Template:Did you know nominations/Bremen Soviet Republic
- 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: rejected by 97198 (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bremen Soviet Republic[edit]
- ... that after World War I, the German city of Bremen was briefly under the control of the Bremen Soviet Republic? Source: The Bremen Soviet Republic was an unrecognised short lived state, lasting just 25 days, in 1919 covering the city of Bremen, Germany.
- ALT1:... that the Bremen Soviet Republic established in January 1919 lasted just 25 days? Source: The Bremen Soviet Republic was an unrecognised short lived state, lasting just 25 days, in 1919 covering the city of Bremen, Germany.
Created by Vasemmistolainen (talk). Self-nominated at 15:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
@Vasemmistolainen: Interesting topic, no QPQ review needed, reliably sourced, both hooks are fine, but the article is a little too short. Do you think you can expand it a bit further? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yep - should be no problem expanding it a bit more. Will let you know when completed (probably end of the day). Vasemmistolainen (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Al Ameer son: I've expanded the article further. Could you have a look to see if it meets the requirements. The German language article on the subject is very good (albeit quite poorly referenced) so I'll try to expanded it further during the next few days. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- The hook seems to be erroneously referring to the second world war rather than the first. C679 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Vasemmistolainen: I made some copyedits and this nomination should be good to go. I'm assuming good faith for the offline sources. @Cloudz679: I went ahead and fixed that typo, thanks for spotting it. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but added a "citation needed" tag to a statement that needs one. I also think there are too many "see also" links in the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Vasemmistolainen: Could you add the missing reference(s) to the "Establishment" section? I removed some "See also" links, but it could be shaved down more. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Al Ameer son: I've expanded the article further. Could you have a look to see if it meets the requirements. The German language article on the subject is very good (albeit quite poorly referenced) so I'll try to expanded it further during the next few days. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yep - should be no problem expanding it a bit more. Will let you know when completed (probably end of the day). Vasemmistolainen (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There has been no action to add the necessary citations in over five weeks (required for this to be approved at DYK), and Vasemmistolainen has not edited on Wikipedia since February 1. Unless these issues are cleared up very soon, this nomination will not be able to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Normally, I would have waited a full seven days, but Vasemmistolainen was editing on Wikipedia from January 1 to February 1 of this year and hasn't been back, and Yoninah pinged their user page on February 8: six weeks is long enough to wait. Marking for closure; informing reviewer Al Ameer son of my decision. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
