Template:Did you know nominations/Janowiec and Others v. Russia
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Janowiec and Others v. Russia
- ... that the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights case Janowiec and Others v. Russia concerning the Katyn massacre has been criticized by a number of scholars? Source: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=202716 and others (the entire analysis section, I did not see any source that praised the court or dissented with the other scholars).
- ALT1:... that four justices dissented to the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights case Janowiec and Others v. Russia concerning the Katyn massacre saying it is a denial of justice and a failure of conscience? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=4NQ4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT68 , https://books.google.com/books?id=JFNKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA111 , https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=202726 and https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325415595076
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Looks good. I think ALT1 is the best hook. Krakkos (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The QPQ has already been used at Template:Did you know nominations/L'An 2440, rêve s'il en fut jamais.- Also, is it necessary to spell out the case name, or can you pipe the link into
the verdict
? Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Oh, I probably meant the Template:Did you know nominations/The Holocaust and social media as the QPQ here and added the wrong link. And you are right, the hooks can be shortened, but I think the piple should go for the case not the verdict. See below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- MAINa: ... that the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights case concerning the Katyn massacre has been criticized by a number of scholars? Source: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=202716 and others (the entire analysis section, I did not see any source that praised the court or dissented with the other scholars).
- ALT1a:... that four justices dissented to the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights case concerning the Katyn massacre saying it is a denial of justice and a failure of conscience? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=4NQ4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT68 , https://books.google.com/books?id=JFNKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA111 , https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=202726 and https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325415595076
- @Piotrus: QPQ done, thanks. When we do US Supreme Court cases, we pipe this way (I also tweaked the wording in ALT1b, which I'd like to promote):
- ALT0b: ... that the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights case concerning the Katyn massacre has been criticized by a number of scholars? Source: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=202716 and others (the entire analysis section, I did not see any source that praised the court or dissented with the other scholars).
- ALT1b:... that four justices dissented to the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights case concerning the Katyn massacre, calling it a denial of justice and a failure of conscience? Yoninah (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see. Looks good to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)