Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Gording
The following is an archived discussion of Elisabeth Gording's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1941 theatre strike in Norway, Elisabeth Gording, Lillemor von Hanno
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
... that after rejecting an order to play in Nazi radio in 1941, Elisabeth Gording was relieved of her acting duties for the remainder of the war?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corton-Charlemagne (one article) and Template:Did you know nominations/Barbaroux (two articles), a total of 3 reviewed articles.
Created by Geschichte (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 19:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC). After the nomination, Elisabeth Gording has been significantly expanded, and the two articles 1941 theatre strike in Norway and Lillemor von Hanno were created and added to the hook by Oceanh (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC). Have also added Geschichte (talk) as co-author of 1941 theatre strike in Norway, due to significant contribution. Oceanh (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
- The article is a trifle short (about 1400 characters). Perhaps the expansion can help increase the significance of the article's subject. There are only two sources cited, both are in Norwegian, but they seem reliable. No obvious copyvio or plagiarism concerns. The hook is adequate. The article's nominator has been notified. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The article author has expanded the coverage, so the article's length is not an issue. The hook is somewhat buried, but really is not an issue. This is good to go.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What does "play in Nazi radio" mean? And, for that matter, "relieved of her acting duties"? The hook needs to be rewritten to be more clear. Perhaps a bit more context would help, such as that this was in Norway. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. I would like to propose a hook which I hope is better, and which includes the addition of two new articles:
- ALT1: ... that the 1941 theatre strike in Norway was a response to revokal of working permits for six actors, including Elisabeth Gording and Lillemor von Hanno, when they refused to perform in Nazi-controlled radio?
- As this thus becomes a self-nomination, I have reviewed another hook (see above). Oceanh (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the QPQ review (Corton-Charlemagne). However, as this hook has three articles in it now, you'll need to do one review for each, or a total of three reviews. You have two more to go. The new hook needs a slight cleanup:
- ALT1a: ... that the 1941 theatre strike in Norway was in response to the revocation of work permits for six actors, including Elisabeth Gording and Lillemor von Hanno (pictured), when they refused to perform on Nazi-controlled radio? —BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the QPQ review (Corton-Charlemagne). However, as this hook has three articles in it now, you'll need to do one review for each, or a total of three reviews. You have two more to go. The new hook needs a slight cleanup:
- Thank you for the review. I would like to propose a hook which I hope is better, and which includes the addition of two new articles:
- I don't think that's an actual rule. One review per hook is what's needed. Geschichte (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Geschichte, the rule was changed by consensus in December: it's now a review requirement of one article reviewed per featured hook article. The specific wording is at WP:DYKSG#H4, which begins, "Where a hook has more than one new or expanded article in it, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required: one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook." Before the change, the nominator could choose between a hook-for-hook or article-for-article QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
QPQ reviews now all supplied; the added articles and new multi-article hooks all need to be reviewed, as does the newly supplied image. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- - Gording was reviewed by Marcd30319. The two other articles were created on 19 March, and added to this nomination the next day. They are both long enough and has inline citations. The hook-fact is mentioned in all three articles with an inline citation. The picture is used in two of three articles (I don't see the point of adding von Hanno's picture in Gording's article), it has a "CC"-license, and can be used along with the hook. Good to go. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)