Template:Did you know nominations/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)
- 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: rejected by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) edit
- ... that according to critics Bruckner's Rondo in C minor sounds like Haydn or Mendelssohn?
- Reviewed: Donald R. Dwight
Created by Nikkimaria (talk). Self nominated at 04:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC).
There seem to be some disagreements among the three contributors to this article, and two of them, Montanabw and Meneerke bloem, are not acknowledged in the nomination. Not a good sign and the situation needs to be clarified. As for the article itself, article creation date and filing date is okay, article length is okay, article sourcing and neutrality is okay. Hook length and sourcing are okay but hook content is kind of dull and would need to link Haydn and Mendelssohn. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Haydn and Mendelssohn are now linked. I think the hook is interesting, but if you have alternative suggestions I'd be happy to hear them. Since the other two editors did not add any original prose, their contributions do not count towards DYK; a disagreement is being discussed on the talk page but shouldn't preclude this nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess this is the best hook that represents new content to WP. But I disagree about co-nominators - it is better to be generous than stingy. Anyway, I'll wait until the Talk discussion reaches a conclusion before approving this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am concerned that some of the phrasing may be too close to the sources, either in the choice of words or in the structure of the sentences. A thorough review would be in order. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Aymatth2, I have reviewed all of the sources and have made some amendments that should hopefully improve the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you fixed the bit that bothered me, but I think the sense of the Supplementary guidelines D6/D7 is that the article should be reasonably settled. I see the infobox flickering in and out, and there seem to be some other arguments. Is there a way to say "let's put this one on hold until it settles down"? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Aymatth2, I have reviewed all of the sources and have made some amendments that should hopefully improve the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
