Template:Did you know nominations/XIX Army Corps

Add links
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

XIX Army Corps[edit]

(
)
  • ... that the XIX Army Corps, a Nazi era German Panzer corps, fought its way from Luxembourg to the English Channel in just ten days? Source: Guderian, Heinz (2003) [1950]. Erinnerungen eines Soldaten. Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3879436932. OCLC 460817326.

Created by Ted52 (talk). Nominated by DannyS712 (talk) at 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - I'm probably just blind, but I don't see where the article explicitly supports the material in the DYK hook and cites a source supporting it
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: I find the article very interesting and comprehensive; I can tell the creator worked very hard on it and that is much appreciated! However, I'm afraid this will require work before it can be eligible. I'd suggest first making sure all material is supported by a reliable sources and then requesting a copy-edit. I haven't fully reviewed for neutrality yet but will soon. Best of wishes, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: can you take a look at this? I'm not any where to as knowledgeable about this page as you are... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: All material can be supported by sources, but I was of the impression that citing the same page over and over again is just bad style. I could go through the work of citing every paragraph? Ted52 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Ted52. Since you're using an inline citation style, then the general rule is that there should be a cite for at least every paragraph, and if a paragraph has material from multiple citations you may sometimes want to distribute multiple refs within that paragraph. Using a cite multiple times it's not a problem; it's certainly better than having unsourced material. The following sections in particular need to be sourced better:
  • Wizna and Brest-Litovsk (6–16 September 1939)
  • The "German-Soviet Parade" and the Conclusion of the Campaign (17 September - 6 October 1939)
  • Preparations
  • Attack towards the Meuse (10–13 May 1940)
  • In the Somme Basin (17–20 May 1940)
  • Towards Dunkirk (21–29 May 1940)
  • Panzergruppe Guderian and southern Redeployment (28 May - 9 June 1940)
  • Southern Offensive (10–22 June 1940)
  • Panzergruppe 2
  • XIX Mountain Army Corps
It's an interesting read, and again, I can tell you worked hard on it. Let me know if you have any questions.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
{{reply to:SkyGazer 512}} Very well, will do. Is there a way I can template one reference and use it for the next? Reentering the same book's info over and over again is cumbersome, but I also don't want to do the thing where it's like "p. 100 - 200", because that's silly. I would like to preferably use the same reference over and over again for like 60% of the passages you inquire about, but with a slightly different page notation each time. The reason why most of the paragraphs aren't cited is exactly that 'cumbersome' functionality of having to build the reference from scratch everytime. Ted52 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ted52: Well, I suppose you could convert to using {{sfn}} refs. Basically how that works is you have two reference sections; one of them has a list of sources and the other usually just contains {{reflist}}. For the list of sources section, you include |ref=harv at the end of each citation template. Then, whenever you want to use a reference in the article, use the coding {{sfn|Author's last name|Year the author wrote it|pp=Page number range (or p=single page number)}}, and make sure that in the list of sources section each ref has a last= parameter and either a year= or date= parameter. If you do everything correctly, when you click on a sfn ref used in the article, it will be abbreviated and take you to the ref section with the reflist; then if you click on the highlighted ref there, it will take you to that ref's entry in the list of full sources, which only need to be listed once. It sounds confusing, yes, but once you get used to it it's not as bad as it seems. The documentation page for the template gives a lot more details. I can give you some examples if you'd like and I could help you convert the refs for this one. It's often a good idea to use it when there are book citations which you use a large number of pages from. Another technique sometimes used is having sfn for some sources and the other "main" ref style for others, such as using sfn for only books.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
An example of a page using sfn for only the book refs is Chinese alligator (e.g., the abbreviated Reading & Miller 2000, p. 72. in the reflist which links to the full ref in the sources subsection: Reading, Richard P.; Miller, Brian (2000). Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0313308161. Retrieved December 9, 2018.). Molly Morgan is an example of a page which uses sfn for all references except one. If you have any further questions, please let me know; this can seem quite confusing. I highly recommend that you read the documentation page for the sfn template if you might want to use this style.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
(btw, Ted52, the correct coding for a ping is {{reply to|USERNAME HERE}}, not {{reply to:USERNAME HERE}} :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Another way to repeat citations of the same source, specifying different pages, is to define a reference by name (e.g. SOURCE) and combine that with a page number template e.g. 
