A fact from Konrad Rupf appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
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.
Overall: A nice compact but comprehensive (3.6k chars, DYKCheck) article, sources part-checked with tools, some AGF on offline and German language sources, tone cool and encyclopedic throughout, Earwig OK. On citations - close but of the three hook facts, the last is cited clearly, the middle is perhaps covered by the citation half a sentence further (but the DYK requirement is the end of same sentence, so this needs checking), and the first is unclear - in the article's sentence on Leipzig, it says he started in 1980 and retired in 1984, which is not "long term", while in the next sentence it mentions 1994 (mid-term?), and later a mention re. honorary membership. On the hook - reasonably interesting, though it would be nice to make it sharper; the Leipzig point needs to be clarified (see hook citation point above, and then decide if it is a good fit or not). Overall, looks good for DYK (and I know, coming from experienced nominators), so if the citation point can be sorted (same citation at end of the relevant sentence if it does cover the first performance point), and Leipzig timing clarified, I think good to go. This is my first review, so I would welcome any feedback, or further review. There is one other c/e matter, I will address this, as it does not affect reviewer neutrality. SeoR (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SeoR, thank you for the review! I am sorry, "1984" is just a typo, corrected to 1994, which was the official end but he kept singing beyond. We could drop "long-term" if you think he doesn't qualify ;) I doubled the ref for the 1955 role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, it was a pleasure, and it looks great now; 1955 was just a technicality. I checked and 14 years on the front line, and hon. membership after, seems good for "long term". SeoR (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A nice compact but comprehensive (3.6k chars, DYKCheck) article, sources part-checked with tools, some AGF on offline and German language sources, tone cool and encyclopedic throughout, Earwig OK. On citations - close but of the three hook facts, the last is cited clearly, the middle is perhaps covered by the citation half a sentence further (but the DYK requirement is the end of same sentence, so this needs checking), and the first is unclear - in the article's sentence on Leipzig, it says he started in 1980 and retired in 1984, which is not "long term", while in the next sentence it mentions 1994 (mid-term?), and later a mention re. honorary membership. On the hook - reasonably interesting, though it would be nice to make it sharper; the Leipzig point needs to be clarified (see hook citation point above, and then decide if it is a good fit or not). Overall, looks good for DYK (and I know, coming from experienced nominators), so if the citation point can be sorted (same citation at end of the relevant sentence if it does cover the first performance point), and Leipzig timing clarified, I think good to go. This is my first review, so I would welcome any feedback, or further review. There is one other c/e matter, I will address this, as it does not affect reviewer neutrality. SeoR (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)