Template:Did you know nominations/Hammarlöv Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Hammarlöv Church[edit]

(
)

Hammarlöv Church

  • ... that while medieval Hammarlöv Church (pictured) is one of only four churches in its province with a round tower, it's not entirely clear why it's round?

Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self-nominated at 19:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC).

  • Starting review. :)
The article is long enough, new enough, well written and referenced with inline citations from reliable sources, picture is nice and ok with the right license from a well known Wiki photographer, neutral in style and the hook is a bit quirky to make it interesting. But it would be better if the hook did not end with something that could be a statement since a hook always ends with a "?". Try something that links the two parts together like "... that the medieval Hammarlöv Church (pictured) is one of only four churches in its province with a round tower but it's not entirely clear why it's round?" and make an ALT1 of it. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 00:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive review Carter! Yes, you are right about the need to emphasise the questioning tone, that's a very valid point and I will make a mental note of that also for the future, and for now let's do it as you suggest:
  • ALT 1: ... that the medieval Hammarlöv Church (pictured) is one of only four churches in its province with a round tower, but it is not entirely clear why it is round? Yakikaki (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Happy to be able to help. :) I saw in the manual Eligibility criteria 3b (yes, I'm still new to this and have to read the manual) that the hook should be: "... appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." In this case there is another sentence between the actual hook-fact and the ref, but since that sentence is a continuation of the hook sentence/fact, I don't think it is necessary to duplicate it right after the fact as well. Always a pleasure reading your church articles. Article good to go, AGF for offline sources. w.carter-Talk 17:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: per Rule H2, you cannot approve your own hook. Could another reviewer take a look at ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: @Yoninah: Comment: It's not really a new hook, it's just a rewording of the original hook. Content-wise it's the same, so in the light of this, do you think it's really necessary with another review? Not that I mind, I'm confident that there won't be any major problems, but it seems like unnecessary work in this particular case? Best, Yakikaki (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but to be picky I did not make an ALT1, just a suggestion where I said "something like". w.carter-Talk 15:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You know, you're both right. I was comparing the suggestion word-by-word with ALT1, but I didn't look at the original hook. ALT1 is fine. I changed "it's" to "it is" per the way hooks are promoted at DYK. Restoring tick based on W.carter's review. Yoninah (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled ALT1 from prep because the article doesn't say it's not clear why the tower is round, rather says it's not clear what the tower's purpose is. EEng (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that a new hook will need to be supplied and reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to re-tick. EEng (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed the wording in the article. The hook is correct; rather, it was the article itself that was perhaps a bit unclear. It's noted that the church is one of only four in the province with a round tower, and after this the sentence "The purpose of the tower is unclear" followed; I assumed that people would connect the two sentences and realise that it's the purpose of the roundness of the church that needs explaining, and not the fact that the church has a tower and what the tower's purpose as a tower is (after all, most churches have towers and one would rather ask for an explanation if the church didn't have a tower). But I've changed it and hope it's more transparent now. Yakikaki (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. I think I'll leave the final verdict in this to EEng since they raised the issue and are more experienced in how to proceed now than I am. w.carter-Talk 16:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT2... that it's not entirely clear why Hammarlöv Church (pictured) has a round tower?
W.carter, can you tick that? EEng (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Simple and straightforward. Let's not complicate things any further. Tick! w.carter-Talk 07:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for the constructive input, this is much better! :) Yakikaki (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hammarlöv_Church&oldid=663316678"