    <ref name="SOURCE"/>{{rp|6-42}}
    Repeat as needed, just give relevant page numbers each time. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, I just noticed this on the Milhist alert list. I thought I'd give you a heads-up that Guderian was the commanding general of this formation at the time, and we need to be careful about accepting what he says as gospel, given he is probably too close to the subject. It would be much better if this hook was cited to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. As a general observation, the article relies far too heavily on Guderian's writings, needs more independent reliable sources, and we need to be wary of the clean Wehrmacht trope associated with many Wehrmacht generals trying to whitewash their activities during the war. Also, the article should be at XIX Army Corps (Wehrmacht) IAW pre-emptive disambiguation arrangements for military formations per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ted52: It's been a while since this nom has received any activity; would it be possible for you to cite the hook to a source that is independent of the subject and reliable, per Peacemaker67's suggestion? Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512:@Peacemaker67: I think I have been quite careful in pointing out the rather obvious flaws with Guderian's writings in terms of the war crimes committed by the German units during the operation, and used them strictly for the purpose of the unit's military movement. Yes, there are authors I could cite - Piekalkiewicz, Mazouwer, Shirer, Frieser, Kershaw, Bishop and others have all at least tangentially written about XIX Army Corps, especially as it was so central to the operational success of the whole campaign. But - and this a big but -, they all go back to Guderian's writings as their source for any troop movements they describe. You'll reliably find his books in their bibliographies, and, if inline citations are used, they either reference him or often earlier authors that also referenced him. You're not going to find precise primary source information about what battle lines the units were to take on Guderian's orders or what crossroads they were to advance to or what towns were or weren't captured in a single day outside of Guderian, who got to use his personal notes for the information at hand. I tried desperately to staff up any information that could be double checked, but even good old Percy Schramm couldn't help me, as his war diaries don't start before August of 1940. So, if it's okay to just phantom cite Guderian through other authors, I guess I can try and do that, but that's hardly intellectually honest. Ted52 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your work on the article, Ted52. Looking through this nomination and the article, I think it would be best if I let somebody do the rest of the review. It would be nice to have a second opinion on whether the sourcing is sufficient now. Also, it is a really long article and I have been doing quite a bit in both real life and Wikipedia lately, so I'm not sure I would be able to take thoroughly look over so many paragraphs and sources myself. In addition, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the article topic (although it is very interesting) or the languages the refs use. Therefore, I'm requesting a new reviewer. I apologize for taking so long to get back.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the substantial effort that has been put into this article, and I would like to see this nomination move forward. Before I pick up the review, I have a couple suggestions. The article's introduction is very small compared to the text in the main body. I think it should be expanded to adequate summarize the key points of the article. I also note that there are several properly licensed photos in the article which would be suitable for a photo hook. It would be nice to feature this nomination in the photo slot. Once the introduction is expanded, I will go ahead with the full review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ted52, thank you for the expanded introduction. It looks good at first glance. I will start reading through in more detail later today. It might take me a few days to do a full review because this is a big article, but I promise to do a bit each day until we are done! Flibirigit (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, your contriubtions to the introduction are noted here. Would you like to help out with this nomination? Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, thanks for the acknowledgement. I actually came here as I need to do some QPQ reviews, saw that this needed an intro, and started it. I do mean to extend on it to cover France but have not returned – real life and all that! – but I will get to it within a few days. I can't be a reviewer now that I've added half an intro, but I will help out if I can. Certainly the article deserves main page exposure, but also a copyedit and some referencing work like including English-language titles of references. EdChem (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, thanks again for what you have do so far. I can wait a day or two if time is needed. I understand, as we all get busy. I will likely do this review in bits and pieces since it is a substantial work. Aside from the introduction, I am curious if a hook can be formed from one or more of the photos in the article. I'm also curious about limiting the very long table of contents via Template:TOC limit. We could leave each day as a header, but add one more level to the hierarchy and group them by week or battle perhaps? Flibirigit (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting back to this sooner. I will go over it again in more detail tomorrow and on the weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ted52, EdChem, I am about halfway finished reading through the article. I will post a finished review tomorrow. I can work with the present hook, but are either of you interested in proposing a hook with a photo? Flibirigit (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Second review

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - ?
