking BLP issues, if applicable. And the Interest box could be problematic because (as has been discussed here often before), "interest" is very subjective. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to keep things as small and un-complicated as possible. BLP issues could fall under "neutrality", or could just be mentioned in text below the template. (This sample template is note meant to prescribe what people review; it's just meant to be an aid.) As for interestingness, I know it's subjective, but since people are expected to at least check to see if the hook is interesting anyway, it makes sense to have a field they can mark off. The subjectiveness has been a problematic issue more in discussions of, for example, rejecting nominations based on interestingness; I think everyone agrees that it should be at least considered in the review, although people maybe don't agree on whether or not it's ok to completely reject a hook where everything else is fine but the hook is not interesting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point regarding the Interest box. My reason for suggesting a BLP box is to remind the reviewer that if this is a BLP, extra checks must be done. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another template

Per Gato's and my comments above, I've made {{DYK review checklist}}, which is an abbreviated version of Tony & OhConfucius' template ({{DYKrev}}) and takes up less space. The precise checklist points to be included in the template are of course open to discussion—for example, just above here Bruce1ee suggested that there should be a checkbox for BLP issues—the main point of this is to illustrate an alternative approach to formatting the checklist, regardless of what specific points are included in it. (Of course, personally I like it best with the points that I included in it.) It produces output like this:

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✘	✔

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔

As described directly above here, detailed discussion about the various points could go on below the template. This template would just be a quick guide/visual aid for reviewers to keep track of whether there are outstanding problems that need to be resolved, as well as a checklist to hopefully make sure they remember to check all these things. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks good to me - very legible. One field I think is missing though is the requirement that all paragraphs are cited. Gatoclass (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you believe that all paragraphs need to be cited? Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that could also be part of "sources" (i.e., both checking to see that sources are reliable and checking to see that they are there at all). I was trying to keep the number of fields pretty small. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs need to be cited Malleus because it's in our rules. Actually, not all paragraphs - intros and summary paragraphs don't have to be cited. But the rule of thumb is one cite per paragraph.

Rjanag, I agree with keeping the number of fields as small as possible - but I think we may need a few more. I'm still having a think about this though. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with having a more extended discussion about just which fields to include in this. In the meantime, I think I'll go review some DYK nominations with it to drum up talk around the water cooler ;) . If it was ok for Tony and OhConfucius to add their template to every nom without an extended discussion, I don't see why it wouldn't be ok to start doing so with this one; the worst that can happen is people complain that it's too confusing having all sorts of different review templates floating around, and ask us to remove both review templates until a consensus is reached on which one to us. (Hey, that doesn't sound so bad actually) rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was okay for Tony and Confucius to start using that template without consensus, and IMO they should stop doing it. I'd prefer you didn't start using yours until we've sorted out of the details either, but I can understand why you might want to in the circumstances. In the meantime I guess I'm going to have to do some thinking about the template myself. But this is really not the way we should be implementing change, it's obviously causing a great deal of confusion and is almost certainly having a negative impact on participation. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus to add the checklist: it is well-nigh exactly what was in the RfC text (plus the existing clerical checks).

I quite like the simple tick or cross (needs a question-mark icon as well), and I urge the discarding of the complicated and non-intuitive set of icons that have been used until now; if ever there was a turn-off to new nominators and reviewers, it was those.

There are two issues with the box. First, it assumes that one editor will check every aspect, which undermines QPQ and is at loggerheads with other review processes, where reviewers are free to pop in and review what they feel best at; signatures for each icon are essential, so that someone takes responsibility for each aspect. Second, it seems to discourage people from leaving comments—you know, actual words: queries, advice, critiquing.

Why is there such an obsession with space? DYK nom pages need a bit of space to improve. Tony (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As for consensus for a checklist...I thought we had been discussing that long enough that it was already clear. There was consensus to add some checklist, but the RfC didn't say anything about the form it would take.

As for "it assumes that one editor will check every aspect"... first of all, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I myself weighed in (somewhere on this page) in favor of the idea of partial reviews, but in the past few days I've gotten the impression that I'm in the minority. I went through and did partial reviews of a bunch of noms using your checklist, and thought it was cool how I could just review the things I wanted to review and someone else would do the rest; but in reality, most of those noms just sat around untouched, people seemed to think "oh, someone else started reviewing that so I won't bother", and after a few days people started contacting me asking if I could "finish the review I started".

Also, the template doesn't force one editor to check every aspect. It's just sitting there, anyone else can mark off a part of it, so it's perfectly imaginable that someone could start a review, fill out the template halfway, and leave the rest for someone else to finish up later.

As for "it seems to discourage people from leaving comments", I don't see how it does that. Like I said several times above, the template is just an aid for keeping track of the status of the nom; nothing prevents people from leaving comments or continuing to discuss issues below the template (which is the same thing people do with your template). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The template might be cute, but I think you're getting ahead of yourselves. The RFC is not all support, and some of the moderates don't support the whole elaborate checklist. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy of DYK?

I have been reading this discussion with interest, but I am also finding it a little confounded by what seems like conflicting ideas about the role of DYK. So could I venture to ask the maintainers of the system to step back and restate what the purpose of DYK is? I mean, the philosophy of it? If it is about posting interesting "facts" on the first page, than certainly it deserves more quality assurance. On the other hand, DYK always seemed to me to be bait to lure casual readers on the front-page to review and edit newly-created articles.

As a novice to the system, let me throw in my two cents: I have only reviewed a couple of DYK articles, purely out of quid pro quo obligation. And frankly it was an ordeal. I couldn't find any DYK nomination I was knowledgeable or interested in, and so, being a rather thorough fellow, I ended up having to spend a few hours independently researching them in order to review them. I am not likely to do that again. Meaning: I am not likely to nominate my own new articles to DYK again.

On the face of it, the requirement is fair - if I am burdening the system, then I should review. On the other hand, I find that has a significant drawback: if not submitted to the DYK queue, it won't likely get reviewed by anyone for months on end. A newly-created article with egregious errors will be allowed to remain and fossilize, its errors and mistatements uncorrected and spread.

The way I see it, the primary value of the DYK is precisely that it subjects new articles to immediate review, rather than allowing them to fossilize until someone stumbles across them. And I am not talking merely about DYK reviewers, but more importantly, by the general public. A casual reader of the front page, who would not imagine in a million years to visit the new article log or the DYK nominations page, may spot something about which he happens to be knowledgeable and proceed to read it, and correct any errors. I believe this is very useful.

That's why I am asking the maintainers of the DYK system to clarify their philosophy. If DYK is about listing curious facts on the front page, then definitely it needs a more careful pre-review, on a GA-level at the very least. If it is about inviting the front-page readers to review - in a sense, drafting knowledgeable members of the general public to the first line of review - then quantity might be more important than quality. In other words, standards should be lowered, not increased, to ensure that new articles are subjected early to correction, rather than allowed to fossilize.

Increasing standards and maintaining the QPQ requirement merely means that conscientious reviewers -among whom I'd like to count myself - won't bother to participate in DYK at all. I am sorry if this sounds selfish, but I will review only that which interests me; I don't want to spend hours researching something I don't care about simply for QPQ's sake. Not that there's anything wrong with that - if the philosophy is indeed that DYK is about publishing curious facts on the front page, then perhaps DYK should stop restricting itself to newly-created articles only and merge with the GA review process, extracting hooks from those. If it is about subjecting new articles to immediate public scrutiny, as a first line of defense against error, then something has to be loosened.

I have rambled on enough. All I wish to urge here is for the philosophy of DYK to be clarified, so that the proposals can be measured against that. Walrasiad (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For me Yomangani said it very well here. The point of showing off new articles via links with catchy facts from the main page is twofold:

• Demonstrates that Wikipedia is constantly expanding and growing. The content in all the other sections is mostly older, established articles (new ones in ITN being the notable and regular exception). DYK demonstrates that Wikipedia is not something stiff and dead, like pages in a book.

• As you said above, it is about showing prospective new users a place they can fit in and find something to do. It has been speculated that the drop in newer users is at least partially because a lot of articles on frequently-accessed subjects have been developed to the point of apparent completeness. I know that when I began editing, this was not as much so, and seeing places I could add encouraged me to become a regular contributor. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The question of what the real purpose of DYK is is one that has been around for a long time, and one on which there will probably never be full agreement. See, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK (according to WP:DYK) 'serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page'. I don't see those goals being served by any of the new proposals. The actual problems seem to be:

• Some contributors consistently submit defective articles and nothing is done to correct this behaviour
• There is a belief that the main page should only showcase the encyclopaedia's best work and many DYK articles do not reach this standard.

Solving the first problem requires a shift in the attitude of those involved in DYK. I believe the cause of this problem is that many of those involved in DYK think their role is to pass or fail individual hooks and not to look at nominators' overall contributions or to tackle them when persistent problems arise. The "directorate" idea might actually work here if the "directors" confine themselves to tackling long-term problem nominators.

Solving the second problem means either radically changing the structure and purpose of DYK (in my opinion, the proposed changes will only delay its demise. As I predicted admins are already stepping back [6] and I haven't noticed a rush of new admins stepping forward.) or adopting a different view of the purpose of the main page. Why should the main page be all about the best articles? This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and you don't encourage editing by displaying only the finest, most complete, most polished articles (actually you do, but it's normally editing of the added "poop" variety). Having something that can be improved and improved easily might encourage new editors. We aren't a company trying to sell a product so we don't have to ensure only the best version is released to the public. It's not a customer model; every editor is a potential reader and every reader is a potential editor. The only responsibility that a "DYK participant" has for a DYK article is the responsibility they've chosen to accept and there's nothing wrong with handing off that responsibility to the people reading the article (If it's wrong, fix it; this is the encyclopedia any one can edit). I've mentioned what I think could be done to save DYK up above, so I won't go over it again, but I think trying to turn it into FACs little brother is doomed to failure. Yomangani^talk 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there an assumption that new editors only work on newly created articles: in fact, newly created articles are the very last place I'd recommend new editors induct themselves—they present blank-sheet problems, whereas established articles newly improved present at least an more stable, informative existing infrastructure for new editors to learn from. Above all, I see confusion about article quality and article newness. These are quite different matters, and the notion that a short new article shouldn't be a good one is most unhelpful. Tony (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Of those commenting here, I wonder what the gap is between first edit and first article. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the link now but I remember that script that Mr. Z-Man ran to see what happened with new accounts in February 2010. Quite a few started off with articles. I agree it's not the first thing I'd recommend doing (I had had had my account for a few weeks before I dared to create an article, and I was still so uncertain I did it through an IP (IPs could still create articles back then) I had access to), but there are plenty of established editors who got started creating an article.

The question is not where or how new editors should get involved; it's where or how they tend to, and I think that a promising start (obviously, the newly-created article can't look like complete crap) does offer some encouragement to jump in. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The very first edit in a full quarter of new accounts is to create a new page. (80% of those pages get deleted.)

I believe that the point being made, though, is that if a DYK looks like it needs help or could be improved or expanded easily, then that very appearance of imperfection might encourage someone's first edit to be improving that existing article, rather than starting a new one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's right. The daily featured article rarely gets any constructive edits from new editors, but a DYK that looks like it is in need of help probably would. That clearly isn't saying that DYKs must be poor quality, just that it's not a sin to show a less than perfect article to a main page visitor who might be tempted into improving it (I'm not really sure why Tony choose to reply to me as his points have little to do with what I wrote. Perhaps the threading is wrong.) Yomangani^talk 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the same study also found that new editors whose first edit is to an existing article are actually more likely to stick around and become members of the community than new editors who start off trying to create articles. Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd say those are some of the reasons new editors should start out on new articles. A new editor starting on an established article is liable to find, first, that much of it is an impenetrable soup of wiki-markup that does not lend itself to plunging in, and, second, that their first attempts at contribution are likely to be bounced back out again as unbalancing the article, repetitive of other sections, etc. That said, a well-written but non-comprehensive article tends to solve the second problem, if not the first. Choess (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you mean "new, as in someone else started the article a week ago, but it still needs a lot of work" or "new, as in creating a brand-new article myself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Mission statement?

Many people have commented in other sections that this discussion may be the most important one we're having right now. I think we ought to heed this and try to extract from the above a mission statement for DYK. Anyone want to have a go at it? Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It already has a mission statement of sorts : "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page." I'm not sure what purpose the current raft of reforms play in serving any of those aims though, so either the goals of DYK need rethinking or any reforms need to be targeted at helping DYK fulfil its role as stated. Yomangani^talk 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK photo ugh

The current main page DYK pic, with the tiger eating someone, is disgusting, in poor taste, and it shouldn't be there.PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it; it's not a real tiger eating a real person, it's just a toy, and it's illustrating the topic of the article. The main page has certainly featured worse (squat toilets for the DYK nom of Entropa, although I don't remember seeing many complaints about that; and there was that sketch of a woman peeing on the sidewalk for the Featured Image, which did get a lot of complaints). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if it's not a real person, it's in bad taste. And since when did "other people do", "it's been done before", etc mean it's OK? This is not okay. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad taste is subjective. Is anyone else offended by this image? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing there won't be a flood of complaints about a picture of an unrealistic 18th-century automaton from the V&A's collection. Don't look if it offends you or just imagine the tiger is licking jam off his face. Yomangani^talk 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Until I read the accompanying text, I had assumed it was a salamander. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I find salamanders offensive. And they taste poorly. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think very few people find imagery like this in poor taste, even the parents of a child that a different species of Panthera had attempted to dine on. In the absence of sprays of blood, actually being able to hear the wails of agony or similar (perhaps the featured sounds people could help?), it doesn't really look any more shocking than that YouTube video, in my opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad taste? Shome mishtake, shurely?. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tipu's Tiger is a famous work of art. Far from being bad taste, I remember it being featured in one of my Blue Peter annuals when I was a kid. You might as well argue that the Elgin Marbles are bad taste for showing scenes of people and animals being killed. Really, some people are just too sensitive, assuming we're not being trolled. Prioryman (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And so continues the decline of civilization. PumpkinSky talk 14:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. For 3000 years every new thing has certainly been the end of civilized society. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the new review format overwhelming editors?

