Template:Did you know nominations/Günther Strupp

Günther Strupp

 * ... that German illustrator Günther Strupp survived Nazi imprisonment and became a contributor to Ulenspiegel, a magazine created by two other survivors?
 * ALT1:... that German illustrator Günther Strupp survived Kemna concentration camp and was re-arrested by the Gestapo 11 years later?
 * Reviewed: Western Australia border and Poedjangga Baroe
 * Comment: I will be adding a second review in the next day or so. I know this nom and the one below it on Heinz Kiwitz can be combined, but the hooks I could think of were more interesting with them separated.

Created/expanded by Marrante (talk). Self nom at 07:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Article is new, long enough and referenced. No copyviolation detected with the sources that I looked at. The part of the hook fact (original hook) that Ulenspiegel was created by two other survivors needs an additional reference. And a QPQ is outstanding, as Marrante points out. When those two issues are attended to, it should be good to go. Regarding ALT1, the article needs to have additional detail (1944 arrest) and refs added, so that one can derive the eleven years. Numbers up to twelve are supposed to be given as words, I believe, and I changed ALT1 accordingly .  Schwede 66  07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was taught that numbers are spelled through ten. I have added the date and refs, as requested. In doing so, I was reminded that I was not originally going to bother nominating Günther Weisenborn for DYK, so now I have withdrawn him from the previously triple nom (from January 30). That leaves me with a "spare" review. Is that kosher with you to move one of the three over here? I don't mind doing another, it would just save some time. Marrante (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I did one anyway, in spite of myself. Marrante (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I've had a look at WP:ORDINAL and it turns out that I was wrong; sorry for that. ALT1 is good to go as is. Regarding the original hook, the reference for Herbert Sandberg appears strange (the Google Books search anchor is "amerikanischen"), but maybe it's an issue related to Google Books showing different content in different countries (I know that people in the US can see a lot more than what I can see in NZ). Can you please confirm that the reference is correct and as intended, in which case I will AGF that hook fact, too. Other than that, the facts in the original hook are confirmed. Your intended QPQ process would have been cosher, but there's no harm in reviewing articles when you don't have to (bit of a shortage at the moment of approved hooks).  Schwede 66  00:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what the left half of the first snippet says, "Wir hatten uns befreit, im April 1945 schon, doch die Besatzungsmacht — Weimar lag damals im amerikanischen Sektor — lies uns erst im Juni nach Hause. Ein paar Wochen später kam mein letzter Blockältester, Emil Carlebach (heute Mitarbeiter der „TAT” in Frankfurt am Main, der Zeitschrift der VVN, des Bundes der Antifaschisten),". It doesn't come right out and say "Buchenwald", but there are enough details to piece it together. I know other sources say Buchenwald, but I was in a hurry to find a reference for the hook and figured this had enough in it to suffice. Please let me know if you agree. If not, I will have to get back to this tomorrow. Marrante (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ah, just as I thought. What you quote here is not what I get to see. What I was looking for is that Sandberg was a Nazi camp survivor (the text above doesn't say that) and that he created Ulenspiegel (that detail is also not confirmed). For the time being, I have struck out the original hook and given the green tick for ALT1. If you wish to have another go with the original hook, put the 'review again' sign here and remove the strike through.  Schwede 66  01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg's a drag about the display differences. What is the possible benefit of that (speaking from a... not sure whose point of view)? I have replaced the ref, as I have already told you on your talk page (I think -- I written this now several times) and it now contains the missing facts about Buchenwald and his role in Ulenspiegel, so I have stricken that which had been struck. Marrante (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Both hooks are now good to go; the nominator has a preference for the original hook.  Schwede 66  17:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)