This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.

Frequently asked questions

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, 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.

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

• Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
• Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
• The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
• To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

  Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

  If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
• Save the page.
• After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

How to promote an accepted hook

Handy copy sources:

How to remove a rejected hook

• Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
• In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

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 this 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 this 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.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

• Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations

Articles created/expanded on February 16

Articles created/expanded on February 28

Articles created/expanded on March 6

Articles created/expanded on March 11

Articles created/expanded on March 12

Articles created/expanded on March 14

Articles created/expanded on March 19

Articles created/expanded on March 21

Articles created/expanded on March 24

Articles created/expanded on March 25

Articles created/expanded on March 26

Articles created/expanded on March 28

Articles created/expanded on March 30

Articles created/expanded on March 31

Articles created/expanded on April 1

Articles created/expanded on April 2

Articles created/expanded on April 3

Articles created/expanded on April 4

Articles created/expanded on April 5

Articles created/expanded on April 6

Articles created/expanded on April 7

Articles created/expanded on April 8

Articles created/expanded on April 9

Articles created/expanded on April 10

Articles created/expanded on April 11

Articles created/expanded on April 12

Articles created/expanded on April 13

Articles created/expanded on April 14

Cora Babbitt Johnson

• ... that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented the carving of Mount Rushmore? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. pp. chapter 2 and chapter 5; Fite, Gilbert Courtland (1952). Mount Rushmore. Internet Archive. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press; Merritt, Riley (2024-04-01). "Borglum's Horse Flies: The Early Opposition to Mount Rushmore". Honors College Theses.
  • Reviewed:

Borg Axoim (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Overall: The nominated article has one paragraph without a citation. The uncited paragraph could be supported in part by pages 11 and 121 of Mount Rushmore by Gilbert C. Fite, it talks about the Hot Springs Star's editorial stance. https://archive.org/details/mountrushmore00univ/page/121 I also suggest that an alternate wording like "that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented..." rather than the current wording. Update:Thanks to Mary Mark Ockerbloom for working on the reference problems on the article. Do either of the two nominators, Borg Axoim or Crunchydillpickle, have any final thoughts or last minute suggestions? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No further comments, but I think we're good to go. Letting Borg Axoim and Crunchydillpickle know that its approved. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borg Axoim, @Crunchydillpickle and @MtBotany Where does the wiki article state that the carving of Mount Rushmore was "almost prevented?" Unless there's genuine evidence from the cited source that the project was almost going to be shut down (if so, that should be added in), letters of opposition, protests, and halts do not equal "preventions." This needs to be addressed first before promotion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, PrimalMustelid sloppy reviewing on my part. One of the project's promotors (Robinson) said that her editorials against the project, "might produce a real disaster." The strongest that could be said is something like "environmentalists delayed the carving of Mount Rushmore" and I don't know that such as statement would be surprising/interesting. If Borg Axoim or Crunckydillpickle are interested in a rewrite of the hook there is a lot of support for something like "the artist who carved Mt. Rushmore called Cora Johnson and other environmentalists opponents "horseflies"." 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • PrimalMustelid and MtBotany, you're right that the wording may not be ideal. Two of the sources (Fite and Merritt) mention how Cora Babbitt Johnson swayed the South Dakota governor against the project and that he delayed the project severely. Given that, I think it would be fair to say something like "Cora Babbitt Johnson and other environmentalists lobbied South Dakota governor Carl Gunderson, who halted the Mount Rushmore project until the end of his term". Would that be interesting enough? It could still use some rewriting. User:Borg_Axoim 7:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that Gutzon Borglum, the carver of Mount Rushmore, referred to Cora Babbitt Johnson as an "agent of evil"? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. "So vitriolic were her attacks that Borglum would refer to her only as 'that Hot Springs person,' describing her as 'an agent of evil.'" Hooky, makes you want to click through and find out why. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Borg Axoim: thoughts on ALT1? If okay, review needed for it (hopefully from MtBotany). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @theleekycauldron I think ALT1 is good. I have some small concerns about the Rex Alan Smith source, primarily that it doesn't cite info and has clear bias, but I like the rewrite. user: Borg_Axoim 12:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that the efforts of Cora Babbitt Johnson delayed the construction of Mount Rushmore until 1927?--Launchballer 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• New reviewer needed to check the ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Borg Axoim and Launchballer: My preference would be for ALT2, but could I get the page for that? I have difficulties finding it in either of the sources given. (You can add the page easily with {{rp|<page number>}} (Template:Rp) right after the citation, if you don't want to change the whole citation style. I usually do that.)