Since the new format was introduced I've noticed that a lot fewer DYKs seem to be reviewed on time, or at all. One of mine, from 24 July (Template talk:Did you know/Icelandic Phallological Museum), has only been half done – the editor seems to have given up half-way through. Another one of mine (Template talk:Did you know/Gisborough Priory) has not been reviewed at all. Are other editors experiencing similar problems with their DYK submissions? Prioryman (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, admittedly I can no longer be bothered with DYK. I'm sure many other editors will not be willing to spend so much time on reviews. Its a good idea to improve the content on the front page but intuition tells me that DYK is dying. Unless people are that obsessed with getting their article on the main page for just a few hours then I'm sure a lot of people won't bother. I provided a chance to save it with my proposal and ease the pressure by moving it to a sub page but people voted to keep their pie, so they'll have to suffer the consequences of this. The time in my view would be better spent in a developing an article to GA and then having it reviewed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I started to nominate an article of mine, then found I had to review one first. The whole thing seemed rather daunting so I just gave up, with plans to maybe come back eventually to finish my nomination. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle anymore, like Blofeld says. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Blofeld, agent of SPECTRE. In the past, the 'rewards' greatly exceeded the outlay. Now it's swung the other way. The trick is to find the equilibrium point. Maybe the answer is a longer exposure on the main page – longer that 6 hours, at any rate. Maybe the answer is something else. Up until very recently, most of the effort has been to resist reform than finding the best way forward. Now the regulars are fighting a rearguard action that suggests the culture needs to be dragged kicking and screaming from its dysfunctional state.

  I only usually post a DYK nom as an incidental to article creation or expansion. The new process won't stop me from continuing to do that. I do not feed off the adrenaline rush caused by the box on my talk page announcing that I have received a brownie point. I would only nominate an article if its likely to be "interesting". Whatever one of those is is necessarily subjective, but stripped of juicy tabloid-style blurbs containing potential BLP violations, about half the blurbs are plain boring, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominators until now have fulfilled their QPQ reviewing by looking at just the bare minimum of criteria (just article length and vintage, often). I don't see why that should change, although it would be good if the system could decide on a reasonable partial review requirement for QPQ. Tony (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason it must change is because we don't have the manpower to do plagiarism checks on every article without QPQ. In fact, it only occurred to me a few days ago that QPQ provides us with an excellent, ready-made resource for doing this kind of checking which we didn't have before.

Just looking at "article length and vintage" is completely useless, we might as well just dump QPQ altogether if that's all we are going to ask of such reviewers, because those checks can be done in two seconds flat and add virtually nothing to the time taken to do a full review. Gatoclass (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as the instructions for doing CP/plagiarism checks are easy to find for nominators. Also, I think the instructions for nominators urgently need to specify what QPQ requires as a minimum: I suggested as much in the red bits in another section. They shouldn't be expected to do the whole list that the RfC has insisted on. Joint reviewing is the norm everywhere else but GA, and is the only practical way to head off the critics of DYK. Tony (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If individual reviewing is good enough for GAN, it's good enough for DYK. Your proposal is not for genuine "joint reviewing" in any case, it's for partial reviewing, with individual users checking different aspects of a nom. I don't believe that's a practical solution for any of the problems that have been identified. QPQ has always required that participants do a full review, not a little bit here or there, and it would be a mistake to change that in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA has its critics, but GAs are not seeking to go straight onto the main page. GAs are also reviewed without simplistic ticks and crosses and one-liners such as "All checks out, ready to go". GAs do at least have real engagement between reviewer and nominator over a longer period of time: they are oriented towards achieving substantial improvements in the article. "QPQ has always required that participants do a full review"—you know they don't do that; in most cases, nothing like it. That is the root of the problem. Tony (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an important point that's being missed here. GA is about article improvement, not about a potential main page slot. It's not perfect, but at least it makes efforts to improve. Whereas DYK doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is differing ideas of what "a full review" means. Keep in mind that the focus on close paraphrasing in particular, but also prose quality, etc., is a recent development, in the past year or so. Before that (at least, as early as late 2008, which is when I was active at the project), we didn't even talk about things in terms of "reviewing", but rather in terms of "verifying". All that was necessary was to ensure that a nomination met the three DYK requirements (that's all there were at the time): length (1500+ characters), newness, and cited hook (one inline reference verifying the claim in the hook...once upon a time that was all that was necessary, and in fact it used to be controversial to reject an article for having no references other than the one attached to the hook). While we would delay or reject an article if we noticed other policy problems (non-neutrality, lack of notability, close paraphrasing, or basically anything that warranted a cleanup or dispute tag), most DYK participants at that time wouldn't say with 100% certainly that none of the articles they passed had that, because at the time going out of your way to look for those things simply wasn't expected. Obviously, the DYK process has changed a lot since then. (Which is one reason I don't much like the "DYK is stubborn and unwilling to change" meme.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem: after offering praise below for the new transcluded pages, which I think are very useful, I'll address the issue of reviewing. I just reviewed this - nice page, everything checks out well, except the single off-line source doesn't entirely match up with the text. In my comments I brought that to the attention of the nominator, and went ahead and approved it. I'd noticed a sentence that needed tweaking, fixed it, and then noticed that huge pieces of the page, sourced to an offline book not available to view, are written flawlessly. This did not take a lot of time, but I cannot check off this nomination. So, in my mind, it pretty much exemplifies the issues here. I'm not opposed to DYK, but I am opposed to copy/paste editing, and all that brings with it. Haven't a clue where to go from here, but maybe DYK reviewing is not for me. So what do I do? Fail because my gut tells me the writing is inconsistent, or turn away, and say yeah great page, let's run it. This is a serious question, btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

((ec}}The system here, as elsewhere, is "monkey see, monkey do". So how will the 'novices' ever learn if all they need to review are the 'basics trio'? They can then keep sending substandard articles to the queue safe in the knowledge that that is all that is required of them. They drive by, post their nomination, do a basic review of three aspects, and then disappear. At the same time, the queuing area becomes clogged as admins need to perform their secondary review, which is necessarily more cursory than the initial. IMHO, the system is better by being 'front-loaded'. Right now, novices are given their noms slot 'for free', but they need to be made aware they are expected to watch how it works, and hit the ground running with their 6th nomination. After all, these people reap the 'rewards', they should perform the bulk of the work. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK as currently construed has outlived its usefulness and needs to be re-thought. Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good points, Truthkeeper, and you're not the first to raise the issue that WP:PLAGIARISM and CLOSE PARAPHRASING can only be fully checked if all sources are online (and not firewalled), or if a reviewer is willing to go to extraordinary lengths in gaining access to hard-copy. The matter is one that WP as a whole is coming to address, and it's a work in progress; but address it we must, and DYK is no exception to the process of working towards reasonable and optimal solutions. I raised the matter at WT:FAC yesterday. Wehwalt gave more advice, actually: often, books are available in google books and checkable online via "snippet view" on that site.

  Given the practicalities of the situation, spot-checks seem to be the way to go, plus discussions with nominators. Truthkeeper, where you see a tranche of text in flawless English that is reffed to an offline book, I think that's the stage where the reviewer queries it politely with the nominator. Heck, if a nominator is edged into declaring that bits of it are not pasted in, it's all we can do at the moment: but it will improve awareness among new editors about this critical issue for WP. Ultimately, the morality of stamping out IP theft is a cultural, social, and psychological task. Tony (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • An interesting idea, but I'm struggling to find a universe in which a nominator when asked "Did you illegally copy this text" is likely to hold his or her hands up. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The question won't fly as you worded it, but I bet that good answers often would be obtained from queries like "Could you please check paragraph 4 and make sure it isn't a copy or close paraphrase of the cited source (which I cannot see)? When I see such thoroughly polished prose, I want some reassurance that the words are those of a good Wikipedia contributor, without borrowings from a source." I know from recent experience (User talk:Gamaliel#Reclusive conservative billionaires, anyone?) how easy it can be to overlook copyvio issues that should be obvious. Methinks that many contributors would appreciate an alert about those types of issues. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • But if you have access to the source yourself you have no need to ask the question. And if you don't, then you have to trust the nominator, which you'd have to do whether or not you asked the question. Basically what you seem to be saying is "this article seems far too well-written for you to be its author. Would you like to tell me who really wrote it, or are you going to make me find out for myself?" Malleus Fatuorum 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • The way I've handled this problem before, admittedly where I have some influence over the nominator; (1) Ask if they still have access the book in question. (2) Pick a particular short but flowery sentence from the nominated article, and ask them to quote the sentences from the book that it's based on. (3) Job done. If they're just a plagiariser that can't write flowery prose themselves so are merely copy pasting it, they're certainly not going to be able to fabricate a different section of flowery prose to explain where their text came from. And in my experience this technique quickly produces the required evidence that the suspicious-looking sentence is in fact a legitimate paraphrase of a substantially larger section of the offline source in question; and thus I can move on, reassured. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Tony, thanks for taking the time for the thoughtful response. The problem I've run into is that editors don't generally want to hear the message. Basically, on some level I feel responsible for the huge firestorm here; this on top of recently raising the issue with another editor who created many many new articles -- who didn't take it well -- and having been fairly viciously harassed by a sock of ItsLassieTime. I fully support that we need to come to grips with these issues, but in my view it's best done with the full support and weight of the community rather than leaving individual editors open to abuse. I think we should bulk up the policy pages, maybe consider adding it to one of the pillars, and somehow teach the difference between paraphrasing (admittedly a difficult skill, but necessary to this writing project) and copy/paste article creation. I'm more in the camp with Yomangani re DYK than with Malleus and Sandy - when I was a new editor I didn't even know it existed. But when I found out about it, it was a fun experience. Now I spend a lot of time expanding existing pages and by virtue of the 5 day rule, and the 5 x expansion rule, am locked out of DYK. Anyway, I will think about how to deal with the page I reviewed earlier, but I can see how easy it is for these things to be missed. Maybe the poorly written sentence was the anomaly and the well written text is in fact the product of a good editor we don't want to alienate. It's hard to know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Hot chocolate and toasted marshmallows are available in my camp, if anybody else would like to come over. Yomangani^talk 09:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• If the number of submissions is dropping as a result of the new process, then that's clearly a positive outcome. The number of hooks cycling through the front page can be reduced as necessary to allow for the increased time that reviews will take, and thus everything (eventually) will start to work differently. And hopefully better. The transition period may be a little painful, that's all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  That's a positive outcome why? Because we want to have as few new articles on the main page as possible in line with DYK's goal of discouraging the creation of new content? Yomangani^talk 09:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  The goal is to encourage the creation of new content of a reasonable minimum quality, not just to throw as many articles as possible, of random quality, at the main page every day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Combined DYk/GA approval: another proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's more than enough going on on this page that it doesn't need this poll on a back-of-an-envelope idea. Further discussion of how to link GA/DYK should be at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals. Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I have noticed in the past that some DYK nominators often had their articles at GAN at the same time. Perhaps this is something we can build on in order to make the DYK section the beacon of quality we all know it can be.

We'd have to work with the GA people on this, of course, but we could come up with a process whereby an article could be nominated at both DYK and GAN, with a special queue for expedited review at the latter, and approval as a GA deemed to satisfy the newer, stricter DYK requirements as well.

1. Support as proposer. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Comment I don't see this as a solution to anything since simultaneous DYK/GA nominations are rare in comparison to other nominations. Also I don't see how it differs from the status quo in any way other than asking GA reviewers to, out of the goodness of their hearts, hurry up on a small number of nominations. Noms would still need to meet DYK-specific requirements (newness), and GA reviewing would still have to review all the stuff it normally does. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just to clarify... I don't really see anything to support or oppose here. If I'm understanding correctly, you're proposing that if an article passes GAN, we assume it passes DYK rule 4 (the rule that covers plagiarism, NPOV, and all the other stuff people want in the checklist) as well. That's reasonable, but will not happen often anyway, and I'm not sure it's fair for us to tell GA reviewers to hurry up their reviews for our sake. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Oh great, this is just what we need, another random poll. How many times do I have to repeat that ideas need discussion not polling? We already have a bunch of proposals we are trying to resolve, please let's try to focus on resolving those before starting any new polls. I propose that this poll be closed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose With a couple of editors advocating harsh penalties for any person who approves, preps, or moves a hook for an article that does not meet an FA-lite laundry list of checks, an admin would have to be insane to simply accept that the clearly-failed, one-reviewer no-consequences GA approval process is worth staking their accounts on. - Dravecky (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per every comment above. —Andrew_stalk 05:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to close this poll

Sorry, but we already have a score of issues that we are trying to resolve, DYK participation is plummeting, the last thing we need at this time is yet another proposal to try and deal with. Please let's focus on the issues already under review rather than starting any new polls.

1. Support as proposer. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Yep, close it now. —Andrew_stalk 05:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose, it seems like we're doing everything else this way, so why not this? Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Support articles are often in the GA que for over five/six weeks before being reviewed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Empire Dynasty

I am loathe to challenge the hook of a fellow Wikiships contributor, but given the many recent complaints about substandard hooks reaching the main page, I'm concerned about the Empire Dynasty hook, currently in Queue #2, which states:

• ... that the steam-powered cargo liner Empire Dynasty carried a Supermarine Spitfire from Liverpool to Bombay in 1945?

