Template:Did you know nominations/Kumanovo Uprising


 * 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: rejected by Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There are still outstanding and unresolved issues, and consensus seems to be it should not be listed.

Kumanovo Uprising

 * ... that the Kumanovo Uprising broke out in 1878?
 * Reviewed: Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo

Created by Zoupan (talk). Self nominated at 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC).


 * New enough, long enough, and within policy. Reviewed  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  01:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Is this really an interesting fact? To me, it seems akin to saying "... that the Titanic sank in 1912?" which isn't a very compelling or hooky statement. 97198 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Additionally, I have just noticed that no QPQ review has been done - a DYK nomination is linked above as a QPQ but it looks like Zoupan's only contribution there was an alt hook, not a review. 97198 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  18 days and no response from Zoupan on the QPQ issue.  Also, before this can pass, details are needed of what was actually checked in the review.  please 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.  Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found  at  DYKReviewing guide. Otherwise, somebody else needs to do a complete review. — Maile  (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I've just posted a final call on Zoupan's talk page for the QPQ review, with a deadline of the end of the month. At this point, given the issues already pointed out, I don't think a reviewer should be called for, since if Zoupan does not respond, any review will be for naught. Once a valid QPQ is submitted and a new hook is supplied, then we can seek a reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a well-written and worthwhile article whose nom has fallen by the wayside, so I'm going to stick my neck out here and see whether it can be rescued.--Storye book (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Review for original hook. New enough (for 6 May) and long enough. Foreign-language citations for hook taken AGF. Images in article are free. Re QPQ: Bearing in mind that, when English is one's second language, it is often OK to write then translate articles into English for publication, but it can be difficult to contribute to one's own talkpage or to complete other interactive tasks such as a QPQ: I'm happy to donate one of my many QPQs to this nom (see Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St John the Divine, Calder Grove). Issues: (1) Disambig links found for "Veles" and "Kratovo" (somebody please correct this or de-link). (2) The external link for citation #9 (Matica srpska) is dead (somebody please find a cached version or delete citation). Note: An online English citation for the hook can be found here: History of Macedonia: Chronology of the Ottoman authority in Macedonia (someone please add it to the article?). Summary: This nom for a nice and useful article will be fit for promotion if some kind volunteer(s) can sort out the disambigs and the deadlink. --Storye book (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All that is left now is the above suggestion that the original hook may be inadequate. I'm not going to muddy the waters at this point by suggesting an ALT hook, but if I am required to review an ALT hook, please ping me on my talkpage. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading this Batakovic source in English it strikes me that the statement supported by the deadlink citation #9 is far too simple for such a complex situation. I recommend that both citation #9 and the statement about funding that it supports be deleted, and that the aforementioned Batakovic source be added to an External Links section or Further Research section at the end of the article. That way we can get rid of the deadlink citation without leaving an uncited sentence hanging.--Storye book (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)