Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo"
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
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo
- ... that after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there was an anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo, where two died and massive damage was done to Serb-owned houses, schools and other institutions?
- 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).
- ALT1... that after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, there was an anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo, where two died and massive damage was done to Serb-owned houses, schools and other institutions?
- --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- What about
- ALT2 ... that following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, there was an anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo (pictured)? --Zoupan 18:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am fine with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
