Template:Did you know nominations/Maoist Youth Union
Appearance
- 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Maoist Youth Union
[edit]- ... that the Estadio de Vallehermoso in Madrid was the site of the first congress of the Maoist Youth Union in 1978?
- Reviewed: [1]
Created/expanded by Soman (talk). Self nom at 16:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article conforms to all rules. However, I don't really get how the fact in the hook is surprising.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the Maoist Youth Union demanded that a 'Youth Charter' be included in the new Spanish constitution?
- I'm sorry, but I don't really think that's much better. I'm not even sure what having a youth charter in a constitution means exactly. The article doesn't explain it.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I found the original hook a bit interesting, considering that Maoism is very much a fringe subject in Europe today. Perhaps something that elaborates in UJM's cooperation with Nuevas Generaciones could work? --Soman (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't that much of a fringe subject in the 1970's and I still don't see how that makes its location interesting. Maybe the hook just isn't to my personal taste, so I'll wait for someone else to comment.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if someone else could weigh in on this.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think ALT1 is acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- So as talked about above "The article conforms to all rules" and ALT1 has had an approved second opinion. -- Esemono (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look at the article, I suggest ensuring that access dates and publication dates for web sources are included before this hits the prime time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good to go, tick based on above review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)