The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There are two problems with the article. Main one is that the hook makes claim (UNESCO site) that are not even mentioned in the article. The lesser problem is poor formatting of the external links; they just have the name - no info on the publisher, or date. I recommend that the creator reformats them with a nice gadget like
WP:REFLINKS. Please ping me when this is ready for a re-review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me 02:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get on fixing that. I'll be rather busy during the beginning of this week, so it won't happen now or in the next two days, but I should be able to improve the article by the weekend. ~~
Lothar von Richthofen (
talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added a background section; I hope this is adequate to address your concerns. I was graciously helped by
User:Harrias with the references. The article should be in better shape now. ~~
Lothar von Richthofen (
talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There are two problems with the article. Main one is that the hook makes claim (UNESCO site) that are not even mentioned in the article. The lesser problem is poor formatting of the external links; they just have the name - no info on the publisher, or date. I recommend that the creator reformats them with a nice gadget like
WP:REFLINKS. Please ping me when this is ready for a re-review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me 02:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get on fixing that. I'll be rather busy during the beginning of this week, so it won't happen now or in the next two days, but I should be able to improve the article by the weekend. ~~
Lothar von Richthofen (
talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added a background section; I hope this is adequate to address your concerns. I was graciously helped by
User:Harrias with the references. The article should be in better shape now. ~~
Lothar von Richthofen (
talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)