Template:Did you know nominations/Szombierki Heat Power Station
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Szombierki Heat Power Station
edit- ... that the Szombierki Heat Power Station is considered to be one of the "Seven Architectural Wonders of the Silesian Voivodeship"?
- Reviewed: Sutton tube
- Comment: I am not seeing any picture that would be good for the hook, but a reviewer may want to double check commons:Category:Elektrociepłownia Szombierki, perhaps we could find something after all.
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 06:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
QPQ done (allthough there may be some issues with the reviewed article and it's not promoted yet). All paragraphs inlince sourced. Article new and long enough. Since sources are in Polish which I cannot read, I cannot so easily check for copyvio/close paraphrasing, but I assume good faith, especially as Piotrus is an experienced editor. The hook is interesting, short enough and inline sourced, but I would like the article to be more specific about who considers it to be among the "seven wonders". Currently the article only says "it was voted", but not who was behind this naming of seven wonders. (The "See also" section links only to a red-linked article; not sure how helpful that is to the reader, but I am not sure about the practice on this). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Iselilja:: How about now after this edit? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for being so late. Approving, assuming good faith since I don't read Polish. The first paragraph has all four refs at the end of the paragraph; so it could have been a bit better inlince cited, but I don't think the current version is outside policy. Regards Iselilja (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
