Template:Did you know nominations/Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945
- 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 97198 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945[edit]
- ... that the editors of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos found that the Nazis had imprisoned and murdered people at 42,500 locations, far more than previously thought? Source: Van Pelt 2014, p. 150, [1]
- ALT1:... that, when the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos is complete, it will chronicle Nazi persecution and murder at 42,500 separate locations?
- Reviewed: René Velázquez Valenzuela
5x expanded by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 11:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, well-written within policy, no copyvio/plagiarism. Hook is cited in the article and is very interesting; I like the original ALT0 the best. QPQ has been done and no image is used. Just one suggestion Catrìona; what do you think about specifying that it was 8 times as much as previously thought? This isn't a big deal and certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker, but it's stated clearly in the source and "far more than previously thought" is a bit vague. Nice work overall!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SkyGazer 512: Thanks for reviewing. Multiple journalistic sources do cite the 8-times figure so it's in the article but it may not be that clear cut. Van Pelt in his review said that the editors didn't actually start with an estimate. Catrìona (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine with me if you don't think it's clear cut enough to have in the DYK hook; it's a minor thing and I have no issue with using the original.
--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine with me if you don't think it's clear cut enough to have in the DYK hook; it's a minor thing and I have no issue with using the original.
- @SkyGazer 512: Thanks for reviewing. Multiple journalistic sources do cite the 8-times figure so it's in the article but it may not be that clear cut. Van Pelt in his review said that the editors didn't actually start with an estimate. Catrìona (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
