- 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 RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Ryti–Ribbentrop Agreement
Improved to Good Article status by Ljleppan (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 19:56, 26 October 2022 (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
|
|
|
Overall: 
@LordPeterII: good article! 
I'm going to have to assume good faith on the offline and foreign language sources and approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Technically this hook is not in any single source, which is why I didn't gave one. It's a combination of three facts: First, Finland wanted to get miliary aid from Germany. Second, they chose to send a personal letter to achieve that (since parliament might have protested). Third, despite or irregardless of this, ties between Finland and Nazi Germany broke down shortly afterwards, and the Lapland War started in 1944, the same year that the agreement was signed. There's no direct causal connection between the two, I just thought it was interesting that between the sending of the letter (end of June 44) and its voiding (August 44) lay just over a month, and another one and a half months later (September 44) the countries were at war already.
- Would you say combining them into a hook like this is a problem? –LordPeterII (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII and Onegreatjoke:
I would say that that probably presents a SYNTH issue, yeah – it communicates an idea about the effectiveness of the agreement that isn't explicitly backed up by the sourcing. This is a very interesting article, though, so I doubt you'll have trouble finding another hook :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Alright, alright, you're very thorough, aren't you?
- How about ALT1? It simply drops the synthy part, and hopefully remains hooky because people tend to click on just about anything Hitler. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I gotta feel like we can do a bit better than just mentioning Hitler and hoping for clicks, right? How about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Huh, those are indeed good options. I'd prefer if the "personal letter" phrase was kept in ALT3 also, because otherwise it sounds like a regular agreement (which it notably was not). So
I've struck the other hooks. Maybe Onegreatjoke you want to review the current ones? –LordPeterII (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: Approving both new hooks. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I feel we should state who the letter was sent by, for example: ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste: Mhh, maybe. But I think it's more "hooky" (because shorter) without it, and I believe it should be obvious enough that the letter was from Finland (although maybe not by whom exactly) – because otherwise why would the US cut ties with them? It's always a balancing act between accuracy/detail and hookiness. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: good article! 
I'm going to have to assume good faith on the offline and foreign language sources and approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
