Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Heinrich Nidecker

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Heinrich Nidecker

(
)
  • ... that Heinrich Nidecker's unpublished thesis accused the Theory of Life of plagiarism? Source: Barnes, Sam G. (1958). "Was Theory of Life Coleridge's "Opus Maximum"?". Studies in Philology. 55 (3): 495, 497. ISSN 0039-3738.

Moved to mainspace by Frzzl (talk). Self-nominated at 21:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Heinrich Nidecker; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Comment: Not sure if {{'s}} is the correct thing to use here, please feel free to correct!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think "Theory of Life" unadorned is descriptive enough; especially since that wasn't strictly speaking the full title of Coleridge's work, and it's quite obscure to the general public. Also, authors commit plagiarism, not works. And where exactly he made the accusation doesn't seem that interesting. People do know Coleridge, though, so highlight that; he's not obscure. Maybe:
  • I'd suggest ALT1 of these, succinctness is better, and the Theory of Life article is correctly tagged for cleanup.
  • As a side, no fun comment: There aren't strict rules on QPQ. So by the letter of the law, that is probably fine. However, the spirit of QPQ is one promotion, one review, to keep the balance. QPQ for failed nominations are fine, but in general, it's ideal if there was some effort that went into it - that it was an "interesting" failed nom. The linked QPQ was just a speedy close that required 0 effort. It needed to be done, yes, but I'd humbly suggest using a different QPQ and not really considering that kind of "review" as counting. (But, to be clear, this is ultimately up to you.) SnowFire (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I guess I might as well do a full review. I've made a few edits to the article, but they're minor. New enough, long enough, citation at the end of every paragraph, hook is verified. I think ALT0 fails interestingness, and would prefer ALT1, with ALT2 as a backup if nominator really feels the link to Theory of Life is important. Per above, QPQ is met, but by the absolute bare minimum, and I'd prefer (but won't mandate) a different QPQ.
  • Frzzl: Feel free to chime in on if ALT1 or ALT2 works for you, and if you're willing to substitute a different QPQ. But largely looks good to me. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
No problem with the QPQ, if you'll accept a short but still complete review, hopefully Template: Did you know nominations/WoodmenLife Tower works. I'm fine with ALT2 - I agree that ALT0 wasn't interesting, I don't really think ALT1 passes either; the contrast between the grandeur of "Theory of Life" and plagiarism is personally what I think makes it mainpage-able. Thank you very much for the review!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  21:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly replaced the QPQ above. Yes, that's fine.
ALT1 and ALT2 are approved, although promoter should note preference for ALT2 by nominator above. SnowFire (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heinrich_Nidecker&oldid=1203494279"