Will approve if the page is given, otherwise I could go with ALT1, even though it feels more generic and doesn't highlight the achievements as nicely. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nominator hasn't edited since 22 May. Page 56 of [1] (as linked to in ref #16) states that Gunderson obstructed the project as much as possible; page 63 says that Gunderson was replaced by Bulow. Page 64 states that Johnson stepped down from the Hot Springs Star in February 1927, and page 67 says that construction began in 1927.--Launchballer 10:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for stepping in then, Launchballer, and giving the pages. However, as I was previously reprimanded (a bit) for not checking hooks throughly enough, I am hestitant to approve ALT2 as-is: Her efforts were certainly influential, but the source states that other causes might have contributed to Gunderson's opposition. Maybe a modified ALT2 with something like "helped delay", which makes that more clear? –LordPeterII (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to think of another equally concise way of putting it, and I suspect 'contributed towards delaying' would get WP:DYKTRIMmed to that, so I propose ALT2a: ... that the efforts of Cora Babbitt Johnson helped delay the construction of Mount Rushmore until 1927?.--Launchballer 13:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think this is the best option, or at least I can think of none better. I hope it's fine if I approve since I kinda suggested the change; but trout me if it's not, I don't want to have this sit in waiting for eternity.

Approve ALT2a.

(Technically I think ALT1 is also correct, but I don't really like it since it says "person X thought person Y was bad", which doesn't say much about person Y and puts her in a bad light. Thus, I'm not approving that one.) –LordPeterII (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII and Launchballer: I don't see the hook cited in the article, can you help me find it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth paragraph: "She also wrote letters of protest to South Dakota governor Carl Gunderson, who had previously signed the creation of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Association into law, and swayed him against the project.[16] Through that effort, Gunderson reportedly regretted signing the legislation into law and used his influence to halt the project until William J. Bulow replaced him as governor in 1927;[2][16] construction began in August 1927.[2]" I just added that last clause to spell out that it started then. Was there another bit you was struggling to find?--Launchballer 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 15

Stonewall Inn

Exterior of the Stonewall Inn

• ... that names in the Stonewall Inn's visitor logbook included Donald Duck, Elizabeth Taylor, and Judy Garland? Source: Carter, David (2004). Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. St. Martin's Press. pp. 69-70.
  • ALT1: ... that after the original Stonewall Inn closed in 1969, its space was used by a bagel shop, Chinese restaurant, and clothing store? Source: Multiple, see article
  • ALT2: ... that the Stonewall Inn may have been named after a lesbian autobiography? Source: Wang, Hansi Lo (May 30, 2016). "Long A Symbol, Stonewall Inn May Soon Become Monument To LGBT Rights". NPR.
  • ALT3: ... that the Stonewall Inn was originally two horse stables? Source: Stonewall (Report). National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. February 16, 2000. p. 10.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dadang Supriatna
  • Comment: I also know that this is unlikely to happen, but can I request that this run on June 28 (the first full day of the Stonewall riots)?

Epicgenius (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Ooh, Stonewall! Article eligibility and condition checks out, became a good article a few days ago. I like the ALT0 here best, though I would suggest linking those names. Assuming good faith on the sourcing. Obviously, going to have to wait til the QPQ is resolved to officially check this off. And I think June 28 would be a wonderful day for this hook. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review Generalissima. I've now done a QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to go here! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Epicgenius and Generalissima:, as it is over six weeks until the proposed date (and was something like ten weeks at nomination approval) an exemption needs to be obtained at WT:DYK per WP:DYKSO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I started a discussion on WT:DYK, which has been archived. From the comments there, I think there was a consensus to allow the request, but since there were only 3 commenters, feel free to correct me if this needs more discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 16

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; 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 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: [2]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [3].

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