View source for Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

<noinclude>{{DYKbox}}</noinclude>
Within the context of Wikipedia's "Did you know..." (DYK) project, '''reviewing''' refers specifically to the process by which a [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Nomination|nominated hook]] and the associated article(s) are evaluated, improved, and eventually either rejected as irreparably unusable or approved. This page is intended as a guide to aid editors in the reviewing process. Keep in mind that, in the end, ''Did You Know approval is a subjective process. No amount of studying rules, almost-rules and precedents will guarantee approval, nor will violating any rule guarantee disapproval.'' ([[WP:DYKAR|D13]])

{{Caution|
For your first several reviews, you may want to exercise extra caution.
*Consider reviewing in topics with which you are familiar.
*Consider reviewing articles that have sources in your primary language(s).
*When you leave your review, add a comment explaining that you are a new reviewer and would like a second opinion.}}

==Pick a nomination to review==

Nominations are listed at [[Template talk:Did you know]]. On that page, the nominations are generally arranged in chronological order, with the oldest nominations at the top of the page. It is best if you start with one of the older unreviewed nominations.

==Review the article(s)==

To qualify for DYK, an article needs to meet several special criteria, in addition to being checked for normal encyclopedic issues. The fact that an article has been accepted as a [[Wikipedia:Good article|Good article]] should not be considered an assumption that the article meets these criteria.
{{bulleted list
| Check that within the past seven days, the article either:
# was created (ie a new article); 
# had its [[WP:DYKTN#prose|readable prose]] expanded at least fivefold;
# was listed as a [[WP:GA|good article]].
The [[Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck|DYKcheck tool]] is helpful in evaluating this, or if you want to figure it out yourself, detailed instructions are [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold day explanation|here]]. Older articles or expansions [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Not exactly|can be allowed]].
* If a new article incorporates text copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a pre-existing article.
* Fivefold expansion means at least five times as much prose as the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was ([[WP:copyvio|copyvios]] are ''the only'' exception), no matter whether any of it was kept, and no matter if it was [[WP:AFD|up for deletion]]. This may be a bad surprise to nominators, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
<span>
|Check that the article hasn't been featured on the Main Page's ''[[WP:ITN|In the news]]'' section and hasn't previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in an earlier DYK. (Articles that have been only ''linked'' from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.)
|Check that the article is [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Article length|long enough]]. Articles must contain at least 1,500 characters of readable prose. 
* In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the [[User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs|Croughton-London rule]]). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.
<span>
|Check that the article contains [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation|appropriate citations]].
* The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citation]] to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article.
* The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
* Sources must be properly labelled in a References (or similar section), not as "External links".
* References may not have bare URLs such as [http://example.com] or http://example.com
* Any direct quotation must be marked as such (generally using quotation marks for short quotes and blockquote for longer quotes) and cited to a reliable source.
<span>
|Do not assume that any criteria are met based on the fact that the article is a good article.
|If the article is entirely or substantially sourced to offline, foreign-language or paywalled sources, verify the basic facts, or at the very least, the existence of the article subject.
|Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem. A list can be found at [[WP:DISPUTETAG]]. An orphan tag is not a dispute tag, and not a validation for rejecting or holding up a nomination.  
|If the article includes information about living individuals, make sure it does not violate Wikipedia's policy on [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]. This applies even if the article subject is not a living person. 
|Check that the article does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Earwig tool] can be helpful for this.
|Consider whether the article deals with the subject in a [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] manner.
|DYK nominations for articles at [[WP:AfD]] should be held pending the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article is retained, the DYK nomination can proceed, and of course, if deleted, the DYK nomination must be rejected.
}}

;Special occasion hold requests:
*{{hatnote|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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_161#Revision_3]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_65#Rhacophorus_vampyrus].}}
*{{hatnote|April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see '''[[Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know]]'''.}}

==Review the hook==

Assuming that you have a qualifying article, it's now time to review all the hooks, including any ALT hooks that have been suggested.

* Check that the hook is [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook format|properly formatted]]. If there are formatting problems, you can probably [[WP:SOFIXIT|fix them yourself]].
* Check that the hook is [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook length|short enough]]. If it's just a bit too long and you can shorten it with a minor change, [[WP:SOFIXIT|do it yourself]]. If shortening the hook would require a more significant change, note the problem. You can also suggest an alternate (ALT) hook that is shorter. Just remember that you shouldn't then approve your own ALT hook.
* Consider whether there might be [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook.
* Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook.
* Consider whether the hook is "hooky". Try to avoid hooks that take the form of "... that X is Y?" Interesting hooks will often include one or more of the following:
** An unlikely juxtaposition. (Example: ... that [[American football]] [[safety (American football position)|safety]] '''[[Jordan Kovacs]]''' went from being a [[Walk-on (sports)|walk-on]] to being the second leading [[tackle (football move)|tackler]] in the [[Big Ten Conference]]?)
** An unusual nickname. (Example: ... [[United States|American]] [[country blues]] [[singer]] '''[[Lottie Kimbrough]]''' was nicknamed "the Kansas City Butterball"?)
** A superlative or record. (Example: ... that with a leg-span of 30&nbsp;centimetres (12&nbsp;inches), the '''[[Giant huntsman spider|giant huntsman]]''' is one of the world's largest [[spider]]s?)
** A tease, giving only part of the relevant information. (Example: ... that the discovery of geometrical body '''[[Gömböc]]''' in 2006 helped understanding the body shape of [[turtle]]s?)
* Review ''all'' proposed hooks for the article(s). If you are unable to approve all hooks, be clear about which is/are acceptable and which is/are not. Consider striking through (<s>like this</s>) any rejected hooks to make it clear that they should not be used.

