Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ture Malmgren

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 11:41, 26 May 2015 by imported>Prioryman (Good to go)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)
Apologies Template:U – I'm not all too familiar with the processes here. Thank you for showing concern Stamboliyski (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't apologize, either ;) It was my fault who brought up the notability issue which doesn't belong in DYK. I just just have skipped this; so that's not what I am doing now. Hopefully, you get another reviewer soon. Iselilja (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg OK, I'm taking this on. New enough at the time of the nomination and long enough. No problems with neutrality. I note the comments above about the sourcing and AGF on them. The hook is interesting and reliably sourced. QPQ has been done too. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)