Talk:Theodolinda Hahnsson

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Theodolinda Hahnsson in 1916

• ... that Theodolinda Hahnsson is the first known female author to write in Finnish? Source: Theodolinda Hahnsson - the first Finnish female author, Theodolinda Hahnsson, later Yrjö-Koskinen, was the first Finnish female writer, A history of Finnish literature
  • ALT1:... that Theodolinda Hahnsson was the first female author to write in the Finnish language? Source: Theodolinda Hahnsson - the first Finnish female author, Theodolinda Hahnsson, later Yrjö-Koskinen, was the first Finnish female writer, A history of Finnish literature
  • ALT2:... that Theodolinda Hahnsson is the first known Finnish female author? Source: Theodolinda Hahnsson - the first Finnish female author, Theodolinda Hahnsson, later Yrjö-Koskinen, was the first Finnish female writer, A history of Finnish literature

Created by Tamingimpala (talk). Self-nominated at 09:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - See below
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Only most important details should be in the lead section. You must place the other details to its article's body; and each end of paragraph should have at least one reference. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@JeBonSer, all done, let me know if anything is wrong or something else needs to be done. -- Tame (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• The all issues have been addressed and I believe it's good to go if we use ALT2. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 18:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@JeBonSer, ALT 2 is fine by me. -- Tame (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The idea that this article could have been made a “did you know” in the state it was is is saddening. Qwirkle (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This is your discussion of the factual accuracy of this article? Thrakkx (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No. This is a comment on the former state of the article and its suitability for the front page, with an implication about the general usefulness about the selection process.

It is also now a comment on the beta edit conflict gizmo. which appears to have eaten my previous removal of the accuracy tag. Qwirkle (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Spectacularly unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does the "Work (selection)" section look so weird?

Why is there a long line in front of every year given? A line which seems to consist of several parts, like this one: ––––– It does look weird to me; is that commonly used? --LordPeterII (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's like ibid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also weird to not call it "Selected works". I recently fixed a similar quirk at Lawrence Weiner, will see what I can do here. Not loving those lines, either, but norms will be norms, I'm afraid. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks @The Rambling Man, I knew of ibid but not this. And I still think it looks weird ^^ --LordPeterII (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason it looks weird is that a list using a repeat convention, whether ditto marks, dashed lines, or ibidem normally starts with a first use of the thing being repeated. Here, since only one author is represented, they are pointless. Qwirkle (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Now seen differently. The years are unparenthesized, which is a bit weird, but that's the template's decision. Further human intervention may be a welcome change. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)