===If there is an image===
If there is an image to go with the hook, you will need to do a little extra checking on it.

* Make sure the image is free of any copyright restrictions. Fair-use images are not permitted for DYK.
* Check that the image appears in the article.
* Ensure the image has an alt text useful to those with visual impairments, if necessary, per [[WP:ALTTEXT]].
* Consider the relevance of the image to the article and to the hook.
* Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page.

==Finishing the review==
After evaluating both the hook and the nominated article, check the nominator has reviewed another DYK nomination under the [[quid pro quo]] (QPQ) rules ([[WP:DYKSG#H4]]), and make sure that review adequately covers all of the DYK criteria just as yours will do. A QPQ review is not a requirement if its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated). If this is a multi-article nomination, then H4 rules apply. If in doubt about the number of previous nominations, look for edits giving DYK credit on the nominator's talk page (possibly using [http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/ DYKUpdateBot]). Note that not all nominations are credited in this way and the bot also credits DYK creations and expansions, not just nominations. If in doubt, ask as part of your review process.

Type your review in the section for that nomination. You should begin your review with one of the five DYK review icons. This allows the nominator and other editors to more quickly understand your review decision, including the severity of any problems. It is also used by the bot to keep the tally of how many hooks have been passed. After posting the icon, indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:
<blockquote><code>Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.</code></blockquote>
Be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have, since several other editors may comment on the nomination before you return.

{| class="wikitable" width=100%
! width=4% | Symbol !! width=10% | Code !! width=5% | DYK Ready? !! width=61% | Description
|- align="center"
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] || {{tls|DYKtick}} || Yes || align="left" | No problems, ready for DYK
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] || {{tls|DYKtickAGF}} || Yes || align="left" | Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline or paywalled hook reference accepted in good faith
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Symbol question.svg|16px]] || {{tls|DYK?}}|| Query || align="left" | DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{tlsx|DYKproblem|''Article''}}
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] || {{tls|DYK?no}} || Maybe || align="left" | DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{tlsx|DYKproblem|''Article''}}
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] || {{tls|DYKno}} || No || align="left" | Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible. Notify nominator with {{tlsx|DYKproblem|''Article''}}
|}

If the outcome of your review is anything other than an approval ({{DYKtick}} or {{DYKtickAGF}}), please consider notifying the article nominator(s); you can do this with a personal message on their talk page or by placing {{tlsp|DYKproblem|''Article''|header{{=}}yes|sig{{=}}yes}} there, replacing ''Article'' with the title of the nominated article. This will automatically create a new talk page section and will automatically append your signature, so there is no need to do either of those.

The icon [[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] — coded as {{tls|DYK?again}} — may be used by creators and nominators to indicate that a nomination that previously had a problem is ready to be reviewed again after changes were made to resolve the issues identified.

An article cannot be officially promoted until a reviewer has given their approval ({{DYKtick}} or {{DYKtickAGF}}) to at least ''one'' of the article's hooks.  Nominators are encouraged to work with reviewers to come up with hooks that meet the standards of the DYK process, and new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook.  Once a reviewer has conducted a thorough review of the nomination and given their approval by placing the requisite symbol on the discussion page along with a statement indicating which hooks are ready, and if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessment, an uninvolved editor will soon review the discussion and likely close it and promote the article.  

If the article does not qualify for DYK ([[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]]) for some technical reason or if the participants cannot agree on at least one viable hook, the discussion will eventually be closed by an uninvolved editor and the article will not be promoted.

==Resources==

* [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage]] lists current DYK rules all in one place. It comprises many subpages [[Wikipedia:Transclusion|transcluded]] onto a single page, so if you need to refer another editor to a specific item, it may be helpful to link to the specific subpage rather than the full listing.
* [[Template:DYKrule]] is a handy template for linking directly to a specific rule.
* [[User:Shubinator/DYKcheck|DYKcheck]] is a JavaScript tool created and maintained by [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] that many editors find helpful in checking an article for DYK eligibility.
* [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ Duplication Detector] is a tool to help check for plagiarism/copyright infringements.
* [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Earwig's Copyvio Detector] – searches the web for copyvio on the page using Google and the links present on the page.
* [https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/dyk.py QPQ check] - checks for previous DYK credits to determine whether QPQ is required
* {{tl|DYK checklist}} is an easy-to-use checklist that helps with reviewing DYK nominations.

{{Main Page topics|state=collapsed}}

<noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know]]</noinclude>