There is nothing remotely unusual about this - countless thousands of aircraft were transported to various countries during WWII. The article also appears to have no obvious alt hook available. Unless someone can think of a viable hook, I think this is one occasion where rejection of the article would be justified. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, I don't mind if the hook is pulled for the moment and returned to the nominations page. I don't think that I nominated this one, but would like a chance to see it I caan find another hook before it is finally rejected. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's made it to main page now, so should probably stay. Another example of problems needing to be identified much earlier than at queue stage. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with something that I or another administrator have moved to a queue, if you drop me a note on my talk page I'm more likely to come onto Wikipedia and get it sorted in time. Sorry for missing this one guys. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Other noms

Also, University of California, Santa Barbara Library is sourced entirely to the University. Are University libraries considered inherently notable? If not, this nom would appear not to meet core policy. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where else to post this, but the last DYK, "... that the northeastern bulrush is not in Quebec, but is in a sinkhole?", doesn't really make sense. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The hook was approved on the grounds that the non-sequitor made it more intriguing. I can see where that might confused people though. I think it's a matter of taste. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recruit new page patrollers who are being made redundant

I see from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration that new article creation will shortly(? no start date given) be closed to all but editors who have autoconfirmed status. I'm not sure this will greatly affect DYK nom rates, but it will surely mean that a lot of people on WP:NPP will see that role greatly reduced. We should make an effort to recruit them here to replace the fallen and improve our monitoring of plagiarism and copyvios, which they ought to have experience of. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you confusing autopatrolled and autoconfirmed? There are a few thousand autopatrollers, but generally all users who have been around for at least four days and have made at least ten edits are autoconfirmed, so there's a huge number of them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, the difference was confusing me, and I did know that, but I still think my original point above (now amended) stands, as I think 25% of new editors begin by starting a new article, most of which get deleted, so NPP will have much less to do. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Praise

Having the submissions on transcluded pages, which can be watched, is excellent. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree: nice work, whoever was responsible. Tony (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag and cmadler did the spadework, and Rjanag did the heavy lifting at the end, at least that's what I think. But don't be modest, guys, if I'm understating or missing somebody here, let that person pipe up here so we can say thanks. Sharktopus ^talk 16:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The end solution was basically a mixture of my and cmadler's proposals (although Cmadler's proposal was to have everyone transclude the DYK nomination on the article talkpage, whereas right now I think only about half of them are doing that, as best as I can tell from Category:Pending DYK nominations. The only "heavy lifting" I've done, really, is fixing my own errors in the template (of which there were many!). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it was truly an example of what Wikipedia stands for; we all worked together to get this thing going, although Rjanag and cmadler certainly did the most work. I also admire the new system. Good work everyone, especially Rjanag and cmadler. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I also love the new system. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Happily joining in praise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5

Heavy Neolithic (also known as Gigantolithic) has gigantic problems, as visible from a quick look at the article. The alternate name Gigantolithic is not visible in the lead, there are spelling errors (like cofirmed instead of confirmed), and some of the sentences do not parse very well. Could it be pulled from the queues for clean-up? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I put the Gigantolithic name into the article lead and did some other cleanup. I think it's OK for DYK on the main page, although more cleanup certainly could be done. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it last night and thought it was okay. There's no requirement for a hook statement to be in the lead and a couple of spelling errors are a minor issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Idiot who reviewed the article here. I'm basically going to echo Gatoclass here. While I agree that moving "Gigantolithic" to the lede is an improvement (to avoid confusion that readers may have because of the piped link), this is nothing like a DYK requirement. As for spelling errors, in my skim of the article I only see one (your cofirmed-confirmed), and again, perfect spelling is not a DYK requirement. I don't see why these problems are "gigantic". A lot of the recent craziness here seems to be due to basic misunderstandings about what the point of DYK is. A cursory reading of WP:DYK#Rules before getting worked up about an article's gigantic problems could have made this discussion unnecessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We should still follow the MOS, and having an alternative name for something in the middle of the article (not in the lead as the MOS suggests) is not very good. Thanks for the clean-up Orlady. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "not very good" and gigantic, sky-is-falling problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is, but as mentioned we should try and take care of quality issues too. Please forgive my use of a pun when reporting the issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "could it be pulled from the queues" counts as a pun. Anyway, in the future, issues non-essential to the DYK criteria would be better brought up at the article talk page, rather than here. An article not having perfect spelling is not a DYK issue, it's an editorial issue with that article only. If an article doesn't need to be pulled or something like that, I don't see a reason to report it here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Crisco was referring to the double use of "gigantic" :)

While it's obviously preferable to have a hook statement in the lead, in many cases it's not possible since that would violate WP:UNDUE. In this case this is one fact that probably would have been better added to the lead, but it's only a short article and one can find the reference quickly enough. Don't forget however that if you see a relatively simple issue that you are concerned about, the simplest solution is usually to fix it yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was referring to If I had seen it half an hour earlier I would have. However, I noticed it just before going home from the internet cafe I'm stuck using until my new modem arrives. Hourly rates can be quite steep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the policy I was referring to as a problem was Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names. I have no qualms with the hook fact being in the body of the text, as long as it is cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: DYK quality assurance and archiving

Extensive discussion above shows that there are serious quality and policy-compliance problems in the current DYK process, and that many editors are concerned that plagiarism and close paraphrasing, sourcing issues, verification issues, copyvio, and wrong facts are regularly going through under the radar. This RfC is to determine whether there is consensus for two changes to the process as partial steps towards fixing these problems.

The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether:

• there should be a directorate;
• nominators (after their fourth successful DYK) should still be required to review another editor's nomination when they nominate a DYK;
• a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below; and
• the system of pasting in coloured ticks and crosses should be binned or modified.

Implicit in the proposals is the likelihood that the maximum four six-hour shifts per day of five to eight hooks (≥ 32 DYKs) will more often than now be altered by the queing admins to longer exposures and fewer shifts per day, and be treated as normal practice. This would not be necessary if there is a sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise. However, please note that the primary consideration of the two proposals is effective quality assurance and compliance with site-wide policies, not reduced flow.

Please respond under the proposals below with brief "support", "oppose", or "neutral" entries; longer comments may be made in the "Discussion" section underneath each proposal. Long comments in the !voting sections may be relocated to the related "Discussion" section.

RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist

Proposal: "No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

• Support as proposer. Tony (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as yet another proposal that I can't possibly see any sensible objection to. Long overdue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. These are all things a reviewer should be checking anyway, although they aren't yet required to "explicitly" say they did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I remember a checklist was brought up last year but not implemented. Copyvios are most common of problems to slip below the radar.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support - on reflection, I think I will support this, but only on the basis that QPQ is retained. We don't remotely have the manpower to check and fix absolutely every problem in every submission without QPQ. But I do think a requirement like this would help guide and remind reviewers of the issues they need to be checking. Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Any obvious errors should already be sounding warning bells in reviewers' heads. —Andrew_stalk 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Rjanag. -- Khazar (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. per Rjanag - not sure of the reason for explicitly stating this unless it is to ensure that folks tick it off explicitly when reviewing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --JN466 04:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but with more specific minimum guidelines like those at GAN, specific to the problems critics see most often slipping through DYK. Quigley (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. DYK needs to be done more professionally, and this will help (so will reduced throughput, but that's another issue...) Sasata (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. DYK articles needn't be FA or even GA, but they should comply with minimum standards. Everything that appears on the main page should be work of which we can be proud.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Seems pretty motherhood and I agree. Seems like we should slim down and simplify the instructions. Points 1, 3, and 4 seem like same concept ("plagiarism" loosely defined.) Maybe just say "close paraphrasing". Mechanics will be tricky for offline content. Also, I think we need to be reasonable (even at FA it is a spotcheck, not a complete text search). (2) neutrality...sure...and maybe important given the Cirt kerfuffle. I think they try to do it, but put it in the checklist. (5) I think they already say that it needs to be half decent. Would be good to understand somehow what standard we are really looking for "halfway to GA"? GA quality? (even if not length?) I don't want to get legalistic, just want some better instruction as this could be no change or could be FA-lite. Also, I LOVE the idea of a checklist, but would want to add all the stuff they do now (the hook ref and one ref per para and allthat).TCO (reviews needed) 04:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. In general, the proposal requires a GA-level review. Is that what is meant? Remember that a 5x expansion may be quite large. A straight answer, please. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. N "adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy" for the whole article, every word? --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yneutral point of view; --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Nplagiarism and close paraphrasing; OK re plagiarism. NO re close paraphrasing, which at present is a proposal, and needs refinement and wide wp:consensus, e.g. a widely advertised RfC of its own. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. (?) other copyright violations, in files and text; Please explain. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. Nobvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting." That is subjective, and WP history suggests that prose issues are contentious and that "prose experts" try to impose their own standards. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I share your "GA-Lite" concerns to some extent, but on reflection I think it does no harm to remind reviewers of the kinds of issues they should be looking out for. As Rjanag said, most of these points are things reviewers are supposed to be checking for in any case, so it shouldn't add an undue burden. And it will act as a guide to reviewers as well as promoting a greater sense of responsibility and accountability. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The theory is okay, but to 100% verify all this stuff is a massive task. Combined with the automatic 7 day rule below this will just result in masses of DYK noms being deleted for no good reason other than they're out of time and no one has the time or inclination to fully check them out. We wait long enough for other editors to comment as it is. Far too bureacratic. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I very much support this, but how will this be handled unless the number of noms is decreased or number of reviewers increased? Or, I guess more precisely, how will this be enforced? Why aren't people doing this already?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I support the principle, but oppose in this form. This amounts to a WP:GA review, which is excessive for short new articles. I am not aware of recurring problems with DYK articles that would require this. Verifiability and neutrality are often controversial and cannot be properly determined except through a formal consensus-based discussion in the style of WP:FAC, which is not suited to the high volume of DYK articles. Our disclaimer states that we make no guarantee of validity or correctness, so readers will occasionally encounter suboptimal articles linked to on the main page, just like they will occasionally encounter deficient articles via Google. Moreover, "close paraphrasing" is an essay, so compliance with it cannnot be made mandatory. It is sufficient to check that the article does not contain clear copyright and BLP violations or clear formal faults, and does not obviously and indisputably violate important content policies such as V, NPOV and NOR.  Sandstein  10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't know why DYK produces frequent errors but I do know the main page isn't the place for repeat error. Lightmouse (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified oppose: I do not think that this would be most effective at review time, but when moving hooks from Prep to Queues. If the proposal were for that, I would vote support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Rjanag, Cas, Sasata, and Will Beback. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• weak support wholesale radical change is necessary instead of tinkering; does not go far enough, but is better than nothing. --88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will promote consistency in the quality of DYKs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I too often get the feeling that DYKs are just getting rubber-stamped. This will ensure some minimal standards for what appears on the main page. And it's not as demanding for reviewers as it sounds; some source spot-checks and a quick look through the article and reference list, and you're done. Only suggestion is to merge points 3 and 4, since they cover similar territory. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is about being a useful encyclopedia, not an easy way for editors to rack up DYKs. This proposal simply asks that things be done, that should always be done as a matter of common sense. I appreciate that it may make it harder to move nominations through the pipeline. So be it. I would have no objection to extending the amount of time a nomination can wait for review if need be, and extending the amount of time after page expansion. Newness of the content really isn't that important. I would also have no objection to simply having fewer DYKs on the main page, so long as those that do appear are well vetted, if it comes to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support for a very lightweight process. See the discussion section for more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 July 2011
• Support - It is risky to be putting material from brand new articles up on the front page. I think it would be wiser to shift the DYK emphasis from new articles, to more mature articles that are GA quality. Here's an idea: why not make DYK a follow-on process to achieving GA status? Thus, focus would shift to the GA process, and DYKs would be a natural by-product of that. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that another editor had a similar proposal (great minds think alike :-) down below in this Talk page here. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support the idea of a clear checklist in principle, but weak oppose this specific proposal due to concerns about the wording (especially #5), per Philcha. cmadler (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Hopefully this will help establish a minimum standard. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - any article that is pointed to on the main page should pass some basic quality control and checking process to see that meet our core policies. That process does not need to be as intensive as a FA review... but it has to be done. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It is our explicit policy that our articles may be imperfect. Articles which appear on the main page do not need to be held to a higher standard because their placement on the main page will expose them to the gaze of many readers and this process will tend to flush out any remaining problems with the article. This provides a good opportunity to encourage participation in the editing process and and so improve, not just the articles in question, but all the other neglected articles too, as readers are drawn in to the editing process. To facilitate this, a disclaimer which openly disavows any claim of perfection and invites such participation might be useful. A list of bureaucratic rules would not be a good alternative as it would tend to discourage participation, contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obvious, basic, common sense. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is really a no-brainer. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - any article that is pointed to on the main page should pass some basic quality control and checking process to see that meet our core policies. That process does not need to be as intensive as a FA review... but it has to be done. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 only. NPOV and spelling/grammar are obviously important. That said, our standards for these things apply to all articles, and to require an explicit check for these things is to require GA standards. I'm on board with the idea of reviewing for obvious bias, but a proper check for NPOV can only be done by a relative expert. If we miss some field-specific bias, is that such a bad thing? Bias can often be a motivational tool. Equally, I'm on board with the idea of ensuring that there are no glaring spelling or grammer errors, but urge the community not to go as far as to bar non-FA writers from getting involved. —WFC— 23:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a first step. Many of us, myself included, have questioned the DYK nominations of User:Billy Hathorn, most of which are thin on notable and/or interesting material (a lot of DYKs on obscure and fairly boring local legislators). See here, where I reviewed a Billy Hathorn DYK about a Louisiana state rep. and shot down a weird and not particularly notable hook about the state rep 'gator hunting. The ALT hook he gave me was similarly thin on notability, but unlike the gator huntin' hook didn't appear to poke any "WTF buttons" and the article solidly met the DYK criteria (new date and length, etc) so I felt compelled to pass it[7]. Listen carefully, existing DYK criteria compels us to pass boring-as-sin hooks thin on notability! Creating a new DYK checklist to address the criteria problem is an important first step, but the problem is bigger: we're incentivizing quantity and newness above all, not quality content, and the result is weak articles on the front page. Yes DYK should be overhauled, and Jimmy Wales' proposal for DYK Reform should be heard; it's the best approach I've seen so far. No, this isn't an idiotic Jimbo said... argument ("Argumentum ad Jimbonem"). The principles outlined here should merit a look whether a newb with an I.P. or an ol' wikipedia gray beard brought them up. NickDupree (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If you -- or any other editors -- notice a non-notable article at DYK, the appropriate solution is generally to go through a PROD/AfD process; any DYK appearance will be held pending the outcome of such a discussion, and of course it will not be used if the article is deleted. cmadler (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While well-intentioned, I agree with those who say this will massively bog down an already bogged down process. Look at how back logged the noms page is now. This essentially requires GA=level new articles which is not truly what is wanted. What is wanted is better quality DYKs.This can be achieved without this heavy handed change of process. We need a scaled down version of this proposal.PumpkinSky talk 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Providing DYK remains relevant for new articles and contines to have access to the Main Page. The bar is being raised higher for quality of DYK articles. While this will dissuade some editors, I see this as a sign of the times to come. There appears to be no other way to meaningfully improve quality of DYK articles without fundamentally changing the nature of the process. Editors will just have to learn better editting. AshLin (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with a condition: that we be clearer as to what sourcing is adequate. On the one hand, we clearly ought not to accept full-length articles where only the hook assertion is sourced. On the other, I don't think a missing citation on a fact elsewhere in the article, utterly unrelated to the hook fact or facts, should be a dealbreaker. Part of the point of DYK is that new articles are works in progress, and perceiving that is what drew me (and, I suspect, many others) to contribute in the first place. When I see IPs or newer editors having at least cleaned up my typos in a DYK, I am gratified. If we required a GA-level review, what's the point of having a separate DYK process? Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. It's the bare minimum if you want front page exposure. This should be extended to WP:OTD and WP:ITN. If you can't find something of this standard for your front page column, leave it blank. I'm all for including articles of any age in DYK, and the criteria should be GA and interesting hook. Sorry. The existing criteria incentivise pulp, and the existing scrutiny leaves it wide open for being gamed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support: not sure I agree with this exact check list but the DYK system could use some checks and balances for sure. Dzlife (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support These are reasonable standards of quality that every article should have anyways. We're not looking for GAs here, either in length or in level of polish, but that's not what's being asked for here. As for the complaint about the amount of time it would take, I find that to be a sad and shallow argument at best. If something is not worth doing right, it should not be done at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general, but I'd like to know what's meant by "explicit." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DF, this is now being rolled out. Your feedback is welcome. Tony (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some tightening of the rules regarding content quality at DYK is needed, but this proposal takes it way too far. In particular, the "close paraphrasing"/"plagiarism" thing is a red herring - those kinds of checks are de facto not required even for the GA process; certainly other kinds of items that go to the main page, such as ITN and "On this day" items do not undergo anything even close in terms of the required checks, and, as far as I know, the sky is not falling. It is actually not falling w.r. to DYK either. The effect of this proposal would be to impose undue burden on the volunteers who check the DYK entries (as mentioned by others above, there is already a shortage of them anyway) and likely to effectively kill DYK altogether. Perhaps some people would be happy about that, but if so, they should be honest about it and just propose killing DYK as a section of the main page. Nsk92 (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose if mandatory, good as a guideline,try to keep things simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't wish to offend anyone but since Rlevse's departure a whole cruft of rubbish has been rolling on to the DYK section. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:23am • 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general I think the above list goes too far into minutae, but COPYVIO and NPOV are pillars, and V isn't too far behind. Arguable things like close paraphrasing and grammatical goofs should be scanned for and caught if blatant, but I don't think we want to string up DYK reviewers over differences of opinion on such matters. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Seems obvious to me. GFHandel ♬  10:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mostly Oppose. The checklist here is too long and contains items that will be contentious. "Reliable sourcing" sounds easy enough, but have you ever encountered a WP:MEDRS fundamentalist? Hint: you cannot source any statement about an herbal medicine that will pass this policy according to its extremist advocates. For a process limited to seven days, without RFCs or noticeboards, I could accept a check for a) Verifiability (cited sources) and b) Copyright violation (as opposed to "plagiarism") - that's all. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about "proper checklist" proposal

Long posts in the !voting section above may be relocated here.

