Template:Did you know nominations/Colossus of Ostermunzel
- 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Colossus of Ostermunzel
[edit]
The Colossus of Ostermunzel during its excavation
... that the Colossus of Ostermunzel is with 27.5 t much lighter than expected?
- ALT1:
... that the Colossus of Ostermunzel was found by a plowing farmer in Lower Saxony? - Comment: The reviewer should be able to understand some German, please, because there are only German references.
- Reviewed: No QPQ review required, because this is the author's fourth nomination.
- ALT1:
Created/expanded by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self-nominated at 22:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
Article is based on the German version and its sourcing. Sources are ok, press and the geological authorities, no factual errors or close paraphrasing found. Length is OK. The hooks are OK and sourced. Language wise, the article could use some polishing by a native speaker. I suggest as well to call the article either "Koloss von Ostermunzel" or "Ostermunzel erratic stone", the translation is not confirmed respectively may (mis)lead to the idea of a statue. Fine to go after the polishing. Polentarion Talk 07:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if the above was meant to be a review, or are just general comments. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- It would have passed as a German SG? review, but the enWP is more formal. I am a native German and confirm the German sourcing and the basic suitability for DYK as being new, about Length, policy and format and content of hook. If User:NearEMPTiness could comment on the naming and someone from the native speakers has had a look on the English, its a nice go for the main page. Polentarion Talk 00:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I personally prefer Colossus of Ostermunzel instead of Ostermunzel glacial erratic. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The article needs a copyedit, as alluded to above: I recommend making an immediate request to the Guild of Copy Editors here. Once the article has been fully copyedited, the nomination can resume. Both hooks could use a bit of copyediting as well (the original hook is not at all clear), and neither ends with the required question mark. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hints. I added the question marks and requested the article to be polished by the Guild of Copy Editors. I am also open to any alternative hooks. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I personally prefer Colossus of Ostermunzel instead of Ostermunzel glacial erratic. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It would have passed as a German SG? review, but the enWP is more formal. I am a native German and confirm the German sourcing and the basic suitability for DYK as being new, about Length, policy and format and content of hook. If User:NearEMPTiness could comment on the naming and someone from the native speakers has had a look on the English, its a nice go for the main page. Polentarion Talk 00:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This article has kindly been polished by User:Hampton11235. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2:...that the Colossus of Ostermunzel is significantly lighter than originally estimated? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
from my side now, all the review aspects being ticked now. Good to go I say. Polentarion Talk 14:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Striking the original hook and ALT1 as problematic (see my comments above). ALT2 looks okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
