- 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 RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Institutes of Gaius
Converted from a redirect by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
- I wasn't clear whether this article needed to be a five-fold expansion of the section on Gaius' page, to qualify for DYK. If that is the case, it is not long enough. But it doesn't actually include content from that section. It has enough prose for a new article to qualify.
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Not sure if this needs to be a 5x expansion of section on Gaius' page to meet eligibility. Currently it is not. After reading the comments, I have decided to approve, since the editor made good faith effort to add new material to Wikipedia. PMCH2 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @PMCH2: Thanks a lot for your review and the valuable time and effort spent on it. I try to address your points in turn: (a) As I read WP:DYKCRIT it states that "freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy [...] is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles". As I did not reuse any content from Gaius (jurist), I think this cuts in favour of my nomination as I did created content from scratch above the 1,500-character mark and did not expanded upon the material from the Gaius (jurist) section. The prose is entirely new. (b) I have amended one citation according to your second point: In the pages now cited, it is (in my opinion) clearly stated that Niebuhr was on his way to Rome on a diplomatic mission. If you remain unconvinced, I could also cite page 7 of the book by Varvaro. (c) Personally, I consider my hook a little bit more interesting due to the curious word palimpsest and the diplomatic implications (being an academic researcher on a diplomatic mission), but if you think ALT1 is better, I happily defer to you. (d) As I read the sources it is not disputed that Niebuhr was dispatched to Rome on a diplomatic mission, but it is disputed whether there was another "clandestine" reason behind the dispatch, i.e., to find and obtain the already discovered manuscript; in my mind this is compatible with the original hook. Thanks again! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @WatkynBassett: Thanks for all your work on this article. It is interesting and obviously historically important. Thanks also for the quick edit on footnotes. Regarding the first hook, I don't find it all that "hooky" but maybe others would. It's ok with me to use it. I'll take it on good faith that the academic dispute doesn't negate the facts of the hook. There isn't a specific footnote, so I can't check the source to see what the specific claims are. (My German isn't good enough to make reading the whole article practical.) PMCH2 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding eligibility: I am still not sure this isn't a case where a five-fold expansion is warranted. This is a new page with new content, yes, but it is replacing a redirect that led to content about the Institutes. If you had copied said text and added it to your new article, the new article would have had to be a 5x expansion to qualify. If the content about the Institutes had originally been a stub, you would have had to expand five-fold. Since it was a sub-section of another page, but you didn't use any of that text, the question is, does that also require 5x expansion? Maybe another reviewer with more experience could weigh in on this issue? If no one else comments, I will assume it is eligible for DYK as is. PMCH2 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @PMCH2: Perfect, thanks! If I understood you correctly, I have addressed most of your concerns, but not the eligibility issue. Having an uninvolved party check if this nomination is indeed eligible seems like the most reasonable way forward. I look forward to it! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not on topic, but concerning the understanding of German sources: the free tool DeepL is very strong on translating German into English (if you want to check a German source in the future ;)). WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Danke! I will check it out.PMCH2 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is there another reviewer who could weigh in on the eligibility regarding length for this nomination? As I read the rules, an article that includes text spun off of an existing article can't be considered "new" and a former redirect has to be a 5x expansion. This is a great article, with >1500 characters of prose, but has some overlap with the section on Gaius' page concerning the topic. By my reading, it should properly be a 5x expansion for consideration as a DYK nom., but I would welcome a more experienced reviewer's perspective. Thanks! PMCH2 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Theleekycauldron: Maybe one of you can? I don't feel I have enough seniority yet to make a call here. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: I'd discourage you from the thought that you need some kind of tenure to call it the way you see it. Sure, practice and reading helps, but the easiest way to learn is generally to jump in. To quote the host of Dropout's Game Changer: "The only way to learn is by playing; the only way to win is by learning; and the only way to begin is by beginning; so, without further ado, let's begin!" Tricky. The rules on text copying were designed to insure that the content featured on DYK is truly new, rather than an effortless split. It could be argued that – despite this new article showing no signs of being copied, or even a close paraphrase or a simple rearrangement – creating a new article that touches on the same basic facts violates the spirit of DYK's definition of new content. However, I'd be inclined to reward a production of a good-faith article where the rules don't explicitly forbid it. It would also set a burdensome precedent if DYK reviewers had to check not only that the article's prose was original, but that the very research had yet to be unearthed on the encyclopedia thus far. In the interest of cordiality and simplicity, I'd be inclined to IAR where necessary and pass this nomination, on the assumption that this article was not intended as a split of its previous redirect target. :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- To ensure a lack of ambiguity, I wonder if it's possible if the article be brought to GA status, and if it passes, it be treated as a new GA rather than a new/expanded article. It's probably the safest option at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with theleekycauldron that the page deserves credit for being genuine new material to Wikipedia. I was just hesitant to approve, without more experience on how redirects are handled. I found the various rules confusing as written. I really have no objection to approving the article for DYK if there isn't an established precedent against it. I just wasn't sure what has been done in these kinds of cases. It sounds like there isn't a rule against it, so I have updated my review.- PMCH2 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @PMCH2: Does that mean you have approved the article? In that case, something seems to have gone wrong, as the article still hasn't moved to the approved area. Did you add a new tick? –LordPeterII (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- PMCH2, please note that any tick added to supersede the ? generated by the review needs to be added below all prior icons (and not within the DYK checklist template); the bot will take the last of the icons as the current status, as will promoters. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- yes, I have approved this. Thanks to LordPeterII and BlueMoonset, for the help with the process. I am learning as I go. PMCH2 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if this needs to be a 5x expansion of section on Gaius' page to meet eligibility. Currently it is not. After reading the comments, I have decided to approve, since the editor made good faith effort to add new material to Wikipedia. PMCH2 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)