- 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 Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
ALT1 --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Ioan Mire Melik
edit
... that, although never a writer, Ioan Mire Melik (pictured) rallied with the Romanian literary club Junimea, proposing to mend its financing burden with income from a salt mine?
- Reviewed: George Mârzescu
Created/expanded by Dahn (talk). Self nom at 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Length, date and Romanian-language online source all verified. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The hook is not supported by the article; the salt-mine investment is referred to in terms of a capital investment. The key sentence reads: "Witnessing the decline of Junimist capital, he even proposed, unsuccessfully, that the club fortunes be invested in a salt mine." That reads to me that the total amount of savings was dwindling, so the salt mine was an investment that would hopefully grow in value. Income is not mentioned, though presumably there would be some from selling salt. A new hook is needed, since the current one isn't supported by the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's probably my approximate understanding of accounting, but the version in the article does reflect the source, to my understanding. Could you maybe please propose an alt? Dahn (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The finance clause needs to be a bit less specific about capital and income. Another issue I've just discovered: I think the alt has to omit the statement that he wasn't a writer, since he was the author of several mathematics texts. Here's my suggestion:
- ALT1: ... that mathematician Ioan Mire Melik (pictured) was a member of the Romanian literary society Junimea, and recommended it invest in a salt mine to improve its finances? —BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- In the sense that he was not a literature writer, so to say - the sources I used do mention that contrast. It did catch my eye that he wrote textbooks, but, I presumed, one man writing down math problems is not technically considered a "writer" as far as belles-lettres go (Călinescu's "out of devotion or for the sake of entertainment"). Though I'm not hung up on either, and your alt is fine by me. Dahn (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- We could also go with "although not a writer by profession" or similar. Dahn (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure the club didn't consider Melik one of them—a literary writer—in that fashion, but it's a distinction that's hard to make in the hook. Using "not a writer by profession" has the same problem, in that he wrote many published textbooks on a wide variety of scientific topics related to his work as a teacher, which would have involved a great deal of written text. Perhaps with an opening phrase like "that though lacking literary ambition" or "that though not a literary writer", though these use "literary" twice in a single hook, which isn't good. (My attempts using "literature" have been even less successful; I'm not at all fond of "that though not a writer of literature", or displacing a similar phrase to after Melik's name.) I do rather like the contrast of mathematician and literary society myself. I have struck the original hook because of the issues previously discussed, but further ALTs, if you want to emphasize the literary side of this, are still welcome. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- The finance clause needs to be a bit less specific about capital and income. Another issue I've just discovered: I think the alt has to omit the statement that he wasn't a writer, since he was the author of several mathematics texts. Here's my suggestion:
- That's probably my approximate understanding of accounting, but the version in the article does reflect the source, to my understanding. Could you maybe please propose an alt? Dahn (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Independent reviewer needed to approve the ALT hook, after which this will be good to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hook alt1 is in article, cited and citation confirmed in reference. Trusting the prior assessment, this is good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)