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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: 5,184 → 27,584. Note that it applies to not all banknotes - but considering another source says this cut (heh) the money supply by 41%, one can infer it's 82% of the banknotes. Still, could take some advice on wording.
5x expanded by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC).
Overall: Hook is very interesting and intriguing, so it will drive readership. I wonder if "into halves" should be simplified to "in half". Picture is not so easy to see at 100px, but conveys the basic idea (e.g., the scissors). Aside from cutting paper money in half, the Time magazine cited source describes what was done to bank accounts. I did not find that fact mentioned in the article, although it probably had a major effect – not all money is printed money. The effect of cutting bank account balances in half might have even been bigger than the effect of cutting bank notes in half, and probably explains the magnitude of the effect on the money supply. I strongly suggest that should be mentioned in the article. Plagiarism check says plagiarism is unlikely, and I didn't notice any obvious problems (and the contributing nominator has 90 DYK credits, so is someone who knows what they're doing). — BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I only noticed the thing about bank accounts just now, since I didn't find it in the 3-4 other academic and semi-primary sources. Maybe it's just that back in 1950 there were very few bank account holders in Indonesia - I think I'll elect to not include it. Looking at the actual wording of the regulation I just found, that seems to be the case. Thanks for the heads up. Juxlos (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Juxlos (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The article also refers to the described action using the term "Sjafruddin Cut" (in two places) or "Sjafruddin's Cut" (in two other places). However, neither version of the term appears to be sourced in English. Further studying the article, the quoted term seems to be a self-generated translation of "Gunting Syafruddin". It may be better to be more clear about the terminology – e.g., not using quote marks if a term is a translation rather than a quotation. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Both Lindblad (2008) and Kian Wie Thee (2003) use "Sjafruddin Cut" - I didn't cite it before, but I added Lindblad to the inline. Juxlos (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. That resolves my concern. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hook is very interesting and intriguing, so it will drive readership. I wonder if "into halves" should be simplified to "in half". Picture is not so easy to see at 100px, but conveys the basic idea (e.g., the scissors). Aside from cutting paper money in half, the Time magazine cited source describes what was done to bank accounts. I did not find that fact mentioned in the article, although it probably had a major effect – not all money is printed money. The effect of cutting bank account balances in half might have even been bigger than the effect of cutting bank notes in half, and probably explains the magnitude of the effect on the money supply. I strongly suggest that should be mentioned in the article. Plagiarism check says plagiarism is unlikely, and I didn't notice any obvious problems (and the contributing nominator has 90 DYK credits, so is someone who knows what they're doing). — BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)