• Comment - I think this RFC should be pulled, it's a fishing expedition that is proposing outcomes rather than solutions. We need to stay focussed on improving the project, all this RFC is likely to do is give DYK critics a venue for sounding off without addressing any of the actual problems. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Changed my mind about this, and submitted a !vote with comment above. Gatoclass (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• @Tony1 - I guess what you're getting at here is that the reviewer should explicitly state that they've reviewed these issues, in which case it should be in a proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Response to Cas: Indeed, but I should point out that it wasn't my intention to propose that every reviewer should have to tick off on every aspect. Specialist reviewers should be encouraged, IMO. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    • KISS. Better to just have one person run through the whole thing. We don't want to duplicate FA and/or have all kinds of moving parts (shared checklist pages and the like). Sure. some people will be better at one task than the other, but it will drive learning anyway. We ALL need to learn more about looking for close paraphrasing. Mottenen is only one person. Making everyone do it, will raise the level of community knowledge and over time the standards of the project as a whole.TCO (reviews needed) 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't know diddley-squat about which pop-music or sporting sites are reliable and which aren't; nor do I know much about image copyright and checking for plagiarism and close paraphrasing (some people do; maybe we need a pointer to the how-to-do-it pages); and many reviewers won't feel they are equipped to review prose, formatting and structure. That's why we should all be grateful if an editor is willing to zap through a tranche of DYK noms using their specialist knowledge of these matters. What distinguishes DYK noms from FACs is their size and, usually, lack of comprehensiveness; and I suppose there's more acceptance of less-than-perfect prose and a few other areas (but not obvious glitches, please). Tony (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • As long as I'm not doing much subject matter expertise and just looking for common sense inconsistencies, than I can review a new article on anything. (I would expect more for FA, we don't do enough subject matter and coverage consideration there. but here? Nah. I can review anything.) We don't have infinite resources, Tony. How much time and manpower do you think will do a review. Then moving parts and coordination? And now you have a 7 day limit on it? KISS, baby. You can learn the basics of image copyright just by writing a few articles and having some deletions come up of your own. All you do is go to the file page and check the source and look for obvious inconsistencies. Or just do a few reviews and figure it out. Or read what someone else says. It won't be CLindburg/Dcoetze quality, but we only have a few of them and need to do some work ourselves. It doesn't need to be a nuclear assurance. Just a second screen and then move the thing along the path. We don't have infinite experts on call. Rather move along with something workmanlike than develop intricate dependencies.TCO (reviews needed) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What does "obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting" mean, exactly? I am concerned about the potential for standards creep here, in part because I see DYK as having an article incubation/improvement role. Because any article featured on DYK pulls in so many eyeballs, there are certain things like unsourced/ill-sourced BLP and copyvio and plagiarism that should never appear in such an article. On the other hand, I think an article that lacks completeness, for instance, should remain a DYK candidate, in part because the exposure at DYK might pull in the right person to complete it. The checklist should forbid such things as a policy-conscious editor would never put in mainspace, but should permit usages that might be left for later development. Choess (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the interpretation could probably be left up to the individual reviewer, not everybody has the same notion of what constitutes an unacceptable flaw but if some reviewers want to take a harder line over such matters, it's not such a big deal. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this one as well. Out of the whole list it's the least important and arbitrary. The key word in there is obviously "obvious" but I'm guessing most reviewers won't pay attention to that. I'd hate to see a good DYK nom turned down because, for example, someone didn't use citation templates or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

When noms are turned down, they are usually turned down by consensus not by a single user, so I see little prospect of this occurring in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought about this some more and it's probably OK. Given the volume of material to review (even with a throttling back of DYK, which I'd favor), I doubt many people are going to go over the top in DYK reviews over trivial MOS issues (and if they do, they'd be making trouble somewhere else on the 'pedia if they weren't at DYK). Choess (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• One of the problems with greater scrutiny like this is that to fix some of the issues will require an extensive rewrite of the article. What happens to articles that get rejected, but the nominator doesn't fix? Does the reviewer then have to find the time to rewrite and fix the article? Articles with this level of problems should be picked up earlier by another process, or get sent somewhere else for fixing. The few times I've reviewed articles for DYK, I've found myself thinking "this article is poor", and the temptation was great to go find another article to review that was of a better quality. It would be very liberating to be able to say "this article is not good enough", to give a list of reasons, and then reject it, and list it somewhere where it would get fixed. But it would be very depressing to see no follow-up to that and no fixes made to the article. What might help is some examples of articles at different stages of development, with indications of where minimum standards have been met, maybe even with specific diffs that show the correction of particular problems. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see how you could solve the issue without far more resources than we have available. Yes, it's too bad, but as long as it's properly templated with caveats for the reader and the review on the talk page indicates, to some extent, what went wrong, we've given as much as we can to a person who does want to fix it. An article improvement program to keep people from committing mortal sins like plagiarism etc. is interesting but beyond the scope of DYK. Choess (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Checking for plagiarism and copyvios should be easier using the Duplication Detector. MER-C 13:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• One thing we can be sure of is that there will be no "sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise". Did You Know has always had more than enough people to demand error correction, and not enough to do it. Every added procedure, subprocedure and exception (especially the unwritten ones) will detract from time to actually fix anything, not add to it.Art LaPella (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I support only a very lightweight process - the check should only be for obvious cases and not a "GA-light". "Prose issues" should be limited to checking that it is of at least "adequate clarity" (to use the feedback tool's terminology); similarly the NPOV should just check that there is "no obvious bias", and the sourcing should just require that the portion being used is supported by "adequate reliable sources" and the rest of the article has at least some reliable sources. Any reviewer should be able to determine whether the criteria are met in about 2-5 minutes for most short and medium length articles. Plagiarism and close paraphrasing checks should only search for the obvious cases unless there are explicitly raised concerns or the initial check warrants further investigation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question Will nominators have a chance to fix any of the above issues should they appear in the article, or will the DYK nomination be promptly removed basically saying "fix it and submit again?" I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nevermind, just read the below discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm leery of all this. The problem isn't just copyvios and other counterpolicy material appearing in DYKs; we've had copyvios in featured articles. Which tells me that there's something basically broken about our community review processes in general. My position is that DYK is broken through lack of scrutiny. FAC is broken through its cliqueishness, its structure that encourages article ownership and its close focus on MOS and prose style issues without the fact-checking and research that would lead to proper scrutiny of candidate articles. GAN is highly inconsistent depending on who you get as a reviewer, but at least with GAN there's a chance that you'll get a reviewer who will genuinely understand the topic, which makes GAN the least broken of our review procedures.

  I think the best answer isn't just to fix DYK, but to engage in a fundamental rethink of all our peer review structures that lead to article badging or appearance on the main page.—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • ...we've had copyvios in featured articles ... I'm not sure why this meme is propogating on this page-- it feels like deflection. One instance (which turned into a grand total of two) does not a trend make. More importantly, the issues in review that led to the two instances were dealt with, were not denied, were acknowledged, and processes to address the deficiency were put in place, and there has been no repeat-- all unlike the long-standing, prolific, systemic sourcing and copyvio issues at DYK, which have led to quite literally the creation of thousands of copyvio and substandard stubs. DYK (with its QPQ reviewing) not only doesn't deal with it-- its process provides no method for dealing with it, partly because there is a new crop of nominators and reviewers in here every three months, no institutional memory, and no guarantee that reviewers even no policy because there is no accountability. Methinks the notion that copyvio occurred at FAC is a distraction to the seriousness of the issues at DYK. I don't mean to negate your other points, but the seriousness of the issues at DYK are unparalleled in any other review process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually as a review process DYK works pretty well. It has a few rules about age, length, formatting and some basic quality checks that get passed off (normally quite successfully) and then the articles get put on the main page where they can be scrutinised by a wider audience. Didn't the wider audience notice the copyvios and poor sourcing? Oh dear, but that's not DYK's fault: it got them on the main page so the maximum number of people could look at them and pick up any faults. This belief that the main page is some sort of shrine for the choicest cuts of the encyclopedia seems a bit nonsensical. We have one corner for an FA and then a FP (and occasional FL) hidden away at the bottom, but the rest of the page is given over to articles that are in need of editing. If we are moving into a maintenance phase then here are the articles that need maintenance. Yomangani^talk 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You may be operating on information that I missed (I haven't been able to keep up), Yoman, but on "Didn't the wider audience notice the copyvios and poor sourcing?" the answer is, not to my knowledge. AFAIK, the sourcing problems and copyvios are almost never picked up at DYK, and are rather repeatedly and annoyingly brought up by moi --- and you wanna know why that is? Because DYK-enraged editors e-mail me about them, regularly, asking me to please re-engage because the problems have become worse. They are a daily occurrence, almost never detected by DYK, almost never corrected, and since I became apparently the conduit after last year's debacle, I'm the one who gets shot at every time I come over here and mention that it's still going on. What alarms me this time is that, once I took a look, I found in fact that it's much worse than in the past, because expansion standards have now slipped as well, to where the expansion crit is often met by padding articles with non-reliable sources. Anyway, please fill me in on where DYK is noticing the copyvios, since I've cratered more than a few RFAs based on bad DYKs that were never detected, and every time I've come here with a problem, it was because DYK was doing nothing about it, then DYK notices things for a few months until a new crop of editors, who don't know DYK history, comes in and the problems repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
        • You didn't read what I wrote, Sandy. I'm saying that the purpose of the DYK process is not to review articles like GAC or FAC, but to get articles onto the front page so a wider audience can scrutinise them. That wider audience includes you, so in this case: well done, you've improved the encyclopedia! Why shouldn't everybody be happy with that outcome? Because we missed a few? That's unfortunate, but think of all the substandard articles that slip by because they don't get main page exposure. Yomangani^talk 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • DYK "reviews" would shame a banana republic. Hooks get passed on to the next stage without review comments answered. Lightmouse (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I rarely submit or review anything at DYK, despite having written over 200 new articles. However, bearing in mind this is putting something on the main page - which you'd otherwise have to write a featured article to acheive - I think the standards should be a lot higher than they are at the moment - both in terms of the interesting facts that are highlighted and the compliance with policy that the new articles acheives. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Support if it's gonna be featured on the main page it should meet certain standards. Standards should have been higher all along. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios in FAs

Actually, Sandy, I can think of three instances of FAs that had major copied sections. I assume you're thinking of Blaise Pascal and Grace Sherwood (BTW, a debacle which began, I seem to recall, when I brought to the nominator's attention the fact that several of his pictures, including the one slated to run on the Main Page for Halloween, weren't free even thought he had taken them himself due to the limitations of freedom of panorama under U.S. law., then you and the article nominator displayed a common yet profound misunderstanding as to the reasons for the image use policy. Oh, then ... the nominator complained about the failure of the FAC reviewers to catch what should have been rather obvious, and you then complained about the shortage of reviewers, and for good measure took a pot shot at me. And then the now-vanished user, once a pillar of this community, got caught plagiarizing that and other articles, and finally left Wikipedia. But I digress ...)

The third would be here (And that article has never been delisted ... granted, it has improved since the day it was the worst ever FA, IMO, to go on the Main Page) Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, I believe we shouldn't digress to finding FA problems for the purpose of hitting Sandy back - after all, we are all here to improve WP, and FAs are supposed to be one of its best parts. The concept of copyvio and close paraphrasing is relatively new and needs to be taken with patience (like a new law, if this is a valid comparison). I praise Sandy for spending time and checking for copyvious, which very few editors are willing to spend time on. On the other hand, I do wish she realizes that she would get many more positive emotions by lowering her tone a couple orders of magnitude. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was merely correcting Sandy's seemingly smug assertion that FA has had only two copyvios that she knows of ... apparently I knew of one she didn't. People who live in glass houses ...

I agree with you that if Sandy stopped, as I have asked her to, pouring on the sarcasm and failing to assume good faith, she'd get a lot more cooperation (and, if she stopped to look around, she'd be surprised at how much she actually is getting. At this point, she would probably serve her cause best by bailing and letting Tony handle things). Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, I've just seen this section. Daniel Case, you might try some waterskiing or something. If you think the difference between two and three (the third being one I didn't know about, from 2005 no less, years before my time at FAC and even before I was editing) is such a high percentage out of more than 3,000 FAs, and that I must know about every one of them, you may benefit from a break :) And try as I may, when reviewing your diffs, I didn't find the potshots at you, so perhaps you're reading things I didn't write. Now, to get back on topic: FAC has addressed copyvio (at least to the best of our ability) since the October debacle. What has DYK done (answer, Quid Pro Quo reviewing that has led to even more issues)? PS: No, the third is not the one you highlighted-- I don't recall knowing about that one. The one I know about was written by a sockmaster, and was quickly detected. It would be naive to think there aren't more out there: the question is, what processes were put in place to address the issues, and did FAC run screaming in denial or deal with this very big issue the best we could? What is DYK's answer to instituting QPQ reviewing to deal with copyvio, which led to more problems than just copyvio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've been out hiking all day (more fun, for me, than waterskiing and the fresh mountain air was nice). Pot shots: "I was dismayed that Daniel Case appeared to be jabbing at FAC ..." ... well, at the very least you could have asked me for clarification on that one before you made a statement about what my apparent intent was.

