Template:Did you know nominations/Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65

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) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65[edit]

Reger in 1901
Reger in 1901
  • ... that a reviewer of Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65, twelve organ pieces by Max Reger (pictured), wrote that the composer was "still in his storm and stress period"?

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC).

  • No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • This article is new and was created on 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • This article meets the DYK criteria at 1753 characters
    • All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (2.0% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Leszek Jańczuk, we already know from the bot that it's long enough and new enough. A human review is needed to check other potential issues, like adequate sourcing, neutrality, and close paraphrasing. Please conduct a full review of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well sourced, written neutrally, no copyvio. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Leszek Jańczuk The complete reviewing criteria is located at WP:DYKRULES. For example, your review does not mention whether or not content of the hook is backed with an inline citation to a reliable source in the article, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. North America1000 10:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to do a full review. (If using the AGF tick, please explain the issue.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hook is short enough and formatted correctly, interesting, adequate QPQ. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said before, a new reviewer is needed to do a full review, and should any issues require the AGF tick, they should please be explained. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact is cited inline to a reliable German language source and accepted in good faith. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral, and I didn't consider whether there were any copyright issues because of lack of access to the sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)