Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania

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 Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania

(

)

... that the Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania lasted 75 days? Source: [1], page 292

Improved to Good Article status by Mindaur (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC).

Is there nothing more interesting to say about the blockade than just its length? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb: Would any of these be more interesting?

ALT1: ... that during the Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania, queues to petrol stations were observed to reach multiple kilometres? [2]
ALT2: ... that during the Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania, petrol was rationed to 20 litres per person? [3]

--Mindaur (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, ALT1 is much better! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb: OK, what's the correct process here? Should I change the hook above or the reviewer will just pick one? --Mindaur (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer will pick one, so you're good for now; just wait for someone to come along. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - ALT1, not original

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article has been awarded GA status within 7 days from its appearance, and is long enough (though pretty short for GA standards). The article is also reasonably sourced and is neutral. No plagiarism detected, though a few sources are in Lithuanian, where I assume good faith on behalf of the nominator. The original hook is bland, but ALT1 is fine for me. The editor is QPQ-exempt for now. I'd say alright for the version so far as the DYK nomination goes, so in that context, I am fine with the hook.

However, I have serious doubts about the GA status in this case. Not that I want to nominate it for its revocation right now or that I won't let it go for DYK, but there are several issues which I see as incompatible with GA and should be corrected ASAP. First, the article needs proofreading badly, which I'll do. Bear in mind, though, that I know Russian but not Lithuanian, so if my corrections/best guesses in any way distort what you wanted to say in Lithuanian, let me know. Second, the article in Russian is more expansive than the English version, and I suspect that many more sources can be found in Russian, and probably in Google Scholar/Google Books. This, again, needs a Russian-speaking editor. Even as the "broad coverage" does not necessitate coverage of all aspects of the problem, it should nevertheless be broad, which I don't believe is the case here. I will be of some help there, but it would be best if some Russian-speaking Wikipedian from LT led the effort. I think more hooks could be retrieved from this research, which will probably attract more users to the article.

~~Long story short: DYK could go, but I strongly believe this GA fails "broad coverage" criterion, therefore I am putting the nomination on hold until these issues are fixed.~~

Following the discussion on the talk page of the article, I change my vote to the affirmative. The DYK is good to go. 05:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I responded to you in the talk section of the article (where I believe this discussion belongs to). Mindaur (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)