- 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) 07:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Freundliche Vision
edit
Richard Strauss in 1900
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 17:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
Article was new enough when nominated, is long enough (>1700 characters), strikes an appropriately neutral tone, and has a QPQ done and no plagiarism issues that I can see. The hook is supported by citations; it's not extremely interesting, but I can't immediately think of a better one. The image is clear and old enough to be in the public domain. There are a couple of citation issues: first, there's no citation for the publisher the article names, and I couldn't find a mention of the publisher in any of the linked sources. Where did you learn the publisher from? Second, the section "Music," which describes the structure and features of the song, has only one citation at the end, and that citation doesn't say anything about the structure or features of the song. That section needs a published source. If those two pieces can be supported by citations, the article will be ready to go. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Bryanrutherford0, I've added a reference for the publisher and date from the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The structure/features of the song actually were covered in the source given, but it requires clicking on various "buttons" once you get to that page to find it. Instead, I have substituted a PDF of the liner notes for the complete CD which also has the required material. I have taken the liberty of removing the {{cn}} and {{Failed verification}} tags. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: Yep, that's got it! Thank you for fixing those two spots; the article is ready for DYK!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
Article was new enough when nominated, is long enough (>1700 characters), strikes an appropriately neutral tone, and has a QPQ done and no plagiarism issues that I can see. The hook is supported by citations; it's not extremely interesting, but I can't immediately think of a better one. The image is clear and old enough to be in the public domain. There are a couple of citation issues: first, there's no citation for the publisher the article names, and I couldn't find a mention of the publisher in any of the linked sources. Where did you learn the publisher from? Second, the section "Music," which describes the structure and features of the song, has only one citation at the end, and that citation doesn't say anything about the structure or features of the song. That section needs a published source. If those two pieces can be supported by citations, the article will be ready to go. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)