- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Adolf Passer
.jpg)
Adolf Passer
- ... that Austrian stamp collector Adolf Passer (pictured) sold most of his collection in order to concentrate on wooing the woman who became his wife? Source: Ref. 1 "I had a fine collection ... but on the occasion of a visit to Berlin several of my friends pressed me to sell the greater part, which I did, as at that time I had made the acquaintance of the lady who is now my wife, and was more bent on wooing than collecting postage stamps."
- Reviewed: Pat Lundvall
- Comment:
Got a bit more to add.Valentine's day?
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, love the hook. Only issue with the article is that a couple of the "selected publications" appear to be unreferenced and/or not mentioned in the prose. Only other issue is lack of QPQ review, so once that's done, this should be good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- ALT1 to avoid repetition, what about: ... that Austrian philatelist Adolf Passer (pictured) sold most of his stamp collection in order to concentrate on wooing the woman who became his wife?
- All of the books are mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of "Philatelic career" in the order in which they were published. Adding the titles into the text seems unnecessary as there are only four and they are easy to identify in the list by year and subject. As for referencing them I know you often mention this point but I believe the position is that the bibliographic details given in the section are the references needed. I raised it at Village Pump here and it seems to be a grey area. My view is that if you can easily find them by a Google search its not necessary to add a ref after each title. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I absolutely do not agree that readers should use Google to verify claims made in Wikipedia articles going to the main page, so I'll leave this for another reviewer who no doubt will just pass it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your point but it is more that the bibliographical details given in such lists are regarded as in themselves a reference. I agree it needs clarification. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- So, I'm sure ALT0 is dandy, and I'm sure someone who doesn't take WP:V seriously will happily sign this off. It's not going to be me though. The main page, even for DYK, should observe these policies with diligence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
looks like someone else has added some sources to verify the existence of these works. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- Oh, and the QPQ has been added, hurrah. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your point but it is more that the bibliographical details given in such lists are regarded as in themselves a reference. I agree it needs clarification. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I absolutely do not agree that readers should use Google to verify claims made in Wikipedia articles going to the main page, so I'll leave this for another reviewer who no doubt will just pass it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- All of the books are mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of "Philatelic career" in the order in which they were published. Adding the titles into the text seems unnecessary as there are only four and they are easy to identify in the list by year and subject. As for referencing them I know you often mention this point but I believe the position is that the bibliographic details given in the section are the references needed. I raised it at Village Pump here and it seems to be a grey area. My view is that if you can easily find them by a Google search its not necessary to add a ref after each title. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
