Template:Did you know nominations/Eldorado (poems)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Eldorado (poems)[edit]

(
)

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 00:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC).

  • New enough as created day of nomination. Long enough by just shy of 6x. Article written in formal, encyclopedic manner, i.e. neutral. Each paragraph has inline citations. Claims without citations are satisfied by WP:SKYISBLUE. Zero copyright issues detected by myself or Earwig's tool. Hook is within format, and at least this reader found it compelling, it made me want to learn more about a "Calvinist" style. Hook is directly cited and I can verify where in the source the statement comes from. However, the sources says "Dutch/Calvinist" vs. "German/Calvanist". Now, I realize Dutch vs. German is probably a minor linguistic/cultural quibble, but would the word "Germanic" be more precise? QPQ not yet complete, no DYK image to check against. Let me know when the QPQ is complete, and also please chime in regarding the German/Dutch question, to indulge my intellectual curiosity if nothing else. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • User:78.26, thanks. My source has (before discussing Slauerhoff) "German" and refers to Wagner, so that's German Romanticism (which I've now linked in the article), and afterwards says, as you saw, "Dutch and Calvinist" (which I can take to mean both Dutch AND Calvinist). What I surmise is that the Dutch treatment of the theme happened through the eye of Calvinism. We don't have Dutch Calvinism so I can't link that--but please look at the tweak I made in the hook. Does that make sense? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hook was fine as it was, Drmies pointed me to the right place, but he also made it and the article more clear for those of use who struggle with our German. Hook is directly cited, appears in article, and is factually accurate. QPQ complete. This article is ready for and deserving of mainspace exposure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, and added two "citation needed" tags to unsourced paragraphs under "Content". Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, please go ahead and promote this. I mean, the number of poems and sections, that's basically plot summary, and the same applies to the rhyme scheme: anyone with eyes can see that. You didn't tag the individual sections. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess I don't have eyes then. Yoninah (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you're saying, Yoninah. A very basic description of content is very much like a plot summary--it's the basic contents of the work. PLOTSUM tells me "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself. For example, primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc of the quote within the work." MOS:PLOT says "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary," and adds, "Where there are narrative ambiguities, for example as a result of an unreliable narrator or storytelling technique, the plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent"--but there are no ambiguities here (a rhyme scheme isn't ambiguous unless we're dealing with slant rhyme etc., and we are not, not in this book). Would you like me to include a citation to the table of contents? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I understand what plot summary is and that it doesn't need citations. But it is my understanding that factual details do need to be sourced. Is the rhyme scheme obvious to the reader? I would think that you could provide a source for that. And yes, please cite the number of poems to the table of contents, since there was some discrepancy about the number. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    No, there was no discrepancy--there was an error, maybe a typo, so that's kind of a low blow, Yoninah, which you could have corrected also had you looked at the linked PDF. When I do DYK nominations I do those kinds of copy edits also. Yes, that rhyme scheme is obvious to the reader, as long as the reader understands the modern alphabet, since Slauerhoff is not fancy, and the reader understand what a rhyme scheme is (it didn't bother User:78.26). No, there is no way I'm going to be able to cite that for a 1930 poetry collection without access to a Dutch library. But I'll go ahead and remove it, since this is getting silly, and I'll cite the table of contents. And if that's not to your liking still, I'll remove the whole "content" section, up the level for the "Flying Dutchman" motif, and still have over 3500 characters. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll have to admit I think it should be left as is. Anyone can count the number of sections and number of poems if they so choose, so the information is verifiable. I'll admit that I know little about German, and probably less about poetry (which may seem weird for a music guy), but I recognize the rhyme schemes by looking at the book. I really do think WP:SKYISBLUE applies here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine. Restoring tick per your review. Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Eldorado_(poems)&oldid=830243559"