Template:Did you know nominations/New Jewish Cemetery, Kraków

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 PFHLai (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

New Jewish Cemetery, Kraków edit

(

)

... that the headstones of New Jewish Cemetery in Kraków were used to pave the courtyard of commandant Amon Göth's house in Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp?

Created/expanded by User:A. Kupicki (talk). Self nom at 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Date is fine, a few tweaks are needed, plus "ul." is not clear and should be explained, either with a wikilink or a footnote. I am going to tweak some of the phrasing & word order and will finish the review shortly. Marrante (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just re-read and saw the word "ulica", which should be italicized and translated, but since (according to Google Translate) it means "street", then it should probably be removed, since the word "Street" appears anyway. Marrante (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Length is fine, well-cited, some questions about neutrality and the issue of "ulica" / street. Also, the hook is cited, but that first PDF file is 29 pages long. Could you provide some page numbers for your references, pls? Thanks! Marrante (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review, Marrante, and for your improved phrasing. I added the missing page number to the cited PDF file per your request and removed the word "ulica" from all addresses. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. — A. Kupicki (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that page number. I moved the one bit about the "likely" identity of the civil engineer who restored the gravestones down to a footnote. It is not a fact, so it really should not be within the body of the article, but properly belongs in a footnote. I also tweaked it a bit so it's not such a run-on sentence. There is still one other thing, though and I should have mentioned this yesterday, but that footnote as originally written was so hard to parse, I just mentioned it as a unit. Now this really stands out. This civil engineer worked at the camp after the war as an architect? That sounds very odd and needs to be either cited or removed because it will surely be questioned by someone. Other than that, the article looks very good and is ready for approval. Marrante (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your new footnote format. It looks really good, although the full identification of that "likely" prisoner architect mentioned only by his last name (in some Polish sources cited), in my opinion, could easily be included in the main body. I made the connection myself while researching his name, but this is hardly a WP:OR issue since there's no other art custodian from Płaszów by that same name at the Virtual Shtetl database. I only put two and two together, whatever you think is appropriate. — A. Kupicki (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I really liked it too when I found it and find lots of use for it. If you found that thing somewhere, then just put what you have and cite it. My comment comes from the fact that I tend to be proactive with these things. If all you have is a last name, just state it like that, something like "identified only as X". Then the footnote will have even more meaning. Can you find the Polish reference? I'm just saying it would be good to have it there. Offline is fine. Just something that can be pointed to and (ostensibly) searched by anyone else, even if the offline source is hard to come by. Marrante (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. I added the second citation (Virtual Shtetl) mentioning "Engineer Stendig" by name. So now, there are two sources: one in Polish and one in English, which identify him only by his last name. His full name however should be added to main body at least in parentheses, because that is undoubtedly him. — A. Kupicki (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is good to go! Polish sources AGF. I tweaked it a little bit more and put the full name in parens, as you suggested. I'm not sure if this template belongs on the article's talk page, though. Someone who doesn't know the ropes here in DYK could get very confused. When the article appears on DYK, there will be a flag template added to the talk page that identifies the date and hook. Marrante (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million, and please don't worry about the transclusion. The content of this template will disappear from the talk-page automatically following the article's promotion. By the same token, you read the English sources already so "assuming good faith" on T:TDYK isn't necessary. — A. Kupicki (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)