Template:Did you know nominations/Massacre in Ciepielów

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 — Maile (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Massacre in Ciepielów

edit

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 07:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Google translate is giving me: "The most publicized was the anonymous report of a German soldier and photos attached to it, proving the crime committed on September 8 at Ciepielów on soldiers of the collective battalion of the 74th Upper Silesian Infantry Regiment. In 1950 this relation was received by the Polish Military Mission in Munich; it has been repeatedly reproduced in various publications and press. This murder, constantly remembered in the communist parade on the occasion of the next anniversary of the outbreak of war, is today the most commonly associated picture of the war crime of September 1939" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I disagree, I think that removal of unreferenced / OR / irrelevant / otherwise problematic content should count. This motivates people to rewrite such articles to make them DYK eligible. Anyway, where do we draw the line? If some vandal inserts a chunk of gibberish to an article, you could argue that it still represents the 'character count' for 5x expansion...? I think we should follow the spirit, not the letter, of the rules. Wasn't this discussed at WT:DYK or something? Ping User:BlueMoonset. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, WP:DYKSG#A4 is quite clear: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. As it goes on to say This may be a bad surprise, it's something that has come up many times in the past, with articles being rejected when the full 5x expansion was not done; it's one of the arguments that was made for adding new GAs to the mix, so that articles get another opportunity if it becomes prohibitive to make a 5x expansion. According to DYKcheck, the article was at 1450 prose characters prior to the June 13 edits, and is 4203 prose characters now, which means it needs another 3047 to reach the 5x level of 7250 prose characters. As Yoninah says, unless there's agreement to IAR—which you'd need to get at WT:DYK (and I am pessimistic about your chances there)—the additional material will need to be added if you wish this to run. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Great job on the last-minute expansion, Piotrus! My Javascript counter has the new character count at 7451 char, just 49 characters shy of 5x expansion, which I'm certainly willing to overlook. Restoring tick per Hawkeye7's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)