- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Nominator has not edited Wikipedia since the day this was nominated, and therefore has not addressed the significant issues raised as part of the review and despite the talk-page pings. Closing as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paul Schaap
- ... that Paul Schaap is an unrecognised Dutch whistleblower?
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
Created by Epmdejong (talk). Self-nominated at 06:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC).
I'm not really comfortable with this. The hook says "is an unrecognised whistleblower", but the lead says "He became well known as a whistleblower" and the body says "The judge handeling the whistleblower case of Schaap, concluded that Schaap couldn't get the status of a whistleblower." which is backed by the source. So calling him a whistleblower, unrecognised or not, is not actually correct. I am also concerned about the rule that says "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The nominator has not edited since the day of the nomination and has been unable to respond to the initial review or to subsequent pings. Considering the article issues and how the nominator appears unlikely to return, it is with regret that the nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
