Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/AFN Munich

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AFN Munich

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Calistemon (talk). Self nom at 09:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Two alternatives, depending on available space. Calistemon (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If it passes, this hook may be suitable for the 21 December, the 66th anniversary of Patton's death. Calistemon (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How is about.com reliable here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The hook is also supported by references no 3 and 4, which I moved up a bit to make that clearer in case it wasn't. I consdiered about.com a reliable source as it is part of the The New York Times Company which I was under the assumption of that it is a respectable news network. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Calistemon (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the standard is that the content must be by a noted expert in the field. This has been discussed for literally years. See this discussion from 2008 for a bit of information. Also, about.com often mirrors Wikipedia; mirrored content is definitely not reliable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know what constitutes an expert on the AFN but two of the other sources seem to fullfil that requirement from my point of view. One is a German radio magazine, the other (by its own claim) is a radio archive backed by the Austrian Public Broadcasting Network (ORF). As to the about.com source, it can't be a mirror of Wikipedia in that case as the info hasn't been here before. There is a few more German sources who back the claim which made me and make think its a fact but I haven't listed them here because I wouldn't, by themselves without support, consider them reliable. Calistemon (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This current source is a language exercise. Not academic writing, or even quasi-academic writing. What German sources do you have? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The two attached just before the quote, No 3 and No 4, one in German one in English, as mentioned above. Calistemon (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I meant the one you're not sure of... the Journal looks like it may be reliable, but I'm rather iffy with something of the title "dokufunk". Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Bone up on your Deutsch and don't be so quickly dismissive. "Funk" simply means radio and "Dokumentationsarchiv Funk" means radio document archive. "dokufunk" is a short form of that, that's all. I see no problem with the specific document in question. If you're anti-about.com, there's enough other supportive refs. PumpkinSky talk 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I would rate Dokofunk as the best source actually. It is an organisation carried by the Austrian Public Broadcasting Network with the aim of creating a comprehensive radio archive, pretty good credentials. There is an English version of their website, too, but it isn't as extensive as the German one. Between them and Radio Journal sourcing is pretty reliable. Calistemon (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, I was thinking "Doku Funk" sounded like a sort of Japanese music genre actually. My Deutsche and Nederlands would probably need serious work if I were to write many more Indonesian history articles. Back to referencing, is it possible to replace about.com entirely with the other two sources, or are there bits of information only about.com supports? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is but its not used for this article. The articles main benefit is that it provides the story in two languages, German and English. You could call it a Rosetta stone if you wish, I guess. Calistemon (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm... I think it may be preferable to completely replace about.com, but I will ask at WP:RSN. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I rechecked it again and I can't fault the source, everything in the article taken from it checks out with the others. Feel free to replace it in the article with the other two at the necessary places if you feel like extra work but I can't see any need for it. Calistemon (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We should note that the discussion I linked to above summarizes that "better sources should be used"; perhaps keep the about.com reference in "external links" and use the other references for supporting the facts. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds fair. Calistemon can you take care of that to the extent possible since you are most familiar with the topic? PumpkinSky talk 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, references switched, about.com moved to external links. Calistemon (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Tick based on previous review. My only issue has been dealt with. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/AFN_Munich&oldid=1021516763"