Overall: The article is still new enough and long enough as in the first review. I found nothing that makes the article biased in favour of either side of the war, and is neutral in tone. I alos detected no plagiarism issues. The hook is interesting, mentioned inline, and is cited by a combination of sources. There is not photo used in this nomination as of yet. The nominator User:DannyS712 has more than five DYK credits, therefore QPQ is required. There are still a few paragraphs which need citations, however I note a big improvement from the first review. Also, there are a few section headers which are blank. I'm unsure if more text is coming to fill these in, or if they can be removed. The introduction appears to summarize only the eastern front. It needs to be expanded with content from the western front. Flibirigit (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: qpq added --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • DannyS712, Flibirigit, I note that the 27 May 1940 and 21 June 1940 sections still remain blank, which is not allowed under DYK rules. Also, if there are any sections that are uncited, these need to be taken care of. DannyS712, do you think these can be taken care of soon? This nomination has been open since the final day of 2018, over five months ago, and really needs to be concluded. Thank you very much for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I have posted on the talk pages for Ted52 and EdChem to find out if either have time to contribute. I am willing to do copyediting, but I do not have the time or expertise to research the concerns I mentioned in my review above. If no help is coming soon, I will mark the review for closure. If that happens, I hope the article is eventually improved to GA status and nominated again for DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: It has to be noted that neither editor has edited this month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit:@Narutolovehinata5: Removed those sections. But frankly, I am no longer interested in this DYK thing. I have no idea why you guys are pursuing this if the article was previously already rejected. But whatever. Ted52 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that Ted52 no longer wishes to be involved, despite this nomination not being rejected at this time. Since there are still some unsourced sections at this time, this nomination cannot be approved at this time. I will wait a few days to see if EdChem or DannyS712 wish to continue. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit:: It's not so much about no longer wishing to be involved and more so my dissatisfaction with the intransparency of the process. However, I am interested in keeping the article to the highest quality possible. What do you think needs more sourcing? Ted52 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ted, thank you for be willing to continue with the article. I will compile of list of sourcing questions and post it here by tomorrow or Friday at the latest. As for the transparency of DYK, I am more than willing to answer any questions. The rules and processes for the project are outlined here at Wikipedia:Did you know. At the Wikipedia talk:Did you know page, you are also welcome to ask any questions you like. Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing questions

Please see list of sourcing questions below. All paragraphs must have at least one citation at the end, as per the DYK rules. Flibirigit (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. Section: Poland Campaign-->Preparations. Last two sentences of the second paragraph are not cited.
  2. Section: Poland Campaign-->Action at Tuchola Forest (1–5 September 1939). First paragraph is not cited. Maybe it should be combined with the paragraph which follows it.
  3. Section: Western Campaign-->Preparations for the Western Campaign. Ambiguous whether citation [35] applies to some of all of lists which follow it.
