Template:Did you know nominations/Elsa Bernstein

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator/creator; article does not meet 5x expansion.

Elsa Bernstein

(

)

... that ten-year-old Elsa Bernstein was the youngest person to see Wagner's first complete Ring Cycle in Bayreuth in 1876?

5x expanded by Sandover (talk). Self nominated at 04:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

Interesting article on a great subject. The article needs inline citations to be acceptable for DYK, especially for the hook fact right after it is mentioned, but also for the other facts, one per paragraph. Also the check program doesn't see a five-times expansion. Before I dig into that manually, please let me know if you want to deal with the citations. The article also needs formatting, for example the titles of plays should be italic. - Hook: I would say "attended", not "see" - because I hope she also heard something ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I do need to shore it up with footnotes, most of them to a book that's currently inaccessible, but will endeavor to do so in the coming weeks. I agree, without the sourcing it shouldn't be DYK featured.

Another fascinating fact about her is that everyone in the day knew her father, the conductor Heinrich Porges, was in fact the illegitimate son of Franz Liszt (including Wagner, Liszt, etc., though his patrimony was never publicly acknowledged). Bernstein's "Ernst Rosmer" pseudonym is partly a play of words on this not-very-secret legacy, which nevertheless seems to have escaped almost everyone writing about her today online. Like her father, Elsa would frequently pose in profile to show off the famous family nose. It's possible she was spared in Dachau because of the Liszt connection; it's almost certainly the reason she had slightly better treatment in Theresienstadt. Thanks for your interest. Sandover (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for more interesting stuff! - Please start the citations with one for the hook fact. I will look into the expansion then, the other trouble spot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked closer at the expansion, you started at about 1k, now we have 3.3k, - that is far away from 5 times. What I typically do is, expand anyway and then propose it for good article, most recently BWV 39. You decide if it's worth the extra effort, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook was nominated today (June 18) but posted under the date of 15 May earlier (I fixed that). That is not possible. Hooks may only be 5 days or old, or should have been 5x expanded in the last 5 days. As it has not been expanded 5x, as Gerda Arendt mentioned, this hook unfortunately fails the criteria.Crispulop (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the date, I only looked at the history. "Fail" was too hard too soon, sorry. If the nominator will expand the article to five times and source it properly, it is fine for DYK. I would understand if not because it means a lot of work, but wait for a reply, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments and counsels; I understand what I did wrong and what I'll do better with my next self-nomination. Glad you liked the hook, definitely gold-standard Wagner trivia, I thought. Sandover (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, failing it immediately was indeed maybe a bit harsh so soon. I understand that you are eager to nominate your article. I'll show you the reason on which I failed it:Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria, rule 1B. 'Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles.' So, even if you improve your article now it would still technically not be eligble because it was not improved in the past days, which count from the time of nomination. Anyway, I'll not create that fuss for you, but you will know for next time ;). You've created a nice article so far and I hope you are able to enlarge it to a 5x expansion. Crispulop (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding it would be "technically" eligible if you expand within the next five days, because expansion started only today. Not so technically, I would give you even more time if you want to. I could name a few examples with generous handling, one of them is a featured article by now, started by ambitious expansion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

According to DYKcheck, this article had 1086 prose characters immediately prior to the beginning of the expansion on June 18, and 3329 prose characters after the expansion, slightly more than a 3x expansion. 5x would require 5430 prose characters, or another 2101 prose characters. Sandover, is this an expansion that you would want to attempt—it would need to be done within the next week or so, though we could be flexible if you thought it would take a little longer—or should the nomination be closed? Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to access my sources in the next week. Since I can't expand it just yet, close the nomination. Thanks! Sandover (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Creator/nominator recommends we close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)