Template:Did you know nominations/1954 transfer of Crimea

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1954 transfer of Crimea

(

)

... that the 1954 transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine was described as a "symbolic gesture" marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire?

ALT1:... that the decree enforcing the 1954 transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine was only a paragraph long?

Created by JASpencer (talk). Self nominated at 14:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Nice and interesting article (and highly relevant in current context!). Length, date, hook checks out. The article needs some touch-up on bare URL references and 2 "citation needed" tags. Also, considering the complexity of Russo-Ukrainian relations (Ukraine had been part of pre-Soviet Russia), it would be better to stick to an ALT2: ... that the decree enforcing the 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR was only a paragraph long? --Soman (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Second opinion. I think both ALTs are fine, but please fix bare URLs and remove stub templates before this is passed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Stub templates removed and bare urls expanded. JASpencer (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed tags need to be addressed. Same goes to the weasel words before the nomination can advance. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation tags were addressed - mostly by removing assertions - and the weasel words were removed or replaced. IS there anything else that needs to be done? JASpencer (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

New reviewer needed for ALT2 and earlier hooks; it's unclear whether previous reviewers considered the original hook problematic or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. ALT 2 would be the best choice if you ask me, but either should work. Original hook isn't problematic in my opinion, but the other two are more hooky. And highly relevant, as pointed out. Length, date, policy checks out. Good work. Yakikaki (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)