Template talk:Did you know/Approved

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This page holds approved nominations that are waiting to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. Following DYK approval, nominations are processed and moved into a Prep area, and from there, prep sets are promoted to a queue, and then to the main page.

To create a new nomination or to see those that are yet to be approved, see Template talk:Did you know. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Click on the link to go directly to the Special occasion holding area.

• (if it looks like updates to subsidiary templates aren't being reflected).

If some of the nominations are not showing up properly at the bottom of the page, these alternative pages can be used to view a subset of the most recent nominations. Nominations from the most recent week second-most third-most fourth-most

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑

Count of DYK Hooks
Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
August 20	1
September 27	1
October 8	1
October 9	1
October 13	1	1
October 15	2
October 18	3	1
October 19	2	2
October 20	2	1
October 22	2
October 24	2	1
October 25	2	1
October 28	4	2
October 30	1
October 31	4	2
November 1	3	1
November 2	4	2
November 3	4	4
November 4	6	3
November 5	3	1
November 7	6	4
November 8	3
November 9	3	2
November 10	5	1
November 11	4	4
November 12	1
November 13	4	3
November 14	4	4
November 15	7	4
November 16	5	3
November 17	4	2
November 18	13	13
November 19	9	5
November 20	8	8
November 21	12	9
November 22	10	7
November 23	2	2
November 24	5	3
November 25	6	5
November 26	6	3
November 27	10	9
November 28	4	3
November 29	10	6
November 30	6	6
December 1	5	4
December 2	2
December 3	2
December 4	2
December 5	4
December 6	3
December 7	1
December 8	1
December 9	2
December 10	2
December 11	3
December 12
December 13	5
Total	228	132
Last updated 21:46, 13 December 2024 UTC Current time is 22:29, 13 December 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

This page is for those nominations that have already been approved and are waiting to be promoted. If yours has been approved but has not yet been run on the main page, it should either be on this page or will soon be moved here, or already promoted to a Prep area or Queue ahead of an appearance on the main page.

If you wish to create a new nomination, please go to the Template talk:Did you know page; there are instructions there in a section similar to this one on how to nominate an article for DYK.

Frequently asked questions

Backlogged?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until someone promotes it to a preparation area. To alleviate this problem, if the approved page has more than 120 approved hooks, then sets will change twice per day (every 12 hours) instead of once per day (every 24 hours). When the backlog falls below 60 approved nominations set frequency returns to once a day.

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to the nominations page, and it also isn't on this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is either in one of the prep areas, has been promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Instructions for other editors

How to promote an accepted hook

• See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
• In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
• In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
• In the prep set...
  • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
  • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
  • Add an edit summary, e.g., "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
• Back on DYK nomination page...
  • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
  • change |passed= to |passed=yes
  • Add an edit summary, e.g., "Promoted original hook to Prep 3", preview, and save

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

• Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
• Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
  • View the edit history for that page
  • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
  • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
• Add a transclusion of the template back to the nominations page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from the nominations page.
• If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

Nominations

Special occasion holding area

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section on the regular nominations page, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began, or it was listed as a Good Article; be sure to indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.

Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made between at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [1]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [2].

April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.

Note for promoters: please be sure to add an "invisible" comment after a hook when you've placed it in prep, noting that it's a special occasion hook and including the date it is supposed to run. This should keep the hook from being moved after promotion, as sometimes happens to hooks when a queue needs a slot filled or a prep set needs to be made more balanced by swapping hooks between preps.

March 16

March 20

March 21

Approved nominations

Articles created/expanded on February 17

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new. At ~1600 words it just about meets the eligibility requirements. Earwig could not determine any copyvio concerns because of the nature of the cites (i.e. journals). However, I do not think there are any copyvio concerns based on some spot checks where I could access content. QPQ done. I have some thoughts on the hook and the lede. Will add them separately. Ktin (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hook and interestingness

• There is a statement in the article, "Changes in primary outcome metrics are present in nearly one in three studies". I am thinking we could weave that in to create a punchy hook. e.g. "Per a study, one in three studies [clinical trials] engaged in outcome switching?"

Article structure

• Can we consider the structuring the article into sections? This might allow us to expand the article. I was thinking of the below structure:
  • 1. Background -- What is outcome switching? When was the term coined? Do we have an instance of the first usage of the term?
  • 2. Prevalence -- studies on how rampant this practice is?
  • 3. Impacts -- negative effects stemming from outcome switching
  • 4. Preventative actions (should think of a better term for this section) -- what are prominent journals / academic bodies doing about this practice?
  • 5. Select examples (should think of a better term for this section) -- any popular studies that have been called out for outcome switching?

