- 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 97198 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Netherlands Fractal Pattern
- ...
that the creation of the Netherlands Fractal Pattern was said to form a part of Dutch national identity?ALT1:... that the Netherlands Fractal Pattern was considered for adoption if the pattern was unique that no other country has it in service?ALT2:... that the Netherlands Fractal Pattern's design was designed to disorient and confuse a person if he or she was looking directly at the fractal pattern?
ALT3:... that the Netherlands Fractal Pattern's design was made to disorient and confuse a person looking at it?
Created by Ominae (talk). Self-nominated at 14:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC).
- Hi Ominae: I am struggling to find where van Gaalen says that the pattern is a part of Dutch national identity. Could you quote the actual words for me?
- ALT1 seems a bit convoluted, so I am ruling it out.
- ALT2: I can't see where Morrison directly claims that the pattern "was designed to disorient and confuse a person if he or she was looking directly". Could you quote the actual words for me? And you will need to tweak the article, which only says "The fractals in the pattern would be used to confuse and disorient someone when looking at them" - no mention of "directly".
- How many DYKs have you nominated prior to this one?
- Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild:: Good morning. Just got up. For ALT2, I paraphrased it, but I can paraphrased it based on what Morrison said if that's what you think will work best. As for working on DYK reviews, nada. I only go here once in a while. For the first DYK suggestion, I paraphrased it. But I can change it if it's needed, depending on which DYK works.
The line/s in mind from van Gaalen when I did the initial DYK line is from "The same distinctive polygonal shapes are clearly in use, which some of you may recognise as the result of running a Voronoi diagram on a pseudo-random grid of points. Or simply put, Photoshop’s ‘Chrystallize’ filter. It’s not pixels, but now the visual output of a filtering algorithm has taken their place as the uniquely identifying building block of the camouflage pattern, signalling an identity that connects the security state to its armed forces." and "The central tension in camouflage is between being seen, and going unseen. With the discussion about what it is that constitutes national identity currently even being debated as part of the formation negotiations for the new Dutch coalition government."
I'll likely add something like a "criticism" section or something. Of course, I may be wrong, which will make the initial DYK hook invalid.
Ominae (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ominae, I don't personally see that phrase as being close enough to "was said to form a part of Dutch national identity", so ALT0 as it stands is out. But, with ALT2, if you were to generate a similar ALT3, but tweak the ending to something like " ... disorient and confuse a person seeing it" I wouldn't have a problem. It is the word "directly" that I am not happy with. Plus ALT2 is a little 'wordy', which makes it less hooky. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not a problem, @Gog the Mild:. I'm assuming that the very first DYK is out of here. I also altered the DYK per advice. Ominae (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Ominae:
- ALT0 - well, you could rephrase it to match the source, but I like ALT3, so I suggest we go with it.
- ALT3 - personally I would avoid having the word "pattern" twice in one sentence, but it is your hook, so I am approving. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not a problem, @Gog the Mild:. I'm assuming that the very first DYK is out of here. I also altered the DYK per advice. Ominae (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)