- 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: rejected by Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
no response for more than a month
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chorale
edit- ... that Alma Mahler was upset that her husband had included a churchy chorale in his Fifth Symphony?
Converted from a redirect by Francis Schonken (talk). Self-nominated at 10:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- n - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- Not done
Overall: 
Article was new enough when nominated, is easily long enough, takes a generally neutral tone, and has no plagiarism problems that I can see. The first problem is that the nominator already has five DYK credits, meaning that this time requires a quid pro quo review of another DYK nomination. Then, there are some problems with the article itself. First, it has several "Empty section" or "Needs expansion" templates scattered across it; DYK supplementary guideline D7 states that "an article ... that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress." Either the article needs to be completed or the unwritten sections removed before it will be tidy enough for the front page. Second, the lead section is not normally expected to contain extensive citations because it is meant to only contain summaries of topics explored more fully (with citations) within the body. However, the lead here contains a great deal of disputable material that is not supported by citations and then is never addressed again within the body. That material should be moved to the body (maybe into some of the incomplete sections?) and then backed up by inline citations. An excellent hook, by the way! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It has been over a month since the above review, and while work was done later in October, there has been no response to a talk-page ping over two weeks ago and there are still some of the problematic templates mentioned above remaining in the article, and the lead section has hardly been edited at all. At this point, what can save the nomination is a reply here from Francis Schonken before this closes, indicating that the issues will be addressed in a timely manner, and the appropriate follow-through. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
