Template:Did you know nominations/Imperium (Kracht novel)


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Imperium (Kracht novel)

 * ... that Christian Kracht's novel Imperium was debated in German newspapers in 2012 when it was accused of spreading racism?


 * ALT1: ... that Christian Kracht's novel Imperium was debated in German newspapers in 2012 when it was accused of signaling a "racist worldview"?



Created by Smetanahue (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg article was created on the day of the nomination, long enough and within policy. However, it is not within policy since the plot section is unreferenced. The hook has fewer than 200 characters, interesting and neutral but is not cited with sources. QPQ check is currently unavailable due to the tool not working. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Plot sections generally don't need references, as the work itself is assumed to be the source. See Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, second to last paragraph. The hook is cited in the section about the political reaction, although it's been jumbled a bit now, I'll try to make it more clear. Smetanahue (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * can you give a second opinion pls? Thanks. Vincent60030 (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is true that plot sections generally don't need references for the reason given, though if aspects are open to interpretation, then it's best to cite those, since in that case the interpretation used should be from a reliable source. Plots should still be written in encyclopedic prose—"pigeons Engelhardt of his financial assets" is not, and is especially confusing given that Engelhardt somehow gains ownership of an entire island in the next sentence. Since the hook hangs on it, I have to say that "spreading racism" and "transmitting a 'racist worldview' " do not strike me as equivalent. The quote in the latter should be referenced by the end of the sentence in which it appears, as indeed should each quote, even within the same paragraph. (Multi-sentence quotes should be cited right after the quote's end.) I have adjusted all the long quotes (in the review section) so that they are blockquotes per the manual of style (see WP:Blockquote). On another front, I'm a bit worried about the WP:BLP implications: even though the novel is being "accused of spreading racism", that effectively accuses the author, and since this is one reviewer, who was counteraccused of dishonesty(!) by 17 signatories, if I'm reading this right (also a potential BLP issue), it may be ultimately overweighting his opinion. Finally, I see four previous DYKs, in 2011 and 2012. This will be the fifth DYK, and therefore will not need a quid pro quo review, though any future nominations will require a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted an alternative hook. Reworded "pigeons". Clarified that the island is bought on credit. I don't see a BLP problem since it's the summary of a public debate, and all accusations are attributed. Smetanahue (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Smetanahue. One thing: the "racist worldview" quote must, as noted above, be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which it occurs, and this applies to the intro of the article in addition to the body (quoted material is one exception to the general rule of omitting inline citations for the intro section if the material also appears in the body and is cited there). This is not only a DYK requirement, but a MOS rule as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed. Smetanahue (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Third opinion here: so long as we're clear that it was just an accusation, I don't think there's a BLP issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris. Vincent60030, I think you can finish the review now. I've struck the original hook; ALT1 remains in play. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vincent60030, at this stage you can approve the hook if the nomination passes the criteria (which would mean adding the appropriate tick below), but as reviewer that's as far as you should go—it's what I meant by "finish the review". The actual promotion to prep needs to be by someone other than the reviewer or nominator—among other things, it means that another editor gets to check the approved nomination as part of the promotion, just to make sure nothing was overlooked. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, . I will "finish the review". Vincent60030 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg hook meets all the criteria now. Good to go. Vincent60030 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)