Template:Did you know nominations/Unemployment in Poland


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Unemployment in Poland

 * ... that officially reported unemployment in Poland rose from about zero in 1989 to 13.5% in 2014?
 * Reviewed: Isusumbong Kita Sa Tatay Ko
 * Comment: Ping expert User:Volunteer Marek for a possible other ALT, as well as comments on the content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 09:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC).


 * The article needs a different lede. As in, a real lede not a circular restatement of the article title. I know that the current lede follows that of Unemployment in United States but that's just a reflection of how stupid and inadequate the lede of that article is (most economics related articles are in a very bad shape so it's probably not a good idea to emulate'em).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree; I dislike those kind of leads but couldn't thing of anything better. Would you have any idea how to rephrase it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Full review following re-write of header and other elements since 5 June. QPQ done. Created 1 June, nominated 3 June. New enough and long enough. Article images are free. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links. The text is objectively written, is in neutral style, and is fully cited. Issues: (1) The two images in the definition and measurement section are squashing text between them; this is discouraged. I suggest that you put them side-by-side at the top or bottom of the same section, perhaps in a gallery markup. (2) I think that the clarification needed tag can now be removed from the unemployment benefits section because the clarification was resolved in a 5 June edit. (3) Part of the hook is repeated in the trends section, with the online citation #7. However I cannot find the figure 13.5 by doing a page search in that citation. Please would you write the hook in full in the article, with all its citations? I am not an accountant, so please help us with an explanation of the citations(s) here if you think it might be necessary. (4) Re possible copyvio or close paraphrasing: there are two duplicated passages. They just need quotation marks and references. "lack of the possibility to be employed or to be professionally activated within the field of activities proposed by (citation #18)""for a total of at least 365 days in the period of 18 months before (citation #18)"
 * When issues 1-4 are resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Volunteer Marek - I won't have time to work on this for the next week. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  16:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) done (2) done (3) try 13,5 (2014 March figure in Polish notation, if you were searching for 13.5 that's your reason). And yes, the numbers changed, since this hok has been stalled for a month. (4) done. Here's ALT1: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that officially reported unemployment in Poland rose from about zero in 1989 to 14% in January 2014?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Review of ALT1. Thank you, Piotrus. The zero checks out online with citation #15. #15 doesn't report a measured zero; it reports a denial of unemployment, but the phraseology of both hooks covers that situation, so that part of it is acceptable. However, neither January 2014, nor 14% are mentioned in the article; I cannot verify or support ALT1, so I have had to strike it. (If you really want ALT1, please edit the article to include all of ALT1 together with its inline citation, and I'll unstrike it). Meanwhile this nom is good to go with original hook only. Original hook checks out with online citations #7 and #15.--Storye book (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)