Template:Did_you_know_nominations/A_Jewish_boy_surrenders_in_Warsaw References

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 Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 01:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw

(

)

A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw

... that this photograph was created to glorify the SS men who suppressed the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, but ended up symbolizing the brutality of the Nazi regime?
- ALT1:... that this photograph was created to glorify the SS men who suppressed the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, but helped convict them of murder?
- ALT2:... that despite the three books written about this photograph, only one person has been identified?
- ALT3:... that an unknown boy surrendering during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising came to symbolize all Holocaust victims?
- ALT4:... that the Jews in this photograph were marched to the Umschlagplatz and deported to death camps?

Reviewed: Society of Authors, Composers and Music Publishers in Israel

Created by Catrìona ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

The article is neutral, meets the required length, and is sufficiently referenced. Article created within seven days of this nomination. QPQ done. Hooks are all interesting and sourced; I personally think ALT2 is the most interesting, though ALT1 is also very powerful. Image is public domain, with sufficient rationale on Commons. This is good to go. Very powerful and moving article, well done. – Rhain ☔ 10:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Article looks quite good to me, I have edited it a little. I think ALT1 is the best hook.-- Pharos ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I also prefer ALT1 to ALT2, which is potentially misleading because someone could argue that others have been identified, just not conclusively. Thanks for the reviews! Catrìona ( talk) 05:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)