To clarify that one, since you didn't ask, I and Vanished User were both surprised that no one at the FAC had caught the clear image issues, since the policy there is pretty simple and clear-cut. You later, I recall, lamented to me (can't find the diff at present) that since Elcobbola had stepped back from regular involvement at FAC there was no one there with the equivalent knowledge of the image policy. I was a little surprised that someone at FAC, a regular reviewer of articles proposed as "the best the community can produce" didn't just take the time to learn this, and you were all (or, should I say, as you always do when conversations take this turn, y'all) flying blind on this one.

Yes, I could have responded to your entreaty at the same time to fill the void, but (I think I said) this just showed how cockamamie the adoption of this policy was that even the people at FAC couldn't understand it, and left it at that.

Anyway ... so now it seems that there are/were four of these incidents when you said so confidently earlier that there were only two? I agree that out of 3,000+ FAs (and, let's be fair, former FAs) four known incidents is statistically insignificant, but that's still considering only the known ones. What's still sleeping out there? We don't know. And, it would be accurate to say that there are twice as many of these incidents as you claimed to know about.

As for QPQ, I wasn't involved in the discussion that led to its adoption, and probably wouldn't have supported it as an idea, but since I have this little problem with assuming good faith on the part of my fellow editors, I imagine that their intent was to somehow improve and enhance Wikipedia. And I've not had a problem with how my own submissions have been reviewed, or my reviews of other people's. I would love to have been able to review at least 5–10 a day like I used to, but of course things like that also led to accusations of cabalism. And I have plenty of other administrative tasks to keep me busy, anyway. Perhaps it doesn't need to be a one-to-one ratio, but informal QPQ arrangments are part of a lot of content areas (i.e., I recently uploaded to Commons some pictures that I found at Flickr, so later on I took the trouble of reviewing a whole batch of Flickr images. That's the understanding at Commons, as I've always done it).

As I have said, I wouldn't claim that it doesn't have a risk of letting plagiarism through, but DYK has never been specifically set up to screen for that until now (and the most stringent reviews here, at GA, FA, ITN and OTD will not by any means eliminate all plagiarism from Wikipedia ... you should see what sleeps out on the fringes where few articles link and fewer still registered editors edit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC proposal: archive unsuccessful nominations after seven days

Proposal: "A nomination that has not met the requirements seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer¹ should be declined and archived, unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days. Time limits include time spent in a preparation area."

¹Or a similar arrangement decided on by editors at DYK, such as a template expiry date.

There has never been a clear process for removing from the "suggestions" page nominations that have not reached acceptable standards. This is essential if compliance with site policies and other standards are to be upheld in DYKs on the main page. Expecting the queuing admins to tip-toe around removing the odd bum nomination is hardly a professional procedure. A professional DYK process involves rejection as well as passing, and the nominations page needs to be kept under control by the admins.

• Support as proposer. Tony (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support tentatively. I have also flirted with this idea (although in response to a different problem--hook boringness) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry) and User talk:Rjanag/Archive5#Inquiring minds want to know. I have a lot of concerns about the details of how it would work (see those links and the discussion below) but in spirit I think it's the right move. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support this would probably help to move along some of the nominations that develop lengthy and largely unproductive discussions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent idea. -- Khazar (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. yes, long tails on the suggestion queue are somewhat distracting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support There will be articles that are sent to AfD and kept after the seven day period has ended, but I suppose a few casualties isn't a huge issue. —Andrew_stalk 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Hooks should be well-prepared, interesting, and inviting to reviewers from the start. Quigley (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Increases efficiency. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If standards for DYK articles are increased then some streamlining will be necessary. While some last minute fixes for new articles may be needed, DYK is not an article nursery.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Sure. This will ease the stress for the whole infrastructure and give a bit of a kick in the ass to weaker submitters.TCO (reviews needed) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with Tony's last change (otherwise, no). I'm thinking there will need to be a special page made with instructions for reviewers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support It needs to be changed to a week that a reviewer's comment has remained unanswered - a point raised by Gatoclass below, support if that is actually the proposal. Mikenorton (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Due process requires criteria to be enforced. Lightmouse (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified Support: Not 7 days since the first review, but 7 days since the last comment. Some require major discussion, like the Children of the Stork hook at T:TDYK right now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Wouldn't support removing noms that are completely unreviewed, but if there are important comments that go unaddressed for a week, a nomination should be failed. I wonder why this isn't in the rules now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support 7 days after reviewer edit. I would expect the DYK admins to check that concerns have been addressed, if the nominator has responded to say that they are fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I just saw the backlog for the first time a little while ago, and I couldn't believe it. This sounds like a fair solution. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I can support this as written, but I would also suggest that nominations that have not yet been reviewed should in fact be given more time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I generally agree with this in principle -- in fact, I've frequently enforced such a rule myself -- but disagree with the specific wording. I'd suggest that if an issue raised by a reviewer hasn't garnered a good-faith response within 7 days of notification, the nomination is dead. Problems with the proposed wording include the following: some reviews involve extensive back-and-forth between nominator and reviewer(s) which can go beyond 7 days, time spent in a prep area should not be counted (since that comes after approval), and the clock should start with notification to the nominator. cmadler (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. DYK isn't an entitlement, nor is it Wikipedia:Peer review. Perhaps my memory is going, but back in the old days of DYK I seem to remember that one couldn't expect to get DYK as a matter of course, due to more submissions than slots. I think re-instilling this attitude would be a good thing. Choess (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, although a little iffy on the wording. Per NW in the discussion area below, what is "Time limits include time spent in a preparation area"?
• Oppose - since no-one has responded to my concerns below, I can only conclude that there is no credible response to those concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would make it very difficult to get serious subjects (e.g. science) into the DYP Main Page, so that DYK would contain only popular culture. --Philcha (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support This may help to ensure that the hooks are more interesting. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:24am • 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support since I don't this find any different from declining an unblock request from someone who hasn't responded to {{coiq}} or some other query within two or three days. It would help, I think, to place these in a special section so that anyone could fix the issues (Not that they can't now, but it's easier when these are in a special section). Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support seven days after review. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support assuming some Swahili as per concerns of NuclearWarfare and Gato. Time in prep should not count against the 7 days; but re-set the clock to some shorter time (maybe 3 days) if it gets pulled out of prep for more work. Sharktopus ^talk 12:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Necessary housekeeping to prevent accumulation of unresolved issues of nominations. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am also afraid we'll lose scientific and technical DYKs due to lack of review (or re-review), misunderstandings, etc. Also, it seems like common sense that if you want to add in all these extra steps between the proposal and acceptance of a DYK, you should add in extra time (at least a week) before any potential expiration. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about "archiving unsuccessful nominations" proposal

Long posts in the !voting section above may be relocated here.

Does this mean that if a nominator nominates their article on 1st August, and no-one has gotten round to reviewing it by 8th August, then the nomination fails? I'm assuming not, but this needs to be clearer...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it does mean that; that is how I'm understanding it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This may be hard to keep track of, given that for example an article may be nominated on August 5 but placed under the August 1 header (if that was the date it was actually created). The way the proposal is currently written, this nom would expire on August 12 (7 days after nomination), not August 8 (7 days after the header under which it's included). I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong, just that it might be a pain to keep track of (although I suppose people could just remove old noms whenever they happen to notice one, without necessarily needing a system to remove all new old noms at once). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these points: I've boldly changed "seven days after nomination" to "seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer". Does this resolve the problem? Tony (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Actually, it would probably be easy to work in something in the template that says "this nomination expires on DATE", similar to image speedy deletion templates. After that, we could just have an understanding that any editor is free to archive any nomination with an expired date. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks: I've added a footnote above to this effect. This kind of flexibility in the mechanics is good: the principle of time limitation is the main concern of this second RfC proposal. Tony (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The problem is that on some occasions, I have placed science-oriented DYK nominations with few/no problems of the kind mentioned above which took longer than 7 days to find a reviewer. Yet when they were finally checked by a reviewer at archive time, they were good to go and made it without remark to the main page. Certain classes of articles which people may shy away from are likely to be discriminated. AshLin (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I've had your problem before also, so this concerned me, too. But if I understand right, Tony's just modified it to now count off seven days after review rather than nomination (which sounds fair to me). -- Khazar (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more impractical it sounds. What happens if someone reviews a hook, the nominator responds and then no-one gets around to having another look for a week? Is that the nominator's fault? Of course not. But under this system, his nom will be deleted unless an admin gives it a reprieve. But do we really want to have nominators running around pestering admins for extra time? IMO it would make more sense for a nom to be deleted if the nominator hasn't responded to a concern within a set period. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In practice, I would hope that those archiving/closing/promoting older nominations would look at the discussions and make a judgment on whether more discussion is needed, or whether archiving/closing/promotion is needed. Effectively, the proposal is asking for a decision to be taken within 7 days of the review starting (though the decision could be to extend the discussion period). This sounds reasonable to me, and is a lot like how AfD works. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, we already do remove noms if a nominator hasn't responded to a concern in a while, although there is no official time period. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do, but as you say there is no set time period, I think if we made it five days, or even three days, it would help get rid of those lingering noms. Other than that, I can see this proposal creating more problems than it solves, because there are going to be disputes about whether or not a nom should have been given more time, and there is also the possibility of factions gaming the system to delay a nom until it gets deleted. A system that relies on the continued attention of the nominator, on the other hand, places the responsibility on the shoulders of the person most involved, and if he fails to stay abreast of the discussion, he has no-one to blame but himself when the nom is deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Five days would be best, methinks. Three would be cutting it too close, especially since some Wikipedians take the weekends off. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And some Wikipedians work in the week and edit at the weekends... Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify what "Time limits include time spent in a preparation area." means? Does that mean if I ask for some improvements on 00:00 5 August which are finished by 12:00 11 August, the article is ineligible to go up because it will take longer than 12 hours to move through Template:Did you know/Queue? NW (Talk) 18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes: at the moment, it's perfectly acceptable for an article to be moved out of a prep room and back onto the nom page if someone picks up a problem that can't be quickly resolved. The inclusion of time spent in a prep room is to forestall anyone who might try to game the system by moving a nom to a prep room, then to have it moved back after a problem is discovered and start the seven-day limit ticking over from zero again. Tony (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    • We might be talking at cross purposes. Say we have the following hook: "... Y. pestis is a deadly disease that is very likely to kill you if you become infected?" I nominate it for DYK on 00:00 5 August, and it is approved by 18:00 8 August. However, before it can be added to the prep area, on 00:00 9 August, a Wikipedia who is also a virologist takes offense at my poor efforts and declares that he is going to turn the article into GA-quality or better. The hook is not moved to the prep areas to give the virologist some time to write such a major addition. The virologist works very quickly, and by 18:00 13 August, everything is good. But when an administrator goes to add the hook to the prep area, he or she discovers that queues 1 to 6 as well as prep areas 1 to 2 are filled with hooks. It will take far more than the 30 hours remaining for those hooks to cycle through. Do we simply reject the Y. pestis hook then? NW (Talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
      • NW, I guess this type of scenario is why flexibility was built into the RfC text: "unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days". Tony (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
        • This seems like the complete essence of WP:NOTBUREAU, but if the editors who work at DYK more often than I do want it, so be it. NW (Talk) 03:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC question: has the obligation to review been a net positive or negative?

This is a question for DYK regulars - has the introduction of the obligation to review (i.e. QPQ) been a net positive or negative? I'm not sure myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

net positive

1. I think it's a major net positive but I think it's becoming clear it needs some refinement. Specifying the issues that reviewers need to be checking as in the first proposal above is a step in the right direction, but we may need to add some further checks. I would strongly oppose any attempt to scrap QPQ ATM, there are plenty of other things we can try first and going back to the old system of relying on a handful of reviewers would be a last resort in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I think it's been good to have so many more people doing it, even if some of us do it imperfectly on occasion. I don't mind having "experts" double-check reviews (especially if we someday reduce the number of articles reaching the main page), but I want to keep the diversity of reviewers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Pros: encouragement of collaboration, learning DYK and WP policies and reviewing process, provision of some review. Cons: sloppy reviews. Solution: cover up, check the reviews and provide additional ones. Hook promoter is the key person in the current DYK scheme, and most proposals should be focused here, for example: (i) formally disallow promoting hooks to any editor who hasn't reviewed xx noms in their lifetime (unfortunately, we don't count reviews; but with the QPQ system, reviewed=submitted, and this we do count at stats pages, thus 50 or 100 successful DYKs may do). (ii) keep the whole review thread in the prep so that the promoting admin could check the promotion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Net positive. Reviewing DYKs made me familiar with rules especially in those areas where I normally dont edit such as BLP. It made me a better and more confident DYK nominator. AshLin (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
5. What if we required two editors to green-light a hook before it is sent to prep? That would still be faster than having a handful of editors doing all the (tedious) work. —Andrew_stalk 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Positive, but with room for improvements. I like Tony's comment done in the discussion section that an extra aspect of the article could be checked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Small positive. At the time it was implemented, there was discussion about possibly requiring approval from two reviewers; it may be time to revisit that idea. cmadler (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
8. We have no shortage of reviews now, I've enjoyed that. But I would like to see more oversight in that reviews are regularly checked to ensure that people are not simply rubber-stamping to pass the "must review a nom to submit a nom" requirement. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
9. The rule came into effect at about the same time that I was making my fifth DYK anyway. I would never have reveiewed other nominations without the rule, because I didn't consider myself a "regular", but after having done a bunch of reviews I really don't mind doing them at all, and might even be persuaded to do a few extra reviews next time around. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
10. It's a close one, I agree, but I think that encouraging editors, particularly newer ones, to review is essential to making them part of the community—after all, we're here to edit and encyclopedia, not just write one. I agree that sometimes a reviewer will be ill-suited to an article ... but that's always been likely, and frankly I think most reviewers, particularly newer ones (and some veterans) go for the low-hanging fruit anyway. Looking over the noms page, I don't see any less discussion than we used to have.

