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 Allen3talk 09:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Fine article, but the hook isn't quite correct. The four murals inside the Highrise block were not damaged by the bombings. Neither was the structure of the building. It was mainly the facade and the foajé area that was damaged. Source: Aftenposten.
Thank you, I've added an alternative. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed, including ALT1 hook; I've struck the original hook due to the objections raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is new enough, long enough, was nominated in time and is neutral. The hook is interesting and is backed up by an inline citation. Though I'm concerned that some phrases in the article is too close to it's source. Compare for example "Norway’s directorate for cultural heritage which insists the buildings should be repaired and the Picassos kept on their original sites" and "Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage insists the buildings should be repaired and the murals kept in their original sites". If you also consider that both the sentance before and after are similar to the same paragraph in the source, I believe this paragraph should have a little rewrite before we promote this article to the main page. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. This one is ready for promotion! Mentoz86 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I still see close paraphrasing in the article. For example, this source has "have described as ugly and "reminiscent" of Communist eastern Europe", compared to the article's "have been described as ugly and "reminiscent" of the architecture of Communist Eastern Europe", and "nearly 40 per cent of Norwegians are in favour of demolition compared with 34 per cent against" versus "40 percent were in favour of demolishing the murals with 34 per cent against" in the article. The last of these is also misleading: the nearly 40 percent (which is not the same as 40 percent) want the buildings destroyed; some or many or nearly all may want the murals preserved and moved elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I've further amended it. Thank you for picking up on those passages. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Better, but some phrasing is still a bit close: compare for example "In a report the Directorate concluded that the buildings were safe despite their damage, and could still be reused" with "A report by the Directorate for Cultural Heritage concluded that, despite the bombing, the buildings are not unsafe and can still be used". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I've changed it again, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)