This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Heinrich Nidecker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
Comment. I don't think "Theory of Life" unadorned is descriptive enough; especially since that wasn't strictly speaking the full title of Coleridge's work, and it's quite obscure to the general public. Also, authors commit plagiarism, not works. And where exactly he made the accusation doesn't seem that interesting. People do know Coleridge, though, so highlight that; he's not obscure. Maybe:
I'd suggest ALT1 of these, succinctness is better, and the Theory of Life article is correctly tagged for cleanup.
As a side, no fun comment: There aren't strict rules on QPQ. So by the letter of the law, that is probably fine. However, the spirit of QPQ is one promotion, one review, to keep the balance. QPQ for failed nominations are fine, but in general, it's ideal if there was some effort that went into it - that it was an "interesting" failed nom. The linked QPQ was just a speedy close that required 0 effort. It needed to be done, yes, but I'd humbly suggest using a different QPQ and not really considering that kind of "review" as counting. (But, to be clear, this is ultimately up to you.) SnowFire (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I guess I might as well do a full review. I've made a few edits to the article, but they're minor. New enough, long enough, citation at the end of every paragraph, hook is verified. I think ALT0 fails interestingness, and would prefer ALT1, with ALT2 as a backup if nominator really feels the link to Theory of Life is important. Per above, QPQ is met, but by the absolute bare minimum, and I'd prefer (but won't mandate) a different QPQ.
Frzzl: Feel free to chime in on if ALT1 or ALT2 works for you, and if you're willing to substitute a different QPQ. But largely looks good to me. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the QPQ, if you'll accept a short but still complete review, hopefully Template: Did you know nominations/WoodmenLife Tower works. I'm fine with ALT2 - I agree that ALT0 wasn't interesting, I don't really think ALT1 passes either; the contrast between the grandeur of "Theory of Life" and plagiarism is personally what I think makes it mainpage-able. Thank you very much for the review! Frzzl talk; contribs 21:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly replaced the QPQ above. Yes, that's fine.
Frzzl: Feel free to chime in on if ALT1 or ALT2 works for you, and if you're willing to substitute a different QPQ. But largely looks good to me. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 and ALT2 are approved, although promoter should note preference for ALT2 by nominator above. SnowFire (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)