Template:Did you know nominations/Elizaveta Polonskaya
- 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: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Elizaveta Polonskaya
[edit]- ... that writer Elizaveta Polonskaya was the only female member of the Serapion Brothers?
Created by Languagehat (talk). Nominated by Jnestorius (talk) at 21:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hook: Nice interest, length is fine, AGF on offline source.
- Article: Length and date are fine. AGF on offline sources. Some information is not cited.
- Summary:
Please improve referencing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Still underreferenced after 12 days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
References look sufficient enough for DYK to me. Sure, there are some uncited sentences or small chunks here and there, but it doesn't seem egregious. Assuming everything else has been checked, I think this is good to go. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)- Small chunks? A good quarter of the article is unreferenced. Roughly 100 chars per paragraph, unreferenced. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- It may not have inline references, but I AGF presumed the "Sources" book references all the facts. Maybe DYK has become more perfectionist since last time I played there; any comment, Crisco? jnestorius(talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- The current consensus (as noted by Rjanag above) is one inline reference per paragraph. However, I tend to be a little stricter on that, especially since DYK has come under fire recently for what some consider sub-par articles. I love the hook, which is why I have not closed the nomination; I've been hoping that you can fix it up. An egregious example of something that should be cited is the postwar section, which is roughly 80% uncited. If you can touch the uncited bits up, I'd be very happy to promote this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, Google Books to the rescue... jnestorius(talk) 12:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- It may not have inline references, but I AGF presumed the "Sources" book references all the facts. Maybe DYK has become more perfectionist since last time I played there; any comment, Crisco? jnestorius(talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- AGF on offline source. Referencing fixed up well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)