Template:Did you know nominations/Robinson Crusoe House

Robinson Crusoe House

 * ... that Robinson Crusoe House in Bremen, Germany, was built by a coffee merchant who admired the fictional Robinson Crusoe for his Hanseatic spirit?
 * Comment: Not a self-nom
 * Comment: Not a self-nom

Created by Ipigott (talk). Nominated by Orlady (talk) at 02:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC).


 * The article is new and long enough. The article is within policy. The hook is not too long (144 characters). The hook is not cited with "inline citation right after it".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The factual content in the hook is supported by reference citations in the first paragraph of the section "History and architecture". The more succinct statement of the hook in the lead section does not have footnotes because the lead section is an unfootnoted summary of the article body, consistent with WP:Lead section. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you know says: " The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's not what Orlady said. It is cited with an inline citation immediately after it in the paragraph where the point is discussed (fifth sentence of the first section). That is not the same as just have a footnote at the end of the paragraph. Furius (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "was built by a coffee merchant" assertion cited with inline citation right after it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the concern now! I've added text and sourcing (in the article body) to fully substantiate that Roselius was a coffee merchant and that he built this building. Does that resolve your concern? --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would have done it myself but I could not find source for coffee merhant assertion. What about QPQ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * QPQ is required only for self-noms. However, if you insist on a QPQ, I can offer a couple of the reviews that I've done in recent days that I haven't used for QPQ (and didn't intend ever to use for QPQ): The Crescent, Prunus nipponica. You choose. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that requesting QPQ from self-noms means that the author of the nominated article is not obliged to review another hook if they did not nominate article for DYK themselves. That would probably make more sense. Anyway, the nomination is ok.Symbol voting keep.svg AGF for non-English sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)