Template:Did you know nominations/Estelle Manville

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: rejected by Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing/copyvio

Estelle Manville edit

Estelle Bernadotte in 1949

Created/expanded by Bruzaholm (talk). Self nom at 10:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • New and long enough; sources look good except for the genealogy site (seems a little sketchy, but I'm not a professional there) -- I checked the NYT obituary and it listed the same information though, so it's good. AGF sourcing; I prefer the second hook (less speculative and more interesting to me at least); the image is sourced and public domain (Commons). Good to go. poroubalous (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think that it's true that she was "the first person ever to be married to a member of a European royal family on American soil" -- see previous comment at Talk:Estelle Bernadotte. AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I see your point after reading over the Bonaparte article; AGF, the hook source probably does say the fact, it's just that the author of that source might not have known about Bonaparte or not considered her a true royal. As for the alternate hooks, the link citing the unmarked burial didn't work for me, but the cerebral palsy foundation hook is cited and works properly. Would that work for everyone? poroubalous (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, all blurbs should be rock solid. So I suggest that the cerebral palsy foundation hook be picked. As her name was Bernadotte at the time, I changed the name and image. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like this one was ok'd 4 days ago.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm concerned that the phrasing used in this article is too close to that used by this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, sorry, I'll notify the nom.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The sentence is expanded and rephrased - and now also includes anther reference from the Bernadotte Foundation. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Second opinion, please.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Time for fresh eyes? --PFHLai (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there more hookiness in the contrast between her title and the prosaic name of her birthplace? How about:
Article: New enough, long enough. References need to be better formatted.
Summary: Referencing issues. Haven't looked at other stuff yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with fn10? What is [faktagranskning: Torgny Nevéus]? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing. Faktagranskning means "world review" in Swedish, but I removed the brackets to avoid confusion with wiki tags. -- Esemono (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Makes sense now. Paraphrasing still has issues (checked against this source). For example, I see two examples of verbatim copying. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)