  4. Section: Western Campaign-->10 May 1940. First paragraph has no citation.
  5. Section: Western Campaign-->12 May 1940. First paragraph has no citation.
  6. Section: Western Campaign-->13 May 1940. Second paragraph has no citation.
  7. Section: Western Campaign-->13 May 1940. Last paragraph has no citation at the end.
  8. Section: Western Campaign-->14 May 1940. First two paragraphs have no citations.
  9. Section: Western Campaign-->14 May 1940. Fourth paragraph has no citation at the end.
  10. Section: Western Campaign-->16 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
  11. Section: Western Campaign-->21 May 1940. Last paragraph has no citation at the end.
  12. Section: Western Campaign-->22 May 1940. Second paragraph has no citation at the end.
  13. Section: Western Campaign-->25 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
  14. Section: Western Campaign-->29 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
  15. Section: Western Campaign-->11 June 1940. First paragraph has no citation at the end.
  • Flibirigit I've always interpreted the sourcing requirements to be one per paragraph, not one per paragraph, required to be at the end of the paragraph. Where are you seeing that? --valereee (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's correct, valereee. WP:DYKSG#D2 includes the following: A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. The uncited paragraphs need to be cited. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
In the interests of not overwhelming this creator, who is a very new editor, does anyone object to me striking the questions that only object to paragraphs that have no citation at the end? --valereee (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect to everyone involved, this review has been going on for months, with numerous issues being hacked out on the nomination page. Meanwhile the article in question hasn't been edited by User:Ted52 in more than a week. My suggestion at this point would be to remove this DYK nomination, and bring the XIX Army Corps article up to GA, where in that event it will be once again elligable for another DYK nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Once again, I don't get tagged when something is demanded of me. I really cannot reasonably be expected to follow a DYK nomination process that I myself didn't initiate. I apologize to have wasted everyone's time, but please cancel the DYK nomination now. That said, I have now complied with the citation requests by Flibirigit. Ted52 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for initiating this - when I first came across the article I thought it had potential for DYK. I didn't realize how much of a burden this would be. @Ted52: sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be agreement between the article creator and the nominator that the article is not ready for DYK at this time. Marking for closure as withdrawn, without prejudice towards renomination if the article is brought to GA status. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The added citations by @Ted52: are a great improvement to the article. The only remaining concern I have mentioned is the introduction summarizing the Eastern Front, and not the Western Front. If anyone wishes to expand the introduction accordingly, the nomination will be a pass in my review. Flibirigit (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, pinging nom DannyS712 as Ted52 is simply the creator. From reading through the review, I'm not sure Ted52 was actually up for the DYK process. I like the article a lot and would like to see it get to DYK, but I'm not sure it's fair for us to ask Ted52 to do the work! :D --valereee (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, I would like to suggest that the article is complete enough for DYK standards. WP:DYKSG#D7 is the relevant guideline: while it would be nice to have the Western front information in the introduction, it is all included in the body of the article. DYK articles are expected to be works in progress, for the most part. The nomination has been open for five and a half months; we shouldn't be keeping it pending when the actual DYK requirements appear to have been met. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not necessary to ping me on this page. If I do some minor copyediting, expand the introduction and the pass the review, would the DYK community still feel I am a neutral reviewer? Flibirigit (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the ping; I'm using an autoresponder that adds it in as a default, but I'll try to remember to delete it when replying to you! I have no objection to you making article edits and then finishing the review here. --valereee (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I will start updating the introduction today, and hopefully give final approval by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am still working on this in my sandbox. I should finish within a day or two. Flibirigit (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Still working on this in my sandbox. Please be assured I have every intention of passing this nomination. I hope to be finished within a couple days. Real life if rather busy. Thank you for your patience. Flibirigit (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Flibirigit, I've taken the liberty of adding you as a co-nom for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, if someone has done significant work on the article and is added, they get a DYKmake as a contributor, not a DYKnom, which is just about the initial nomination. Also, as a credited contributor, Flibirigit becomes ineligible to review, which sort of defeats the purpose of the above: I hope you'll be willing to offer yourself as the final reviewer in their place. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologizes for delays in expanding the introduction. I am close to being finished and will post by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I have completed my largest contribution to this article. Since I have been given a writing credit, I will adopt the nomination if changes are needed, and I ask for another review. Flibirigit (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I am fine reviewing this DYK. Will try to finish a review in 48 hours. --MrClog (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Third review
