- 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) 05:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Banat Republic
edit- ... that the Banat Republic, proclaimed in 1918, sought to control "one of Europe's most complex areas"? Source: Kókai, p. 64
- ALT1:... that days after the Banat Republic was proclaimed in 1918, the streets of its capital "trembled with the lockstep" of rival Romanian paramilitaries? Source: Dudaș & Grunețeanu, p. 141, quoting Commissioner Roth
- ALT2:... that the Banat Republic of 1918 claimed it could raise 40,000 troops against the French Danube Army, but in reality had less than 4,000? Source: Kókai, p. 67, quoting Commissioner Bartha
5x expanded by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 06:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC).
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Well over 5X expansion within 7 days of work beginning on the article at the date listed.
Length checks out.
There is an ISBN issue in the references section that I cannot seem to fix. It seems like Wikipedia is registering that the ISBN doesn't exist. I'd suggest re-checking the ISBN to make sure its correct. In the mean time, it may be smart to delete the ISBN to remove the tag. References for this DYK are good to go.
Article is well sources, though the non-book sources I see tend to be in a different language than English. As I cannot verify the sources linked in the article for the book, I'm going to WP:AGF on that part.*I'm not sure these are the best hooks out there, but that may just be personal preference. Both hooks are good to go though. Typo in the second hook (400,000) has been corrected to (40,000), as stated in the article. I think the second hook is the best of the two though.
QPQ has been conducted. DKY is ready for mainpage! --White Shadows Let’s Talk 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Flibirigit, we ran into an edit conflict. I was completing the review when you posted. Sorry about that!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 21:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see that. I suggest placing the {{doing}} template on the review so that others won't try to review the same article. I will abandone the review I started. Flibirigit (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Very sorry Flibirigit. This has been my first DKY review in 6 years...will keep that in mind going forward. Thanks!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note for White Shadows: I have corrected a few fields in the DYK checklist template, though the result is the same (AGF icon). Actual icons should not be used in the template, just "y", "n", "AGF", and so on, per the documentation (which tells you which values should be used with each parameter); if the template has been filled out correctly, it generates its own icon, and the bot checks that icon to see whether the nomination has been approved and therefore should be moved to the Approved page. Use of the template is optional; the review can be written as text without the checklist, in which case a single icon template (which should be used with "subst") summarizing the review should be included. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the helpful tip BlueMoonset!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note for White Shadows: I have corrected a few fields in the DYK checklist template, though the result is the same (AGF icon). Actual icons should not be used in the template, just "y", "n", "AGF", and so on, per the documentation (which tells you which values should be used with each parameter); if the template has been filled out correctly, it generates its own icon, and the bot checks that icon to see whether the nomination has been approved and therefore should be moved to the Approved page. Use of the template is optional; the review can be written as text without the checklist, in which case a single icon template (which should be used with "subst") summarizing the review should be included. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Very sorry Flibirigit. This has been my first DKY review in 6 years...will keep that in mind going forward. Thanks!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see that. I suggest placing the {{doing}} template on the review so that others won't try to review the same article. I will abandone the review I started. Flibirigit (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)