Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo

Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo

 * ... that after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there was an anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo, where two died and massive damage was done to Serb-owned houses, schools and other institutions?


 * Comment: Well-documented incident, linked to historically significant events in 1914.
 * Comment: Well-documented incident, linked to historically significant events in 1914.

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Nominated by Anonimski (talk) at 09:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Comment: Hook is 201 characters. --Gfosankar (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1... that after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, there was an anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo, where two died and massive damage was done to Serb-owned houses, schools and other institutions?
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What about


 * ALT2 ... that following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, there was an anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo (pictured)? --Z oupan 18:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fine with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. (Note: original hook is 197 characters; initial "... " is not counted. While technically not over 200 characters, though, it is unnecessarily long.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT two, ref four has an embedded quote which verifies the hook. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg "Good to go" is not sufficient; more explanation is needed, especially in light of the issues found with another brief review at Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C.. Please detail what was checked, including length, newness, neutrality (especially important in an article about a pogrom), sourcing in the article as a whole, close paraphrasing, etc. (There's a "better source needed" template in the article that should at least have been addressed.) Reviews should always touch on all the facets that were checked, so hook promoters can get a sense of the work that was done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg GTG is certainly good enough, length is obviously fine, one look at the article tells you that. The review over the football club was over "the", which BTW I had added. The date on the article is fine, it seems neutral to me, plenty of the sources call it a pogrom, I did not see, and still do not a better source needed tag. I checked for copyvios, I always do. But, hey, thanks for the good faith. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "better source needed" tag was removed by Antidiskriminator yesterday after my post above (User:Joy had placed it there on December 26). According to the review, the football club article was stated to have contained "close paraphrasing in several places" by Yoninah, which is what concerned me here. Good faith is one thing, a significant issue is something else, so I'm sure you understand why I asked for details on a contemporaneous review. GTG by itself is not good enough; full details have always been required (see T:TDYK): reviews should begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I use GTG as I have seen it used on articles I have put forward for DYK, nobody pinged me about any issues with the football article, sorry about that. But I have certainly checked this one for copyvios, and found none. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now in queue, and please note that petty bureaucracy is not welcome here. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)