Template:Did you know nominations/Zwei Choralphantasien, Op. 40

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 Yoninah (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Zwei Choralphantasien, Op. 40

edit
Reger in 1901
Reger in 1901

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Some issues found.
    • This article is new and was created on 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This article is too short at 1495 characters (the DYK minimum is 1500 characters) Long enough - 1561 by my count, though this is within margin of error. Intelligentsium 23:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • A copyright violation is unlikely (13.8% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Long enough, new enough, utilises high quality sources. I would blue link apotheosis in the hook. Will take another look this afternoon (want to have a listen in between), but seems from a 5 minute peak - good to go. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh christ, scripts are now rating articles. Bad news. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ceoil, there's a new bot that does a preliminary look at an article and checks certain things, but a human reviewer is always required at DYK: bots cannot identify serious grammatical problems, neutrality issues, actual copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism, quality of sourcing, whether the QPQ was adequate, and so on. If you want to do the real review, please continue. If not, I'll call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Full review needed by human reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is free of close paraphrasing, long enough, hook is interesting, neutral, within policy and so on. Good to go. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)