The result was: promoted by
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Created by
Krenakarore (
talk). Self nom at 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Expanded by [[User:Piotrus}Piotrus]]
Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
---|---|---|---|
OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) |
Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) |
I see a strange line: "The Prussian Homage was donated by Matejko to Poland during the meeting of the National Parliament in Lviv". The source mentions donation to [the city of] Cracow on p. 79 (after all, "Poland" was not a legal entity in the 1880s), and I don't see anything about the "National Parliament" (whose National Parliament, anyway? must wikify). -- Vmenkov ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to go now. -- Vmenkov ( talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Only Nr. 5 might be called interesting due to the importance of the subject. What is so interesting about Acallosuchus found in a cigar box in 1983, or that a captain missed the chance to take part in a battle by a week !? GIve me a break will ya :-) ! Don't you think the rules for a nomination here have really gone way beyond the line ? C'mon ! Yesterday you said: "Should be one reference per paragraph", now this (?) ! Prominently here means: Big, very Big, actually Huge, (almost 8x4 meters) ! Of course it prominently features in the Prussian Hall (The historical significance of the painting says it all don't you think ?). And I see no advertorial thing either once "going to a museum is an educational activity", therefore: Encyclopedic ! What else could be more catchy for a hook than something that is actually happening as we speak ? Now c'mon Crisco, come here, give me a hug man ! You are my hero because if for me 1 article nomination has been more than enough, for you who have to cope with hundreds of nominations everyday and advise "such a pain in the neck" like me pal, you've gotta be a superman ! Krenakarore TK 11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere in those discussions that were/are raging on the DYK talk page I made the argument that in cases where the issue is one of a hook being considered "uninteresting" by someone, but "interesting" by others, the proper thing to do would be to refer to the nominator, who's probably best placed to make the subjective judgment call as to what is and what is not interesting about a particular topic. As I recall for the most part this notion was supported by most commentators at the time.
I also see nothing in the original that would constitute any kind of "liability" on the main page. It's neutral and factual.
Anyway, I'd hate to delay this article nom any further so, whatever. I do like Piotrus' ALT 2 proposal. Volunteer Marek 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Created by
Krenakarore (
talk). Self nom at 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Expanded by [[User:Piotrus}Piotrus]]
Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
---|---|---|---|
OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) |
Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) | OK Vmenkov ( talk) |
I see a strange line: "The Prussian Homage was donated by Matejko to Poland during the meeting of the National Parliament in Lviv". The source mentions donation to [the city of] Cracow on p. 79 (after all, "Poland" was not a legal entity in the 1880s), and I don't see anything about the "National Parliament" (whose National Parliament, anyway? must wikify). -- Vmenkov ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to go now. -- Vmenkov ( talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Only Nr. 5 might be called interesting due to the importance of the subject. What is so interesting about Acallosuchus found in a cigar box in 1983, or that a captain missed the chance to take part in a battle by a week !? GIve me a break will ya :-) ! Don't you think the rules for a nomination here have really gone way beyond the line ? C'mon ! Yesterday you said: "Should be one reference per paragraph", now this (?) ! Prominently here means: Big, very Big, actually Huge, (almost 8x4 meters) ! Of course it prominently features in the Prussian Hall (The historical significance of the painting says it all don't you think ?). And I see no advertorial thing either once "going to a museum is an educational activity", therefore: Encyclopedic ! What else could be more catchy for a hook than something that is actually happening as we speak ? Now c'mon Crisco, come here, give me a hug man ! You are my hero because if for me 1 article nomination has been more than enough, for you who have to cope with hundreds of nominations everyday and advise "such a pain in the neck" like me pal, you've gotta be a superman ! Krenakarore TK 11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere in those discussions that were/are raging on the DYK talk page I made the argument that in cases where the issue is one of a hook being considered "uninteresting" by someone, but "interesting" by others, the proper thing to do would be to refer to the nominator, who's probably best placed to make the subjective judgment call as to what is and what is not interesting about a particular topic. As I recall for the most part this notion was supported by most commentators at the time.
I also see nothing in the original that would constitute any kind of "liability" on the main page. It's neutral and factual.
Anyway, I'd hate to delay this article nom any further so, whatever. I do like Piotrus' ALT 2 proposal. Volunteer Marek 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)