Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Emmendingen


 * 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) 01:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Emmendingen

 * ... that both sides lost their commanding general? Wilhelm von Wartensleben's arm was shattered by a musket ball and he died several months later in Vienna; Michel de Beaupuy was hit and killed by a cannon ball? Source:  Constant von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaisertums Österreich 53. Wien 1886, S. 111 and  Paul Huot, Des Vosges au Rhin, excursions et causeries alsaciennes, Veuve Berger-Levrault & Fils, Paris, 1868, p. 284–287.

Improved to Good Article status by Auntieruth55 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg The article looks good at first sight, but before a full review, could you please make sure that the rules listed at WP:DYKHOOK are properly followed? Otherwise this cannot be approved. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposed fix:
 * ALT1: ... that both sides in the Battle of Emmendingen lost their commanding general, one to a musket ball, the other to a cannon ball? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks great to me. What does Auntieruth55 think? Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

GA, in time, long enough, sourced. Couple issues: Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) QPQ needed (7th DYK) I don't know what this is. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) A few phrases are too close to the source  compass directions and troop numbers.    auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Wilhelm von Wartensleben should have at least one source to be linked from the front page  I don't know what this means either...front page of????   auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) I can't approve my own hook., would you mind verifying that the hook is appropriate (particularly that it has inline citations that check out or are offline and accepted as good faith? The relevant section is here: Battle of Emmendingen)?
 * Auntieruth55, taking the issues in order:
 * Nominators who have more than 5 DYKs must review a nomination for each new nomination submitted. This rule might not have been in place a few years ago when you did most of your earlier DYKs, but you need to review another nomination.
 * ok, did Second Silesian War and Halloween card
 * This copied sentence is neither a compass direction nor a troop number: "Beaupuy was killed early in the fighting and in the confusion this caused, his division did not receive an order to retreat along the Elz to ..."
 * Rewrote the sentence....
 * On the front (main) page of Wikipedia. The Wilhelm von Wartensleben article does not cite any sources. Please add at least one to the article.
 * added a citation! auntieruth (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (Sorry Surtsicna, meant to ping, not you. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Issues above have been addressed. Relying on Surtsicna's above endorsement of ALT1, which I proposed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not understand the QPQs that were submitted by . Both QPQs were reviewed by . Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, I believe that Auntieruth55 is new to DYK reviewing. While I didn't see any sign of an actual review to DYK criteria in Second Silesian War (there's a hook proposal and a query), there was certainly a significant portion of one in Template:Did you know nominations/Halloween card, before The C of E added his review on both templates. I can certainly understand if you don't think it was enough; Auntieruth55 needs to review to all of the criteria, and add the appropriate icon to her review. But should she get any credit for what she did do, since she can't complete the review she started? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks, I missed that review on Template:Did you know nominations/Halloween card. Yes, should get a QPQ credit for that, and hopefully she'll improve on future reviews. Perhaps she can use the Reviewer's checklist next time. So we'll say that only one more QPQ is required here. Yoninah (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the two reviews could certainly have been better, my tick above was based on the Halloween card review. Why is a second QPQ necessary? Although two QPQs were offered, there is only one bolded article in the hook. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Er, you're right. QPQ done and restoring tick for ALT1 per Surtsicna's review. Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)