- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wilfried Gruhn
Wilfried Gruhn in 2018
- ... that Wilfried Gruhn (pictured) founded a centre for early childhood music learning in Freiburg, based on the Gordon music learning theory? Source: [1]
- Reviewed:
to come - Comment: Edwin Gordon deserves an article which isn't just a redirect.
- Reviewed:
Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 07:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC).
Article largely meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done. I didn't detect any close paraphrasing (this link detected by Earwig appears to be a false positive). The hook fact is mentioned in the article; however it lacks a footnote. In fact, the entire first paragraph of the "Scientific focus" section is unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. This is one of four emergency nominations (all due today), - I'll deal with problems after the other three, and several missing qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I asked for patience - until Edwin Gordon is created - in my comment when nominating, - didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- One step done, reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Temple of Jupiter Apenninus --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Gerda, just to follow up: the paragraph I mentioned earlier is still unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- ... and the other article is still not written. On 9 September, three people died, and I got around to only one yet. A GA review is waiting. He will also have to wait, or should we comment out the paragraph? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given that the hook is based on said paragraph, it must be referenced; commenting it out would mean that the hook would become unsupported and thus cannot be used. Gordon's article can wait since he isn't even directly mentioned in the article and his article's non-existence does not affect this article's eligibility. The issues will need to be resolved eventually, otherwise the nomination may end up being closed for staleness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I looked at the article, referenced the Gordon relation in general and the founding of the centre named after him, but commented out the names of scientific collaborator most of which have no article (yet).
ALT1: ... that Wilfried Gruhn (pictured) founded both the Gordon Institute for early childhood music learning in Freiburg and an international society dedicated to Leo Kestenberg?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)- Honestly I prefer the original hook, it seems more eye-catching. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am not surprised. It would leave him in a Freiburg corner, instead of international expertise related to an educator with a vision who suffered under the Nazis. Repeating: I care more about what the millions reading only the hook will take home, than get the number of those who click from 600 to 900. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- In any case, neither hook can be approved at this time, because the specific sentence mentioning the founding of the school is still lacking a footnote. I will approve the nomination once this is accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I repaired the grammar in that sentence, but it has a ref, no? Some day, the whole thing should be restructured, having the foundation under Scientific focus, but right now, I'm going out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- In any case, neither hook can be approved at this time, because the specific sentence mentioning the founding of the school is still lacking a footnote. I will approve the nomination once this is accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am not surprised. It would leave him in a Freiburg corner, instead of international expertise related to an educator with a vision who suffered under the Nazis. Repeating: I care more about what the millions reading only the hook will take home, than get the number of those who click from 600 to 900. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly I prefer the original hook, it seems more eye-catching. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given that the hook is based on said paragraph, it must be referenced; commenting it out would mean that the hook would become unsupported and thus cannot be used. Gordon's article can wait since he isn't even directly mentioned in the article and his article's non-existence does not affect this article's eligibility. The issues will need to be resolved eventually, otherwise the nomination may end up being closed for staleness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the edits. So I'm approving ALT0; although ALT1 was an acceptable hook, my concern was that it seems to be a bit too reliant on knowledge of either Gordon or Kestenberg, whereas ALT0 does not have this issue. Assuming good faith for the German source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the approval. I am a bit surprised, because without knowledge of Gordon, ALT0 means nothing, - nobody would get a Wikipedia article for opening a centre of early music learning. In that way, ALT0 relies more on knowledge. I, however, believe that no DYK relies on knowledge, but tries to present new knowledge. I didn't know Kestenberg until reading Gruhn, but am so grateful that it changed. Unstriking ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
To the new reviewer: I had struck the original hook, thinking ALT1 presents a broader picture of a professor at international universities. What do you think?- ALT1: ... that Wilfried Gruhn (pictured) founded both the Gordon Institute for early childhood music learning in Freiburg and an international society dedicated to Leo Kestenberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda, let's put it this way. The original hook was fine, it tells about this person creating a school based on a theory. This is one of the rare cases where your original hook can actaully appeal to a broad audience. The theory has an article, and while it's named after a person, the hook wasn't reliant on knowledge of the person to work. The main point, that he founded a school based on a this particular theory, stood. ALT1, on the other hand, is reliant on a reader knowing Kestenberg. The original hook worked because it was focusing on Gordon's theory, not Gordon himself. Kestenberg, let's face it, is not a very well-known person, and I don't think his mention adds much to the hook (if I were a disinterested reader, I'd probably find it more interesting that Gruhn used a particular music theory rather than him establishing a society dedicated to someone I'd never heard of). This is not to downplay Kestenberg's achievements, but rather merely to explain why personally I feel that ALT0 is the better option. Had ALT1 been proposed from the start and ALT0 never existed, I would have been fine approving ALT1, but as it stands, there's a superior hook here and it's ALT0. As a compromise, if you want, I will unstrike ALT0 and let another editor choose between which of the two hooks they think is better, but personally I would really rather go with the original hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is a hook you feel is superior, and I don't, and therefore had struck it, and you ignored me striking. ALT1 links to the very same theory article as ALT0, but - imho - adds something about Gruhn's exceptional efforts to get Kestenberg remembered, which is saying something about Gruhn, not Kestenberg. - If another reviewer agrees with you I'll reconsider. