Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Biblioteca della Comunità Israelitica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 09:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Biblioteca della Comunità Israelitica

[edit]

Created by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 02:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: "Continue to be lost" is not natural English. See alternate suggestion below. Catrìona (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: @Catrìona: There might also be the option of combining the hook with the Raid of the Ghetto of Rome article which I expanded more then five fold on 30 September and which is historically tied to the looting. The hook is quite long but certain sections could be cut out to make it shorter:

@Turismond: These are two separate events and really deserve their own hooks. Should I ask for a second reviewer for ALT2? (I'm happy to nominate/review the raid for DYK). Catrìona (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I'm happy to go either way, I would just ask you to please have a read of the expanded version of Raid of the Ghetto of Rome to make sure it's OK before nominating it for DYK. Turismond (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the other article separately. Catrìona (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Catriona: Could you give this nomination a formal tick of approval, and then I will be able to do what you request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I came by to approve the article for promotion, but first did some editing to focus the lead on the subject and also fine-tune the rest of the presentation. I added two "citation needed" tags to the lead for facts that are not sourced anywhere. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The hooks also appear to be incorrect; none of the contents of the Biblioteca della Comunità Israelitica were ever recovered, in contrast to part of the contents of the Italian Rabbinical College. Proposing ALT4:
  • ALT4: ... that the entire contents of the Biblioteca della Comunità Israelitica in Rome, with volumes dating back to the 16th century, were looted by Germany 75 years ago today, and never recovered? Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Turismond: You're right, that's what the source says. Approving ALT4. Thanks for your help with this nomination! Catrìona (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The key problem, which goes beyond our ability to solve, is that no catalogue of the content exists. Looking through all the sources I reviewed for the article, the dilemma is that a few items that have at one stage belonged to it have been found but it appears that these were removed before the looting. A few items have also been saved in the days before the looting but, as for what was looted, the general consensus is that nothing has been found again. Turismond (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Turismond, you need to fix the article promptly or else the hook will not make it to the October 14 prep set. Can you add a source for the information you just related? I could help you write it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I'm not sure what to fix up in the article as it already states that no part of the library was ever recovered, as does the hook and the sources for the article. The fact that there is, apparently, two books in New York that may have once have belonged to the library but were possibly removed before the looting is all speculation and of questionable reliability, but I will add it to the article if you wish. Turismond (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a bit about the two NY manuscripts to the article. Turismond (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've removed the word "entire" from the hook. Restoring tick per Catrìona's review. Yoninah (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)