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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that in 1933 Nazi sympathisers attempted to kidnap two German-Jewish filmmakers in Liechtenstein? Source: https://historisches-lexikon.li/Rotter-Entführung
  • ALT1: ... that during the Rotter kidnapping, Fritz Rotter jumped out of a moving car and broke his shoulder? Source: "The careening car finally fell back, enabling Fritz to bolt from the car in a hairpin curve, thereby breaking his shoulder." http://operetta-research-center.org/fritz-alfred-rotter-life-theatre-glamour-death-exile/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Black-headed tailorbird

TheBritinator (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Review in progress. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: @TheBritinator: The article was new enough at the time of nomination, it covers the topic, it adheres to policies. I have assumed good faith on the sources written in German, a language I am not able to read. I was able to see the information about ALT1 in the provided link, but that source is not cited in the article, so I will assume good faith that the German-language source cited in the article also verifies this same information. I am inclined to approve the nomination and both hooks (kidnapping is a sufficiently dramatic thing to be hooky even on its own, and Fritz Rotter's escape may strike many a reader as being like something out of a movie). However, there are some issues in the article that I think warrant resolution to improve the article's quality and readers' probable comprehension:

• a failed organized kidnapping of German film directors and theatre managers Fritz Rotter and Alfred Rotter of Jewish background in Liechtenstein by citizens: The word order here is difficult to parse. I suggest "a failed organized kidnapping in Liechtenstein of Fritz Rotter and Alfred Rotter, German film directors and theatre managers of Jewish background, by citizen" etc.
• However, by 1933 due to the two men's Jewish background, they were the target of pressure by the rise of Nazism in Germany and in January 1933 they were forced to declare bankruptcy and emigrated to Liechtenstein: Some punctuation and word choice makes this sentence difficult to parse, and to say "pressure by the rise of Nazism" reads oddly because it seems almost to give this social phenomenon individuated agency, like it could will to pressure the Rotters. Consider the following instead: "However, due to the two men's Jewish background, they were the target of pressure contemporaneous with the rise of Nazism in Germany, and in January 1933 they were forced to declare bankruptcy and emigrated to Liechtenstein".
• In particular, the Rotters became the target of attacks as they falsely accused them of faking their bankruptcy: In the current form, this reads as if "they" means the Rotters accused themselves. I suggest revising this to "In particular, the Rotters became the target of attacks as Nazi sympathisers falsely accused the Rotters of faking their bankruptcy" etc.
• As a result, it publicly demanded: I think this should read As a result, it was publicly demanded.
• Four local Liechtensteiners Nazis - Rudolf Schädler, Franz Roeckle, Peter Rheinbeger and Eugen Frommelt used the German press demands: Two matters here: first, as "Liechtensteiner" is being used as an adjective, it should be rendered as if singular with no s at the end. Second, since you use an en dash to launch the list of the four conspirators, it should be used to end it as well, i. e., "Four local Liechtensteiners Nazis - Rudolf Schädler, Franz Roeckle, Peter Rheinbeger and Eugen Frommelt – used the German press demands" etc.
• Fritz domestic partner Julie Wolff: Should be "Frit's" and "Wolff,".
• at the health resort in Gaflei on the Alps, of which he managed: I think "the health resort" should be "a health resort" (as this resort has not been previously introduced such that the reader would recognize it via a definite article the) and the latter portion should be "resort in Gaflei on the Alps that he managed"—the comma and 'of' and 'which' interfere with the seemingly intended meaning of the clause. Additionally, per DYK's rule on hook fact citation, this sentrence requires a citation, even if it's a redundant one identical to the citation in an adjacent sentence, because "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear", and this provides the fact that the kidnapping took place in 1933.
• deliberately undermined: I'm not sure this is the right word to use. Would this be "deliberately downplayed"? "deliberately suppressed"? "deliberately and falsely discredited"?
• Fritz Rotter's lawyer, Wladimir Rosenbaum was: A comma seems to be missing between "Rosenbaum" and "was".

As these are mostly matters of grammar and rewording, they seem surmountable. I would be willing to approve the nomination after revisions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans, I have addressed what you have mentioned. Please take another look when you can. TheBritinator (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator: Thank you for the responsiveness! I notice just a couple of matters seem to have slipped through:

• As a result, it publicly demanded: This still needs revision; either "it was publicly demanded" or replace "it" with a noun, because currently the antecedent confusion makes it seem as if the demand demanded itself.
• partner Julie Wolff were: A comma is still missing after "were".
• stay at the health resort, which he managed: This has not been revised to "a health resort that he managed". The use of a definite article implies a certain recognizability of the health resort that isn't the case for a reader who may, up to this point, have no idea there were any health resorts in Gaflei.

As before, since these are matters of relatively minor grammar and rewording, they are surmountable, and I'm willing to approve the nomination after revisions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans, thanks for the clarification. This should be completed now. TheBritinator (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator: Alps, of which he managed should still be either "Alps that he managed" or "Alps which he managed"; the "of" inhibits the meaning here, implying as it does a plurality of items rather than a singular. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: Done. TheBritinator (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator: Nearly there. I noticed that the sentence beginning On 5 April 1933 does not have a citation at the end of it. As this sentence verifies part of the hook that states the event happened in 1933, per DYK's rule on hook fact citation, this sentence requires a citation, even if it's a redundant one identical to the citation in an adjacent sentence, because "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear", and this provides the hook fact that the kidnapping took place in 1933. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: Got a bit delayed but its now done. TheBritinator (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator: Thanks for the revisions. With these matters resolved, I now approve the nomination, presuming good faith for the German-language sources used in the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]