A fact from Skandinavskii sbornik appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 February 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
Skandinavskii sbornik is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The notability tag has been removed and several sources added. However, those sources at best represent in-passing mentions (ref 1 is just a mention where the journal can be found in a certain library, that's the first time I've ever seen anything like that...). I am going to restore the notability tag and, if no real sources can be found in the next few days, will take this to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ref 1 is a reliable source as to the year it was established, nothing to do with where it is found. There is a detailed discussion of the journal (far from passing mentions) in the Journal of Baltic Studies, and what about The Nordic and Baltic Studies Review who say that its contribution to the "development of the Nordic studies in the USSR and its successor states is hard to overestimate"? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ref 1 tells you on what shelves the journal is found in that library. As for the starting date, I'd never accept a reference like that as reliable, library catalogs are notoriously prone to mistakes. As for the others, I don't think that establishes notability. The Nordic etc review is a journal that was established in 2016, and whether its opinions have any impact remains to be seen. It is also difficult to see whether it actually is independent. In any case, it most certainly is not notable itself yet. If this is the best you can find, we'll have to go to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ref 1 is there purely to establish a starting date and UCL is a RS for that information. Sources don't have to be notable to be reliable, as you know. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is one of the most deceptively-sourced articles that I have seen in a long time. The only reason that I am not taking this to AfD is one single reference (currently reference 9). Apart from that, this is a big collection of WP:SYNTH. In-passing mentions are drummed up to be important happenings (the whole Lomonosov thing, just one example), based on hot air. Reference 12 is a link to our article on EBSCO, who knows why. The text should be purged of this kind of puffery, based on interpretations of the sources, not the sources itself (i.e., synthesis). --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is a generalised assertion. Please state specifically what in the article is not supported by the sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you can't see that most of this article is drummed up fluff based on shaky references (starting with the ridiculous very first one), making this out to be much more than it is, I can't help that. It's articles like this that make me think more and more that I am wasting my time on WP. At this point, I am un-watching every article that pops-up on my watchlist (and that now includes this one), which is already one-third smaller than last week. Soon, I'll be gone. Do whatever you like with this article, I don't care any more. --Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}