- 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 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 Harrias talk 07:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Solahütte edit
- ... that it was almost-unknown until after 2007 that Nazi German staff of Auschwitz would vacation at a nearby secret Nazi-run resort?
Created/expanded by CramYourSpam (talk). Self nom at 01:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I find a few issues with this article. First, it was created 7 days before it was nominated for DYK. Second, it comes across as OR as it relies heavily on the German Wikipedia and is written in an unencyclopedic, prose-y style. Besides the USHMM exhibit, is there any scholarly work on the subject? Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- 7 days-- at the suggestion of a different editor. i (article main writer) hadn't heard of the dyk process before then. OR-- oh indeed. if the new york times and the u.s. holocaust museum are note reliable sources, then yes torpedo it. or improve it.Cramyourspam (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Article has merit, but it needs a lot of work to become an acceptable encyclopedia entry. Although it has a healthy sprinkling of footnotes, the majority of the footnotes are not citations to sources that are appropriate for the encyclopedia. The only valid sources are the Newy Yorker article [1], the introduction to the Holocaust Museum exhibit [2], and possibly this Polish language page. (Both the NY Times and the Holocaust Museum are reliable sources; I haven't evaluated whether the Polish reference is reliable, nor what content value it added to the article.) The citations to the German and Polish Wikipedias are not acceptable, as Wikipedia cannot rely on itself -- or another Wikipedia -- for verifiability. Several of the other footnotes are references to specific images or slideshows, which are useful items to link but of very little value as sources for an encyclopedia article. Some of the article text seems to be personal opinion or original research; for example, "Wartime snapshots made at Solahütte are somewhat jarring because of the lightheartedness of the particular people pictured: some of history's most infamous war crimes perpetrators are shown while cheerily singing to accordion music" apparently is the contributor's commentary on the images. Those opinions/interpretations may be valid, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of its contributors' opinions and interpretations. Also, the second half of the next-to-last paragraph has no footnotes, and the overall structure of the article is unusual for an encyclopedia. I hope the contributor will consider reworking the article, to provide fully sourced content, provide a lead section, remove personal commentary (but it's OK to summarize other people's commentary, if properly sourced), etc. Absent an extensive reworking, it's not a candidate for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
