Talk:European Geniza

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 10:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the "books within books" of the European Geniza are a collection of manuscript fragments recovered from medieval and early modern book bindings?

• Source: https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004427921/BP000001.xml, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Books_within_Books/ARvjAQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=european+geniza&pg=PA4&printsec=frontcover

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Shahin

Created by AndreJustAndre (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Andre🚐 16:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC).

• Okay I will try taking this up. Bookku

(talk) 04:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Seem to clear Earwig copyright test. Bookku (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Seems good enough to succeed for DYK Bookku (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Stats rounded off

Not a serious issue but just an observation. During spot check for DYK observed that figures in the sentence "The majority of fragments to date were found in Italy, with over 16,000 discovered, followed by Spain and Germany with about 2500 each apiece, with fewer than 900 in Austria and under 400 in Hungary." likely to be rounded off compared to as given in the source. Not sure how far rounding off is ok for the topic, how much specific figure to be insisted upon. Bookku (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The original source rounds some of the figures as well. I think it's OK for this because the numbers keep growing as new things are found, and it's not really that important if there are 800 or 900 manuscripts to understanding the topic. Andre🚐 18:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)