Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations

Proposal for switching the position of Article and Hook criteria within editnotice template

Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations contains criteria when reviewing the nomination.

• Proposal: I propose to switch position of Article and Hook criteria.
• Rationale: It usually takes much more time to review the whole article and to deal with all its issues then to review the hook. There are cases when you lose a lot of time to review the article and then when you start reviewing the hook you notice serious problems which disqualify the nomination. Switching the position of the Article and Hook criteria could save time in such cases.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

I don't know which admins work DYK and would be willing to fill this, but I have a minor gripe. Currently, the blank copyable templates look like this:

{{DYK checklist
<!--Usage instructions: If the article/nomination is compliant with the relevant guideline, put "y"; if not, state what the problem is --->
|newness      = <!---Was the article created, expanded (5x), moved to mainspace, or promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination?--->
|length       = <!---Is the article at least 1500 bytes long and not a stub?--->
|eligibilityother = <!---Note other general eligibility problems here (for example, article previously appeared on DYK); leave blank for none--->
|sourced      = <!---Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?--->
|neutral      = <!---Does the article cover all major viewpoints in a straightforward manner without using promotional or overly negative language?--->
|plagiarismfree = <!---Is the article free of material copied from other sources?--->
|policyother  = <!---Note other policy problems here (for example, article copied from another Wikipedia article without attribution); leave blank for none--->
|hookcited    = <!---Check to see if the hook fact is backed by a source. If it is, check the source (if readily available) and make sure it contains the fact and is reliable. "AGF" (assume good faith) may be entered if hook it cited to an offline source--->
|hookinterest = <!---Is the hook reasonably interesting?--->
|hookother    = <!---Note other hook problems here (for example, hook is over 200 characters); leave blank for none--->
|picfree      = <!---If the hook has a picture, is it freely licensed?  If no picture is used, put "NA"--->
|picused      = <!---Is the picture used in the article (hook image may be a crop of an article image)?  If no picture is used, leave blank--->
|picclear     = <!---Is the picture easily discernible at 100px?  If no picture is used, leave blank--->
|qpq          = <!---Check to make sure the nominator did a proper QPQ. If no QPQ was required (for example, user has less than five DYK credits), put "NA"--->
|status       = <!---Put "y" if no problems, "?" for minor problems, "maybe" if nomination needs work, "no" if completely ineligible, "again" to request another reviewer take a look--->
|comments     = <!---Put any other comments you may have here--->
|sign         = ~~~~<!---Your signature.  Generally, can be left as is--->
}}

{{DYK checklist
|newness      = 
|length       = 
|eligibilityother = 
|sourced      = 
|neutral      = 
|plagiarismfree = 
|policyother  = 
|hookcited    = 
|hookinterest = 
|hookother    = 
|picfree      = 
|picused      = 
|picclear     = 
|qpq          = 
|status       = 
|comments     = 
|sign         = 
}}

Because of the unevenness of the lines, this is kind of a pain in the ass to fill out. They're so close to lining up, but they don't, and I hate it. Therefore, I propose the copyable templates be changed to display like this:

{{DYK checklist
<!--Usage instructions: If the article/nomination is compliant with the relevant guideline, put "y"; if not, state what the problem is --->
|newness          = <!---Was the article created, expanded (5x), moved to mainspace, or promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination?--->
|length           = <!---Is the article at least 1500 bytes long and not a stub?--->
|eligibilityother = <!---Note other general eligibility problems here (for example, article previously appeared on DYK); leave blank for none--->
|sourced          = <!---Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?--->
|neutral          = <!---Does the article cover all major viewpoints in a straightforward manner without using promotional or overly negative language?--->
|plagiarismfree   = <!---Is the article free of material copied from other sources?--->
|policyother      = <!---Note other policy problems here (for example, article copied from another Wikipedia article without attribution); leave blank for none--->
|hookcited        = <!---Check to see if the hook fact is backed by a source. If it is, check the source (if readily available) and make sure it contains the fact and is reliable. "AGF" (assume good faith) may be entered if hook it cited to an offline source--->
|hookinterest     = <!---Is the hook reasonably interesting?--->
|hookother        = <!---Note other hook problems here (for example, hook is over 200 characters); leave blank for none--->
|picfree          = <!---If the hook has a picture, is it freely licensed?  If no picture is used, put "NA"--->
|picused          = <!---Is the picture used in the article (hook image may be a crop of an article image)?  If no picture is used, leave blank--->
|picclear         = <!---Is the picture easily discernible at 100px?  If no picture is used, leave blank--->
|qpq              = <!---Check to make sure the nominator did a proper QPQ. If no QPQ was required (for example, user has less than five DYK credits), put "NA"--->
|status           = <!---Put "y" if no problems, "?" for minor problems, "maybe" if nomination needs work, "no" if completely ineligible, "again" to request another reviewer take a look--->
|comments         = <!---Put any other comments you may have here--->
|sign             = ~~~~<!---Your signature.  Generally, can be left as is--->
}}

{{DYK checklist
|newness          = 
|length           = 
|eligibilityother = 
|sourced          = 
|neutral          = 
|plagiarismfree   = 
|policyother      = 
|hookcited        = 
|hookinterest     = 
|hookother        = 
|picfree          = 
|picused          = 
|picclear         = 
|qpq              = 
|status           = 
|comments         = 
|sign             = 
}}

I probably ought to ping someone for this (since the last edit request on this talk page seems to have been in 2012 and remains unanswered). jp×g 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: How about it? jp×g 23:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. You owe me. EEng 04:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: Excellent! My neurosis has been satisfied (It seems that the second one -- with the blank parameters -- went missing somehow, but I will chalk that up to "artistic license"). jp×g 13:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how that happened, but I've fixed it now. Otherwise they might revoke my artistic license. EEng 15:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

The hidden text Check to see if the hook fact is backed by a source. If it is, check the source (if readily available) and make sure it contains the fact and is reliable. "AGF" (assume good faith) may be entered if hook it cited to an offline source contains a typo ("hook it cited") and should be corrected to Check to see if the hook fact is backed by a source. If it is, check the source (if readily available) and make sure it contains the fact and is reliable. "AGF" (assume good faith) may be entered if hook is cited to an offline source. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)