Template:Did you know nominations/Fittja gård

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fittja gård edit

(

)

... that during the reformation of Sweden, Fittja gård (pictured) was confiscated by farmers who used the lands until 1631?

ALT1: ... that Fittja gård (pictured) became a station for post riders in 1667, with six riders and 12 horses that had their own stable?
ALT2: ... that Fittja gård (pictured) became a station for overnight stay or exchange of horses for Swedish kings Charles XII and Oscar I while travelling through the area?
ALT3: ... that Fittja gård (pictured) became a popular overnight inn and station for exchange of horses for Swedish kings while travelling through the area?

Reviewed:Lebih Indah

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self nominated at 20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Okay, doing my first DYK review here, so bare with me. First off: the licensing of these images[1][2] doesn't seem certain. Where does it state that they are released under CC? Their source descriptions[3][4] says that the metadata is released under CC0 1.0 Universal ("Rättigheter för metadata"), not the images. Peter ^Isotalo 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Length is okay (13 kB prose), creation is recent enough, and the QPQ of Lebih Indah checks out. @Yngvadottir: has added a substantial amount of the articles current contents, so shared credit seems in order. Sources overall are okay. References to Lilja (2011) accepted in good faith.
The citation regarding Olle Magnusson in "Ragnar Sellberg and municipal ownership" is a bit problematic. The source only covers details of Magnusson's life, but little of what is actually in the paragraph. The paragraph "In the early 1960s..." is unreferenced.
The references are also not consistently formatted. Wittrock and Vikström are both printed works that happen to have been published online. But they are no different from Lilja, even if they are cited only once.
There is no mention of what Mångkulturellt centrum actually does even though they are the current tenants. A sentence or two should be added. And, btw, what is the "new exhibition building" actually exhibiting? Local history? Multicultural history? Minimal clarification is in order.
This is not a requirement for the DYK, but I recommend that the original quotes form Lilja be added to the reference notes. Here are two examples from Kronan (ship) of how it could be done.[5][6]
The hook checks out and is properly referenced, but it isn't particularly interesting; remove the fairly non-essential detail about riders and horses and you have the basic "...that X became Y in year Z". Alternatives that focus more on juxtaposition or maybe modern history would be appropriate.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look at it. I am pinging @Werldwayd: a trusted friend. And @GoingBatty: as well. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Also pinging @Doug Coldwell:. Perhaps you could take a look at the issues. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record @Peter Isotalo: I appreciate that you have reviewed the article. But as Yngvadottir points out at its talk page your review aims a bit high for a DYK. Had this been a GA-review than it would have been great but DYK is not about nit-picking. ;) Anyway it is your first review so you will learn ;). --BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Two issues seem quite relevant to me, though: the paragraph "In 1971 Botkyrka Municipality became..." is essentially unreferenced since the Huddinge Tidning supports almost nothing of what it claims; and the hook is just not... "hooky". If you feel anything else is outside of normal DYK criteria, please point it out.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and give comments and edit article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will go piece by piece, a step at a time. First let me point out I know no Swedish, so my opinions are just that. It appears to me the photographer intended his pictures to be public domain = copyright free. It's marked that way under "license" and if there were any other intent then it would be so marked = perhaps I missed. But right off hand I would say the pictures are copyright free and good to go.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Took it up with the uploader, Holger Ellgaard. It's not PD by the photographers choice, but by being taken before 1969. Problem solved.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest ALT2 and ALT3 above.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest removing "for eighteenth-century" since Oscar I is 19th century and Charles XII actually became king in the late 1690s, but otherwise it's sourced and ready to go.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Expanded article to explain exactly what Mångkulturellt centrum actually does.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed "for eighteenth-century" in ALT2 and ALT3. I lean towards ALT3 for simplicity sake.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: ALT3 is preferable. I'm striking ALT1 for convenience sake. Good summary of MC's activities, btw.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question from newbie reviewer

How are DYK credits noted? Are only those involved in nomination and substantial expansion entitled to it? Is it up to me as reviewer to decide who should be given credit or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Good question and I will attempt to answer that based on my past experience of 300 DYKs. The way I see this problem is like this:

No, it is not up to you as reviewed who should be given credit. It is up to the original creator of the article (in this case User:BabbaQ). He can add or subtract co-editors as he sees fit. In this case he knows how to do this. If there is any question on this, which I have never seen in all these years of DYKs, an administrator would have to finalize. Not the reviewer. The ultimate choice would be up to the original creator. Generally only those involved in substantial expansion would be entitled to a DYK. The original creator would make that decision as to that definition as maybe certain material may be of key importance and the original creator would perhaps put much importance on this instead. A reviewer would not likely get a DYK credit as it might be considered a conflict of interest.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we close enough for a green "tick" yet?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. The only issue that remains is the "In 1971..."-paragraph. I know Swedish and have actually checked the only source provided, and it pretty much only covers that Magnusson protested changes. Nothing else. I'm inclined to consider the claims quite uncontroversial and I can easily confirm many of them, though not all. I'm not sure exactly how thorough I'm expected to be here, though. Thoughts? Peter ^Isotalo 19:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed 1971 paragraph until better references can be found.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both Peter Isotalo and Doug Coldwell. Appreciate your input and help with this article. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All relevant issues are now fixed. Good to go with some preference for ALT3. Peter ^Isotalo 19:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)