Template:Did you know nominations/The Polish Peasant in Europe and America
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Polish Peasant in Europe and America[edit]
- ... that the study The Polish Peasant in Europe and America is considered to be one of the classics of American sociology?
- ALT1:
... that the study The Polish Peasant in Europe and America is considered to be one of the classics of American sociology in general, and the fields of immigration to America and content analysis in particular? - Reviewed: Good Old Arsenal
- Comment: Perhaps someone can suggest a "cooler" hook... go for it. I tried playing with ALT1 but it may be a bit too long?
- ALT1:
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 09:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
The requirements have been met: newness, length, refs, QPQ. How about this as an alternative hook? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the The Polish Peasant in Europe and America contains the first recorded sociological life history?
- As the creator, I am fine with alt2, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Review of ALT2 needed, which should also encompass criteria omitted in the original review, such as neutrality and close paraphrasing, and should probably recheck everything, since the fact that ALT1 was above the maximum length was not noted, nor that the final paragraph of the article was unsourced. (I've struck ALT1 accordingly.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Review for ALT2: New enough (for 8 May) and long enough. ALT2 hook checks out with online citation #26. QPQ OK. No disambig links or external deadlinks found. Regarding the issues raised by BlueMoonset above: As far as I can see, the article is neutral in that it reflects the Bulmer source, which is objective in itself, and is the only online source provided, but I'm happy to accept neutrality AGF. No plagiarism or close paraphrasing found. The last paragraph of the article is now sourced. This is a useful article, worth promoting. Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
