Template:Did you know nominations/Roslags-Bro Church
- 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Roslags-Bro Church[edit]
- ... that Roslags-Bro Church (pictured) was built by an important sea-route but is now high on dry land?
- Reviewed: Pin-tailed Sandgrouse
Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self nominated at 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC).
Article is interesting, new and long enough, the Church of Sweden reference is good and used well, I'm happy to take the first three references on good faith, and the final reference looks sufficient to support the single sentence it is used for. Image is suitable and looks particularly good when full size.
- The hook, however, is not right - the article confirms it was built by an important sea-route, but not that it is "high" - besides which, being high on dry land would in no way restrict it from being by an important sea-route. This needs reworking - perhaps by adding into the article the distance of the church from the sea, with a reference, and using that in the hook, by restricting the hook to the facts already in the article, or by finding an alternative hook.
- There is one other minor thing - one sentence in the second paragraph of the second section is attributed twice to the same reference - is this a simple duplication, or should one of the references be to another source? Warofdreams talk 15:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- How about an alternative hook:
- Alt 1 ... that Roslags-Bro Church (pictured) was built by an important sea-route that has since vanished?
- It's more in line with the wording of the sources, too (and hopefully still interesting enough to provoke a bit of curiosity?). Sorry about the duplicated source, that should be corrected now. Thanks for the constructive review! Yakikaki (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
(for Alt 1, offline source accepted on good faith). That solves the problems, and I think the new hook is every bit as interesting. Thanks for the quick fix! Warofdreams talk 16:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
