Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Gaćinović
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Vladimir Gaćinović[edit]
- ... that Vladimir Gaćinović was the real ideologue of the revolutionary movement Young Bosnia and tyrannicide as method of its political struggle?
- Reviewed: Sergent Blandan
Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nominated at 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC).
The article is barely long enough (counting the references). But it is appallingly written. Take for instance: "Since 1905 there were two secret student's societies in Mostar high school. One of them was "Matica", led by Dimitrije Mitrinović.[2] When he was seventeen year old he was a member of literature society "Matica" and published an interesting essay about Petar Kočić.[3]" The grammar is atrocious, the POV wording ("interesting") needs attribution or changing to something not POV. Same for: "In period between Autumn of 1910 and Summer of 1912 Gaćinović was a student of Vienna University.[7]" Or: "Gaćinović published condemnation of lack of idealism among younger generations who had studied at foreign universities and brought to their homes opportunism, petty individualism and conformity as main aim of their lives.[8]".
In fact, the same goes for the hook: "that Vladimir Gaćinović was the real ideologue of the revolutionary movement Young Bosnia and tyrannicide as method of its political struggle?" -- what does that even mean? A verb is missing (which one?), or else the word "tyrannicide" is used without regard to its grammatical function.
The whole article needs a rewrite, frankly, before it can be assessed for other DYK criteria. Dahn (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Dahn for interesting review. I will try to resolve the issues you pointed to. Regarding the length, the article has 1,963 characters (not counting the references), which is much more than 1,500.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, I apologize for that: I keep thinking that the limit is at 2,000 characters. Dahn (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Actually, most of the articles I nominate for DYK have much more than 2,000 characters, but in case of this article it is hard to further develop it in neutral way, taking in consideration complexity of this person and events. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, I apologize for that: I keep thinking that the limit is at 2,000 characters. Dahn (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Dahn for interesting review. I will try to resolve the issues you pointed to. Regarding the length, the article has 1,963 characters (not counting the references), which is much more than 1,500.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the issues with the article itself were fixed (I want to congratulate the team of editors who took part in this effort), there remains the issue of the hook. I get now what it is trying to say, so I want to suggest:
- ALT 1: ... that as ideologue of the revolutionary movement Young Bosnia, Vladimir Gaćinović justified tyrannicide, thus paving the way for the Sarajevo Assassination?
- Note, however, that other hooks variants may be more catchy. If I may propose:
- ALT 2: ... that, although he had justified tyrannicide as a method of political struggle, Young Bosnia ideologist Vladimir Gaćinović condemned the Sarajevo Assassination?
- ALT 3: ... that Vladimir Gaćinović, whose campaign for tyrannicide indirectly sparked World War I, was himself assassinated in neutral Switzerland?
- Dahn (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for suggesting alternative hooks. The point is that The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, ... The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it,.... Therefore I still think that the original hook is better. If it is not clear enough, it may be corrected. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check the various hooks, and say which ones are interesting, neutral, in the article, and sourced per DYK requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources are available in English and they confirms the hook to be legitimate. I see no problem with the original hook. Alt 3 maybe more interesting for some, but I guess we can do with the original hook. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
