- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Enåker Church
edit
- ... that during a renovation in 2013, medieval coins and children's graves were found under the floor of Enåker Church, Sweden (pictured)?
Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self nominated at 09:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC).
No problems with the image; article is long enough and new enough; hook is short enough and sourced in article. My only objections relate to the sourcing. (1) What is Runhällen Enåker, and why is its website reliable? Its amateurish appearance makes me doubt that we should be using it. (2) Although I don't speak Swedish, I checked the other sources to see if I could find bits from the article being reflected in them. I couldn't find anything about 1890, 1925, or 1955 in source #4, which makes me wonder whether anything except the final sentence of that paragraph is in that source. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- (1)It is the website of a local community. I looked around on their website and saw that they have received EU-funding as part of a LEADER project (a local community support programme, easy to find info on google about it) so they cannot be completely insincere. Also, all the other things they wrote about the church is consistent with the other sources I have consulted so I did not find any reason to doubt their claims. I DID however notice, thanks to your questions, that I made a mistake in assigning all the frescos to the same group of artists.
- (2) Sorry, my mistake - that source is only supposed to refer to the last sentence, not the whole paragraph. Should be fixed now.
- Thanks for the constructive review! Please let me know if there is anything else :) Best, Yakikaki (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ready to go, with the few remaining problems having been resolved. Yakikaki, I should have let you know of the problems (you shouldn't have to figure out that I've said something here), so I'm sorry for overlooking that. Thanks very much for the improvements, and also thank you for explaining why #1 is a workable source. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
