Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know/Norbert Frýd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norbert Frýd

[edit]
Archived nomination
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 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 Crisco 1492 (talk)

Created by Vejvančický (talk). Nominated by Orlady (talk) at 04:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:
Hook

Article

Comments/discussion:

  • I don't think ALT1 parses well. How about
*ALT2: ... that although broken-spirited by survived Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps, Czech writer Norbert Frýd fearlessly protested a friend's arrest in Communist Czechoslovakia?
Might read better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw that problem with ALT1, but read it often enough, I talked myself into it. I think you left out a word in your ALT2 (which I moved to a new line to make it easier to spot) - "having" before "survived"? I think "broken-spirited" is almost too light for the changes he went through. Broken really says it more, but can imply too much. How about this? I added a date to anchor the timing a bit, too.
  • ALT3: ... that although shattered by his imprisonment at Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps, in 1952, Czech writer Norbert Frýd fearlessly protested a friend's arrest in Communist Czechoslovakia?
Marrante (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then that makes two votes for ALT3. If one or both the author and nominator want to weigh in on this, then we can move the article to prep. Otherwise, this is good to go! Marrante (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's OK, but note that traditionally we did not strike through valid hooks merely because reviewers preferred a different one. Usually, we only strike out hooks that are bad due to lack of sourcing, BLP issues, and other problems. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]