Talk:"What! Still Alive?!"
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Cwmhiraeth in topic Did you know nomination
![]() | A fact from "What! Still Alive?!" appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 August 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that in "What! Still Alive?!", historian Monika Rice presents a "disturbing narrative of violence, hostility, and indifference" towards Holocaust survivors in Poland?
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 01:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
- Article is new enough (created 23 July) and long enough (2,000 characters of prose).
- Article is written in NPOV and contains sufficient inline citations. Earwig returns no copyvio concerns; only close matches are appropriately presented as quotations and cited in the article text.
- Hook is of adequate length (166 characters), and it is properly formatted and cited; AGF on offline source.
- QPQ is done.
- My only concern is that the summary of the hook is one person's assessment of the text, yet the phrasing makes it sound like a fact. Maybe reword the hook to something like:
- ALT1: ... that Monika Rice's "What! Still Alive?!" has been described as a "disturbing narrative of violence, hostility, and indifference" towards Holocaust survivors in Poland? Armadillopteryxtalk 21:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 is fine by me, although other reviewers don't exactly disagree with the assessment. Thanks for the review! (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't doubt that Cichopek-Gajraj's words represent consensus among critics, it's just that even a broad consensus is still technically subjective.
- Anyway, if you're happy with ALT1, then ALT1 is good to go! Congrats on an interesting article. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 is fine by me, although other reviewers don't exactly disagree with the assessment. Thanks for the review! (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)