Template:Did you know nominations/Danish traditional music
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 20:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Danish traditional music edit
- ... that in certain rural areas of Denmark such as Fanø, Læsø, and in parts of Western Jutland local musical traditions dating back to the late 18th century were maintained well into the 20th century?
Created/expanded by Maunus (talk). Self nom at 22:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The article and hook are of the right length. However, the first, third and fifth paragraphs of the "History" section are not referenced. As the information in the hook appears in the fifth paragraph, it is not specifically referenced. The whole article could also do with a copyedit to correct minor capitalization and grammar errors. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- By first paragraph do you mean the Lead? That doesn't need references. The information in the hook is mentioned in bth of the cited sources - I'll copy the refs to the fifth paragraph.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The lead contains information that is not repeated in the body of the article, so it does need to be cited. Mikenorton (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've sourced the lead now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the paragraphs in the "History" section. You have now added citations to the fifth paragraph, which I will accept in good faith as I do not understand Danish. Thus, the hook is now properly cited. (Note that you should not repeat the same reference, but should make use of "<ref name>": see "Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations".) Also, I suggest that you or someone from the Guild of Copy Editors carries out a copyedit of the whole article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't much literature in English about this topic - and Bæk's thesis is definitely the best available source. The use of named references for repetition is optional, not required. I don't use them because they complicate editing references when the same ref is used many times in long articles. I'll give it a copyedit run-through. Anything in particular you would like me to fix?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've sourced the lead now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The lead contains information that is not repeated in the body of the article, so it does need to be cited. Mikenorton (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You've fixed some of the problems I spotted, like awkward capitalization and spaces between punctuation marks and footnote numbers. Middle ages seems odd – should that not be Middle Ages? When referring to a range of numbers or dates (such as "1843–1929"), en dashes should be used instead of hyphens: see "MOS:ENDASH". Also, there seem to be some extra blank lines between the "Sources and history of scholarship" and "References" sections. Finally, if you are not intending to use named references, then I would suggest an abbreviated form of citation for subsequent references (such as "Bæk, p. 1").
I've just noticed another issue which is important and should be corrected. All your references are to entire works. Can you provide pinpoint citations, that is, citations to the pages or paragraphs in the works that reference the information in the article? What I've said in the previous paragraph should not affect whether the hook appears in DYK, but the point in this paragraph may as it might mean that the hook is still not adequately referenced. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)