- 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 Hilst talk 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Theresia Bauer
- ... that Theresia Bauer was named science minister of the year four times?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Qvadriga
- Comment: "Science Minister of the Year" in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2022
Created by Moondragon21 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.
Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC).
- Not a review, but I have tagged this article due to having some unsourced paragraphs. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, there are now references for the unsourced sections. Moondragon21 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
- There are far too many sections; I've thus tagged the article. Many of the paragraphs read like WP:PROSELINE as well.
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
New enough and long enough. No close paraphrasing spotted. Hook fact is cited to a reliable source. However, as I noted above, there are far too many sections for the length of this article, and the text itself is very jarring. Recommend a bit of polish. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Crisco 1492, I have created new sections and the page looks much better now. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC).
Thank you. It is better - still feels like there are a few too many sections, which could cause weight issues (for instance, having three sections for controversies) - but the issue is not as bad. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