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Can someone point to me where the hook is cited inline? Can't find it. MrClog (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I have interpreted the hook to be a summary of a couple statements. In the section "10 May 1940" it mentions starting to cross into Luxemboug on May 10th, as per citation [41]. The last sentence in the section "20 May 1940" mentions Abbeville on the English channel being captured on May 20th, as per citation [59]. The difference in the two dates is 10 days, as mentioned in the hook. I hope that helps. Other hooks could be proposed if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flibirigit (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The DYK rules state: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. (emphasis mine) The 10-day difference is not mentioned in the article (but I guess it could easily be added and sourced). --MrClog (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I will propose other hooks later this weekend. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I should have specifically stated I will propose hooks on Monday, as it is a long weekend here in Canada. I am working on hooks in my sandbox, and will post tomorrow. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • New hook proposed below. Will post others if needed. Flibirigit (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
22 September 1939. From left to right: Mauritz von Wiktorin, Heinz Guderian, Semyon Krivoshein.
22 September 1939. From left to right: Mauritz von Wiktorin, Heinz Guderian, Semyon Krivoshein.
Fourth review
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
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT1 accepted MrClog (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: could you promote it? Normally wouldn't ask but this one has been here fore half a year. Cheers, MrClog (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
MrClog, there isn't a non-bio image slot open right now, but there should be when the next queue goes to the main page. If I or someone else doesn't come along to promote in the next day or so, ping me again. My brain is in other places just now so I might forget. But fwiw, the fact that this is the first article on the approved noms page means that literally everyone who promotes to preps should be checking it on the way past, every time they fill a prep, and that now that it's got a check it should be moved to prep pretty quickly. Nice work, Flibirigit! --valereee (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, what do you mean with non-bio image slot? Isn't Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 open?
Thank you for the review. I suggest asking at WT:DYK for a quicker response and to expediate a nomination's promotion. Flibirigit (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The preps generally try to use a bio in the image slot one day, then the next day a non-bio image slot, etc. Prep 3 has a non-bio, so we generally try to put a bio in the image slot for prep 4. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but we try to mix it up. --valereee (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Prep 1 is now available for a non-bio hook. --MrClog (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
MrClog, already a WWII hook in the set, plus the image bio for the previous set is a WWII image. :) This is what makes setting preps such a puzzle. Let's see what Yoninah thinks about putting this hook into the image slot vs. waiting for a later prep. --valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@MrClog: From a date standpoint, the hook was nominated in December but wasn't approved until July, so it really hasn't been "sitting around" for half a year. And please be aware that with 175 approved hooks, it does take up to a month for an approved hook to be promoted. As long as it's on the approved page, it's not going to disappear. Your image did catch my eye, and I'm planning to promote it to an image slot. The problem is that we've been running black-and-white person hooks every other set in the past week (which I don't think is ideal), as well as too many World War II hooks in one set after another. Please be patient. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, alright; thanks! The reason I requested someone to take a look at it because this whole process was seemingly frustrating (many reviews, comments, etc. - a long time before approval) for the article creator. I felt it would be fair to them not to make the nomination process last any longer, though I do appreciate your comments. Don't feel pressured to "fast-track" this nomination though. :) --MrClog (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @MrClog: thank you. I understand the frustration that a new page creator might feel here, but it's important to get the article in shape according to DYK rules. I've seen threads even longer than this. The main thing is that the article satisfies all the criteria and doesn't get pulled from the queue or the main page. Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This hook was promoted in the same week that 2 other WWII black-and-white people images is running. I've returned it to the noms page for promotion in another week or so. Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/XIX_Army_Corps&oldid=995952664"