Template:Did you know nominations/Plato's unwritten doctrines


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Plato's unwritten doctrines

 * ... "...that the philosopher Plato had unwritten doctrines, intended just for his circle of students?"


 * ALT1: ... that scholars debate whether the philosopher Plato had esoteric doctrines?
 * ALT2: ... that the philosopher Plato had esoteric doctrines, which scholars are carefully reconstructing?
 * Comment: This is a translation from German Wikipedia of a terrific article on an academic topic that the Germans rated excellent and made a featured article (I used Wikipedia's beta translation software).
 * Comment: This is a translation from German Wikipedia of a terrific article on an academic topic that the Germans rated excellent and made a featured article (I used Wikipedia's beta translation software).

Created by JohnD'Alembert (talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Cake (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * THIS IS A GOOD POINT. I'M THE TRANSLATOR AND FIRST-TIME NOMINATOR FOR THIS ARTICLE AND HAVE REVISED THE HOOK AS PER THIS COMMENT. IN ALT1, I'VE JUST SUBSTITUTED 'ESOTERIC' FOR 'SECRET'. BOTH SEEM GOOD TO ME. IS THAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO? THANKS!
 * If this is your first DYK nomination, then one need not worry about the "QPQ". This is also my first review of one. Though "esoteric" can imply a lack of clarity, it seems fine taken literally. It also seems better than "secret" as if like the Pythagoreans they were sworn to keep silent. So, the short answer is yes, I prefer the ALTs as you have them now. Any added "scholars debate whether..." should be fine too. Since I gave you a hook, I am told it would be wise to have a second-opinion from some other reviewer about it, but once that occurs it should be good to go. Cake (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I would suggest ALT3. What do you think? Also note the category featured article should be removed since it was not featured on the english wiki. Zeete (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT3: ... that the philosopher Plato's unwritten doctrines were intended just for his circle of students?

ALT3 looks fine to me, thanks. I just checked and don't see the category featured article there now. I don't remember translating those; perhaps they were done automatically? JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the last line of file, a hidden category, probably done by the translation tool. Zeete (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found it and removed it. That's a new one for me, JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article previously checked. Good to go with hook ALT3. Zeete (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Per Rule D2, there should be at least one cite per paragraph. Aside from an introductory paragraph which summarizes the forthcoming content, numerous paragraphs here lack any cites at all. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the translator and nominator. I see your point about paragraphs without references. I got out a pile of books to help translate the article and will add more references. It will take me a day or so. Thanks, this will improve the article... JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DONE: I finished adding new references and now every paragraph has at least one reference. In several cases, the paragraphs without references were parts of longer German paragraphs I broke apart for readability. I've added a dozen or so references, mostly to English sources, a few new Wikilinks, and some pointers to the bibliography below. I made no other changes and proofread the new references. Should be OK now. What do you think? JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very nice, . However, the lead should not include citations for uncontroversial material. Since everything in the lead is sourced below in the article, would you mind removing those cites from the lead? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DONE! Thanks, I prefer it that way too. I've taken all the citations out from the three paragraphs before the Table of Contents (all of which I added). I'm gaining new respect for the DYK articles ... JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thank you,, all paragraphs cited. I notice above that User:Zeete suggested the new hook and then approved it, which is not allowed per Rule H2, so I will do a second review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. I have a question about the citation for the DYK hook, though. I assume the hook is referring to the second paragraph under "Key terms". However, the citation at the end of that paragraph doesn't seem like a source, but like a "see also" reference. Do you have a specific source that verifies: For scholars, 'esoteric' indicates only that the unwritten doctrines were intended for a circle of philosophy students inside Plato's school (in Greek, 'esoteric' literally means 'inside the walls')? I understand this is a translation from the German Wikipedia, but DYK rules are pretty strict that the hook fact must have an inline citation. If you aren't able to provide one, perhaps you'd like to suggest a different hook? I struck the hooks we're not using. Image is pd. I'm assuming you have less than 5 DYK credits, so no QPQ needed. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg, we do need you to apply the feedback provided by Yoninah here, because we're rapidly running out of time. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  13:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg A week has passed since the last time feedback was provided, and despite pinging the author here and on his talk page there has been no activity. It's time to conclude this DYK has failed due to inactivity. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)