Template:Did you know nominations/Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn

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 SL93 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the "song of thanks" "Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn", with 1886 text by Guido Maria Dreves and a later melody by Josef V. von Wöss, was sung for a service with Pope Benedict XVI at the Würzburg Cathedral? Source: [1]
• comment: I missed a day, again, sorry. Willing to expand over the next days if there's no mercy ;)
• reviewed: Du (magazine)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

• While the hook is interesting, it is over 200 characters and the article was not nominated within seven days of creation. If the article is given a 5x expansion, the article can become eligible, but right now it is not eligible for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  You know that I can't expand it 5 times, and wonder if every reviewer offers as little grace as you.

  ALT0a ... that the "song of thanks" "Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn", with 1886 text by Guido Maria Dreves and music by Josef V. von Wöss, was sung for a service with Pope Benedict XVI in Würzburg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The article was long enough at the time of the nomination. A QPQ has been done, and no close paraphrasing was found. The hook facts are cited inline and cited to German-language sources, so I am assuming good faith her. The hook is somewhat interesting to me (a song being performed for the Pope does sound interesting), but I think the hook could use a copyedit to make it flow better. It's also a bit on the long side, so it may need to be trimmed a bit, although the hook fact itself (the song was performed for the Pope) is fine. It appears that the article has not actually received a 5x expansion since my last comment. However, as there are really no other issues aside from the nomination date and maybe the flow of the hook, I'm considering doing an IAR approval of this nomination. I'll give it some thought, but for now I would suggest that the hook be copyedited for flow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

We could drop "song of thanks" but then leave readers without any idea of what the German means (and it's shorter that a translation), I believe that the two authors need to be mentioned, as notable also for other things (especially the composer), I believe that we need one date for the creation, because there wasn't much hymn-writing in the 19th century, we could drop Würzburg but would perhaps have to say "Germany" instead. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that the performance made on the date of Pope Benedict's abdication. Perhaps a hook about that would work better?

ALT1 ... that the 1886 song of thanks "Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn" by Guido Maria Dreves and Josef V. von Wöß was performed at a thanksgiving service for Pope Benedict XVI on the day of his abdication?

ALT2 ... that the 1886 song of thanks "Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn" was performed at a thanksgiving service for Pope Benedict XVI on the day of his abdication?

ALT1 is just a tad bit under the 200 character limit, so I proposed a shorter alternate version that doesn't mention the names. I think the interesting fact here was that the song was performed in dedication to the Pope on the day he abdicated, a context that was missing in the original hook. I also have to mention that the article implies that the Pope was in Wurzburg that day, but as far as I know he was still at the Vatican on that date. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the point, - I read the source too fast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed the article. It probably needs some additional source, and better phrasing, but I need a break right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. Since I proposed a new hook fact another editor will need to finish the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • New review – querry: Article was 8 days old at time of nomination (waived; new enough), is long enough, neutral, well-cited, and with no copyvio detected. QPQ verified. Hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are of good length, formatted, neutral and broadly interesting. However, the small expansion (the day that his resignation took effect) to cover the revised hook fact needs a citation (DYK rule D1 WP:DYKDN). I know it's generally verifiable, but this will spare any drama when it reaches the queue. Also, I'd appreciate if you could change the spelling of the surname Wöß → Wöss in the lead and infobox for consistency with the article body. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for reviewing, Reidgreg. I consolidated Wöß in the article and ALT1, and added the ref from the pope's article. I wonder if "day" would be better than "date" in the hooks in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. And you're right, day would be better. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I changed it in both hooks (although I should probably not change hooks I didn't word, but to keep it simple). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Approve ALT1 and ALT2. All good. I feel minor changes like that count as proofreading, which anyone can do. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)