    If anything, problems like the Carmody hook are less the result of newer reviewers and more the result of less human hands and eyes going over them than there used to be ... in the days when every step of the process was manual, there was more chance of a problematic hook at least being rewritten before going on the main page. It's a common effect of moving to more automation. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

11. I agree with Daniel Case that getting nominators to review brings them into the community. At least, that was how it worked for me. New reviewers are not as capable as experienced ones, nor are careless reviewers as good as people who take care. QpQ motivates some careless inexpert reviews but it has also motivated a lot of people to learn how to become good reviewers. Sharktopus ^talk 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

net negative

1. While I do not think that everything about the QPQ turned out bad, I believe "net negative" is the right description. Those are my main concerns:
   • First in line of course is the entirely subjective observation that there are more unsatisfying reviews than before. And as it is not visible who is new and who is experienced, you just cannot trust the DYK tick symbols anymore.
   • Less obvious but maybe even more important is the situation that the average reviewer is not as bold as before. Every once in a while a review should start with or if the problems are many, or if they cover the entire article---not just for purely numerical concerns about length.
   • Thirdly, particularly due to DYK's quality problems I believe it is the wrong place to learn Wikipedia rules, or how to review. I think WP:Peer Review is a much better place to do that, but one might also think of specific adoptions or a particular lesson in WP:Tutorial.
   • From a pure project management point of view, I think there is little doubt that reviews are at least not better than before. But the process has become more difficult. To me, this is added complexity without benefit.
   • Finally, I never liked the idea to force anyone to do voluntary work. I know of at least one very prolific DYK writer whose creations often get GA status before DYK, and who does not edit T:TDYK anymore. In this respect, DYK currently is stricter than GA and FAC, and that is not a healthy thing. --Pgallert (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Gatoclass raises good points at #Some thoughts from a semi-regular and the section above this one. Overall, though, I still think requiring reviews from new editors who aren't interested in reviewing is a net negative. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
3. I think that the inherent conflict of interest may be too strong. Since I started reviewing in May, I have come across quite a few with serious prose or other issues. While many serious reviewers at work, there also seems to me to be a certain 'going through the motions' with reviewing and commenting on the bare minimum criteria. I suspect some reviewers may be afraid of ruffling feathers when their own articles are under review for fear of 'retaliatory' fails, and I suspect that the conflict of interest may be a contributing factor to mediocrity of reviewing. --88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 15:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

   I would suggest perhaps that the requirement be changed, so that each article has had at least two independent pairs of eyes; reviewers would be expected to expressly state the work done – which must be to a higher standard than is at present – to ensure comprehensiveness/completeness. Those articles that do not secure the two obligatory reviews in the period required will fall by the wayside for lack of interest. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

4. Someone asked below if this view could be articulated. Let me try. Even when this was being proposed, I knew it would be a problem in the long run, but anyone who said that risked being seen as just trying to avoid doing the work. So I mistakenly held my tongue. The problem was and is obvious: requiring everybody to review means that there are many weaker reviewers who need to look at something so their articles can be approved. They either haven't yet acquired the skills to review something properly, or just rubber-stamp something to get it over with. Hence why so many crappy articles have been making it through lately. For someone like me, a regular reviewer elsewhere, I can handle such a requirement comfortably. But this isn't necessarily true for everyone. I think there was an assumption that DYK writers would grow into strong reviewers over time, but it just isn't happening. The best thing that could happen to DYK is to remove this requirement and leave reviewing to those who are interested and experienced. It may take longer to get articles through, but it will be worth it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Wholly negative. DYK has systemic problems in sourcing, copyvio, and BLP vios, and is populated by numerous editors who don't know, understand or respect Wikipedia policies. The Quid Pro Quo reviewing amounts to the blind leading the blind, and has allowed DYK to continue enabling and encouraging editors who do not know or understand Wikipedia policies. Accountability and lower turnover of faulty content on the mainpage was needed and called for years ago: QPQ reviewing provided the opposite, allowing the buck to be passed to any ole' editor who wants mainpage exposure, regardless of their knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and allowing DYK to continue pushing through volumes of faulty content being created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
6. It's good to encourage reviewing, but it's bad to encourage "drive by" reviewing which this pretty much is. I've been found guilty of this recently, for which I am ashamed (a failure to speak a foreign language was part of the problem) but it's symptomatic, the "you scratch my DYK, I'll scratch yours..." approach. It's pretty weak in quality control. Generally, hooks are reviewed, if you're lucky, hook references are reviewed for verifiability and reliability, but beyond that, the rest of the article could be nonsense. Not to mention the copyvio issues which barely crosses most reviewers' minds... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
7. If you're asking me to review for neutrality, I will either play it safe by reviewing what I know (sport), or I will pick something obscure yet interesting, and more likely than not get it badly wrong, as I have done on at least two occasions. Either way, it's a bad thing, and for those reasons alone the current system of reciprocal reviews should be gotten rid of. I would also point out that the three editors above are directors in processes that are constantly crying out for reviewers, and who will have thought long and hard about the merits of bringing in a similar arrangement at those processes. —WFC— TFL notices 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

discussion

• I have no objection to requiring nominators to do a bit of character-counting and examining of page histories as clerical verification of eligibility. But in the interests of making DYK a bit more of a training ground, I'd be inclined to add a requirement that in addition, they review at least one other point, of their choice, listed in the first RfC proposal. Tony (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I can't answer as I'm not a DYK regular. But I really like the idea and have debated this with Sandy before and been pretty unsatisfied with the responses. Working scientists who write papers, review them also (not tit for tat, but regularly). I think if someone can write a capable article, he can review one. And I sure get sick of the "build it and it will come" hope that reviewers will descend out of the sky or the begging for more reviewers on FAC talk (or articles not progressing because no one reviewed it). Plus it's fair giveback for people burdening the sytsem. Plus reviewing teaches you things that help with writing! And I think the concerns over poor reviewers are over-rated. We need to use what we have. This is not nuclear code security carefulness...this is content creation...let's get on with it. TCO (reviews needed) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the above comments by TCO. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The other thing is it makes even MORE sense that required reviews make sense at FAC since anyone who can write one of those mofos can more than review one. And one could do an analysis...there are some areas where we are close to tit for tat anyway just in terms of the smallness of the group. Perhaps requiring more reviews would broaden things up. Some times I think people here get entrenched positions from years ago and don't really have an open mind. Like...look GA has done fine with a little plus sign...and that was a big kerfuffle where FA didn't want to allow it. Or like the way the FA reviews are all on one gigantic megapage (no academic journal runs that way) which makes it painful for everuyone other than the scanning director (and prevents getting substantive discussions, like in an academic review.) (No drama/teasing, honest...just my newbie perspective.)TCO (reviews needed) 17:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to see someone articulate the "net negative" position. I see some folks in other discussions above say "this has been a failure" but I'm not quite clear on why this is so. And pointing out that during the time that this has been in effect a couple of bad noms slipped through is not sufficient - DYK has come under more and more scrutiny over time so we really don't know how many bad noms slipped through before the implementation of this feature.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sure someone will; the big negative to me is that it has enabled the system to deceive itself that proper reviewing is occurring, beyond the merely clerical minima. We should want to augment it, not remove it, I believe. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • One of the problems with reviewing in general (not QPQ) is that reviewing can be silent. If people actually put a tick on a checklist, it tells others what got checked. Though you do want some thing double-checked as well, as some aspects need more than one person for a proper check. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It also increases accountability, people can't say "I forgot to check that" or "I didn't know I was expected to do that". They will have to take responsibility for their errors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So are we going to implement the checklist, as suggested here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming this proposal achieves consensus, yes, that would be the sort of system I would envisage. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If DYK remains in any form, *this* is the kind of review template required

My first preference is to retain DYK as a hybrid system that draws on GAs, FAs, FLs, and the very best of the newly created/expanded articles that currently have a monopoly at DYK. This solution would draw on both the "quality assurance and archiving" RfC I launched yesterday and Dr. Blofeld's proposal to change the scope of DYK.

This review template¹ is the kind of process envisaged in the "quality assurance and archiving" RfC above. Except for the last article bullet, all aspects are currently part of the DYK rules and selection criteria. Currently, they're just not checked for compliance, and no matter what happens to DYK, we have to start applying the existing rules. An abridged template for the article review bullets in this template could be used for GAs, FAs, and FLs, and possibly none at all if only newly promoted GAs, FAs, and FLs were accepted.

My second preference is to go with Sandy's idea of getting rid of the whole concept of DYK on the main page; this would be a pity, since DYKs with punchy, interesting hooks are a good idea for the main page. But in view of the text-overload that has plagued the main page for a long time, I'd be prepared to examine this option in an overall revamping of the main page.

¹ It's the "Faial Botanical Garden" DYK nom, if the flaky section-linking doesn't get you there.

Tony (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the general idea of the review template. I'd suggest a few improvements: make it an actual template (or integrate into the DYKnom template); link items to the specific DYK rule(s) being checked; and use some sort of icon (replace bullets with check marks) to make it more clear which issues have been verified/resolved. cmadler (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) Thanks, Cm. The specific selection criteria and rules would need to be expressed in the hierarchy of headings, then, I presume. At the moment it's not possible to link directly. If icons are to be used, could they be more convenient than having to scroll up to above the edit-box, wipe your cursor across a code, copy, move down, relocate, and paste? I think if a signature alone appears after the bulleted aspect, that should be a default endorse (so easy). If someone else comes in subsequently to insert a comment after that sole signature (i.e., I'm not so sure it passes), then there needs to be an explicit "OK" or "pass". Unless someone can invent a template that requires a single letter to be added in the syntax, such as p, f, q (for pass, fail, query). Tony (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you don't need headers to link to a particular place on a page. You can just insert an anchor id and that will do the job for you. This should be explained at WP:ANCHOR (specifically the 'span id' bit), but ping me if you need help with this. There should be examples around already for you to look at. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Update: I've changed the links Tony used in the example he provided, to show what I mean about linking to anchors, which already existed for what he wanted to link to. Am now going to make a draft of this in template space to be worked on (will link to it below). Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's just too complex - the suggestions page will end up a mile long with that lot under each nom. It is likely to make noms harder to read and understand as well. I envisaged a much lighter process, more like the ratings system on Wikiproject banners, where one replies "y" or "n" to a number of different boxes and the template outputs the appropriate icon accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, in my view there's been far too much tick, tick, tick, and too little nuanced reviewing, where suggestions are made and acted on (or argued against). As you see from my sample review, there's no substitute for words. But a simple y/n icon system could work in addition, provided it doesn't become an excuse for non-review. It has become a workaday, almost automated task to use that clunky tick/cross icon system to whip a nom into a prep area. I do think those moving articles into the prep areas should usually read the comments, especially where it's not cut-and-dried. Tony (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone correctly pointed out in one of the threads above, every complication added to Wikipedia is a barrier for new users and a discouragement to their participation, at a time when WP is deeply concerned about declining participation rates. In short, the last thing we need to be doing is creating top-heavy processes where a lighter one will do the job. IMO we should always try the simple solution before opting for the complicated one. A simple checklist will help to remind reviewers of what it means to review an article, and it will make them accountable for their omissions. If we implement such a system together with some sort of sanction for, say, missing a plagiarism issue, I think that should go a long way toward helping concentrate the minds of reviewers on the importance of doing a thorough review. QPQ already gives us a large pool of manpower for reviewing - all we really need do is ensure that the available manpower is actually doing the job. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? Keep things short on the DYK nomination page, and have longer comments on the subpage and/or the article talk page. It might even be better if such a set of review criteria were used on all articles (yes, I know that is not realistic, but we should get there one day), and DYK simply had to tick a box saying that the article had been through this process. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you imagine what the review template would look like for the current 'Robin' nomination with 11 articles in the hook? It's already pretty difficult to navigate around the suggestions page. I would support something like Gatoclass suggests above. Mikenorton (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest, Mike, that 11 articles in one hook is way, way out of proportion, and should be split. Have all of the articles been reviewed properly for policy compliance and quality? Tony (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They don't come along that often, but generally a couple of reviewers take on the task. I'm not aware of any such nominations that have had serious problems in the past. Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When we start a nomination/review, we get a sort of header which lists the pass criteria and their symbol templates. Perhaps Tony's list could come up there as a set of points to remind the reviewer to tackle. AshLin (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This seemed a decent review to me. Should I frame it as history? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the review template, though am slightly wary of Tony's emphasis on 'Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting' (they are obvious to him, but may annoy others). It would be better to add something like "see article talk page" if any long comments were needed. In fact, it would be better to have that template on the article talk page in the first place. I say this because article talk pages (or their subpages) should be the main place to discuss the content and writing of articles. Good article reviews are a subpage of the article talk page. Peer reviews and featured article reviews are separate pages, but are both available from the ArticleHistory template. At the very least, the DYK template that is put on an article's talk page should link to the review that took place, as that can be an important part of the article writing history for later reviewers to look at. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "annoy others"? And do you want to expose obvious errors on the main page? The strong support for the explicit list of criteria seems to be driven by the exposure of substandard articles and hooks on the main page, in huge quantities. If DYK isn't willing to fix obvious errors (that word is critical come-down from standards at GA, FA, and FL), let's give it over to GA, FA, and FL, and make the newly created articles a subpage. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The metric conversion thing, for one (in the Tatoosh range example further up the page). That is not an obvious error. I would judge metric conversions to be something that can wait until later. Wikipedia won't collapse if metric conversion templates aren't used immediately. If you try and point out everything that means an article is not in compliance with the Manual of Style immediately, you will annoy people, trust me. Drop the words 'obvious faults' (I would suggest: 'Brief comments on prose, structure, formatting') and move long comments to the article talk page. Keep this as a brief, initial review. Detailed discussion should be on article talk pages. And please don't over-react to what I said. I said I like the review template. Actually, I think it should be used on all articles to pass them for start-class or C-class, much like the Military History WikiProject have explicit B-class criteria. I say this because I would love to arrive at an article and know that early in its history it got checked by another editor for these things. Currently, I am usually very reluctant to start major work on an article without going back through the article history and the current text to make sure that there is a solid foundation to work on, and that the article hasn't been built on sand (i.e. copyvio and the like in the article history). Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking of "annoying", it's annoying to most people in the world to have to wonder what on earth 200 feet is. I can't visualise it. It's US-centric. It's not even a matter of an "obvious error in prose, structure, or formatting", anyway. It's something beyond that, and something the editor needs to deal with, thanks. Tony (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Can we now please get back to discussing the merits of your idea, which is a very good one? Are you familiar with the Military History WikiProject B-class criteria, and how they are integrated into the article rating template? What you are proposing is very similar, but done on a subpage (much like the Good Article criteria are). Would you support something like your checklist being used for all articles, with anything appearing on the Main Page having to have been checked in this fashion? Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Clarification: I should make clear that only the last five in the article criteria apply to all article - the rest are clearly DYK-specific criteria. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Was looking around in template namespace, and Template:DYKreview already exists. It is quite a bit different from what is proposed here, but is something to consider, or possibly repurpose for this use (though I would favour starting a new template altogether, such as Template:DYKfullreview). I'll draft that now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Update: and now done. Please see Template:DYKfullreview and see what can be done with it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(e.c., and I've got to go to bed) Carcharoth, thanks for your supportive comments, and I guess a checklist is a good idea for all (primary) articles exposed on main page. To take up your analogy with the MilHist B-class assessment system, articles there are not about to be exposed on WP's main page. And I find their expression of pass/fail boundary confusing. The MilHist B-class FAQ suggests this incomprehensible babble is bad enough to fail: "The ship sunk in 1918, by torpedo from a germa uboat. 20 crew went down in it but most with CAPT excvaped in lifeboats and were picked up by example", and gives a "passable" version that is almost FA-perfect prose: "The ship was sunk in 1918 by a torpedo from a German u-boat. Although 20 of her crew were killed, the remainder, including the captain, took to lifeboats and were picked up by HMS Example, which was in the vicinity." I've left a note there about these examples.

