Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ture Malmgren"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Iselilja
(Withdrawing review, passing it on to another editor)
imported>Iselilja
m (Fixing style/layout errors)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article new and long enought, QPQ done. However, while this is interesting local history and the photo fine, I have serious concern about the notability of this tomb as a stand-alone article in English Wikipedia. The sources are rather weak; two of the sources are blogspot entries by a local association focused on Ture Malmgren; another souce Hansson, Wilhelm is off-line, but seems to be a kind of local history magazine, the fourth source is a newspaper article from 1922. And the article doesn't really say much about the tomb; it mostly says that it existed, but Malmgren was not enterred there; and a lot of the rest is general background info. I am afraid it seems to me that the existence of this tomb and the photo should simply be merged into the [[Ture Malmgren]] article. - Pinging {{U|Stamboliyski}} - .  [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article new and long enought, QPQ done. However, while this is interesting local history and the photo fine, I have serious concern about the notability of this tomb as a stand-alone article in English Wikipedia. The sources are rather weak; two of the sources are blogspot entries by a local association focused on Ture Malmgren; another souce Hansson, Wilhelm is off-line, but seems to be a kind of local history magazine, the fourth source is a newspaper article from 1922. And the article doesn't really say much about the tomb; it mostly says that it existed, but Malmgren was not enterred there; and a lot of the rest is general background info. I am afraid it seems to me that the existence of this tomb and the photo should simply be merged into the [[Ture Malmgren]] article. - Pinging {{U|Stamboliyski}} - .  [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 
::*I'll withdraw the nomination here if you want, but it certainly is notable as a public monument in the city. The website of the local history association are used as I could find nothing other on the modern-day status of being bricked-up, since I didn't want to do original research for that. The other two references from that page could easily be replaced by more in-depth references to books and other publications, if I just decided to bother digging through my bookcase. The Wilhelm source is not a "local history magazine", it is a legitimate history book written by the author of several other publications, repeatedly re-published due to its high public outreach. The 1922 newspaper article is used for easily-accessible (to me) background info, and can easily be replaced (as above). The tomb is written about in a number of other sources, mainly newspaper articles and reports from the 1930s all the way until the 1990s. None of these are digitalized, and not easily accessible to me as I now live in a separate city. [[User:Stamboliyski|Stamboliyski]] ([[User talk:Stamboliyski|talk]]) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 
::*I'll withdraw the nomination here if you want, but it certainly is notable as a public monument in the city. The website of the local history association are used as I could find nothing other on the modern-day status of being bricked-up, since I didn't want to do original research for that. The other two references from that page could easily be replaced by more in-depth references to books and other publications, if I just decided to bother digging through my bookcase. The Wilhelm source is not a "local history magazine", it is a legitimate history book written by the author of several other publications, repeatedly re-published due to its high public outreach. The 1922 newspaper article is used for easily-accessible (to me) background info, and can easily be replaced (as above). The tomb is written about in a number of other sources, mainly newspaper articles and reports from the 1930s all the way until the 1990s. None of these are digitalized, and not easily accessible to me as I now live in a separate city. [[User:Stamboliyski|Stamboliyski]] ([[User talk:Stamboliyski|talk]]) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
::::No, you should't withdraw it. I asked a question about this [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=658867430#Notability_issues_and_Reviews|here (Notability issues and Reviews)]] and it seems notability is not relevant for DYK; so I am passing this on to another editor for review. Sorry for the inconvenience. I also accept what you say about the Wilhelm source as a traditional RS.
+
::::No, you should't withdraw it. I asked a question about this [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=658867430#Notability_issues_and_Reviews|here (Notability issues and Reviews)]] and it seems notability is not relevant for DYK; so I am passing this on to another editor for review. Sorry for the inconvenience. I also accept what you say about the Wilhelm source as a traditional RS.
 
*[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]]  I am withdrawing from this review. [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 
*[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]]  I am withdrawing from this review. [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 17:42, 23 April 2015

Tomb of Ture Malmgren

The bricked-up tomb of Ture Malmgren, in 2015.

  • Reviewed: Pentemont Abbey
  • Comment: Hook is cited in the first paragraph. Picture was taken by me, and fully released into the public domain.

Created by Stamboliyski (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article new and long enought, QPQ done. However, while this is interesting local history and the photo fine, I have serious concern about the notability of this tomb as a stand-alone article in English Wikipedia. The sources are rather weak; two of the sources are blogspot entries by a local association focused on Ture Malmgren; another souce Hansson, Wilhelm is off-line, but seems to be a kind of local history magazine, the fourth source is a newspaper article from 1922. And the article doesn't really say much about the tomb; it mostly says that it existed, but Malmgren was not enterred there; and a lot of the rest is general background info. I am afraid it seems to me that the existence of this tomb and the photo should simply be merged into the Ture Malmgren article. - Pinging Template:U - . Iselilja (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw the nomination here if you want, but it certainly is notable as a public monument in the city. The website of the local history association are used as I could find nothing other on the modern-day status of being bricked-up, since I didn't want to do original research for that. The other two references from that page could easily be replaced by more in-depth references to books and other publications, if I just decided to bother digging through my bookcase. The Wilhelm source is not a "local history magazine", it is a legitimate history book written by the author of several other publications, repeatedly re-published due to its high public outreach. The 1922 newspaper article is used for easily-accessible (to me) background info, and can easily be replaced (as above). The tomb is written about in a number of other sources, mainly newspaper articles and reports from the 1930s all the way until the 1990s. None of these are digitalized, and not easily accessible to me as I now live in a separate city. Stamboliyski (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you should't withdraw it. I asked a question about this [(Notability issues and Reviews)] and it seems notability is not relevant for DYK; so I am passing this on to another editor for review. Sorry for the inconvenience. I also accept what you say about the Wilhelm source as a traditional RS.
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am withdrawing from this review. Iselilja (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)