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 is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia 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.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers
A fact from Ladislav Burlas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 April 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.
The article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided. I didn't find any close paraphrasing. The hook isn't really all that interesting, it's not that surprising or out of the ordinary that a Slovakian musicologist would focus on the history of Slovakian music. Looking at the article, I'd suggest two possible options instead: a hook about his biography, or perhaps a hook about his dissertation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Other than the aforementioned dissertation angle or perhaps a hook about his biography (if that part could be expanded), nothing comes to mind. This could be one of those cases where the article is just not a good fit for DYK due to lack of hooky material. Additional suggestions would be appreciated because I am not planning to approve the original hook in its current state. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not asking for April fool quality, merely a hook that would attract attention even from disinterested readership. With that said, would you be okay with any of the following suggestions?
Thank you for offering. I still believe that almost anything about a Slovak musicologist will be new to our audience and thus interesting, - shouldn't we expand knowledge about things they don't yet know? Comparing:
I can live with ALT1, but think that the exact years provide the same duration with easy math, and additionally say when that happened, while ALT1 could play in the 19th century.
I believe that a longtime service at the national academy is much more interesting than a single dissertation, which might have led to no later work.
I can live with ALT3 but believe that a sheer number of works is less interesting (if interesting at all) than the long-time service ...
Given I proposed new hooks, another editor is needed to make a final decision. In the interest of fairness, I would highly suggest not messaging any specific users to invite them to take a look at the nomination, and instead to have a completely uninvolved, unpinged or unmessaged reviewer. This is to encourage an impartial review and ensure whoever sees the nomination has fresh eyes, rather than the nomination being brought to their attention directly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0: checks out here, would need an end-of-sentence cite and not interesting anyway.
ALT1: similar problem, marginally more interesting (what's a musicologist doing getting involved with sciences as well?)
ALT2: also no end-of-sentence cite, and not interesting at all (it's always going to be on something)
ALT3: most interesting of the four and checks out; source says "over 150 musicological works, monographs, studies, academic texts, articles, reflections and profiles"; I say "works" is an accurate summary of these. Why don't you suggest a version of ALT3 that incorporates his tenure?--Launchballer09:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There is no longer a problem with sourcing regarding ALT4, so long as you correct the facts in ALT4.
(2) ALT4 should say "nearly 40 years" because the article and source say 1951 to 1990, which could mean 40 years if inclusive, but it can't mean over 40 years (or have I missed something?)
(3) @Narutolovehinata5: The following is my personal opinion. Since for some years you have appeared to inhabit a high proportion of Gerda's nominations and have appeared to strongly object to the hooks, such that as a consequence other reviewers and commentators get less chance to review Gerda's nominations than other nominations — I think it is inappropriate for you to publish a message saying that only uninvolved people may comment on this page. On average, you are more involved on Gerda's nominations than any other DYK reviewer or commentator, with respect to the hooks. Additional to that circumstance, Gerda often makes clear that as she speaks English as a second language, she is at a disadvantage when creating the language of hooks. She is within her rights to make that fact clear to people who can help her with the language. That is not canvassing.
Just to make this clear, the primary reason I have been reviewing her hooks lately is as of late, they tend to remain unreviewed for longer compared to other nominations. Doing her nominations is one way to get the backlog out of the way, as opposed to allowing them to remain unreviewed for a long time. I normally refrain from reviewing her hooks unless they haven't been touched by another editor for at least a few weeks, as in fact my preference would be for other editors to review her nominations.
I also disagree with the statement that I "strongly object" to her hooks, when in fact in several cases I would actually make suggestions on how to reword or improve her proposals, rather than rejecting them outright. In fact, my preference, when I do review her nominations, is to pick the ones that seem "promising". As in, perhaps either they could be immediately approved due to having no article or hook issues, or perhaps having a hook that could be improved but could still serve as a basis for a decent or good hook, as opposed to picking the nominations that to me at least feel like a bad fit for DYK. In addition, outright rejecting her nominations (or any editor's nominations for that matter) is usually a last resort as I make an effort (and I really do make an effort) to check the articles and look for usable material, even proposing hooks or suggestions myself if I find any.
Following from before, as for hook suggestions, in many cases I have tried to help with her nominations by proposing additional hooks or even rewriting her hooks to make them flow better, but these were often rejected even in cases where the hooks were largely the same information as her proposals, the only difference was in writing or perhaps missing one or a few non-important details. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I just state that we differ in what is "non-important". That a drama director is called for opera from Eastern Germany to a leading opera house may look "non-important" to you but may be interesting for others. There's a Cinderella aspect to it even if you don't see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I disagree with your representation of your actions as the saviour of Gerda's nominations. The current DYK reviewing backlog means that you have the option to review loads of other nominations instead of Gerda's, giving other people a better chance of reviewing hers. None of us ought to mind waiting a long time for a review, so long as that review is fair (which most of them are). I once waited 8 months for one of my noms to reach the main page. We veteran nominators are used to that. Now, after completion of this nom, please step away for a while to other nominiations, and give other reviewers a better chance at this particular set of noms. Then the rest of us will no longer have to watch the angst play out between you and Gerda. Storye book (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need an icon for your approval. Also: there's no angst on my side, just frustration when explaining the same thing again and again: that opera artists - on stage or behind it - are not just doing their job but creating something unique. - I appreciate reviews such as Template:Did you know nominations/Florian Ludwig. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided. I didn't find any close paraphrasing. The hook isn't really all that interesting, it's not that surprising or out of the ordinary that a Slovakian musicologist would focus on the history of Slovakian music. Looking at the article, I'd suggest two possible options instead: a hook about his biography, or perhaps a hook about his dissertation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Given I proposed new hooks, another editor is needed to make a final decision. In the interest of fairness, I would highly suggest not messaging any specific users to invite them to take a look at the nomination, and instead to have a completely uninvolved, unpinged or unmessaged reviewer. This is to encourage an impartial review and ensure whoever sees the nomination has fresh eyes, rather than the nomination being brought to their attention directly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Approving the above corrected version of ALT4. Storye book (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)