Jump to content

Talk:Pipaluk Freuchen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 11:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm not completely sold on the sourcing. Much of the sourcing only gives passing mentions of Pipaluk with the focus on her father or is a book review giving me some concerns about WP:SYNTH as well as notability. Non-English sourcing is accepted in good faith but I worry about this source which is published by Books on Demand - a vanity publisher. I really like the hook so hopefully this can be fixed up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir.copic, thanks for your comments, I'm away at a conference for the next few days, so I won't have time to come back to them until the end of the week. Looking forward to working through them. Thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic thanks for your patience - the weekend was much busier than I anticipated, but I will get to the article this week. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vladimir.copic thanks for sharing your concern about sourcing, I've put some actions I've taken below:
  • Regards this source, I take your point about the publisher, but the author, Merja Leppälahti, is a well-known Finnish folklorist and academic, so I put trust in their reputation.
  • I've added details on the publishing house, German translation, and found some further newspaper-based sources that describe her as a writer.
To double-check concerns about Synth, I'm going to cross-post this at Women in Red. Thanks for your patience Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link to talk page is here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: I've found that Google Books often gives the wrong publisher. In this case the book seems to be printed by Books on Demand (a print on demand company, not necessarily a vanity publisher), but published by Kustantamo Helmivyö, which looks like a respectable small publisher. Also as Lajmmoore says it would probably be an acceptable self-published source regardless. – Joe (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe. I noticed Google books doing this recently too but in this case I hadn’t been able to get to the bottom of it. Thanks for looking into it. It looks like my issues have been addressed. I’ll have a closer look in the next couple of days and then hopefully approve it! Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns have been addressed here and in this discussion. Happy to see this great hook go through. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Vladimir.copic - a pleasure being reviewed! I'm going to add the extra potential sources from the discussion linked above to the talk page as well. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, Vladimir.copic, and Lajmmoore: sorry to cast a downer on this, but I think the article needs a bit more work before it's ready to go. Firstly, there are a few too many quotes in praise of the famous book that she wrote (and the one used in the hook fact is unattributed as well). I've therefore tagged it as having a promotional tone, since it sounds (to me at least) like it's trying to promote the book rather than give a dispassionate overview of the subject. Secondly, the book is the only thing mentioned in the entire career section. Did she do nothing else for the rest of her life? This only needs to be a start class article for DYK, but it does need to be at least vaguely complete and I think some indication of what else she did in her life, which other books she published etc. should be added before we go live. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, for your first point, could you trim the reviews? I have clarified the source of "unrelenting realism". For the second point, I have added a couple of sentences about her second book and added that she worked as a journalist and travelled with her father. According to Worldcat, Freuchen wrote two books. Her first novel seems to have been well reviewed and published in sixteen languages, the second was only published in Swedish, so it doesn't need as much detail. Does the article now look sufficiently complete? TSventon (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I have trimmed the reviews and removed the promotional tag, do you think the article is now adequate for DYK, or do you think it needs further work? TSventon (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder. We have a DYK process where articles need to pass a process and be compliant with DYK requirements. They do not need to pass a secondary review based on subjective views. Lets have a solid point and not just "I don't like it" or "I'm not convinced" - these are NOT DYK requirements. "Promotion" and "notability" have been judged OK by a consensus. Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: first of all, on a point of order, your assertion that a "secondary review" is not necessary is incorrect. Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_DYK_process states that "The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion". Furthermore, the review process is never intended to be final. Any editor can subsequently raise objections at WP:ERRORS or WT:DYK, if they feel the DYK rules are not met, and the nominator and reviewer are expected to take such objections seriously. In this case, I reopened the nom as I felt that WP:DYKCRIT rule 4 was not met, "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy", as well as WP:DYKSG#D6 and D7, which stipulate that the article should be at least reasonably complete, even if it's short. A "career" section with only one book in it didn't seem to meet that. Anyway, I think I'm probably just about OK with this given the edits TSventon has made, so will leave the tick in place and it can be promoted. The promotional tone is not so evident now, and another book added with the section relabelled "Writing", which is what she's notable for. Happy for the approval to remain in place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with those rules, but I'm not sure they are being complied with. Rejecting hooks in the preps for "I don't like it" or "I can see an improvement, that I think someone else should address for my approval" is not in the spirit of these guidelines. Anyone can make changes to the article if they see an improvement and they don't have to involve the drama of overiding the consensus and adding to the backlog. I have added italics to the key bit The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion".... looks like that unless some admin is moving a hook then they cannot reject it arbitrarily. Small problems IMO need small solutions and less drama. Victuallers (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: to a clarify a small point, moving a hook to queue is equivalent to airing it directly – once it's moved to queue with the {{DYKbotdo}} template, a bot moves puts it on the main page without any further mandatory checks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, Amakuru - I've been away for the last couple of days, thank you both for being so thorough with the review and the responses. Lajmmoore (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources

[edit]

As per this discussion, @TSventon: identified these further sources, which would enhance the article: "There should be more information available via Scandinavian newspapers.

For example, there was a short obituary in Dagens Nyheter at https://www.dn.se/arkiv/familj/dodsfall-utlandet-1999-04-15-2/ The Berlingske Tidende article dated 10 April 1999 is presumably an obituary as well." Lajmmoore (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC) More background[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pipaluk_Freuchen&oldid=1223539988"