Template:Did you know nominations/Gojko Balšić

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 PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gojko Balšić

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Gojko Balšić, one of the founders of the League of Lezhë in 1444, was Skanderbeg's nephew?

• Reviewed: Mahdi Abu Deeb

Created/expanded by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nom at 14:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Minor change to the hook as the previous title didn't reflect any source use. Apart from users that are familiar with Albanian history, the rest of the readers won't find the hook interesting (to them the hook will essentially be DYK ... that a Gojko was the nephew of a Skanderbeg). Isn't there anything interesting that Gojko did?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted the name change as he was a member of the Balšić family, which makes the name you changed to a bit confusing - and "Gojko Balšić" has more hits than "Gojko Balsha". Unfortunately there aren't much data on him. ALT1: ... that Gojko Balšić continued to support Skanderbeg, his uncle, even though his own brother had switched sides from their uncle to the Ottomans?--Zoupan 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring commentary. Evaluating based:

• ... that Gojko Balšić, one of the founders of the League of Lezhë in 1444, was Skanderbeg's nephew?
• ... that Gojko Balšić continued to support Skanderbeg, his uncle, even though his own brother had switched sides from their uncle to the Ottomans?

• New enough and long enough at time of nomination. Coat of arms has a copyright notice. Article is fully supported by inline citations. Article appears neutral enough. Both hooks are properly formatted. Original hook is supported by the article.
• I've read hook1 and the article about 5 times. I cannot find this fact in the article. If it is there, it is worded in such a way that I cannot begin to understand it. (It would actually be nice if the article read as cleanly as the hooks.)
• German and offline sources support text and were not plagiarised to write the article. --LauraHale (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to go on the original hook. --LauraHale (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)