Talk:Open university (concept)

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the 1950s, the Soviet Union introduced an open university system to enable working-class students to become useful functionaries of the Communist party? Source: "A significant element of the policy purposes of the consultation/correspondence system was to support educational opportunity at higher education level for working‐class people who were to take on significant responsibility, primarily as members of the Communist Party." and "After 1990 the system collapsed ... the Communist Party no longer needed cadres, as they were called, of rising functionaries, as they no longer had a country to run, and the function of the system had, in fact, disappeared.
  • ALT1:... that a system of open universities in the Soviet Union, dating from the 1950s, collapsed in the 1990s with the breakup of the state?

• Reviewed: Arthur Schüller

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 09:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC).

• A quick drive-by comment, there's a comma issue with ALT1. Either the comma after 1950s should be removed, or one should be added after universities. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I found the hook difficult to punctuate, and have added an extra comma. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The article was expanded tenfold and easily qualifies for DYK. It's neutrally and carefully written, summarising appropriate sources, cited inline. It's a useful addition to Wikipedia's coverage of education. The text is original. The hooks are appropriately formatted, used in the article, and cited appropriately. Both are interesting but I slightly favour the first one. I removed "and members" to shorten it without any loss of meaning, making it bit easier to take in. QPQ done. This is good to go. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)