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 Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall: I think this is a good well-written article, there are a couple of phrases that I would like to see clarified, which I why I have put "?" for statuts. The first is "various pieces of evidence" in the causality section - could that be more specific? The second phrase is at the bottom of the same paragraph: "since he was an avid newspaper and" - I think there's a missing word? The third is "multiple historians" shortly after - I recognise that you have referenced two, but are there more, or you could lose the 'multiple'? Otherwise, the article is long enough, new enough, well-references, from a neutral point of view (above comments), has no plagiarism and a QPQ has been completed. The image is from Commons and could be a good DYK addiiton. I prefer ALT1 as a hook. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Various pieces of evidence, yes, Ihrig spends more than 20 pages discussing them, mentioning individuals such as Hans Humann, Hans-Heinrich Dieckhoff, Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, etc. But his point is that no one piece of evidence is a smoking gun, it accumulates to prove a conclusion.
Added missing word
While I just cited two, there are definitely more historians who argued this although I can't find the citations now :( (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, firstly - sorry for the delay - I didn't see a notification. Thanks for adding the missing word. I've clarified the two other points with the addition of the word 'accumulating' for the first, for the third I took out multiple but added the names of the historians you cited. I hope that's agreeable with you? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
I think this is a good well-written article, there are a couple of phrases that I would like to see clarified, which I why I have put "?" for statuts. The first is "various pieces of evidence" in the causality section - could that be more specific? The second phrase is at the bottom of the same paragraph: "since he was an avid newspaper and" - I think there's a missing word? The third is "multiple historians" shortly after - I recognise that you have referenced two, but are there more, or you could lose the 'multiple'? Otherwise, the article is long enough, new enough, well-references, from a neutral point of view (above comments), has no plagiarism and a QPQ has been completed. The image is from Commons and could be a good DYK addiiton. I prefer ALT1 as a hook. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)