Template:Did you know nominations/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations

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 Miyagawa (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that a seventh of the total population of Sarajevo cited Judaeo-Spanish language as their mother tongue in 1921, with historical links between Bosnia and Spain going back to the 15th century?

• Reviewed: Panulirus longipes

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC).

• Length, date, hook's ref verified. All non-lede paragraphs have refs. The one ref (Spanish language) appears to be a RS. Hook is interested; its length is fine. No apparent close-paraphrasing issues. QPQ done. I fixed the Harv error. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• The article is tagged for relying on a single source. I also don't understand the connection between the two parts of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• As Template:One source explains, there is nothing wrong with citing only one source, so I propose removing the template. The 15th-century is when the Spanish-speaking Sephards arrived in Bosnia; it's in the article, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• For a DYK review we refer to Rule D12, which is usually waived for an "obscure" topic in the sciences. This subject surely has some press. I added a few more sources and removed the single-source tag. Meanwhile, the page looks like a haphazard collection of facts. It would be nice if you could beef up the History section. I still don't understand how Jews bringing Spanish language to Bosnia qualifies as "bilateral relations"; isn't the latter a political term? I also added a link to the article in which all this stuff about Sephardi Jews should appear. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• You've done a great job expanding the article. Dividing it into sections, as you've done, makes it look more organized and less haphazard, in my opinion. I've noticed that several related articles mention the status of one country's language in the other country throughout history (France–United Kingdom relations for example), so I went along. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing that link to a similar international relations page; now I see the approach you've taken. I edited the lead along the lines of the France–United Kingdom relations page. I think it's up to start-class now for DYK. (I'd appreciate a creation co-credit.) Foreign-language hook ref AGF and cited inline. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I gave you the co-credit, and I've added the "final" tick mark in my name for transparency. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)