 | A fact from Svedectvo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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) 19:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that Slovak periodical Svedectvo claimed that the neo-Nazi Kotleba party "is the first authentic right-wing party to get into parliament and dedicate its program to defending the Christian values of our state"?
- ALT1:... that the Slovak periodical Svedectvo receives a government subsidy, despite publishing apologist articles defending convicted war criminals?
- Reviewed: Abel Briones Ruiz
- Comment: Sources in article
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 19:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
New enough, long enough. The hooks are not neutral. The tone of the article is not neutrally written either. I don't know how to fix that. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Asking for a second opinion. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik and Buidhe: This is still not neutral, has the nominator/article creator been notified? Rephrasing content throughout should hopefully clear this up. Kingsif (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It isn't helpful just to handwave that "it's not neutral". Without explaining why you think so or what you think should be changed, there's no way to fix the alleged problem. buidhe 21:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- The breathless prose seems agitated. It seems more like a novella than a neutral history. --evrik (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Again, it would be helpful if you pointed out to specific instances, examples and/or suggestions for improvement. buidhe 03:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1a:... that the Slovak periodical Svedectvo receives a government subsidy, despite publishing articles defending convicted war criminals?
-Passing ALT1. Article was recent enough, obviously long enough, neutral, hook is cited in the article, no copyvio/closeparaphrasing (excepting quotes & bald facts), the hooks are within character limit, accurate, sourced, and defintely interesting to a broad audience, central most of Europe. While I symapathise with the objections, it would be a mistake to equate negativity to non-neutrality. If the article reads negatively, perhaps that's because no reliable sources can be found defending the subject. ALT2 by a margin? serial # 12:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed you changed the hook. Are you passing Alt1, or proposing Alt1a? --evrik (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since the only difference between ALT1 and ALT1a is the dropping of the word "apologist" in the latter, there is no need for a further review of ALT1a. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)