Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>BlueMoonset
(more review detail needed)
imported>Darkness Shines
(Article is fine)
Line 35: Line 35:
  
 
:*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] "Good to go" is not sufficient; more explanation is needed, especially in light of the issues found with another brief review at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C.]]. Please detail what was checked, including length, newness, neutrality (especially important in an article about a pogrom), sourcing in the article as a whole, close paraphrasing, etc. (There's a "better source needed" template in the article that should at least have been addressed.) Reviews should always touch on all the facets that were checked, so hook promoters can get a sense of the work that was done. Many thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 
:*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] "Good to go" is not sufficient; more explanation is needed, especially in light of the issues found with another brief review at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C.]]. Please detail what was checked, including length, newness, neutrality (especially important in an article about a pogrom), sourcing in the article as a whole, close paraphrasing, etc. (There's a "better source needed" template in the article that should at least have been addressed.) Reviews should always touch on all the facets that were checked, so hook promoters can get a sense of the work that was done. Many thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 
+
:::[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] GTG is certainly good enough, length is obviously fine, one look at the article tells you that. The review over the football club was over "the", which BTW I had added. The date on the article is fine, it seems neutral to me, plenty of the sources call it a pogrom, I did not see, and still do not a better source needed tag. I checked for copyvios, I always do. But, hey, thanks for the good faith. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 12:32, 3 January 2014

Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo

Devastated and robbed shops owned by Serbs in Sarajevo, 1914.

  • Comment: Well-documented incident, linked to historically significant events in 1914.

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Nominated by Anonimski (talk) at 09:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC).

  • Comment: Hook is 201 characters. --Gfosankar (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What about
I am fine with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. (Note: original hook is 197 characters; initial "... " is not counted. While technically not over 200 characters, though, it is unnecessarily long.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT two, ref four has an embedded quote which verifies the hook. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg "Good to go" is not sufficient; more explanation is needed, especially in light of the issues found with another brief review at Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C.. Please detail what was checked, including length, newness, neutrality (especially important in an article about a pogrom), sourcing in the article as a whole, close paraphrasing, etc. (There's a "better source needed" template in the article that should at least have been addressed.) Reviews should always touch on all the facets that were checked, so hook promoters can get a sense of the work that was done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg GTG is certainly good enough, length is obviously fine, one look at the article tells you that. The review over the football club was over "the", which BTW I had added. The date on the article is fine, it seems neutral to me, plenty of the sources call it a pogrom, I did not see, and still do not a better source needed tag. I checked for copyvios, I always do. But, hey, thanks for the good faith. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)