Leaving aside this confusion, what really impresses everyone about MilHist is its elaborate infrastructure for mentoring, inducting, and training editors. At DYK, mentoring also needs to be part of the nomination process. I have a distinct feeling that if some review comments are shunted off to the article talk page, they will be utterly ignored at DYK and the nomination will float through regardless. Um ... has either nominator even responded to my comments from earlier today or edited their article? Nope; OK it's only half a day, but let's see if it's the culture of dump-and-run that I think it is. Sorry, this is neither a mentoring/induction process nor acceptable prep. for main-page exposure. Because the community realises this, there have been scarcely one or two queries, in a sea of supports, about my addition of the "obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting" bullet. You suggest removing the "obvious" word, but that would increase the requirement, not reduce it. I purposely inserted "obvious" to go easy on the standards. And specifying that only "brief" comments be made at the nom page could come down to "Prose needs work, please find a copy-editor". The prose for both articles I reviewed using the "template" style wasn't too bad, actually; but where a sentence doesn't make sense, or the whereabouts of the island isn't revealed, someone should point it out—not put it on the main page, then fix it later if at all. It's a crazy reversal of what should happen.

I don't know whether you've noticed how much ill-will there is about the current DYK model; there are not-very-nice things being said on Jimbo's page as we speak. Well, I'm trying to do DYK a favour by saving the newly created/expanded article idea from being completely tossed overboard by the community. But resistance to a tighter review process is starting to swing me towards Dr. Blofeld's proposal to replace this with what are much much better and time-tested articles from processes that are distinctly under-recognised. It's your choice, guys. DYK nomination pages need to be longer, and nominators need to actually engage with reviewers.

The ridiculous flinging of up to 32 newbie-article hooks a day onto the main page will naturally be stemmed by a proper review process. Sooner or later, we're bound to see a shift from article creation to article improvement by the introduction to DYK of at least some GAs, FAs, and FLs. Whichever way it proceeds, this empty spraying of noms onto our showcase main page has to change. Tony (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but a bit less of the rhetoric would help. It is possible to highlight these problems without words like "spraying" and "ridiculous flinging up" and "plagiarism central" (from SandyGeorgia below). Even if you (and Sandy) are right to use those terms it only raises tension to use those terms in such a dismissive fashion. Have a look at what Moonriddengirl wrote somewhere up above. That is the epitome of a calm, helpful response. At the moment, this page is out of control because of the multiple proposals here. Hopefully the stuff that has support will be implemented, but a lowering of the rhetoric all round will help. The other thing that doesn't help is people periodically raising problems and then returning to the areas where they are also active (in Sandy's case, FAC) because they don't have time to see things through here. What is needed is someone to have a clear vision of what the endpoint is here, and then to take the time to make proposals and participate calmly in discussions that bring things towards that new point (over several months if needed). If Sandy had taken the time to do this when she first realised the problem (or first realised that no-one else was dealing with the problem), or asked someone with more time to devote to it to push things forward, then we might have got to this point sooner. At the moment, people are trying to make their points too forcefully, in a rather overbearing manner, and it is rebounding on them to some extent (witness the flare-up between Sandy and Gatoclass below).

OK, enough of the meta-criticism. What is the best starting point? To list the proposals on this talk page and see what the best way forward is? I would suggest a separate page for that. Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals would be one place. Maybe someone could move things there (leaving links here) and make things a bit more organised? Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, still, on the allegations of rhetoric and hyperbole. Nothing short of Plagiarism Central fits, and the fact that this has been going on, systemically, for at least three years, often discussed, and has of recent become much worse, means the alarm is justified. Please stop trying to brush the severity of these issues under the rug by silencing critics. DYK is enabling editors who have no business editing Wikipedia at all, rewarding them for faulty content, and allowing them to place policy violations on the mainpage with articles that never get cleaned up-- they simply unwatch them after they get their "reward". If they couldn't get their endorphin high at DYK, maybe they would stop creating faulty articles. DYK is harming Wikipedia; the many editors who use DYK as a first stop on the way to GA and FA don't need or seek the endorphin high of DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your criticisms are valid, but disagree on how you are going about raising the alarm. Anyway, let's put that to one side and see whether your suggestion below of "We need one, coordinated, well thought out RFC placed on a separate page" can mesh with my suggestion for Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? If those commenting here came together to edit a page like that, we could get somewhere, rather than everyone arguing. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I find two aspects of this troubling:

• "Please stop trying to brush the severity of these issues under the rug by silencing critics." I apologize for not having been bowled over by your logic and intellect, but simply not being persuaded by someone who has not missed a single opportunity to call a subgroup of the community you feel part of all sorts of sneering names does not count as "silencing". (If they really wanted to silence you, most of the people here have a big red button they could do it with if so tempted. It wouldn't be right, and I certainly wouldn't do it, but if they did then you'd be right.
• "DYK is enabling editors who have no business editing Wikipedia at all ..." So you want to be the one who decides who's good enough to edit Wikipedia, and who isn't, all by herself? That goes rather counter to a core value of this project, don't you think?

Please, Sandy, you have made some good points elsewhere and engaged in constructive discussion. I suspect that there would be less resistance here were your words not dripping with the implication that everyone who is or has been involved with DYK is unfit to edit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet examined the proposed template, but any sort of review process here will not have teeth until *someone* is accountable for putting policy violations routinely on the mainpage. We have multiple DYK regulars here, expressing the same opinions over and over, year after year: they don't see the problem with close paraphrasing, they don't see the problem with faulty content being created based on non-reliable sources, and they don't acknowledge that this faulty content is never cleaned up by the additional eyes cast on it during its mainpage day. DYK should be pulled from the mainpage entirely, since these problems have recurred for at least three years that I'm aware of, or DYK should have an elected directorate which oversees the process to assure it stops functioning as Plagiarism Central and an embarrassment to our mainpage. Directorate, or nothing, is my vote. And if the Directors include any of the current crop of denialists, they can then be taken to task via an RFC if they continue to disgrace the mainpage with faulty reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

PS, what became of Art LaPella and Royalbroil? The problems here have become decidedly worse over the last year, and IIRC, they at least "got it", unlike some of the regulars contributing now. Previously, the main problem was plagiarism: now those problems are multiplied to where it's now necessary to explain to regulars here what close paraprhasing it, what copyvio is, what reliable sources are, and why Wikipedia articles can't be build on non-RS. Putting a template in place, without some knowledgeable oversighters, will merely allow regular DYKers who put faulty content on the mainpage to pass the buck to the reviewer who passed it. We need a knowledgeable directorate-- where did the old-time knowledgeable folks go? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Art's still involved in DYK (check his contribs) and even contributed to this discussion recently. Royalbroil still edits but is currently devoting himself to WP:NRHP, it seems. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I still proofread the DYK queue, among other English and Simple English Wikipedia activities. Long ago, I tried to streamline the DYK process, and got frustrated with the universal presumption that reviewing time is an infinite resource. So I don't know where SandyGeorgia got the idea that I "got it" concerning copyvios. I never tried to look for copyvios – Wikipedia has little guidance on that issue last time I looked, and I'm not a lawyer – and my only comment on it was something like "Change it a little, it's plagiarism. Change it a little more, it's original research. I'm sticking to copyediting." Art LaPella (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been too busy in real life to help much at Wikipedia. I'm lucky if I get through my watchlist. When I have a little more time then I upload photos of communities and/or places on the National Register that I encounter in my travels. I like DYK but there's no more discretionary time. Sandy, you were very instrumental in turning me off to DYK with your strong criticism. I assumed that you disapproved of my efforts along with everyone else. I guess you threw out the baby with the bath water. On the positive side, photography has been a great learning experience and I have been published a bunch lately. Royalbroil 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Break to examine history

This is really getting beyond a joke. Your ongoing assault on the integrity and good faith of DYK regulars is nothing short of disgraceful. There are many people here trying to work to improve the system, and doing it without resort to verbal handgrenades; it's a pity you seem incapable of following their example. Your contribution to this debate ceased to be constructive many posts ago and has just become inflammatory and disruptive. If you can't contribute in a civil manner, then I urge you to leave the discussion to those who can. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you would love to silence me :) :) Tony, you started too many RFCs in the wrong place. Some DYKers seem to think that anyone critical of DYK is not allowed to participate on this page, and there are simply too many RFCs. We need one, coordinated, well thought out RFC placed on a separate page, where the denialists can't continue to claim that critics aren't welcome in the discussion. Look at the kind of thinking that prevails on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "silence" anybody. I'm always prepared to give legitimate criticism a fair hearing. What I find objectionable are the gratuitous personal attacks. As someone who has spent literally thousands of hours doing my best to protect the integrity of this project and the main page, I take exception to being dismissed as a "denialist" without either a clue or concern about core policy. Again, if you can't make your point without resorting to such slurs, it would be best if you left the discussion to cooler heads. I'm not asking for silence, just a little basic civility. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is understandably dominated by those working within the existing DYK process. Perhaps this is the wrong place for a balanced RFC. Lightmouse (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think so, and the fact that there are now almost a dozen (???) RFCs on DYK means we're not getting good feedback. Let's look at some history: eight of the ten archives in 2008 (between 26 and 35) discuss plagiarism and copyvio at DYK (Archive numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34)-- and all of those are before the October 2010 debacle. Since then, the DYK problems have expanded to include blatant problems with the size/expansion criteria based on text cited to non-reliable sources, not to mention the ongoing copyvio issues. The problem has gotten much worse, and DYK is now populated by even more editors who deny the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tough when you can't get enough people to agree with you isn't it? Still, that's called consensus and it's how this project works. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't look now, but you're slipping into that territory where you allege I am :) Please feel free to post evidence of one single personal attack-- I'd love to see it. Criticizing a faulty process is not criticizing a person, but if you're saying the denialist shoe fits, feel free to put it on. Now, do you have something productive to add about just how long the copyvio problem has been occurring, with different names, same place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless certain people here are willing to accept that there are some serious faults with the DYK process with the issues identified and constructively start to put forward an effective plan to deal with it then nothing is going to change. It might take a serious scandal to get people to wake up. Would ensuring every DYK doesn't have these issues change the fact that plagiarism and POV etc is at bay all across the site. No, but at least they wouldn't be promoted on the front page of a website which is supposed to have strong standards against them. Its bad enough that so many articles on the site have this problem without promoting them on the main page for all to see. DYK needs to clean its act up, no doubt. Even my fellow active DYK contributors admit the standard has to be raised. If DYK is not dropped or demoted to a sub page it should at least reform to select only the better articles and be less careless. Wishing to improve standards, nothing wrong with that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps SandyGeorgia's concerns would be better addressed if the User were more moderate in the language used. The extreme stance is a real put off to people who otherwise would like to pay attention to and address the legitimate concerns. The long diatribes also seem to indicate a "my way or the highway" attitude, in addition to the complete scorn shown towards the majority of the editors who participate in DYK. The words used seem to indicate that no other editor is welcome in WP unless they are capable of FA/GA class edits, a direct contradiction of WP policy that anyone can edit.

As such, it is difficult to resolve anything about DYK under such a constant stream of vitriolic criticism. I'm giving my opinion here because User SandyGeorgia says that only a few are giving feedback. As someone who is/was willing to listen to the user's arguments, though one may not agree with them, I would like to say it is all becoming a bit too much and I must concur that it is questionable if there is any more use for this kind of participation. The threats of RFC, ANI; calling people who agree that there is a problem but do not accept User:SandyGeorgia's solutions as "denialists", and wanting to weed out editors who dont agree is really objectionable. It is astounding how the user expects other editors to put up with such behaviour while holding others up to similar standards in turn. The editor has made some points very cogently, and it is time for the editor to stand back and allow people breathing space so that the issues brought up can be addressed. Dr Blofeld, I'm sure most of us agree there are problems, and that they are of the kind described, but no one likes to be herded towards a solution in the manner being attempted. Let the solutions come through consensus and discussion. AshLin (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sandy, you know I agree that most of your concerns are valid ones, but I've also been surprised that you've combined these legitimate concerns and useful suggestions for reform with so many unnecessary insults. You've suggested several times that anyone who works on DYK has no sense of shame, decency, or intelligence (for example, [8] and [9], but a simple glance over this page shows several more). This has been pointed out to you several times and you've kept right on doing it. Besides general civility concerns, I don't know if that kind of blanket hostility is really doing your cause of reform much good. My experience is that people are often less receptive to change when they're being called shameless idiots at the same time; perhaps we can agree that we're all intelligent and concerned editors who might have legitimately different opinions, and try to work from there? -- Khazar (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

These are not "User:SandyGeorgia's concerns". The systematic failings of DYK are concerns for all of us. Lightmouse (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And for me as well, as I've noted all over this page. So I don't mean to suggest that these concerns are exclusively SG's, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I only mean to suggest that she might refrain from insulting other editors when expressing her concerns, or her share of these concerns, or whatever phrase you'd prefer to use. -- Khazar (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lightmouse's statement, but there are norms to discourse and there are limits beyond which transgression is counter-productive. The points have been made. Let the community discuss and come up with solutions. One should not expect to force consensus on any one by aggressive pushing. There are varying degrees of acceptance about the nature, scope and solution to the problems. The community has to find a way that all are comfortable with. Constant criticism and incivilty are only going to make people harden their stance. You have to AGF for all concerned, just as we assume AGF with you. AshLin (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding to AshLin's comment... Constant criticism and incivility not only make people harden their stance, they make some people go away. The negativity surfacing in these debates is totally counter-productive to "think tank speak" , let alone to creating new articles or expanding existing ones. Isn't that what DYK has always been about, people? Let's add a little kindness into the comments that are being generated here, please. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is counter-productive to be uncivil but I honestly doubt that if Sandy Georgia was suddenly very praising and gushing about this anybody would agree to reform anyway. It looks more like frustration to me that DYK is permitted to continue with these issues every day and nothing is being done about and they keep appearing on the main page in an embarrassing way. It seems to me she is only referring to DYK editors in this way because progress is not being made and she like many are tired of trying to do something about it and being met with the same brick wall. Certain people are oblivious to the main problems with poorly reviewed articles being showcased on the main page. Colonel Warden above even claimed something like "DYK runs perfectly, we do not need to change it". Unless people actually accept that we should not permit copyvios and other articles with major issues hitting the main page and need to come up with a mechanism to stop this, and fast. Maybe if she felt like she was actually getting somewhere with this....I 'm frustrated with the stalemate I've seen here over just 24 hours. Sandy has been trying for weeks to at least get some reform over this. OK, so there are editors here including those above who accept DYK needs to change and that these issues aren't acceptable. But what is anybody actually going to do about it?

