Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Bothmann
- 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 Ashwin147 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hans Bothmann
[edit].jpg)
- ... that SS-Hauptsturmführer Hans Bothmann (pictured) was one of at least a dozen high-ranking Nazi functionaries and Holocaust perpetrators who committed suicide?
Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self nominated at 17:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
(I'm a new reviewer) New article status confirmed. Prose proportion seems good (I have not used the tool. It's too difficult too understand for a novice. However, I checked it with Word for the number of characters and substracting the stuff that doesn't count). The section starting with:During the summer of 1942...was already in the article Chełmno extermination camp for more than 5 days. Article seems neutral. Although phrases as:'Hans Bothmann made substantial changes to the camp's killing methods. The improvements were prompted by two incidents.. ', might have to be changed. Inline citations are provided, credible sources are present.
- Hook length confirmed. Format correct. Interesting fact, provided with inline citation directly after the phrase. However, the phrase in the article needs to be changed. First of all it spells Bothman in stead of Bothmann. Secondly it says:'who committed suicide right after the war,' Several of the characters in the list of names do not qualify by this reasoning. Ilse Koch committed suicide in 1967, long after the war. As did Karl Jager (1959). Others did so before the war ended: Manfred von Killinger (1944), Hans Jeschonneck (1943). There might be more errors. As a consequence, the hook also needs rephrasing.
- QPQ confirmed. Image seems ok to me, but should be checked by someone else. Crispulop (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, Crispulop. Much appreciated. And thank you for the meticulous attention to detail. You may have noticed that I put in the paragraph beginning with "During the summer of 1942..." into the Chełmno extermination camp article myself, on May 16, 2013,[1] nine days before I uploaded this entry. I've used about 75% of that paragraph again here because it is exactly about the same thing. You can substract 978 characters (with spaces) from the readable prose size of 3674 characters in this nomination if you want, but it makes no difference, because the article is well above the minimum size for DYK. You are correct about the years of suicides. I added them to article. The source of info is at the end of the sentence. I changed the wording slightly by cutting out "after the war". I also rephrased the hook above. 
Done, Poeticbent talk 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You improved the article and the hook correctly. Factual accuracy can not be disputed anymore. I previously noticed that you yourself added the paragraph I mentioned above, but I thought I should mention it just in case, since I'm new to this. As for now, I would say this DYK is good to go. But a second opinion is required to confirm my findings. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispulop (talk • contribs) 09:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crispulop. Please be advised that a second opinion is not required for a new reviewer like you. You are free to put a DYKtick next to your approval. Please select it from the list above your editing box. A "second opinion" is used only for Gibraltar related articles due to past controversy. Looking forward to your DYKtick. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You improved the article and the hook correctly. Factual accuracy can not be disputed anymore. I previously noticed that you yourself added the paragraph I mentioned above, but I thought I should mention it just in case, since I'm new to this. As for now, I would say this DYK is good to go. But a second opinion is required to confirm my findings. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispulop (talk • contribs) 09:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
