Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Nationalization in Poland

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Nationalization in Poland

edit
(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC).

  • FYI, the main hook is also boring, as in "utterly unsurprising". Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: One issue here is that the article itself feels incomplete. It states that nationalization in Poland has led to controversies, but doesn't actually go into detail as to what these were. This is a major red flag and by itself makes the article unsuitable for DYK in its current state. Perhaps once this is done we'll have more possible hook suggestions? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • While the````re is scope for expansion, I do believe the article meets DYK requirements. DYKs do not have to be comprehensive in all aspects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes the DYK rules do not require incomplete articles, merely that unfinished articles are discouraged (to be fair, the line between the two can be blurry). However, I am quoting from the supplementary guidelines: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive. (emphasis mine). It does not need to be a blow-by-blow account on what these controversies are, but at the very least, a brief summary would be nice. If you will be unable to address this issue, and taking to account that neither proposed hook thus far is of interest to a broad audience and there doesn't seem to be anything else in the article that's "hooky", I am afraid I may have to mark this for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Look, I've written 1000+ DYKs. I know very well what is sufficient for a DYK, and this article is. You find it boring? Tough. Someone else will pass it because it meets the DYK criteria, and there are no grounds for disqualifying it. To be clear: the 'controversies' section is a related topic but not the main topic. One day I may write a dedicated article about it (pl wiki has one already and I've added a link, plus a bit more content). As far as nationalization itself, even without the controversies section, this is an adequate summary and thus DYKable. So may I kindly ask you to stop making trouble invoking a weird 'I don't like it' interpretation that I've never heard from anyone in my ~10 years of DYKing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on the above comments: i.e. the refusal of the nominator to expand on an incomplete article, coupled with two hooks that are now rejected, I am now marking this for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree with your closure. I ask for another review and I ask that you never review any of my DYKs since you use some strange interpretations. Please keep your disruptive activities away from my contributions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I fail to understand what is wrong with my request. I'm not trying to derail the nomination; on the contrary, when I mentioned the request for expansion, I was trying to help. It was you who brought up that the hook suggestions were potentially boring, and I was not even the first to mention that this is indeed the case, it was Daniel Case. Secondly, my main request was simply a request to expand the last section of the article, specifically the part which goes but some of its rulings have led to further controversies and several trials. That part ended very abruptly, with no mention of exactly what these controversies are. It didn't even need to be its own section, paragraph, or article: a single sentence could have done the job. I was simply requesting that additional information about these controversies be added to the article, and honestly I'm surprised at the reaction I've gotten in this nomination. I was hoping that perhaps if some more information could be added to the article, then new possible hook suggestions could be proposed, since the ones that have been formulated thus far aren't very good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I might have overreacted a little, through I still think the article is meets DYK criteria. Some topics do not lend themselves to great hooks, and it is not like your or anyone else has proposed a better one. The reprivatisation section is a side of the main topic here, and I don't think the hook should focus on it since it is a separate and independently notable issue that is only partially related to the topic in question, i.e. nationalization in Poland. I have already added a few sentences to the article, including to that section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been requested to offer a reading on this article, and in fairness I am Piotrus's friend. The argument that the material or introduction is "boring" is a silly one which should be rejected outright; Wikipedia is not YouTube or an entertainment site, and article introductions should provide succinct summaries or definitions; it is Taylor Swift songs that require "hooks," not a reference or encyclopedic tool. I do agree that this article could use more content and specifics. My advice, and it is only my advice, is that the article remain DYK provisionally for now with the understanding that it will be improved with expansion, and any decision on it be delayed until Piotrus or the community can revise. Keneckert (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Dr. Ken Eckert
@Keneckert: I think that when you headline a section on the Main Page "Did you know ..." the reader is set up to expect a surprising or interesting fact that would make them want to click the link. Articles themselves, I agree, do not require hooks; they are what they are and sometimes no amount of research will produce something that might elicit a raised eyebrow from a reader.
However, DYK is a different story, WP:DYKHOOK, part of the DYK rules section, explicitly asks nominators "When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." It should be beyond argument that a hook stating that a lot of problems have resulted from reprivatizing previously nationalized assets is not likely to accomplish the latter; indeed, it would be noteworthy if those problems hadn't occurred. Piotrus clearly understands this in his nomination when he admits that 1A is boring. We also pretty much lampshaded this a while back ourselves with the hook "... that The Rolling Stones are a British rock band? Okay, you probably did ..." (But that one will only work once, and that was a rather extraordinary subject). Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I expanded the part regarding controversies, so that now IMO it makes sense in general. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Source: cited in the article near the word "fraud": Davies, Christian (2017-12-18). "'They stole the soul of the city': how Warsaw's reprivatisation is causing chaos". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ALT3: ... that, unlike in other Eastern Bloc countries, the nationalization in Poland covered only about a third of the agriculture?
      Sources:
      • Anders Aslund; Senior Fellow Anders Aslund; Aslund Anders (2002). Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-521-80525-4.
      • Hannes Siegrist; Dietmar Müller (1 November 2014). Property in East Central Europe: Notions, Institutions, and Practices of Landownership in the Twentieth Century. Berghahn Books. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-78238-462-5.
      — Kpalion(talk) 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose Alt 3. I would say this is a questionable statement. It looks like the authors cited do not see the difference between nationalization and collectivization. In the Soviet Union sovkhozes were 45%. And 30% vs 45% is meaningless pissing contest. I quickly looked up and see that In DDR state-owned agriculture Volkseigenes Gut had far less share anyway. We can discus this in article talk page, but right now I see the statement as dubious. Staszek Lem (talk)
  • @Piotrus, Staszek Lem, Daniel Case, and Kpalion: It has been almost two months since the last comments here; if there's no way to move forward, I will mark this for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • As noted, there have been no objections to hook alt 2. It is just that nobody has bothered to review this properly. This should not lead to the nom being closed, we just need to find a reviewer. QPQ was done for this nom, so we just need someone to step in and do their end of the review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No objections to Hook Alt 2 Staszek Lem (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, no policy violations detected, image properly licensed, QPQ done. Offline references accepted in good faith. Good to go with ALT2. SpinningSpark 16:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nationalization_in_Poland&oldid=888086515"