Other edits

• Consider rephrasing "Changes in primary outcome metrics are present in nearly one in three studies" --> "Per a study by <researchers at x>, changes in primary outcome metrics are present in nearly one in three studies"
  • Per WP:MEDSAY, a meta-analysis should not have that type of wording. Even for primary sources, that type of wording is overly verbose and discouraged. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Consider a similar rephrasing for the sentence where we say that outcome switching in oncology "is more common in studies with a male first author, and in studies funded by non-profits."

Handing this back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Ktin. I'm quite new to DYK. While I don't doubt your suggestions will improve the article, I'm wondering if I need to make them before this article can be approved. For GA nominations, it's considered good practice to note possible improvements as optional if they do not relate to the GA criteria. It may be that I'm not understanding the DYK criteria sufficiently, and that subsections are actually expected. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: I do not call myself a veteran either, but, my understanding is working on feedback like the one that I have provided is up to you. It is only egregious items that prevent the article from being promoted to mainpage (and the hook approved). That said, I have seen folks being particular about "interestingness" however defined that term may be. So, consider revising the hook per my note above. Re: the WP:MEDSAY comment I am super surprised. But, I will admit I am not too familiar with medical projects and articles. Your call on that one. Ktin (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The more general policy is WP:Wikivoice (Avoid stating facts as opinions): it's usually preferable to find high-quality secondary sources that contain facts over more subjective findings, so that you can write text in Wikivoice. So wording like The New York Times reported on day X that Y, is usually unnecessary, as we expect the NYT to have done their due diligence. For opinions or minority viewpoints, in-text attribution is the way to go. I've done a minor expansion of the article, including 2 section. I'll come back on the hook-specific points. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I was thinking of Wikivoice as well. My personal take is that one does not need to say "Per the NYT, ... " for the sun rises in the east kind of statements. However, when stating something like a study, I would still say "Per the NYT, 74% of all spam calls originate from a land-line number in <insert any country / geographical region here>". In the case of this article, both the 1 out of 3 studies being guilty of outcome switching, and outcome switching being more likely when the first author is a male or funded by a non-profit statements sounded like something we should directly attribute to the folks performing the study rather than writing in Wikivoice. Ktin (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the oncology study sentence, where I do take your point. The the other sentence is based on a meta-analysis, rather than on a single study. I can take more information out of that meta-analysis, but attributing it would exaggerate the uncertainty imo. I've switched the first sentence back to is per WP:REFER. In terms of the structure, I can't find who first coined the term, and the term is not particularly distinctive, so I can't imagine it was properly "coined".

In terms of the hooks, I find it difficult to say something about outcome switching, while also explaining what it is or does. Only detailing the prevalence in the hook would not be that elucidating to readers, so see my . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• ALT2 ... that in nearly one in three clinical trials, authors engage in outcome switching, which can undermine the reliability of the trials? Source: [3]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Almost there. To mark the hook approved, I am assuming this is the relevant snippet from the journal Among the included studies, the median number of trials assessed for outcome discrepancies was 65 (interquartile range [IQR] 25–110), and the median proportion of studies for which a discrepancy was identified between the registered and published primary outcome was 31 %, though this varied substantially across the included studies (range 0 % [0/66] to 100 % [1/1], IQR 17–45 %; Fig. 2).. Please confirm. Ktin (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • That's right :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks. Marking hook approved. Btw, I see you are an admin and have quite a few rights. You should also get the "auto patrolled" right if you so want to. This article is still showing unreviewed. Irrespective, I think we are good here. Ktin (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I can self-assign autopatrolled, and have contemplating doing that now that I've started 10 articles. However, normally, we give out autopatrolled at 25 articles created, most of which are problem-free. I feel I need to figure out what categories are all about before I self-assign, as I've never had much interest in that aspect of article writing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• As a process note, I have now reviewed the entry for NPP and was about to leave a message with the same idea about autopatrol, but I defer to you Femke! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 27

Looks like this DYKN got all mangled for several reasons; see this screenshot. @MyCatIsAChonk: you placed your review below the <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> comment. @Lettler: you placed your review on the talk page instead of the nomination page. Thanks, ^Queenof_Hearts 03:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh weird... is it still ok for promotion, or does something need to be fixed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 08:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)