If we are to be serious about this, the only way we can maintain the high standards which should be expected of the main page is to either scrap it entirely or demote it to a sub page. We simply do not have the editors to vigorously check every article going through. Under the current review system editors only check to see if the hook is verifiable, they do not care about doing detective work and identifying plagiarism,. Very few editors have the time to do this or could care anyway. Personally I don't think DYK is worth the time and heartache for what has show to be of minimal significance to our main page viewers anyway with a 2499/2500 people ignoring visiting the articles. I've suggested a way in which we could actually deal with both front page quality problems and keep the regular DYK but a lot of people seem to get a buzz out of the fact their article is on the front page for a few hours. At the end of the day DYK is supposed to be fun and if the standards have to be raised so high and reviewers continually going on that its not good enough then this would make it not worth bothering nominating articles and simply concentrating on GA development. Taking away the pressure from it appearing on the main page in my view would be a positive thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) On the contrary, I think this debate has made us all more careful. I personally rechecked my DYK nomination "Somali bushbaby" for copyvios. I pointed out close paraphrasing problems in my self-nom QPQ review for which the reviewer later withdrew the article to resolve the issues completely. So it is not to no avail. Understand that change will come but it is seldom in the form we want it to. That apart, I sympathise with Sandygeorgia's frustration but that cannot excuse incivilty and name-calling DYK editors. AshLin (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As regards the above post by Dr Blofeld, I do not agree with the way suggested out of the impasse - to leave the Main Page. AshLin (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Also in response to Dr. B, as I mentioned in another thread here, it appears to me that actually a number of reforms are moving forward. A new page organization to allow watchlisting and archiving was just introduced (thanks again to the awesome Rjanag for taking charge of this); Casliber's proposal to start including GA hooks appears likely to narrowly pass; two of Tony's proposals for greater accountability/checklist and disposal of problem hooks are overwhelmingly being approved; Volunteer Marek's proposal to make a more explicit checklist for reviewers to ensure their responsibility/accountability is being approved; and the proposal to censure editors who put together shoddy reviewers or noms appeared to be supported until it was lost in the massive number of RfCs introduced afterward (If this does get swallowed up without action, I'll try to reintroduce it in a few weeks when the activity has died down a bit and it can get proper discussion). Whether these reforms will be enough to fix problems and assuage concerns remains to be seen, of course. But I'm not sure it's fair to describe this as "stalemate"; it seems like despite the "us vs. them" vitriol of a few editors, middle ground is being found and changes are swiftly being made to address these issues. -- Khazar (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

AshLin the thing is though very tight reviewing standards are offputting to the whole DYK contribution process. It just isn't fun to continuously have to fix sources and issues just to get your article to appear on the page for a few hours. It isn't worth it. If standards are so high it would be best just to skip DYK and try to develop an article straight to GA. I think part of what Sandy has been saying is that many editors are looking to "make a quick buck" if you know what I mean by getting their daily DYK credit and are not willing to put in the extra effort to get their articles to a higher standard. Some of the articles which I contribute which have had minimum effort put into them probably are not good enough to reach the main page but they do. Those article which have had that bit more effort put into them and are well on their way to become GA are deserving of it, which is why I think we should be aiming for GA quality front page features beyond the barely start class entries with under 5 sources. If having an article appearing on the main page is a motiviator we should be raising the bar and using it as a process to develop more good articles and promote people to produce them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld, thanks for elucidating your stand. I agree that there is a push for higher standards, and they are making DYK more difficult for casual editors. When I did GA reviews three-four years ago, I was not even aware about the whole copyvio-close paraphrasing business. Today, it now not only has become an important feature in all featured content of various kinds but a necessary skill for all serious editors to learn. I don't see the trend reversing, only strengthening. So this trend, a positive one but involving a steep learning curve, is hear to stay. So the ante has been raised for the normal editor. But GA standards are many notches above DYK standards. Part of the fun of DYK is that for short stubs, one can get some recognition. DYK made me interested in scientific news stalking. I found interesting snippets from Scientific American, Nature etc on topics missing in Wikipedia etc and made them into decent, referenced, stubs which filled in the gaps of the Jigsaw Puzzle that is Wikipedia. As a result of which articles like Hypergravity, Structures built by animals, Nest-building in primates, IceMole, Géza Horváth and others came into being which I would otherwise never have bothered with at all in the first place. Similarly stubs such as Somali bushbaby, Conservation of fungi (rescued page), Micronecta scholtzi, Manipur Bush Rat, Franquet's Epauletted Fruit Bat and Screaming Hairy Armadillo got meaningful development besides a huge host of enrichment across the spectrum in related articles by addition of a referenced fact or two. So I feel that my 12 DYKs have affected more than twice and nearer thrice the number of articles. All this is because of the childish pleasure in Main Page exposure to show my family & friends. Moving all this away from Main Page will really demotivate editors like me who crave main page exposure from participating. Imho Main Page DYK has a way of enriching WP in ways FA & GA cannot provide. GA/FA are like tending "plants" to become "healthy trees" but DYK is like speciation, it increases "biodiversity". So my suggestion is that we find a solution without removing new articles from DYK and without removing Main Page access for new article DYK stubs. Rest is negotiable. AshLin (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires..." - Samuel Adams (via Dravecky (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

To be applied now

• I'm sorry, was there a concensus to start applying this now? At the very least, old noms should be grandfathered in to the old method. Adding the template to every single nom that is on T:TDYK now is just cluttering it more, and some users may not be able to open the page if it is too long. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry too. When there's a serious problem, fixes ought to be applied with immediate effect. It's already been amply demonstrated that application of the old procedure is seriously flawed, and not to address the salient issues promptly would be irresponsible. In any event, I applied the template to blurbs where there were no substantial comments. We're not talking about tax legislation (where there may be equity involved), but about the application of existing rules (in case we forget). 'Grandfathering' means sod all under such circumstances, and would still potentially let through basket cases. I note, however, that where there are comments, there seems to be some serious scrutiny that I have up to now not been accustomed to seeing. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• (Forgive me if my comments are in the wrong section; I find the personal tit-for-tat on this page tiresome, and I have skipped over much of it.) Given that the new template is intended to further compliance with existing rules, its deployment is not so urgent that it cannot be discussed first. Everybody recognises that the existing rules should be adhered to, and we don't need any particular template to achieve that. I think it will take considerably more, carefully reasoned discussion before we can reach agreement on the best way to achieve that end, which we all agree is necessary. I find the new template monstrously complex, and I expect it will put people off contributing here. That will result in a smaller pool of nominations, reviewed by an even narrower group of editors. That seems likely to exacerbate any problems that may already exist. By all means, let's reform, but let's work together to find the best way, rather than jumping on the first proposal offered to us. I suggest that we stick to the old method, but with greater vigilance towards the rules, until consensus for a new solution can be reached. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  "Complex" though it may appear, it is highly likely that many of the recurrent issues would have been avoided had this checklist existed back in October of last year. Systematic working may not suit everyone, but for me as a reviewer, it's a darn site simpler being able to tick items off against the checklist than going through paragraphs of comment trying to work out what's been done and what is outstanding. As to "urgency", if prevention of potentially embarrassing stuff from reaching the main page isn't urgent, I really don't know what is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You have ignored what I wrote. Proper application of the rules would have prevented those embarrassments, so let's do that. That's urgent. The template is one proposed means to that end, but not the only one, and so that is not urgent. I am confident that a less daunting method can be devised. I'm not new to DYK, but I am feeling lost at the moment, and if it gets any more complex and demanding (think "instruction creep"), I may well be dissuaded from contributing at all. Even this discussion page is a confusing mishmash. What everyone here needs is to take a step back and think calmly about the situation for a while, even if an urgent fix is needed, perhaps especially if the fix is urgently needed. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The RfC overwhelmingly supported the explicit (underlined and italicised) checking and passing of a specific set of aspects. It was laid out, and the results are there for everyone to see. If you'd like to write out the aspects manually each time, that's OK; but like OhConfucius, I'm finding it nice to have the required areas spelled out for auditing. It's safe and orderly. Tony (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on what do you say I ignored your "Proper application of the rules would have prevented those embarrassments"? Sure, the template may not be 'The Only Solution'. As I mentioned, I find that it's good, and allows clear application of the rules. I do note there have been some quite inflammatory comments on this page over the last few days. I thought I was being calm and had taken a step back. The knee-jerk defence that 'all this can wait' is what I'm trying to overcome. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I knew I must have overlooked something. I now see the RfC. It does indeed endorse explicit checking of criteria. It doesn't specifically endorse this template, which is ill-designed and is being hastily implemented. I'll take one example: "Vintage". Seriously? If you want the age of an article to be checked, call it the "age"; don't use unrelated terms from viticulture. The same applies across the board. That's why I said the template is confusing. Its design needs to be discussed before it is deployed. Until we have settled on an acceptable form (which its current form is not), I see no problem with continuing with the old system. It would only need to be a week or two, and the extra time would help everyone to discuss the situation more calmly. Contrary to your assertions, this is the opposite of a "knee-jerk". Sure, it's urgent. That's why it's worth taking the time to do it well. In the words of the great Bernard Cribbins, "you never get nowhere if you're too hasty". I'm only asking that instead of foisting the template on all open DYKs, you allow its form to be discussed and agreed upon. That is not unreasonable. (That said, the amount of difficulty I'm having trying to make this one small point doesn't bode well for calm and reasoned discussion.) --Stemonitis (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the comments of Stemonitis above, in fact I have said much the same thing: I think the proposed template has an unnecessarily large footprint and some questionable fields. I agree with Stemonitis that some discussion of the form of the template would be appropriate before we implement it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just use the same reviewing template used at WP:FAC, the gold standard for Wikipedia? Oh... </irony> Bencherlite^Talk 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't resist repeating: let's keep things simple! Trust a grown up reviewer can handle a review, have a template (of better style, please, not "shouting" in bold and overlinked) ready (only!) for those who need that guidance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point Bench. It appears that there is no template for FAC - although there are a couple for GA - but they are optional. Given the Rlevse fiasco, shouldn't these processes also include a formal check for copyvio/plagiarism? Since they don't, how can anyone be sure that candidates for these processes are being checked for such problems? Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the idea of a template here for many reasons, not the least of which is that it won't address the problems particular to DYK (including but not limited to reviewers who don't know what they're checking for anyway). But, wrt these comparisons to FAC, let's keep our facts straight. There is no template at FAC (and won't be one) because there is a *real person* who reads every single FAC and decides whether the review is complete, everything that is supposed to be reviewed for according to WP:WIAFA has been reviewed, independent review as well as topic expert review is provided, QPQ is watched for, and a real editor is accountable for checking for that and passing or archiving the nomination, and a real archive of passed and failed nomintions is provided for anyone who wants to review that accountability. And, since the Rlevse debacle, there is a check for copyvio on every nominator. A template-- in the absence of an editor accountable for reviewing the review-- will solve nothing and just add more work to an already overburdened process. It is real eyes and accountability that is lacking here.

And it may be helpful to review OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in terms of deflection-- DYK's problems are unique to DYK, as should be their solutions. I do not believe that a template will solve anything in the absence of some accountability. The two biggest problems at DYK are that 1) some nominators and reviewers alike do not know what a reliable source is and pass DYKs whose expansion and hooks are unreliably sourced, and 2) some nominators and reviewers alike do not know what copyvio, plagiarism and close paraphrasing are, and pass DYKs containing those. No template will solve these problems. Experienced eyes (not those of denialists/enablers who don't know reliable sources or copyvio) are needed on these problems-- whether that occurs at the Prep or Queue level, it is needed, and QPQ reviewing should be eliminated so that editors can't go on creating hundreds of stubs that need, but never get, attention to meet Wikipedia core policies.

A template or checklist will only be as good as the reviewer using the template: if there is no reviewer reviewing the review, we'll only accomplsh garbage in=garbage out. It may do nothing more than give a false sense of security. I'd much rather see DYK focus their efforts on establishing an archive system, so we can track the serial abuse over time and be better able to deal with it without it going undetected for years upon years, as has happened here in numerous examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC runs a copyvio check on every nominator, or every nomination? There is a difference. And again, for all those people who have called for DYK to be scrapped in favour of GAN - who is reviewing the GANs for copyvio?

In regards to your other comments - you are probably right that some DYK reviewers are not up to scratch, and I agree that more accountability and oversight are necessary. We can certainly do better, and I think with a little work the proposals already put forward on this page can lead to substantial improvements. Quite frankly though, I doubt that anything we do will be enough for those who want to see DYK as GA Lite, because that's a philosophical rather than managerial difference. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this discussion belongs here, and it's already been had on my talk page, but I'll clarify some here since you may not have seen same on my talk. FAC runs a copyvio check on every nominator, or every nomination? Basically, since the Rlevse debacle, yes-- or at least to the best of my ability (I can lead a horse to water, but can't force it to drink). I have not passed a FAC (knowingly at least) since October 2010 without a copyvio check on each nominator, at least once. Because I knew Rlevse's writing, I knew that copyvio article was not typical of his writing, and I regret that I didn't review that FAC, and FAC never denied responsibility for that issue. If a nomination reveals sourcing or copyvio issues, I won't pass subsequent FACs on that editor without sourcing checks. If a nominator is new or unknown to me, I won't pass their nomination without a sourcing check (and always by reviewers I know to be thorough). If a nominator is well known to me, and has proven over time to understand copyvio policy, I will not ask for repeat sourcing reviews. So, the process if not watertight, but considering the shortage of reviewers across the board at Wikipedia, we allocate our scarce sourcing reviewers optimally, I hope, to assure that copyvios are checked on those articles most needing them. The more important point is that we have archives, we have accountability, and we have institutional memory-- a *real* person who is responsible for making sure deficiencies are identified, watched for, and not repeated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, what's done is done with those templates already added. However, I strongly feel that we need further discussion regarding the form of the template used. As noted above, the current template has a few problems:

1. Too large a footprint
2. Awkward wording
3. Possibly unneccessary categories

It would be best if we could reach a concensus first. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion on this issue is also occuring below, in #Review checklist formatting improvements. cmadler (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)