- The following discussion 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 Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
AGF, Hook 2. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Vasile Pogor
edit
... that Vasile Pogor (pictured), Romania's first Buddhist scholar and co-founder of the Conservative Party, appeared to be "missing something upstairs"?
- Reviewed: Paschal Robinson
Created/expanded by Dahn (talk). Self nom at 02:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Good to go, great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I had placed this in a prep area, but realized as I was about to promote the template that the body of the article does not assert that Pogor was the first Buddhist scholar, only the intro, and there is therefore no inline source for this fact as required by DYK rules. Assuming that Pogor was in fact the first one, this statement needs to be inserted in the body of the article and needs to have an inline source citation. (The other two facts, co-founder and "missing", are sourced.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good catch. The Vianu source I used does not, upon a second look, say he was the first, just that he wrote an introduction to Buddhism - other sources tackle the subject without much detail, and do not call it either way. I was under the assumption that he was, wrote the lead, wrote the text, and forgot to revisit the issue before saving the article. I now changed the lead to a vaguer statement. Anyway, how's:
- ALT 1:
... that Vasile Pogor (pictured), early Romanian Buddhist scholar and co-founder of the Conservative Party, appeared to be "missing something upstairs"?Dahn (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see support for "early" in the article; there isn't anything about other possible scholars of Buddhism, either of the time, before, or after; that he wrote about and popularized the subject may be suggestive, but scholars are outside of popularization. Why not just "a Romanian Buddhist scholar"? It's an interesting enough juxtaposition all on its own. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Feel free to tweak the alt and stike out our comments, or the other way around, whichever you feel is best for highlighting the changes. Dahn (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done below. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Feel free to tweak the alt and stike out our comments, or the other way around, whichever you feel is best for highlighting the changes. Dahn (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see support for "early" in the article; there isn't anything about other possible scholars of Buddhism, either of the time, before, or after; that he wrote about and popularized the subject may be suggestive, but scholars are outside of popularization. Why not just "a Romanian Buddhist scholar"? It's an interesting enough juxtaposition all on its own. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- ALT 2: ... that Vasile Pogor (pictured), a Romanian Buddhist scholar and co-founder of the Conservative Party, appeared to be "missing something upstairs"?
- ALT 1:
Need independent confirmation of new ALT hook and this will be ready for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
hook is there and referenced, and one partial confirmation is confirmed online. AGF in offline Scriitori români, Vol. II. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good catch. The Vianu source I used does not, upon a second look, say he was the first, just that he wrote an introduction to Buddhism - other sources tackle the subject without much detail, and do not call it either way. I was under the assumption that he was, wrote the lead, wrote the text, and forgot to revisit the issue before saving the article. I now changed the lead to a vaguer statement. Anyway, how's:
