Template:Did you know nominations/Pius XII and the German Resistance
- 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 Allen3 talk 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pius XII and the German Resistance edit
- ... that despite officially being impartial, Pope Pius XII (pictured) acted as an intermediary between the German Resistance and the Allies during World War II?
- Comment: Not a self nom, so no QPQ. I just thought this was an interesting article worth some exposure at DYK.
Created by Ozhistory (talk). Nominated by Miyagawa (talk) at 18:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC).
Long enough, new enough, and hook is in article. Unfortunately, the sourcing is problematic for three reasons: (1) What's Chadwick? No full citation is given, so you need to provide one. (2) Most of the article relies on publications whose publishers and authors appear to be obscure and thus less likely to be reliable. Please provide wikilinks to show that the authors/publishers aren't obscure, or please explain why they're reliable despite their obscurity.(3) A minor issue compared to the other two, and this isn't a reason to hold up the nomination. You don't appear to be using a standard formatting/style guide (all style guides mandate italics or underlines for book titles, for example), so it would be quite helpful were you to reformat the citations according to an accepted standard. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Striking issue #2, since I just checked the article and have seen your links, which amply demonstrate that I was wrong. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Issues 1 & 3 now fixed. I've identified Owen Chadwick, and put book titles in italics. Anything else we can look at? Ozhistory (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for assuming that they were all these no-name types; I guess I don't know much of anything about the historiography of the period. Thanks for adding the full Chadwick citation; all of these put together show that your sources should be accepted as reliable, so we're ready to go. I'm not sure that issue #3 is fixed (but again, not a reason to hold up the nomination!), as your Britannica citation is different from the rest, your punctuation around dates varies from spot to spot, you don't always provide publishers or places of publication, names are sometimes Firstname Lastname and sometimes Lastname, Firstname, and various other issues. Fix them at your leisure, since this is not a huge issue; you've provided enough to check the existence of the sources in Worldcat, and it's simply a matter of cleaning up when you get around to it. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