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5: I'd say that a hook about music theory would be interesting (so ALT0 is good), and a full hook about Gruhn's efforts towards Kestenburg would be interesting (a possible ALT2)—but it's gotta be one or the other. Gerda, if you want to make sure that everyone reading the hook comes away with something without having to click on the article, you should choose a focus. 200 characters, as we've found out repeatedly on Twitter, is not enough to tell the whole story and its many chapters. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 200 chars are not long enough to say that Kestenberg was a great thinker about exactly that early music learning whose reform plans were stopped by the Nazis, so the two facts are closely knitted, but observant DYK readers know that already because DYK recently said so. I'd like the first part for the readers with little attention span, and the second as a bonus for the others, and doing more justice to Gruhn's wide international activities. If only one take the second, adding a few words from the Kestenberg hook and thus bore some readers, and leave the first to the upcoming article about Gordon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would you be fine with proposing a hook about just Kestenberg? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- (ec but perhaps your answer): ... or take ALT0 with the image, to save us all some time, - with image, there are chances that readers will click and get to Kestenberg. Without image, and ALT0, I predict 500 - who will want just early leaning and its theory? - that seems more niche than opera. - After edit conflict: no: I don't want to say the same thing twice, with just the addition that it was Gruhn who saved Kestenberg from being forgotten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alright then. If it's okay with you, let's go with ALT0 then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think I'd have suggested it if not okay? I hope for the image then, to not leave him in a local early education corner. - Imagine that was your grandfather. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alright then. If it's okay with you, let's go with ALT0 then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- (ec but perhaps your answer): ... or take ALT0 with the image, to save us all some time, - with image, there are chances that readers will click and get to Kestenberg. Without image, and ALT0, I predict 500 - who will want just early leaning and its theory? - that seems more niche than opera. - After edit conflict: no: I don't want to say the same thing twice, with just the addition that it was Gruhn who saved Kestenberg from being forgotten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would you be fine with proposing a hook about just Kestenberg? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 200 chars are not long enough to say that Kestenberg was a great thinker about exactly that early music learning whose reform plans were stopped by the Nazis, so the two facts are closely knitted, but observant DYK readers know that already because DYK recently said so. I'd like the first part for the readers with little attention span, and the second as a bonus for the others, and doing more justice to Gruhn's wide international activities. If only one take the second, adding a few words from the Kestenberg hook and thus bore some readers, and leave the first to the upcoming article about Gordon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5: I'd say that a hook about music theory would be interesting (so ALT0 is good), and a full hook about Gruhn's efforts towards Kestenburg would be interesting (a possible ALT2)—but it's gotta be one or the other. Gerda, if you want to make sure that everyone reading the hook comes away with something without having to click on the article, you should choose a focus. 200 characters, as we've found out repeatedly on Twitter, is not enough to tell the whole story and its many chapters. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is a hook you feel is superior, and I don't, and therefore had struck it, and you ignored me striking. ALT1 links to the very same theory article as ALT0, but - imho - adds something about Gruhn's exceptional efforts to get Kestenberg remembered, which is saying something about Gruhn, not Kestenberg. - If another reviewer agrees with you I'll reconsider. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda, let's put it this way. The original hook was fine, it tells about this person creating a school based on a theory. This is one of the rare cases where your original hook can actaully appeal to a broad audience. The theory has an article, and while it's named after a person, the hook wasn't reliant on knowledge of the person to work. The main point, that he founded a school based on a this particular theory, stood. ALT1, on the other hand, is reliant on a reader knowing Kestenberg. The original hook worked because it was focusing on Gordon's theory, not Gordon himself. Kestenberg, let's face it, is not a very well-known person, and I don't think his mention adds much to the hook (if I were a disinterested reader, I'd probably find it more interesting that Gruhn used a particular music theory rather than him establishing a society dedicated to someone I'd never heard of). This is not to downplay Kestenberg's achievements, but rather merely to explain why personally I feel that ALT0 is the better option. Had ALT1 been proposed from the start and ALT0 never existed, I would have been fine approving ALT1, but as it stands, there's a superior hook here and it's ALT0. As a compromise, if you want, I will unstrike ALT0 and let another editor choose between which of the two hooks they think is better, but personally I would really rather go with the original hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, approving ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)