Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Counter-Reformation in Poland

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 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-Reformation in Poland

[edit]

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

  • I've briefly scanned the article; I've added ALT1, though there may be better alternatives. Mindmatrix 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that the successful Counter-Reformation in Poland ended with the Repnin Sejm of 1768, which abolished legal discrimination against religious dissidents?

@Mindmatrix: Thanks! I think ALT1 is more interesting, but I am a bit worried it could be misleading - suggesting that the counter-reformation while initially successful failed after he Repnin Sejm, whereas at that point it has alredy won, and so relaxing the law didn't change that. Any thoughts on how we could reword the hook to reflect that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I struck through the original hook, since "success" of a social movement is basically a matter of opinion requiring attribution (who says it was a success?) and/or context (e.g., indication of what it succeeded). --Orlady (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough (created 13 June, nom 13 June), and long enough. QPQ done. Online citation #1 appears to support ALT1, but I see Piotrus' point. What about something like "blah was the culminating event of the successful blah"? Or "blah, the final event during blah, abolished blah"? Text is objective and neutral; and is fully referenced. Spot checks for copyvio and close paraphrasing found no matches. Another excellent and careful article from this nominator. If ALT1 could be re-phrased as per Piotrus' comment above, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Is something like that what you were after, Piotrus? (just trying to unjam the nomination, so I haven't read the article. What a lazy cow!) Belle (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have struck ALT1 which is superseded by ALT2. Good to go with ALT2 which checks out with online citation #1. --Storye book (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)