Template:Did you know nominations/Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek, The Fourth Man
edit( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Gerard Reve's The Fourth Man, commissioned by the Dutch foundation Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek for the 1981 Boekenweek, was turned down as too controversial?
- Reviewed: Reviewed Barret Loux, Das Millionenspiel.
- Comment: The Fourth Man is created from scratch; the previous content is now moved to The Fourth Man (film).
Created/expanded by Drmies (talk). Self nom at 22:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I WP:AGF on the foreign language sources. The length and date are good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The footnotes need to tell the English reader what language they are in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The Fourth Man. New enough, long enough, neutrally and clearly written, adequately sourced and I found no over-close echoing of any of the sources. I do wonder why the other two critics named by Andeweg as not liking it are not mentioned, and I would have also put in her bit about the organization finding some of the straight sex blasphemous, but in general the article well reflects the sources and adequately covers the topic so far as I can judge. I'm going to add the language in refs to reflect TonyTheTiger's concern and also put in the title and page range of Anderweg's specific chapter, as an edit that you can revert if you disagree with. Good to go. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek needs full review. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek is new enough, long enough, well-referenced (in Dutch). Hook ref AGF. IMO this nomination is ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
